The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-01-09
A CORRESPONDENT WANTS OUR
RIASONS.

The letter from Lexington, Va, which
we print elsewhere. signed -. s." de-
serves special attention. and should
have been sooner noticed. but we proceed
10 answer our correspondent this morn
ing. and to state the reasons why We
think MIR. Olney is wrong in holding that
Il belongs TO the President exclusively
10 recognize foreign powers with which
this country is to have relations.
The President has undoubtedly eNer-
ciscd this function since our Government
was instituted. but the fact of his doing
so is a relic of middle-age semi-barbarism
and I'm no way rests upon any grant IN
our Constitution. or upon any Of the
analogies of our institutions.
Under feudal institutions the King was
the head of the state. Much as 1t has
been quoted TO be Knocked at when
Louis XIV. said "retat cest moi he
quite correctly expressed the feudal idea
OF the King. The King spoke Of the coun-
try's army as my army" and of the
people as my people" ana OF foreign
powers as my friends" and the German
Emperor. and even Queen Victoria. do
the same at this day.
When therefore. under fcudal insii-
tutions. a foreign power was recognized
as friend or an enemy. il was FecOg
n!zed as a friend or an enemy 10 the
King. and not 10 the country. The King
sent TO it his Ambassador" who. In
no sense represented he people Of the
country. but the person. the dignity. tie
character and the pre- emiuence OF Tire
King himself. 1t was. in certain sense.
the presence OF the King himself at that
foreign court. That Is the root out or
which grew the idea that 'oreign power
Is TO be recognized by the executive head
OF government.
When we commenced TO do business one
hundred years ego under our Constitu-
ton, the Government had leiOre its eyes
the fact that the executive heads OF all
other governments exesNised the function
Of recognizing foreign powers. Nothing.
therefore, was more natural than that
1t should fan into the same practice. and
as no public interests called upon any
one TO make an objection. the thing was
allowed 20 30 on as though it were regu-
lar But an abuse Of that character can
never become one OF our fixed institutions.
however long il may be tolerated. Back
OF 1t lay the fact that it was The as
sumption OF kingly prerogativc by our
Executive when the whole idea Of our
Constitution was that the Executive head
Of the Government should be absolutely
cut of from al "prerogativc." and
should have no powers except those eX-
pressly conferred upon it by law.
That Is the idea upon which all Of our
institutions rest. We are a land govern
ed BY law and the law can be made in
but one way. which is by the concurrent
act OF the two houses OF Congress and
the President Of the United States The
idea that foreign powers are no longer
tc be the personal friends or enemies Of
the Executive head OF the Government
being now the accepted one it follows
that the relations between this country
and those foreign powers are as rucn
subject 10 be regulated by law as any
other subject whatever.
This. IT seems 10 us Is necessarily the
conclusion forced upon Us by the analo-
gies OF the case In the absence Of any
provision upon the subject in the Con
stltuuon. For. as we have already point
ed out. we look upon the provision OF that
instrument that the President shall
receive" foreign ministers as meaning
no moro than that 1t shall belong to
him 10 inspect their credentials and dc
ternine that the individual coming as
@ Minister from France or Germany has