Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1882-07-14
T H E CHI | N ES e

CHINA JESTION-

hayts VETO Oh tht Shinu Dits
Menacing Attitude a China towards
our government.
The Conflict between the Cnucasi"n
aud the Monaghan Cannon be Re-
pressed.
Conclu>isa.
This veto, however, indicates
meaning deeper than Is borne upon
IT'S face. 1t Is an assertion that the
action of the popular branch of thu
Government may be ignored even III
municipal affairs at the will of the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS; and that i'll
certain contingencies affecting the
internal administration of the cOun
try. the President may defy both
houses Of Congress together. No
thing more suDversive of the struc-
tune of our government or the genius
of our institutions can be conceived.
Under cover of Il treaty once con-
clrded the Executive could block the
way to change, however necessary,
provided only that the requisite ac-
ton should be the repeal of some
but not all of the articles. 4 rev
treaty cannot be concluded without
the consent OF the President, and
if part Of Il treaty can only he Ie-
pealed by such new treaty it would
follow that Congress and the peo-
| pile woull Ia powerless under the
will of an obstinate master, and the
Authority of Congress as Coordinate
branch of the government would
in such cases be utterly destroyed.
1t is not necessary to argue that in
this country it has never been intend
ed that such power should be assert
ed OF welded by toe Executive.
There is another, though by com
parison minor error, III the veto.
1t carries tue idea throughout, al
though not in express terms, that the
passage OF the bill would have oper-
atei to DESTROYED all our treaty re-
lations with China. But such would
not have been the legal result. Our
three treaties with China, that of
1874, that of 1858, and that of 1868,
were separate treaties, although sue
cessive i'll their ratification, aud the
later contirmatOry of those proceed
ing. 1t is truism in public law that
where two or more treaties exist be-
tween nations the abrogation of one
does not necessarily involve that of
the other, although it may be made
the pretexl of formally renouncing
the other. In the words of Nattel,
"when there exists between allies
two OF more treaties different from
and independent of each other,
the violation of one of those treaties
does not directly disengage the in
iured parry from the obligation she
has contracted in the others; for the
promises contained in these do not
include those contained in the vio-
lated treaty" Even from the stand
point of the Executive, which wholly
ignores the fact that China has alb
rogated the Buringame treaty by
neglect or refusal to carry out one
of Its essential provisions, the form
al humiliation of that treaty would
not necessarily work the forfeiture OF
the two preceding. To state the
principal more briefly: while the in
fraction of one article of specific
treaty is held under the code of ua-
ton to release the opposite party
from oil the provisions of that partic.
ular treaty, the abrogation of one
. treaty does not render Other distinct
tire ties void, but at the most they
are onl y made voidable.
In view of tho utter fallacy of the
pro-Chinese advocacy, it may be ask.
ed with a semblence of reason, VIII,
, has our government touched the sub
, ject SO delicately; and why has its
action, when it has been forced tc
, action, besn so adverse to the rising
cry from the Pacific Coast. The que
a ~ admits of double answer. l,
: may be assumed, without violation Of
r probabilities, that the same agencie.
. which have so sedulously cultivated
a deceived and deceptive public opin
ION in favor of the Chinese, have
/ worked with no less effort to secure
, influence at the centeis of Legislative
\ and administrative control.
n There is, however, another explain
t alton which at first view may seen
l. less worthy of credence but which
shows strong claims to belief in tn,
+ relative attitudes of the United State,
and China, and the official utterancs.
:. which, unless they be taken as mean
ipgless, cannot be held devoid o
K humorous expression on the one han,
/ and sinister intent on the other. Th,
h veto of the Executive, before diverted
to, speaks vaguely of dangers tina
might accrue from resembling tn,
: treaty. The American Nj mister to
y China, in writing of the osslbilit,
u of its repeal asks would 1t not, in
o deed, imperil all our relations will
the Empire?'' Not all of official re
u ports or international communica
t tions are published in the " Diplom
t attic Correspondence" or "Foreisl
e Relations" The State Department
$ retains in its secret archives what
ever either far-sighted or time
. serving policy may seem to require
Q what actual utterances of the Chinese
Q government may have been commu
4 nicited to our own, or to what stres.
they may have subjected our Foreigr
policy, cannot at this time be fully
u learned. But even with that which
- is open to public, the strong, clea
. postulates and decisive demands o
9 tho Chinese Central Authority are
l. manifest. SAID Feng. Taoti, fou
4 years aud half ago, to Bradford
American Consul-General ut Shan.
hal: Sleamvrs, guns. and small