Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1888-08-25
READ TO TIER SENATE
Continued from First Page.

Continued from First Page
judgment against him. He was very mucl
| gratified to know that the president wa
not alarmed at this at all. He thought tn,
country would appreciate the fortitude Of
the man who could stand up against tn,
utterances OF the senator from Vernon
and perform his duty without tremor
We like him better since this message has
come in. We have every confidence in hin
since he has been able to withstand this
terrible rebuff. We think more of hin
since he has been able on this and other
occasions to exercise the high functions o.
his Office in the choice of courses which he
thinks best to pursue in order to deliver
his country from certain embarrassment
growing out of actual ana al
legged misconduct on the part Of
| our neighbors over in Canada. y
Mr.. Morgan said that more careful and
| precise arrangement OF government was
never made than was that by foreign leg
| islations committee of Great Britain
charging in its report actual, wilful inten-
territorial violation of the treaty of 1878
Nobody could draw paper on which a
| clearer accusation was made. That report
was made on the 18th of January, 1887, and
it was based the act OF March 3,
1887, which the senator from
| Vermont now instanced as a mandatory
law requiring the president to enter upon
retaliation and abandon the result to his
| constitutional right to attempt to get
through with those troubles with Canada
| in the exercise of the treaty making
power. The act of March 3 was carefully
prepared by the senator from Vermont, SO
| as to throw the entire responsibility for
action upon the president. 1t was compe-
tent, after the declaration made in the
report, to have prepared law containing
a recital of the matter in haec vera and
commanding the president because the
treaty had been violated to proceed to
retaliation and then to have supplied him
that retaliation effectual. 1t 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 senator from Missouri (Mr.
| Vest) asked and wanted to know whether
it was the purpose to force the government
of the United States into retaliation as a
result of the action of congress. The
house of representatives had passed very
similar law in its tone to that of the SEN
ate blt containing stipulation that the
president should have the right, by procla-
nation, to exclude railway trade from
coming into the United States, and thereby
shut out completely intercourse between
the people, not merely commercial but so
cial. The provision on that subject in the
report of the committee on conference read
by the senator from Vermont had no rela-
ton to the passage of goods in bond back
and forth between these countries. That
subject was left to be disposed of according
to the treaty Of 1871 and upon the laws OF
the United States, based upon that treaty.
The senate conferees objected to confering
this enormous power upon the president,
and the objection was sustained upon the
ground that it was too near an approach
to actual hostility. The position was
taken in the senate that when a motion
prohibits Intercourse position has been
reached where it cannot restrain It's own
people. What power was it which the
conferees consented to deny the presidents
1t was the power to prohibit actual inter
course between the people of Canada and
the people of the United States so far as
the running of railroad trains was con-
cerned. The subject stood entirely
apart, and SO great lawyer as the
senator from Vermont was confesSed!y
placed in pitiable attitude before the
people when he undertook to discuss
these questions as if they were One or as if
they were of the same kim the one to the
other. In all of the debate the question of
the trans-shipment of goods in bond had
not been alluded to. Every senator when
he was considering the retaliation law
knew that the only possible effect of it
was to bring Canada nearer to the line of
what the United States believed to be cor
rect in their dealings with this country
and thereby to establish a basis or founda-
ton tor the new treaty upon which the
senate had been required to act. He had
discussed the retaliation law as law
looking to a treaty as Il result; the senator
from Vermont had discussed it as a law
which looked to war as Il result. He Nor
gam had not been for retaliation for the
purpose OF destroying Canada, much less
for the purpose of injuring the people of
the United States. He had been for put
fl,A e Ia "A
to retaliate and thereby convince Great
Britain and Canada that the United States
had armed its local authorities with power
enough to rectify whatever wrong they
might do and that the United States meant
TO execute its purpose unless they come to
some wise and just and honorable agree
ment with it. If any senator had proposed
to do anything else let him avow it. If
any senator thought that it was the duty
of the president Immediately to proceed to
retaliate on Canadian commerce for in
juries and wrongs that had been done to
the United States previous to that time
let him avow it,
Mr.. Edmunds said that lest by his silence
he might be taken to accede to what the
gentleman had said, he would state that
he was very far from avowing that the
president under the law was to proceed to
obtain redress for what had occurred
before the passage of the law unless
it had occurred recently, for the
statute itself provided that the occasion
for the presidents action should be some
thing that should then lately have occur
red. The senate was looking chiefly to the
future undoubtedly but he might say also
that he had expectation that was lever
for treaty and that was all it was. He
thought that it would be difficult for any
body to read the report upon the bill and
not understand that the cases could be
nch hpt cd " laOi fnt hay, 1t-
negotiation as all the relations of the
United States with Canada Except for the
two short lntervals) had been carried on
by what was called retaliation until recip-
rocal relations adjusted them.
Mr.. Morgan said that the senator from
Vermont had drawn the law and if he had
known of cases then recently occurring that
violated the treaty of 1918 he ought
to have put them in and made them the
basis of the legislation. Why had he not
said to the president: "TheSe cases have
occurred and this treaty has been violated
and congress declares in bill that retail
latlon shall take place; that negotiations
have ended and tnat this is not a fit sub
ject for negotiations" Why had he not
put that instead OF going TO the president
TO make him as certain of his own peril as
what cases there were that had lately oc-
curredy If the object of that legislation
had been TO compel the president to put
the commercial interests of the country in
jeopardy by declaring al embargo between
the United States and Canada, why had
not the eases been mentioned. Why had
not the senator had a courage TO say:
Il will assume the responsibility as
legislator and | will declare not
merely that this treaty has been inten-
tionally and willfully violated. but that
ii has been violated in these recent cases
and instead of making it the duty of the
president 10 hunt sonnet hing hide il from