Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1882-06-23


and profound conviction of tin, IN
the following words, d" hat Ihe peo-
pie of the United States have de-
,,rivod their Government Of this
power i'll any cIee | do not be-
( licve. That /, must reside some-
where aud he applicable to al cases
L am convinced, | feel no doubt
that it belongs to Congress. he
! The Court found moreover Il ealing
! pee. dem dating back rs fan Us the
Year ll9S. when Congress declares
the treaties with Ftauce no longer
obligatory on the United States.
= Tao saline principle was affirmed
by Judge Woodruff i'll Ropes V.
( Clinrh, III the Clrcalt Court of the
/ United States for the southern dis
trIct ri New York, So recently us
/ April, 1871. Although the Parties
We're Diff lent, tho subject matter
was substantially the same rs that i'll
! Taylor V. Morton, the suit having
: been brought against the Collector of
the Port of New York, to recover
/ duties paid under law i'll conflict
WITH our treaty Of 1892 before re-
! fcricd to; the duties having been
I AID under protest. The sixth ar;i-
Gle OF the treaty declared III sub
/ Stance that no article, "the produce
az Manufacture OF Russia" should
pay ii ni3her duty than Il " like
article produced or manufactured
III any other foreign coun'ry, where
us the Act OF Congress levied forty
dollars per ton Oh the hemp of
Russia, and but twenty-five dollars
j per ton on the hemp of India aud
! Manila.
/ Here was direct conflict between
the express terms of a treaty and a
specific language of an act of Con-
gress of later date. The language of
the act was held by the Court to be
unequivocal, incapable of any inter-
probation that would not place it in
direct conflict with the treaty. The
Court said: q understand it to be
conceded, and if it be not, should
be constrained to hold that the
legislative department in this Gov
ernment may pass any law it pleases
/ (lf 1t is otherwise cOnStltutlOnal),
Notwithstanding its conflicts, and
notwith standing whatever degree
greater OF less it conflicts, with the
existing treaty with a foreign ma
ton" In the same paragraph the
Court declared that the legislative
department has power TO "give to
those laws efficiency and force The
question had, however, come before
the Supreme Court of the United
States, i'll the previous year, in the
Cherokee Tobacco Case, in which the
merits were as follows:
BY the tenth article of treaty
entered into with the tribe in 1866,
it was agreed that Every Cherokee
Indian and freed person residing
in Cherokee nation shall have the
right to sell any products OF his
farm including his or her livestock,
or any merchandise or manufac-
tured products, and ship and drive
the same same to market without
restraint; paying any tax thereon
which is now or may be levied by the
United States on tue quantity sold
outside of the Indian Territory"
In 1868 Congress passed a law for
the collection of internal revenue,
which imposed tax "on distilled
spirits, fermented liquors, tobacco,
snuff and cigars produced anywhere
within the exterior boundaries of
the United States" 1t is therefore
plain that while the treaty guaranteed
certain exemptions to the Cherokees,
the internal revenue law swept those
exemptions away. In the language
of the decision of the Court, delivered
by Mr.. Justice Swayne, undoubted-
ly one or the other must yield, the
repugnance is clear, and they can
not stand together. The deter
mination of the matter was lucidly
set forth in the following terms
The effects of treaties and acts
of Congress when in conflict, is not
settled by the Constitution. But
the question is not involved in any
doubt as to its proper solution: a
treaty may supersede prior act Of
Congress, and an act of Congress may
supersede a prior treaty. In the
ca es referred to (Foster ct al. v.
Nelson, and Taylor v. Morton)
these principles were applied to
treaties with foreign nations, treaties
with Indian nations within the
jurisdiction of the United States,
what ever considerations OF hui
manity and good faith may be in
volved aud require their faithful
observance, canrot be more 90.
ligatory; and no higher sanctity and
no greater inviolability or immuni.
ty from Legislative invasion can be
claimed for them"
The writers, following the
authorities, of course enunciate the
same principle. Story on the Con-
stitution, after an explanation of the
force and obligations of treaties,
considered az laws, proceeds as fol-
lows: This will not prevent them
from being cancelled or abrogated
by the nation upon grave and suit
able occasions, for it will not be dis
puted that they are subject to the
Legislative power, and may be re-
pealed like other laws at its pleas
ure." 1t is thus manifested that the
whole course of American jurispru-
dence, as conceived by jurists, and
made authoritative and binding by
our highest courts, holds that a
treaty may be repealed by an act of
Congress. The vested right of the
Legislative branch of the government
to take such action as may seem
requisite for the welfare of the peo-
pie, irrespective of contracts entered
into with forairn marianne and haro