Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1885-01-31
OTR TREfTy.
The Best That mau be- Said ggaio., N


a speech delivered in the United States
Senate, on the 9TH instant, by Hon.
Justin s. Morrill, OF Vermont. The
speech followed the reading of the fol
lowing resolution
Whereas the Legislature is the department o.
government by which commerce should be
regulated and laws Of revenue passed, the con
stitution in terms communicates the power tc
regulate commerce and to impose duties tc
that department. 1t communicates it in terms
to no other. The representatives Of the people
sitting in their legislative capacity, with oper
doors, under the eye Of the country, communi
eating freely with their constituents, may exer
else this power more intelligently, more dis
creeily, may acquire more accurate and NOR,
minute information concerning the employment
and interests on which this description o
measures will press, and may better discerr
what true policy prescribes or rejects, than !.
within the competence Of the executive depart
ment Of the government Therefore,
Retoistd, That so.called reciprocity treaties
having no possible basis of reciprocity witt
nations Of inferior population and wealth, in
volving the surrender OF enormously uncqua
sums Of revenue, involving the surrender o
immensely larger volumes Of home trade thar
are offered to us in return. and involving con
stitutiona questions Of the greatest character
are untmely and should everywhere he re
garded with disfavor.
A few of the points made by the
speaker were as follows
When the question of reciprocity
treaty was first presented to the senate
forty years ago, it was unanimously de.
cided that it would be grave and
dangerous invasion of the prerogative OF
congress to regulate commerce with
foreign nations, as well as OF the house
Of Representatives as TO its exclusive
power to originate revenue bills. The
record shows (and it was long since
made public) that two reports on the
Zollverein treaty, with Prussia and other
members of the Germanic confedera.
ton, we're made at different times by
the senate committee on foreign rela-
tons both reaching the same adverse
conclusion-one by Mr.. Choate, OF
Massachusetts,, when the treaty was
laid upon the table, as the least often
sive mode Of rejection, and one later,
by Mr.. Archer, of Virginia, when, at
the request Of the president for further
consideration, the treaty was squarely
and unanimously rejected-including
even the vote of John c. Calhoun, al
though, while secretary of state, the
treaty had received his perfunctory sup
port. That the standing of Mr.. Choate,
as lawyer Of profound learning, and
the sound judgment of MIR. Archer, the
long-trusted congressional leader on
foreign affairs. peculiarly qualified them
to handle the subject, not only justly
but with pre-eminent ability, will not be
controverted even by the present dis
tinguished committee on foreign rela-
tions. Notwithstanding it was broadly
claimed by Mr.. Archer that the treaty
would have promoted our interests, it
was resolutely refused, and solely on
the ground of paramount constitutional
objections. This adverse determination
was again and finally confirmed in IS4S
by record of the yeas and nays, with
every member, both OF the Democratic
and Wing parties then present, in the
negative, and at time when among
the members of the senate were to be
found, besides many others of national
renown, such celebrities as Calhoun,
Crittenden, Berrien, Badger, Corwin,
Dix, Hamlin, Mangum, Bell, Davis OF
Mississippi, "Honest John Davis" OF
Massachusetts, Mason Of Virginia, and
Johnson of Maryland We may feel
proud even TO be members of body
which has been decorated with names
wearing such enduring national luster.
Thanks are abundantly due to those
who have revived the memory of the
past. The advocates of reciprocity
treaties appear willing to accept the
thinnest Of gossamer supports when they
venture to claim that there is any ex-
ample Of reciprocity treaty in the first
sixty-five years Of the history Of the
government. There is none such, or
none prior to 1854, and the treaty Of
that date was abrogated and stamped
with the ban of the government at the
earliest possible moment
If could easily pass by, as can
not, the insuperable constitutional OBJ
jections to reciprocity treaties, there are
other grave and scarcely less substan-
tal objections to the policy of such
treaties. The most intelligent statesmen
Of the world "let them alone severely
Not hrst-class government OF Europe,
so far as l am advised, now tolerates
such treaties. Throughout the whole
horizon none are visible even to reci-
procity star-gazers--saving our own
twinkling and pitiful show. England
would be glad to make treaty com
pact with the United States for the
benefit of the Dominion Of Canada. il
that, sweetened by the bon-bons and
ribbons of occasional knigh,hoods,
would keep The Dominion loyal, as well
as proud and contented to furnish con
tingents to maintain British supremacy
elsewhere but she never permits the
Canadas to offer favors to which Grea,
Britain is not to become an equal par
ticipopt and nevev rrOnncec m ha a
principal party to reciprocity herself
If We were to propose that American
tobacco and whisky should be received
duty free by Great Britain. and should
oAeo all proper equivalents, the "no'
Of the British lion would resound across
the Atlantic. But to some Of our home
administrations, fear, it has happened
that too many Of their members have
felt obliged to have reciprocity treaty,
like the smallpox, once in their lives,
and it were to be wished that the