The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-09-04

press mot in harmony with the treaty., the COM
mittee preferred to have 1t done IN that way. A
subcommittee OF three mad talked the
matter over in a most friendly manner
with Secretary Bsyard and the Secretary
had entered into negotiations with the Chinese
government In view Of the proposed modidca-
tions of the treaty. The new treaty had been
ratified by the Senate with amendments to
make IL clear, and which amendments il was
supposed the Chinese minister would have
agreed TO. He supposed from whst the newspapers
said that the rejection of the treaty by the Chi
nese government was connected with the Aus
tIaliau complications 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 conceded TO
the United States. He therefore would not
make any objection to the passage of the bill,
aud he hoped it would pass; but this was with
the distinct understanding that the House had
passed it with the knowledge that the new
treaty had been rejected by the Chinese govern
ment. IL that should prove otherwise, the
fault would not be- that of the Senate.
Mr.. Butler-If this bill should become law
would il not be in direct contravention of the
treaty between the United States and Gilman
Mr.. Sherman think that the bill is incon-
sistept with the treaty, but as the Chinese gov
eminent declines to make the proposed changes
we have the uuouestioned right to pass the
bill.
Mr.. Bu,ler-So that thsre is a treaty now ex-
listing between the United States and China with
which the bill comes in conflict
Mr.. Sherman -Cndoubtedly, because. under
it, it is provided that for a 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 Unsuitable.
NJ. Butler-Theny you admit that this bill is a
violation of the treaty. and therefore q violation
of the Constitution OF the United Statesl
Mr.. Sherman-I deny the ergo.
MIR. Butler-I will take back the ergo, because
It is not a violation of the Constitution, but you
admit that it is q violation Of an existing treaty.
Mr.. Teller-The term violation" is not a
proper term where there is Legislative displace-
ment of a treaty. Abrogation is the term.
Mr.. Butle--Now / understand the Senator
from Ohio to state that this act will be q viola
ton of existing treaty.
Nh. Sherman-I did not use the word viola
ton"
Mr.. Butler-What is the wordl
Mr.. Sherman-It is the sbrogation OF a treaty;
just as q law may be sbrogated. A treaty is q
law.
MI Butler-This is an abrogat;on then Of the
treaty between the United States and Chiual
Nh. Sherman-Ir is q substantial change.
Mr.. Butler-Is this the form in which 1t is
provided that the treaty may De abrogatsd-
Mr.. Sherman-It is not; but there is no
doubt of the power OF Congress to repeal q treaty
if it chooses to exercise that power. Every
nation has that right.
Mr.. Butler-I understand that very well. But
it seems to me that this whole Chinese business
has been a matter of political advantage, and
that we have not been governed by that delib-
GRAFTON which the gravity of the question re-
quires. There is q very important presidential
election pending. One house OF Congress pass
es a bill to drive these poor devils OF Cinnamon
into the Pacific ocean. and the other House
comes up and says: Yes, we will drive them
still further into the Pacific ocean, nothwitn-
standing the treaty between the two govern
ments.' shall vote for the bill, but | am very
sorry to be informed by the Senator from Ohio
that it is a violation of the treaty.
Mr.. Teller-Not a violation of il.
Mr. Butler-Well, an abroestion Of the treaty.
Mr.. Mitchell-Is the Senator from South Car
DINA willing to vote for a bill which would. in
his Judgment, contravene the provisions of an
existing treaty.
MI. Butier-Yes, under the leadership of my
distinguished friend from Ohio mir. ShermanI,
who would not hesitate q moment to abrogate q
treaty and violate its provisions so far as tho
Chinese are concerned.
Mr. Mitchell-Is it the opinion Of the Senator
from South Carolina that the pending bill does
contravene any of the provisions of the existing
treaty3
because / am not informed upon it. 1 appealed
TO the Senator from Ohio, and he tells me that
it does.
Nh. M~itcheIl-Then the Senator from South
Carolina is shutting his eyes, and willing to vote
for a bill about which he has no opinion at all.
Mr.. Butler-You ought not to complain of
that.
Nh. MITCHELL am not complaining of it. I
want TO know where the Senator stands.
Mr.. Butler-Right behind the Senator from
Oregon.
Nj. Mitchell-A good place to stand.
Mr.. Butler-It gives me great pleasure to fol-
low him. IL he leads me astray he will be held
responsible, and not /. The bill is an open,
fragrant violation of a treaty between this gov
eminent and a government with which 1T is on
terms of peace and good will.
Mr.. Mitchell-Does the Senator think that
the repeal Of an existing law is a violation of
that lawi
Mr.. Butler-I think there is q good deal of
the game of politics In th,s whole business, and
it is not a very seemly thing, either. But for
the fact that we ara 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 enacted in the Senate.
Mr.. Mitchell-The Senator is speaking about
his own party.
Mr.. Tsller-How about the House Of Repre-
sentativss passing this billl
Mr.. Burler-The Republican Senate proposes
to '.see the House play and 60 ono better" That
Is the plain English Of it. You may call 10 .
coutravention, q repeal. an abroRation OF an ex-
listing treaty, but the plain English Of it is that
it is the violation Of q treaty. You cau't dodge
it.
Mr.. Mitchell argued that Congress has as
much power TO repeal 9. treaty as it has to re-
peal a law. That had been decided over and
over again by the Supreme Court. II occurred
to him that if a Democratic House thought it
necessary TO present q DILL which repealed .
condition of the treaty it should have gone a
little further and made the bill more Of
fective by covering the whole ground. He was
thankful for so much Of the bill, however, and
he would not delay its passage by offering any
amendment.
The debate was continued at much length by
Serator-Gray, who deprecated the action of the
Senate in putting unnecessary amendments on
the treaty, which would have fully accomplis led
the purpose OF the pending bill, and by Senators
Stewart. Vest. Dolph, Mitchell and George.
The latter made a long argument to prove that
the Republicans were responsible for the Bur
lingame treaty and for the rejection of various
measures TO restrict Chinese immigration. This
argument was traversed by Mr.. Mitchell. He
declared that Mr.. George, in asserting that the
Republican party was responsible for opening
the door to Chinese immigration, was asserting
his own ignorance of what he was talking about,
and that the door had been opened by the Dem
ocratic party Of California.
As Mr.. Morgan desired to speak OH the bill, it
went over till tomorrow. Adjourned.
Proceedings of the House.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3.-In the House, to-day,
Mr.. Scott. of Pennsylvana, asked unanimous