New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-24
For Dond'u
Lameness, | OAu b
Soreness, 1?vtpoot
Bruises. GAQQGl.
AVOID SUBSTITUTES. GENUINE MADE ONh,
BY POND'> EXTRACT CO., ~ FIFTH A'HN'"'
NEW.HORK.
TREATY RIGHTS OF ALIENS.
PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR VIOLATION.

SENATOR'S DISCUSS THE BILL TO HAVE SUCH
CASES TRIED ~ FEDERAL COURTS.
washington. May 23.-In the Senate today the u" uh'
| finished business" taken up was the senate Dill l"
provide for the punishment Of violations OF treaty
rights OF aliens. Mr.. Doph, who introduced the Dill
| and afterwar, reported II from the Committee on
Foreign Relations, made explanation OF IL Us DC
| Ing simple In It's provsIons-merey making an act
| which constitutes a crime under state statutes
crime when committed against the subject oil foreign
country, and making 1t punishable In the united
| states courts.
| Mr.. Palmer suggested objection TO the Dill
| that Congress had no power 10 pass law wmch
would operate differently in forty -four diHereht us
| trlcs Of the same country.
Mr.. Gray, taking the same view, remarked that IL
| was absurd to suppose that Congress shOnld pnsS
| u criminal code that could be repealed or modified
| BY forty four different sovercicnties.
Mr. Dolph replied TO this objection and argued that
Congless did lcgislatc for different forms Of pro
ccduro in the various Territories. lie thought that
the bill constitutional and that 1t would ac-
compsh the object sought.
Mr. Gray argued that Congress could not Delegate
to other legislative bodies It's own legislative power
but that II must lin order to protect acns) enact
criminal code. defining crimes and fixing punish
ment But the pen Hing bill adopted forty four criminal
codes codes OF the United states. Congress might
well, he SIlu. a1opt the criminal cOc Vi
Britain subject b. notifications by Parliament.
Mr.. Palmer argued the line and denied
the power of the United states provide different
punshmcntN for similar crimes In forty four states
Of the Union. lie also argued that nothing could
he more unfortunate for the unnaturllycd portion Of
the population than the enactment OF law which
would take 1t out Of the jurisdiction OF the state
1t would introduce divisions and strife, con
fusion and wrong II is unnecessary and mschicv-
ou- The establishment OF such a distinction between
aliens and citizens would practically place the protcc-
ton Of the rights Of aliens In the hands of two d.
tinct jursdictions and aliens would lose By 1t mor>
than they wouh gain
Mr.. Villas favored the reference Il the bnl to the
judiciary Committee. lie vas not prepared to
that Il constitution, in every particular although
he had the opinion that there were features Of In
which would bc pronounced unconstitutional.
Mr.. Davis a member Of the Committee on Foreign
Relations sad that he had been associated with Mr.
Doph In the preparation Of the bill. ard replied TO
the objections made against H. and argued In favor
u IT. passage.
Mr.. Iiarri, moved To refer the bin to the Jndi
cinry Committee, and Mr. Teller. not wishing to
have a stigma placed on the Committee on Foreign
Relations. moved 10 have the bill rccommittei.
Mr.. Morgan. a member Of the Committee on Foreign
Relations. made argument in defence and advocacy
u the bill. The United states. Mr. Morgan said. was
receiving tho opprobrum and contempt Of foreign
United states had no power TO fuih IT. treaty stpI-
laons IN the protection 81 the subjects Of foreign
powers Tho United states would have to stop max.
Ing treaties the guarantee Of American citizens
abroad and for tn" corrcaiivc 1nntcc ~ the subjects
o. fcrlgn powers here else It would have to ind
system Of Inv by which the rights OF aliens should
10 protected.
In the course 81 a review Of the NewOrleans at |
tack upon italian prisoners. Mr.. GRAY asked Mr. |
Morgan whit difference II would have made In that |
rnsc II IN" pending measure hnd been q INV. Would |
II not have been necessary for the United states /
authorities 10 present the facts 10 grand nry of the
sfcnng~ and would there have been any difference In |
he result What could the United States have done, !
nor than Louisiana had done
Mr.. MOrg1n'S answer 10 tho effect TINT the |
nlis states could then reply n the italian Govern |
ncnt that IN. legal remedy hnd been supplied.
Mr.. kcnnn asked him whether the proposed act |
would tax" jurisdiction ont ~ the state courts. and
vest II exclusively I'm tho Federal courts.
Nr. Morgnn would not that II would do that.
without finishing his argument. Mr. Morgan Welded
or motion q adjourn and the senate nj 3 D. m
VI ourncd I'LL 10 morrow