St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-12-27
WASHINGTON WAITS.


UnOi iOiV WHli ~
Continued from First Page.
change the duties prescribed BIZ law. This
argument Is advanced against all. including
the convention with Mexico, which having
been already ratified awaits legislation to
carry II into effect. The claim that the Mex
lean treaty is unconstitutional because II az
feets the revenue, and did not originate in
the house Of representatives., is singuIarIy
untenabie- Il did 50 originate. The first
action Of this government towards its nego-
Ton was an appropriation By congress 'sfor
salaries and expenses Of a CON-
mission to negotiate = commercial
treaty with Mexico, sum
not exceeding $1,000, to be expended
under the direction Of the president
of the United States''-(sundrv
civil appropriations, act of August 7th,
1882. And under this authority Gen. Grant
aud Mr.. Trescot were appointed commits
sioners, and negotiated the treaty. The
senate introduced an amendment that legis
lation OF congress should be necessary to
give it force. This rule the precedent for
which Is found in previous treaties OF this
character, has been followed in subsequent
treaty negotiation, and the steps taken there
10 have been conducted under the sanction
given BY congress to the general policy fos-
teriug the trade with neighboring countries.
observe that constitutional amendment
has been introduced in congress that the
senate aud house Of representatives shall
be joined to the executive as
treaty making power, such amendment
would not avoid the necessity
OF the executive conducting negotiations for
a treaty subject, OF course, to the ratifea-
ton OF the coordinate branch. The prero-
gative Of the house of Republicans has in all
these treaties been abundantly secured by
provision that they should not take effect
until bill originating in the house had
made laws affecting the revenue to conform
thereto. The presidents are against the
position that negotiations Of this class are
unconstitutional from the foundation OF the
government, beginning with the time when
the administration was in the hands of the
men who framed the constitution itself, aud
may, therefore, be assumed 10 have best un-
derstood its import and scope. Public treat
les affecting the revenues have been con-
cllded oy. the president aud carried into
effect by see legislation Of congress without
the admission of q doubt as TO
entire constitutiOnality of the proceeding. A
few examples among many may be cited.
First in order comes the treaty OF 1894 with
Great Britain, which stipulated for CONNER
cial privileges and exemptions from duty,
and set a Limitation on the imposition OF
ton mage duty on British vessels by congress.
The treaty Of 1903 with France for the acqui-
sitiOn Of Louisiana, stipulated for special
fayors to French and Spanish goods and yes
sells in ceded territory during a term of
twelve years, notwithstan ding any general
regulations as to trade and navigation which
congress might make. The treaty Of 1915
with Great Britain changed the existing leg
islatiOn as TO discriminating duties. The
treaty OF 1881 with France contains special
tariff provisions. The Canadian reciprocity
treaty of Great Britain in 1854.
and the reciprocity treaty Of
1875 with the Hawaiian islands, both
contained provision that they should not
become operative till the necessary laws TO
carry them into effect should have been en-
acted by congress. In respect 10 all these
treaties the required legislation was passed
In short precedents are in favor of the con-
stitutional negotiations Of treaties affecting
the revenues by the president, subject to ap-
prevail by the senate and to legislative coop
Grafton of congress in carrying out the pro-
visions. The only object which the exeeu-
tive has had id view in the negotiations COM
mittee now awaiting the action Of congress,
has been OF the best interest to the Republic,
and in endeavoring To realize this, the init
nations, purposes and desires Of con-
gress have served as guide
AS the action Of the executive
so taken, is in every case to be subject to the
decision of the senate aud representatives of
the people, do not doubt the result aimed
at will be reached. II the Spanish treaty
does not meet the approval of the legislative
branch of the government the representa-
tives of the popular will cannot fail, trust,
10 perceive that the president has made an
earnest effort to remove from the held of
dispute subject of contention, as far as Cuba
is concerned, and to secure lasting and in
creasing benefit TO our agricultural, manu-
featuring and commercial interests, and to
the people Of the Union, and full protection
to persons and property OF our citizens
abroad. Your obedient servant
FREDERICK T. FRELINGHUYsEN.
FENCING PUBLIC LANDS.
Members Of the senate committee on public
lands express an opinion that the house bill
70 prohibit fencing public lands, will be re-
ported back favorably to the senate with
amendments, soon after the reconventton of
congress. The house bin makes it lawful for
any citizen or settler to remove such fences
at will. This, in the opinion of some men,
bers of the senate committee, does not 60
far enough, since few settlers will be willing
to incur the powerful eumity of cattlemen
aud cowboys. 1t has been proposed to
amend the bill by re-enacting an old law on
the subject. requiring the removals Of fences
TO be done by an United States marshal, aud
the military, when their services are re-
quired-
ELECTION RETURNS.
All except the states of Oregon and Iowa
have sent in their electoral returns by mail,
but the states of California, Florida, lows,
Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina,
Texas and Wisconsin have not yet sent in
their electoral votes by messenger.