New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-02-16

the President for the facts relative TO the treaty
and on March 80 Of the same year the President
declined to give such information, his reasons
being stated in the message given above.
Tho answer to Washngton's message was a
resolution in effect as follows The House does
not claim an agency in making treaties, Dut
when a treaty stipulates regulations Oh any oil
the subjects submitted by the Constitution 70
tho power of Congress. it must depend lot lts
execution as to such stipulations OH a law or
laws TO be passed by Congress and that 1t is the
constitutional right and duty Of the House In all
cases to deliberate on the cNpediency or mex
pediency OF carrying such treaty into effect and
so determine and act thereon
TIE LOUISIANA CASE.
Tho next treaty in which the question dis
.inctiycy arose was that with France Oh April
IS, 1903, for the cession of Louisiana MI. JET
ferson. who was then President had maintained
inc position as above stated-that whenever Con-
srcss in its legislative action is called upon to
mako appropriations TO carry out treaty, IL
has full constitutional right TO refuse its assent
lie took care not 10 appear in any way, when
asking for action in the Louisiana treaty, 10
invade the prerogative hc had 30 fully recognized
in 1906 Measures for the proper execution Oh
the treaty were voted, however, without any
reasscrtioi of the principles of independent re-
sponsibiity laid down by the House OF Rep
resentativcs
In 1876 the Senate passed bill TO carry into
effect tho commercial convention OF 1919 win
Great Britain The bill provided that so much
of any existing act as might he contrary TO the
provisions of the convention should be deemed
TO be of no effect The House Of Representa-
tives, on the other hand, passed bill enactlng
seriatim the provisions Of the treaty. The Sen
alto refused TO concur on the ground that the
treaty was operative of itself. The House In
sisted that legislation was necessary to carry the
treaty into eject. A committee Of conference
of which Rufus King was chairman Of the Sen
alto managers, and John Forsyth of the House
managers, agreed on a bill, which was finally
adopted. or this compromise Mr.. Forsyth said ::
Your committee understood the committee OF
the Senate to admit the principle contended for
by the House, that while some treaties might
not require, others NAV require legislative pro-
vision carry them into effect; that the decision
Of the question how far such provision was neces-
sary, must b. founded upon the peculiar character
of the treaty itself"
pREROGATIvE OF TIE HOUSE AGAIN DISCUSSED.
Tho question OF the prerogative Of the House
oame up again in connection with the treaty with
Russia for the ce>son Of Alaska in that treaty
II WQS PROVIDED tnat tle territory IN NaHo-
sferred on the eNchar sc of ratifications and the
payment of an indemnity of S7,2O0,O00. The
treaty was IA lifted by the Senate May 90, 1867,
there being but two voices in the negative The
territory was transferred by Russia to the United
States October is, i 61. Wien, however, the
question of appropriation came before Congress
at the ensullg session, it was al once seen that
there was q marked division, of opinion. Ile
majority of the Committee of Foreign Affairs IN
the House reported ILL making an appropriation
TO carry the treaty into eject. minority re-
port recommended the rejection OF tile purcnas''
The majority report, While concedlng tiat there
were cases III which the assent OF the liouse TO
treaty might be properly withheld. limited such
right 10 cases PLAINLY Inconsistent WIN uc
fundamental principles. purposes or interests OF
the COnstituron. 1T was urged 'na' as inc
Alaska treaty had inringed no constltutlonally
sanctioned laws, ii should he passed
PrOtracted debate cnsued, beginning on June
80 and proceeding through July, the discussion
relating far more to the constitutional rights
of the House than to the eXpcdlency of the pir-
chase of Alaska. The tendency OF the majority
of the House was evidently 70 sanction the
Alaska purchase, but to couple the approval oI
the treaty with a reservation of the right OF
the House to approve or disapprove in all cases
in which the sanction of the House Is neccs-
sary TO execute u treaty; Finally, by vote oil
OIL TO AS resolution having features OF COM
promise strongly impressed upon IL was passed
But this compromise was not secured until the
Senate formally reJect House bill which
asserted tn ~'"rr""tl' the House IN all
legisatic
More Grant Adminlstra-
tion o. flied commercial
TO pass legisla-
whether the House
H. refuse in its legis-
acu r..s acts for the execution of
,seaties duly ratified still remains open Two
positions may be regarded as accepted in the
practical working Of the Government; one is that
without Congressional vote there can be no
appropriation Of the money which treaty re,
Quires to be paid the other is that it should
require a very strong case to Justify the, House
in refusing to pass appropriation which is
called for BY treaty duly ratified