The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-08-25

offenSe still existed! Inc message, ne sao, was
a repetition of the policy pursued in regard TO
the purchase OF bonds. This administration
wanted to pile up great surplus in the Treas
ury in order that it might be used as an argu-
ment for the attack on our protect
i've system and accordingly it sf-
the law gave the Secretary power to expend
that surplus for bonds of the United States, AID
after the mischief was already done and the
surplus was piled up and distributed among the
national banks, without interest. the President
sent in q communication saying be thought he
ought to have authority to expend it IN buying
bonds When both branches of Congress passed
a resolution stating that the President had that
right, he said, .'Well, guess have and pro-
ceeded to make his purchases. Now, he asks
the Senate and the House TO grant him power
which he knows perfectly well he has the right
to exercise. Had the President called the at
tention Of anybody to these wrongsi 1t was
idle for the President TO undertake, at this time,
to cover up bis retreat and cover up his sur
render by undertaking to come to the front In
regard to this latter
Mr.. Morgan, after critcising Mr. Edmunas
for moving an adjournment yesterday when the
message was presented to the Senate, said: 1T
turns out, the evidence clearly estab-
ished. that the purpose Of all this opposition to
the President in respect Of his dealing with
these fisheries. had not been to get the govern
ment or the people into better shape but TO en-
trap the executive and put him into side lines,
into strait jacket 10 put him where he would
do the bidding Of the minority of the people OF
the United States, represented 10 this chamber
by the majority, and where he should have DO
option to do anything else than what they re-
qnired and commanded. They had even threat
ened the President with impeachment if he
dared to disobey their commands and to coun-
tervail their will" Mr.. Morgan quoted extracts
from the majority report on the fisheries treaty,
the language of which he interpreted as em-
bodying distinct threat that the President was
to have rod held over him. and in the event that
he -. n - D. f-~xD 40
constitutional policy to suit the wishes OF the
majority in this body the committee on for
eign relations, that he might expect that this
abuse of his constitutional powers would be
brought in judgment against him. He was very
much gratified To know that the President was
not alarmed at this at all He thought the
country would appreciate the fortitude of the
man who could stand up against the utterances
of the Senator from Vermont and perform his
duty without tremer. We like him better since
this message has come in. We have every con-
fidence In him since he has been able to with
stand this terrible rebuff We think more Of
him since he has been able, on this and other oc-
caslons, to exercise the high functions or his Of
fee IN the choice of courses which he thinks best
to pursue in order To deliver his
country from certsin emoarrassments
growing ont OF actual and alleged
misconduct on the part of our neighbors in
Canada. Mr.. Morgan said that more careful
aud precise arraienment of a government was
never made than was made by the foreign rea-
tions committee of Great Britain. charging in It's
report actual, wilful, intentional violation OF
the treaty Of 1878 Nobody could draw q paper
on which a clearer accusation was made. That
report was made on the 18th OF January, 1857,
and upon it was based the act OF March 3. 1887.
which the Senator from Vermont now instances
q q madatory law requiring the President to
enter upon retaliation and abandon the resort TO
his constitutional right TO attempt 10 get
through with these troubles with Canada by
exercise OF the treaty-maklng power. The act
- ~ ~
Senator from Vermont as to throw
the entire responsibility for action upon the
President. 1t was competent. after the declara-
ton made In the report, to have prepared Law
containing o recital of matter in haec 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 hayo made that retaliation effectual
1t was left in the discretion of the President to
do or not TO do. as he thought best. In ths de-
bate which attended the passage Of that law, the
Senator from Missouri Mr.. Vestl arose and
wanted to know whether it was the purpose to
force the governments of the United States into
retaliation q result OF the ction of Congress.
The House Of Representatives had cassod a very
similar law in its tone TO that OF the Senate but
containing stipulation that the President
should have the right, by proclamation. TO ex-
clude railway trade from coming into the United
States, and thereby shut ont completely inter
course between the people. not merely CONNER
ciai, but social. The provision that subject in
tne report OF tue cOmmltte6 OF conference. feAu
by the Senator from Vermont, had no relation
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
upou that treaty. The Senate conferees OBJ
j.cted to conferring this enormous power upon
the President. and the objection was based upon
the ground that it was too near approach to
actUai hostility. The position was taken In the
Senate that when nation prohibits intercourse
n has e6 W Wnera ran not
strain it's own people. What power was it which
the conferees consented to deny the PRESIDENT
1t was the power to prohibit actual Intercourse
between the people of Canada and the people Of
the United States SO far as the running OF rail-
way trains was concerned. The subject
stood entirely apart. and so great lawyer as
the Senator from Vermont was confessedly
placed in pitisble attitude before the people
when he undertook TO discuss these questions
as IL they were one, as il they were of the
slightest aka the to the other. In all of
the debate the question Of the trausshipmeut
Of goods in bond had not been alluded to. Ev-
cry Senator, when he considering the re-
taliation Law. knew the only possible effect of it
was to bring Canada nearer to the line of what
the United States believed to be correct In her
dealings with this country and thereby to estab-
lish q basis or foundation for the new treaty,
upon which tho Senate had been required 10
act He had discussed the retaliation law as
law looking TO treaty as result; the Sena-
tor from Vermont had discussed it as
Jaw Wnlcn lOokeO 10 war as result.
He Mr. Morgan 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 putting it In
the power of the President TO retaliate. aud
thereby convince Great Britain and Canada that
the United States mad armed its local author
tiles with power enough to rectify whatever
wrong they might 90. and that the United States
meant TO execute its purpose unless they came to
some wise. aud just, aud honorable agreement
with it If any Senator had proposed to do
something else. let him avow il. II any Senator
thought that it was the duty of the President
Immediately TO proceed to retaliate on Canadian
commerce for injuries and wrongs that had
been done TO the United States previous to th at
time, let him avow il"
Mr.. Edmnnds said that lest by bis silence he
might be taken 10 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 IL
had occurred recently, for the statute itself pro-
vided that the occasion for the Presidents &C.
tion should be something that should then lately
have occurred. The Senate was looking chiefly
to the future, undoubtedly, but he might say,
also, that he had an expectation that that was
lever for treaty, and that was all it was He
thought that il would be difficult for anybody to
read the report upon the bill and not understand
that the case could be much better treated by
legislation than by negotiation, as all the rela-
tlons OF the United States with Canada, except
for the two short intervals. had been carried on
by what was called retaliation until reciprocal
relations adjusted them.
Mr. Morgan said the Senator from Vermont