The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-08-25


the country would appreciate the forttude
of the man who could stand up against
the utterances OF the Senator from Yer
mont and perform his duty without
tremor. ave like him better since this
message has come in. We have every
confidence in him since he has been able
to withstand this terrible rebuff. We
think more OF him since he has been able
on this and other occasions TO exercise the
high functions of his office in the choice
OF courses which he thinks best to pursue
in order 10 deliver his country from GER
tain embarrassments growing out of actual
and alleged misconduct on the part of our
neighbors in Canada"
Mr.. Morgan said that more careful and
precise arraignment OF Il government was
never made than was made by the foreign
relations committee OF Great Britain,
charging in its report actual, wiliul, intcn-
territorial violation OF the treaty of 1918.
Nobody could draw paper ON which a
clearer accusation was made That report
was made on January ~, 1887, and upon il
was based the act of March 3, 1887, which
the Senator from Vermont now instanced
as mandatory law requiring the President
to enter upon retaliation, and the aban-
donment OF resort TO his constitutionalr light
TO attempt to get through with these
troubles with Canada in the exercise of
the treaty making power. The act of
March was carefully prepared by the
Senator from Vermont, so as TO throw the
entire responsibility for action upon the
President, II was competent, after the
declaration made in the report, 10 have
prepared law containing recital of the
matter in hpc vera, and commanding the
President, because the treaty had been
violated, to proceed TO retaliation and
then to have supplied him with
the men and means to have made that
retaliation eilcctual. II was left in the
discretion of the President TO do or not TO do
as he thought best In the debate which
attended the passage OF that law the sena-
tor from Missouri (NesO arose and wanted
TO know whether Il was the purpose to
force the government OF the United States
into retaliation rs result OF the action OF
Congress. The House OF Representatives
bad passed II very similar law in its tone TO
that Of the Senate, but containing a stipu-
lation that the President should have the
right by proclamation 10 exclude railway
trade from coming into the United States
and thereby shut out completely inter
course between the people not merely COM
mercial, but social. The provision ON that
subject in the report OF the committee on
conference read by the senator from Yer
mont had no relation 10 the passing of
goods in bond back and fourth between
these countries That subject was left to
bc disposed OF according 20 the treaty OF
1871 and upon the laws Of the United
States based upon that treaty. The
Senate COnierrccs objected 10 con
ierring this enormous power upon the
President aud the objection was
based upon the ground that il was
too near AN approach to actual hostility.
The position was taken In the Senate that
when n motion prohibits intercourse, a
position has been reached where It cannot
restrain It's own people. What power was
IL which the conicrrccs consented 10 deny
the President II was the power 10 pro-
hibit actual intercourse between the pcO-
pie Of Canada and the people OF the United
states so far as the running Of railway
trains WAS concerned. The subject stood
entirely apart and so great lawyer ~ the
senator from Vermont was conlcssedly
placed in a pitiablc attitude before the
people when lac undertook 90 discuss
these questions as II they were one or as IL
they were OF the slightest kin the one 20
the other. In all OF the debate the qucs-
ton Of the truns-shipment OF goods In
bond had not been alluded 10. Every
senator, when he was considering the re-
uliation law, knew that the only possible
effect OF Il Nas 10 bring Canada nearer
Ia the line Of what the United
States believed tD be correct In
her dealings with this country, and there.
bv 20 establish a basis " foundation for
the new treaty upon which the Senate had
| been required tD act. lie had discussed
the retaliation lnw ~ law looking 10 q
| treaty us "a result, the senator from Yer
mont had discussed It NJ law which
/ looked 10 war ~ q result lie lMUrgJnl
/ had not been for retaliation for the pur.
pose ui destroying Canada, much less Tor
/ the purpose oi iniuring the people of the
| Iuiipd states lie had been lur putting
/ IL in the power Of the President 10 rcialiatc
and thereby convince Great Britain and
| Canada that the United States lad armed
| it, local authorities with power enough 10
| rcciilv whatever wrong they might do,
! and That the United States meant tD exc
| cute it, purpose unless thuy come 10 some
l wise aud lust aud honorable agreement
! with H. II any senator thought that II
| was thc duty OF the President Immediately
| b. proceed lo rcialiatc on Canadian com.
mrrcc iur injuries and wrongs that huI
| been bone tO the United states previous
20 that time, Oct him ayow H.
Mr.. Edmunds uid that lrgt b. hi
silence be- might be- taken tp ncCgI' &,
what the gentleman had said, hc wullt
state that hc was very ilr from ay0N ms
that the President under the law WI Z,
proceed to obtain redress ior what bad Hr
cured before thc p8slgcoi the law, unl,s
II had occurred recently, for the statute lt
self provided that the occasion for th.
Presidents action should bc somcihin.
that should lately have occurred. Th,
Senate WIS looking chiefly tu ihc future
undoubtedly. but hc might say also iha
hc had no expectation that that was luvc
for treaty, aud that was oil b was. II,
thought that 10 would hr difficult ilr any
body to rrld the report upon the hIIl nu,
not understand that thr cases could b
much better treated hy legislation Than bl
negotiation, us OH the relations pi ih
United States with Canada Except luf th.
two short inlrryals bad been carried oi
by what was called retaliation until fcrip
r0cal relations adjusted them.
Mr. Morgan uid that the senator irou
Vermont bad drawn the law, and u Doc ha.
known Oi cases then recently OcCurun
that violated the treaty oi 1918 hc ough
10 have put them In and made them th
basis Of ihc legislation. Why bad he no
said 10 the prrudCnu These cases hay
occurred aud this treaty has been violated
and Congress declares iu bin that retail
iation shall take place; that negotiation
L..u nuLul uul LLnL LuL- ~ NOT n m LmL