Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1888-09-04
TEE CHINESE BILL.
Continued from First PAGE.

| Continued from First Page.
| friendly manner with Secretary Bayard
and the secretary had entered into negOtla-
tons with the Chinese government in view
of the proposed modification of the treaty.
The treaty had been negotiated and
had been ratified by the sen
it clear and which amendments which ii
was supposed the Chinese minister would
have agreed to. He supposed from what
! the newspapers said that the rejection OF
the treaty by the Chinese government was
connected with the Australian complica-
ton and with the idea that the Chinese
| government would have to cOncede to
Great Britain in reference to its Australian
colonies, the same terms which it conced-
ed to the United States. He therefore
| would not make any objection to the pas
sage of the bill and he hoped it would
! pass, but this was with the distinct under
| standing that the house had passed it with
the knowledge that the new treaty had
been rejected by the Chinese government,
| if that should prove true, otherwise the
fault would not be that of the senate.
| Mr.. Butler-If this bill should become a
law would it not be an indirect contraven-
ton of the treaty between the United
States and China?
Mr.. Sherman-I think that the bill is in
consistent with the treaty, but as the
Chinese government declines to make the
proposed changes we then have an unques-
toned right to pass the bill.
Mr.. Butler-So there is treaty now eX-
listing between the United States and
China with which the bill comes in con-
flIct?
Mr. Observation-Disclosures because
under it it was provided that Tor certain
time and under certain circumstances
Chinese laborers who have been here have
a right to come back, and it is only because
its provisions have been violated by fraud
and perjury that such a law as this is justi-
fable.
bill is.a violation Of the treaty, therefore a
violation of the constitution OF the United
States?
Mr. Sherman-I deny the ergo.
Mr. Butler-I will take back the ergo
because it is not a violation Of the consti-
tuition, but you admit that it is a viola
ton of an existing treaty.
MIR. Ieller-The term violation" is not
proper term when there is legislative
displacement of a treaty. ''Abrogation"
is the term.
MIR. Butler-I understand the senator
from Ohio to say this act Will be viola
ton of an existing treaty.
Mr.. Sherman-I did not use the word
violation"
Mr.. Sherman-It is the aErogation of n
treaty, just as law may be abrogated: a
treaty is a law.
Mr.. Butler-This is an abrogation, then,
OF the treaty between the United States
and China?
Mr.. Sherman-It is subsequential
change.
Mr.. Butler-Is this the form in which it
is derived that the treaty may be abro-
gated?
Mr.. Sherman-It is not. but there is no
doubt of the power of congress to repeal
treaty If it chooses to exercise that power.
Every notion has that right.
Mr. BCtler-I understand that very well,
but it seems to me that this whole Chinese
business has been a matter of political adj
vantage and that we have not be governed
by that elaboration which the gravity of
the question requires. There is d very i'm
portant presidential question pending. One
house of congress passed bill to drive these
these poor devils of Cinnamon in the Pa
cific ocean, and the other house comes up
and says: Yes, we will drive them still
further into the Pacific ocean, notwith-
standing the treaty between the two gov
ernments." | shall vote for the bill, but |
am very sorry to be informed by the sena-
tor from Ohio that is violation of the
treaty.
Mr. Teller-Not violation of it.
L.
treaty.
Mr. Mitchell-Is the senator from South
Carolina willing to vote for bin which
would in his judgment contravene the
provisions of an existing treaty?
Mr.. Butler-Yes, under the leadership
of my distinguished friend from Ohio, Mr..
Sherman. who would not hesitate a mo-
ment to abrogate treaty and violate its
provisions SO far as the Chinese are con-
cerned.
Mr. Mitchell-Is it the opinion of the
senator from South Carolina that the pend
ing bill does contravene any of the pro,
visions of the existing treaty?
Mr. Butler-I have no opinion on the
subject. because | am not informed upon
it. Therefore | appealed to tie senator
from Chic and he tells me that it does.
Mr. Mitchell-Then the senator from
South Carolina is shutting his ears and is
willing to vote for a bill about which he
has no opinion at all.
Mr. Butler-You ought not to complain
of that.
Mr.. MITCHELL am not complaining of it.
want to know where the senator stands.
Mr. Butler-Right behind the senator
from Oregon.
Mr. Mitchell-A good place to stand.
Mr. Butler-lt gives me great pleasure
to follow him. If he leads Inc astray he
will be held responsible. The bill is an
open, fragrant violation of q treaty be-
tween this government and a government
with which it is Oh terms of peace and
good Will.
Mr. Mitchell-Does the senator think
that the repeal of any existing law is Il vio-
lation of that law?
Mr. Butler-I think there is good deal
of the game of politics In this whole bust
ness, and it is not a very seemly thing
either But for the fact that we are on
the eve of a presidential election and that
each party wants TO get the vote of the
Pacific slope, this scene would not be en-
acted in the senate.
Mr. Mitchell-The senator is speaking
about his own party.
Mr. Teller-How about the house of rep
resentatives passing this bill?
Mr. Butlcr-The Republican senate pro-
poses to see the house and go it one better
that is the plain English of it. You may
call it a contravention, repeal and an alb
rogation of the Chinese treaty but the
plain English of it is THE violation of a
treaty" You can't dodge it,
Mr.. Mitchell argued that congress has as
much power TO repeal treaty as it has TO
repeal a law. That had been decided over
and over again, by the supreme court. 1t
occurred to him that if a Democratic
house thought it necessary to present a
bill on which depended condition of the
treaty it should have gone little further
and made the Dill more effective by cover
ing the whole ground He was thankful
for so much of bill, however, and be
would not delay its passage by offering
any amendment. The debate was CON
tinued at much length by Senator
Gray, who said the senate should
have put necessary amendments on the
treaty which would have fully accomp
lished the purpose of the pending bill. and
by Senators Stewart Vest, Dolph, Mitchell
md l1nnr.-a Thf. hitter ,nale q lon Q, arcrll.