Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-01-17
THE QUESTION CONCERNING The
EREATY-MAKING POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT AND TIE SENATE.

The question is before the country
whether it is wise to longer give to the
President and the Senate alone the right
and power of determining the policy of the
country relative to tariffs and free exchanges
with foreign countries, by permitting them
to covenant in such treaties with ma
tions without the consent of both houses
of Congress. The disposition of the day
is to bring the Government nearer to the
people and to augment the Importance OF
the more representative body in legis-
lures. We are not disposed to quarrel with
this tendency. The nearer government is
to the people the stronger and safer it is.
But we must be careful not to destroy the
checks and balances that the Constitution
provides in the Executive and the Senate.
Without an amendment to the Constitu-
ton the House Of Representatives cannot
interfere with the treaty,making power.
The statement in the dispatches that it is
pleaded that fiscal concerns must orig
AIaEC VIII LlG 1lDu5C is uOL COlIGCLY AOl
the words of the Constitution are that all
bills for raising revenue shall originate in
the House of Representatives. Can it be
tortured to mean that the admission of ar
ticles OF import according to the rules OF
reciprocal exchange is an infringement of
this right of the House? We are firmly of
the opinion that it cannot.
Story, in his admirable treatise on the
Constitution, says that the power to make
treaties is general and of course embraces
treaties for commerce or cessions of terri
tory, indemnity for injuries, or payment of
debts, or for any other purposes which the
policy, necessities, or interests OF indie
dependent nations may dictate. Referring
TO the required concurrence of two-thirds
of the Senate this learned commentator re-
marks that the treaty making power would
seem to be perfectly safe in such body.
The House of Representatives, ne adds,
would not have been so eligible body in
which to repose the trust, because it is
more numerous, more popular in its struct-
ure, more short in its duration, more unfit
to act upon sudden emergencies, more under
the control II few States and, from its
organization, it may fairly be presumed to
have less experience in public affairs
and less knowledge OF foreign relations
than the Senate
The Constitution declares that the laws
of the United States, and aHtreaties made by
authority, shallbe the supreme law of the
land" The trainers Of the instrument had
in view, therefore, commercial and recip-
rocisy treaties, since no exceptions were
made. To the present time in about all
countries the power to make treaties has
resided in the Chief Executive authority.
Congress cannot, under the Constitution,
defeat this right by refusing to pass ap.
preparation bills OF other measures when
the engagements entered into are within
the constitutional limits, says Cooley.
The power OF Congress to defeat treaties
by Withholding necessary laws has been
asserted before, but never finally insisted
upon in Congress. 1t was advanced in
the debate on the Alaskan treaty, but
Congress came to no vote on the subject.
The passage by the House of Represent.
atives of resolution of inquiry as to the
power of the Senate and the President to
negotiate treaties by which certain articles
can be put on the free list, though Con.
gress has adjudged them to pay duty,
reyives the question, and gives it new in.
terest. OF course the opponents of the
Mexican reciprocity treaty are at the bot
tom of the movement, but it is none the
less an important one.
The questions now presented may thus
be stated. Is the power to originate bills
for raising revenue limitation upon the
power to conclude treaties? Is the latter
authority purposely made check upon the
former? The opponents of Mexican reci-
procty will respond aifirms.ively to the
first, and negatively to the second ques.
ton. Bat such responses must be made