The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1884-12-27

nF fnvQ XOVS4
u 1' tar IN coffee, which deprived
~ ,eonle of this country of the ben
eft of our tariff reductlon on tna'
article. This convention Will ple-
vent a similar action by Spain. Inc
treaty now under consideration.
lends to cheaper the o 8 OF
n~ecessaries of life by reducing the cost
If a stable. the daily consumption Of
wh;ch we are obliged to import each
vaar nearly 500, 900, 900 in value, to
wake M for the inadequate produc-
ION IN our own soil, which
a%"ounts to only twelve per cent: OF
60 whole consumption, and at the
same time to secure a growing
market for u products III lne
Snanish antilles, coupled win
esnecial privileges to our lnerchaht
marine. 1t Is also said that the ~
rnrtation of free sugar ron Cuba
and Porto Rico, when added to our
nmastic production, and to that Inn
n"rtat;on from the Sandwich stands
will fall short of the quantity neeoea
for home consumption ana the
price will he ruled, by part remain
ing liable to duty 80 that the proht
from the removal of duty will go TO
Cuba and Porto Rico planters and
not to the consumers In this
country. If this argument Dc
true the treaty will not effect the
nrice of sugar in Louisiana the price
of q commodity is lessened by the
snppIv being greater than the de-
mand. but 1t is frank TO say that
other conventions have been nego-
tiated and are in process of negot'a-
ton, which will provide for adequate
importation from the sugar regions.
Again, tho privileged introduction
of tobacco at reduced duties has been
objected to as reducing the revenue
and removing production fir nm the
American product and manufacturer.
Az to this, it seems enough TO cay
that the convention have discrimin-
ated against the imported article.
From four to five internal revenue
duties on American product have
been demanded for the special manu-
tacturers of tobacco, in which we ex-
Gel and which command a profitable
market, wherever the importation Is
permitted. A reduction is urged in
many quarters, of the interest reve-
nue. tax on manufactured tobacco,
and this would be a loss of some $685.
OOO, OOO annually to the public TREAS
ury. This treaty; taken with other,
of the same character, stimulates our
general exports, and thereby pro-
notes the interest of our mAnufac-
turers. Again. 1t is urged that the
increased expectation which these
treaties may save, will not equal the
loss of revenue on the imported arti-
cles. But these articles of import
are produced within our territory,
sparlngly or not at all, or are of dit
feI ent grades and not satisfying the
public demand, and It's Offense was a
protection to fOrego duties upon these
and impose them upon those manu-
features which may be properly fos-
tered by the impending foreign com
petition, not only do this, but they
enlarge a foreign market for our sur
plus productions, which it is policy
of protection to secure, and they
stimulate our commercial operations
and our carrying trade, by reserving
to our vessels the enjoyment of privi-
leges conceded. Again, your atten-
ton is drawn to articles 20 and p,
establishing such q guarantee of per-
sonal treatment IS will insure safe y
to the interests of our citizens. An
other line of adverse argument re-
mains to be considered. 1t is said
that this class OF treaties is an infring-
menJ upon the constitutional rights
of congress-, in that they change the
duties presented by law. This
argument Ia advanced against
all including the convention with
Mexico which, having been already
ratified, awaits legislation to carry it
into effect. The claim that the Next
can treaty is unconstitutional De-
cause it effects the revenue and did
not originate in the house of repre-
sentatlves, is singularly u%ntenable.
1t did SO originate Tue first action
of this government towards its nego-
tiation was all appropriation by Con-
gress for the salaries and expenses of
the commission to negotiate the com.
mercial treaty with Mexico. A sum
not exceeding twenty thousand dol
lars to tie expended under the direct
ion of the president of United States.
Sundry civil appropriations, an act of
Aug. 7, 1882, and under this authority
Gen. Grant and Mr.. Trescot were
appointed commissioners and nego-
tiated the treaty. The senate intr,-
duced all amendment, that legis-
lation of congress should be neces-
sary to give it force. This
rule. precedent for which is found in
previous statues of this character, had
been followed In the subsequent
treaty negotiations, and steps taken
thereto have been conducted under
the sanction given by congress to the
general policy of fostering interna-
tiOnal trade with neighboring
tries. l observe that q constitution
al amendment has been introduced
in congress that the senate and
house of representatives shall BIZ
joined to the executive, as a treaty
making power. Such an amend
ment would not avoid the ne
cesslty of the executive correct
ing the negotiation for the treaty,
subject OF course to ratiica-
ton Of the coordinate bench,
A prerogative house of representa-
tives, has in all these treaties been
abundantly secured by the provision
that they should not take effect until
the bill originating in the house had
made the laws effecting the revenue,
conform thereto. recedents are
against the po-itlor that the Mt
COLLATION. of this class are unconsti-
tutiOnal. From the foundation of
the government beginning with the
time when the administration was in
the hands of the mel who framed
the constitution itself, and who may
therefore be assumed to have best
understood its import and scope, that
public treaties ~effecting the revenues
had been concluded by the president
and carried into effect by the legis-
lation OF congress without an ad-
mission of a doubt as to the entire
constitutionality of the proceeding.
For examples, among many, may be
cited; first in order comes the treaty of
1874 with Great Britain, sti pulated tor
privileges and exemption
from duty, and set the Limitation
upon the imposition of tonnaoa unes