Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-03-20
LAYING OUT A NEWSPAPER.

Inc New 1Ork IlleS scored senator
Mitchell for daring to propose the abroga-
ton of the Burlingame treaty, and all
others permitting Chinese immigra-
ton. The Times added 1T may
be stated, also, for Mr.. Mitchell's in
formation, that treaties cannot be amended
or abrogated by statute law" AS rule
newspaper law is bad law Seven times
out OF ten, when the newspaper man
ventures to write of the laws of the land
without previous examination of the stat
ute book, he blunders. The rule held good
in the case of the Times. 1t "got off" its
opinion within an hour or so after Senator
Mitchell introduced his bill On the 10Th
of February, Mr.. Mitchell spoke on the
bill, and Immediately proceeded to clay
out" the Times, and the Washington Post,
that had chimed with it. He drew atten-
ton to the fact that the decisions of the
Supreme Court Of the United States es-
tablished the doctrine that Congress may
abrogate or repeal treaty, and that sub
sequent Act of Congress repeats the pro-
visions of a prior treaty, in so far as it con-
fiicts with it. He next cited the sixth
article Of the Constitution, as justifying his
bill, that provision linking treaties, the
Constitution and the laws together as the
supreme law of the land. He then read
Story, for the benefit of the newspaper
lawyer, who, in his exposition of the Con-
stltution, holds that the treaty-making
power is subordinate to the fundamental
laws and Constitution, and that it cannot
change the form of the Government or
annihilate its constitutional powers. Hence
the power to treat cannot destroy or nullify
the power to legislate given by the Consti-
tuition. The Constitution invests Congress
with the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and the Burlingame treaty
is but a regulation of commerce, and did
not impair the right or power of Congress
to legislate adverse to it in regulating
commerce. He recalled history to his aid,
and cited Congressional action in 1898.
when Congress passed laws abrogating our
treaties with France, declaring them of no
more binding effect or force. In the
Florida claims case Attorney General Crit
tenden decided that an Act of Congress is !
as much the supreme law of the land as
a treaty, and that the last expression of |
the law-making power must prevail. At
Akerman in 1870 decided |
that a treaty and statute are of equal |
rank, and that the earlier in date yields to
the later A Circuit Court of the United
States Curtis Reports early decid-
ed that it is absurd to hold that
only the President and the Senate
can modify or repeal a treaty. The Su-
preme Court of the United States, in the
Cherokee tobacco case, held that treaty
may supersede a prior Act of Congress,
and an Act of Congress may supersede
prior treaty. In 1879 the President of the
United States, in his message on the Chi
nese question, declared that the question
of the power Of Congress to terminate
treaty is free from controversy. The Forty
fifth Congress, by vote in the House Of
155 to y (6l not voting, and in the Sen
ate by SO to 81, declared in favor of the
power of Congress to abrogate the Burlin-
game treaty, and did, so far as Congress
could without Executive approval, abro-
gate and repeal it, The Senator went con-
siderably further with his proofs, but
enough have been cited to show that jour
nalistic constitutional expounders are not
always to be taken at their own valuation.