Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1886-09-03

NiP'ts Va tiiS pNt'
burst Of a popular enthusiasm. 1t is
not to be permitted that the liberties,
the prosperity, the evolution and de-
velopment of nations should he 2r-
rested by the iron weight of unchang-
ing and Interchangeable treaties which,
under verbal forms, might place the
industries and the social and political
interests Of II country in jeopardy, as
those OF this country are jeOpardized
by China at the present time. Hence a
treaty which tends to the irrcmediable
injury OF one OF the contracting parties
is absolutely void; it has no place in
| the law Of nations. This is and has
been held hv juri>ts since the code of
nations was first formulated a. the
highest rN preston ui human law. In
the words of Nattcl, whose works,
| during hundred and twenty years,
have been the guide Of statesmen and
diplomati>tS: A treaty pernicious to
the State is null, and not at all obliga-
| tOry, as no conductor oi 4 nation has
the power to enter into engagements
to do such things as are capable "f de-
stroying the State for whose sake the
Government is entrusted to him"
And, further, not only may no treaty
making power ALLEVIATE the welfare OF
its people, but it is contrary to the
order oi nature and the well being OF
humanity, that nation should be held
to conditions that tend to its over
throw. Says the same writer: The
nation itself being necessarily obliged
to perform everything required for its
preservation and safety, cannot enter
into Obligations contrary to its indis-
pensable obligations" In 4 like
manner Wheaton, the American pub
licist, whose treaties have been an au-
thority for more than forty years and
which, it may be remarked, was trans
lated into the Chinese language six
teen years ago for the use of the Chan
cellerie, expressly holds that "a total
change Of circumstances" renders u
treaty mo longer obligatory" And
the venerable DR.. Woolsley, whose
volume is the text book Of American
colleges, uses on this head language
stronger even than Vattel. "a treaty"
he says, " in which the treaty making
power flagitiously sacrifices the inter
ests of the nation which it represents,
has no binding force In this case the
treacherous act of the government
cannot be justly regarded as the act Of
the nation, and the forms ought to
give way to the reality of things"
Let lis consider the Burlingame
treaty upon the principles elaborated
by those masters of judicial learning
and by the truths that spring from
natural law as well as from legal lore
That treaty in its direct outcome has
conyulsed the industries, disturbed the
political condition, and destroyed the
social balance OF one OF the portions Of
our country. 1t has arrayed section
against section, and class against class
1t tended to depress labor to vassalage
and to elevate the great land holder to
almost feudal power, and threatened at
no distant day to deliver one of our
iairest regions to the sway OF the Mon
golian, and to bring to the eastern
portion of our country the same en-
bittered relations between capital and
labor, employer and employed, that
now agitate the people Of California
and bar the way Of progress of their
State. Even if that treaty was other
wise binding, which il is not, and even
if there were no other objections to its
validity, and there were many, its per-
niciOus results and its inherent folly
finally insured its immediate and abso-
Lutte abrogation. Its annihilation fell
clearly within the provision OF the law
of nations, and was more than justified
by the primary law Of self-prescrvation.
Nor will we find precedents far or
few. History is full OF them. Less
in magnitude it may be, but in ethics
and principle the same. Three hun
dred and seventy-four years ago the
States General Of France compelled
their King to cancel a treaty because
that treaty was pernicious to the king
dom" Less than four decades ago
the same country, under the Lamar
tine administration, after the fight Of
Louis Phillippi, made solemn declara-
ton that "the treaties of 1915 exist no
longer in the eyes OF the French Re
public" In 1850 Great Britain invok-
cd war, the destroyer of treaties, and
blockaded the ports OF Greece because
as waa alleged, the courts OF that
country " were in such a state that
Justice could not be had' by one Pa
cifco, British subject whose dwelling
had been sacked to the extent Of seven
hundred and fifty dollars by ali Athe-
nian mob. And this was done not
withstanding the rule OF international
law under which Pacitco should have
exhausted his remedy in the Greek
tribunals before appealing to the po-
litical branch Of his own government.
The action OF the United States regard
ing the French treaties is hereinafter
adverted to. The course of Russia in
annulling restriction on her freedom
of action in eastern Europe, laid upon