New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-16
PRESIDENT AND SENATE.

The Evening HOSt' HlakcS lecpie dolohipo
to cavil at the conclusions of the majority re-
port of the Senate Committee on Foreign Re
lations respecting the Fisheries Treaty 1t
complains that the Republican Senators have
excluded both treaty making and arbitration
and pronounced unequivocally in favor of re-
taiation. 1t ought not to affect surprise over
expressions of opinion that are consistent with
the recent action of the Senate on this ques-
ton. The President, in December, 1885, rec
commended arbitration and negotiation in the
fisheries dispute, and the Senate condemned
that policy. The Senate subsequently passed
two Retaliation Acts party lines being virtu-
ally abandoned. When therefore, the ma
jority report reaffirms the inexpedicncy of ne
gotiation and arbitration and the necessity of
retaliation, it reiterateC the judgment Of an UNI
divided Senate and does not take position
that can be regarded as novel or startling.
The report states: In view of the plain his
tory of these transactions and Of the matters
hereinbefore stated, it does not seem to the COM
n,ittee that the existing matters of difficulty are
subjects for treaty negotiation" Whereupon
"The Post" remarks that the fisheries nego-
tiations have continued over hundred years
and that the majority Of the committee affirm
that Americans are superior to the rules that
govern civilized nations. On the contrary, the
fact that the question has not been settled after
century of negotiation is of itself good proof
that it is not tit subject for negotiation at all.
If it had been, it would have been settled In
view of the repeated failures Of diplomacy and
also of the fact that the fisheries question as it
now affects the United States is mainly an is
sue of maritime reciprocity, retaliation is the
only proper course Great Britain has recourse
to retaliation when its commercial rights are
withheld Why should the United States hest
tate to follow its example3
The grave questions connected with the le-
gality Of the appointment Of the Fisheries Com
mission are held in reserve by the majority of
the committee, whose report deals mainly with
the Treaty itself This important phase of the
subject is not considered, the ma ority content
ing themselves with the remark that the Treaty
was negotiated without the advice and con-
sent of the Senate being asked or taken con-
corning the selection of these public Ministers,
and THAT it is not difficult to see that in evil
times when the President of the United States
NAV be under influence Of foreign and adverse
interests, such a course of procedure might re-
suit in great disaster to the interests and even
the safety of our Government and people. y
This view Of the case The Post' pronounces
d" new to the history and policy Of the country. y
and then adds that it does not appear that the
Presidents right to make appointments in this
way was ever before called in question: On
the contrary, the same question has been re-
peatedly raised, and there have been many i'm
portant debates over it in the Senate. The
grandfather Of the present Secretary Of State
was appointed a Commissioner along with Mr..
Gallatin and John Quincy Adams to negotiate
a treaty with Great Britain. The Senate SOL
emily protested against the appointment as an
act not authorized by the Constitution. Dur
ing the Presidency of Mr.. Adams similar con-
trovcrsy arose over the appointment of Minis
tiers to attend the deliberations of South
| American congress The Senate resolution on
this occasion condemned the appointment as a
dangerous precedent and affirmed that the
President does not have a Constitutional right
| to select mbassadors or other public minister:
| without the consent of the Senate, except when
vacancies occur during recess, and in that
event new Offices are not to be created.
This is, in reality, an old question Of Sena-
torial privilege. and our neighbor is sadly mis-