Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-12-05
THE BRAZILIAN TREATY
Correspondence With Minister Mendonoa
Sent to the Senate.
Secretary Gresham's Argument That
the Reciprocity Treaties Were
Ended by the Tariff Act.

The President today sent to the Senate
the correspondence With the Brazilian min
lister here, In referenceito the time of ter
mination of the Brazilian reciprocity ar
rangement, about which there has been
some controversy.
The correspondence begins with a note to
Secretary Gresham from Minister Mendon-
ca, of date September "a last, in which
the minister notifies the Secretary that
his government has informed Mr.. Thomp-
son, United States minister at Rio, Of it's
intention to terminate the agreement, in
accordance with the stipulation therein
contained regarding it's duration, so that
the termination shall take effect January
/, 1895.
In response, under date of October &C.
Secretary Gresham comments upon the
fact that the Brazilian government deems
1t necessary to terminate the treaty on
January l. He Gays that the act of Au-
gust % last repealed these agreements
where they were inconsistent with it's pro-
visions Consequently, notice of an in
tention to terminate them was not contem-
plated and was unnecessary by reason of
their immediate termination.
The minister's note, however seems to
imply that the United States and Brazil
had contracted an obligation not to ter
inmate the arrange ment except in the
manner stipulated in the negotiations lead
ing up to IT. The Secretary proceeds to
discuss that question at some length He
quotes from the correspondence, among
other things, the paragraph accepted by
Secretary Blaine, providing that the ar
rangement should remain in force so long
as neither government should definitely, at
least three months in advance, inform the
other of its intention to terminate IT at the
expiration of the indicated time; provided
that the termination shall begin either on
January / or July l. The Secretary argues
that this arrangement rested wholly on
legislation adopted by the two countries,
and was subject to such legislation. 1t is
not suggested that the Mckinley law con-
ferred on the executive any power to bind
Congress In Its future action as to duties.
Governments are expected to take notice
of the provisions of their respective con-
stitutions, and the Constitution of the
United States points the way in which
treaties may be made-1hrst by the Pres
ident and then by the advice and consent
of the Senate.
In the few cases in which reciprocity
treaties have been ratified and carried into
effect by the United States they have en-
countered criticism andf opposition on the
ground that they restricted the exercise of
the treaty making power. Therefore 1T
cannot be assumed. in view of these we'll
known principles of law and fact, that II
was intended by the simple exchange of
notes in 1891 to bind our government as by
a treaty beyond the time when Congress
might in the exercise of its constitutional
powers, repeal the legislation under which
the agreement was concluded. 1t is as
sumed that the stipulation OF the notes re-
ferred to in relation to the termination of
the arrangement was made with reference
to the power invested in the President to
suspend the provisions touching free entry
under certain conditions to be determined
by himself
In conclusion. the Secretary says that
the friendly disposition of this government
toward Brazil is attested by it's present
tariff legislation. placing the great bulk of
Brazilian exports on the free list. While
our imports from Brazil from 1880 to 1888
increased to the extent of nearly seven
teen millions of dollars in value, our ex-
ports to that country in 1888 show an in
crease of less than half a million dollars
over 1890.