Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1886-09-24


mcnt can no more control the move
ments of its subjects or keep then
within its territory than the President
can restrain those of our citizens.
This is on page 81 of the volume re
ferred to and is dated Pekin, June
3Oth, 1876. On page 4S, under date
of March 2lst, of the same year
another official, the American Minis
ter, writing from Hong Kong con
cerning the treaty concluded sia
weeks earlier between China and
Peru, states that "the great object ot
Peru in procuring a treaty was te
promote Chinese immigration, that
had been virtually stopped by the
action taken at Maco, here in Hong
Kong and by the Chinese authori
ties" 1t is, moreover, a matter of the
commOnest historic notOriety that fOl
ages the Emperor had, and exercised
the power Of preventing emigration
wherever the traditional policy of the
country seemed to require it. The
assertion that the despotic ruler OF
China, whose will is law throughout
his vast dominions, has no greater
power than the President of Repub.
lie calls for no remark.
OF no greater weight as reason,
but from their origin and occasion
requiring more serious considera.
ton, are the allegations OF the Execu.
tive in the vote of the bill passed by
Congress in February, 1879.
This, as presented to the Executive
forbade the transport of more than
fifteen Chinese on any one vessel en-
tering the ports Of the United States,
and it also directly repealed articles V
and vi of the Burlingame Treaty
This repeal was designed to take effect
through the action enjoined on the
Executive. Omitting reference to the
platitudes which have no practical
bearing upon the question, it is suf.
ficient to say the veto turned upon an
implied denial of the right of Congress
to act in the premises.
The words OF the veto on this head
were: "The authority of Con-
gress to terminate a treaty with a
foreign party by expressing the will
of the nation to no longer adhere to
it, Is as free from controversy under
our constitution as tine further propo.
sition that the power of making new
treaties, or modifying existing new
treaties, is not allotted by the Consti.
tuition in Congress but in the Presi.
dent by and with the advice of the
Senate, as shown by the concurrence
of two-thirds of that body" The
meaning of this is hardly clear; it first
admits the authority of Congress to
terminate treaty with a foreign
power" and then sets forth, if it has
any meaning at all, that Congress
cannot terminate two articles of that
treaty. In other words, the some.
what anomalous idea is advanced
that while Congress can abrogate an
entire treaty, it cannot abrOgate a
part of it. venture to say that there
is nowhere in the Jurisprudence of the
civilized world single decision of any
court or q single opinion of any re-
cognized publicist by which this prop.
osition can be claimed to be endorsed
Its fallacy is shown by the decision Of
our own courts, hereinbefore previous.
ly referred to, for in regard to the
treaty with Russia the right of Con.
gress to annul the provision relating
to the duties on Russian products war
fully and absolutely sustained. The
Executive in his veto of the bill ap.
pears to have been quite unfamiliar
with these decisions; he refers to- the
Act of Congress in 1898 concerning
the French treaty, in manner that
clearly indicates this to be the only
case bearing upon the subject to which
his attention had been called, and
even as concerns this, exception may
justly taken to the Interpretation
which he has placed upon it.
This veto, however, indicates q mean.
ing deeper than is borne upon its face
1t is an assertion that the action Of the
popular branch of the Government
may be be ignored even in municipal
affairs at the will OF the treaty-making'
power; and that in certain contingent
cies affecting the internal administra'
ton of the country, the President
may defy both houses Of Congress to-
gether. Nothing more subversive Of
the structure of our government OF
the genius of our institution can be
conceived. Under cover Of a treaty
once concluded without the consent
Of the President, and if part of a
treaty can only be repealed by such
new treaty, it would follow that Con
gress and the people would be power.
less under the will Of an obstinate mas
ter, and the authority Of Congress as q
coordinate branch of the government
would in such cases be utterly des'
troyed. 1t is not necessary to argue
that in this country it has never been
intended that such power should be as
serted or welded by the Executive.
There is another, though by com.
parison q minor error, in the veto. I,