The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-01-29
ECIPROCITY.
Senator Cullom Declares Senate
Can't Be Limited.
Can Make Any Kind of Treaty
When 1t Wills.

ion of routine business a bill providing
for the use by the United States of in
Vent1ons by its naval officers while en-
gagged in its service and covered by let
tiers patent. was passed
Mr.. Cullom Qll-) then addressed the
senate on the subject of reciprocity
treaties.
Mr. Cullom is chairman of the COM
m1ttee on foreign relations and adj
1ty of that portion of the Dingley act
Which authorized the negotiations of re-
ciprocity treaties. He said that the
wording of the provision was peculiar
and mixed, but it seemed plain that all
treaties negotiated must have been
made and ratified within two years af-
ter the passage of the act. Therefore. if
that act is to control, it would be use
less to ratify the treaties. Senator Gull
lom continued:
In my opinion the fourth section of
the Dingley act, so far as it attempts
to confer, limit. define the treaty
making power, is not only an interfer-
ence with the powers of the president
and senate, but is unconstitutional be-
cause it comes in conflict with that
clause of the constitution which says
that the president shall have power,
by and with the advice and consent of
the senate. to make treaties.
I'VE do not, therefore, derive our
treaty making powers from a law of
congress and no law of congress can
in any way modify or limit these pow
erS. The Dingley act cannot limit the
time in which we shall be allowed to
make a treaty"
Mr.. Cul1om contended that the fourth
section of the Dingley act should be
taken as a mere expression of the view
of congress, and that the president did
not need authority to make the treaties.
He entered into a long discussion of the
proceedings of the constitutional con-
vention relative to the treaty-making
power, and claimed that precedents all
showed such power was conferred
solely upon the president and senate.
The reciprocity treaties concluded with
Hawaii. Mexico and Canada did not
go into effect until congress acted, but
these treaties contained express provi-
sion that they could not become effect
i've without congressional action.
Mr.. Cullom discussed the provision of
the constitution declaring that bills
for raising revenue must originate in
the house, and said that it had not
been definitely settled what was meant
by bills for raising revenue" He
added:
From the decisions and statements
of Justices Storey, Miller and Harlan, 1
cannot see how this clause could make
it necessary to submit a reciprocity
treaty to the house before it becomes
effective. The language of the clause is
that all bills for raising revenue shall
originate in the house, and not all bills
affecting revenue, or in which revenue
may incidentally arise. A reciprocity
reduces a duty which has been laid by
law, but I maintain that the treaty
making power has authority to change
tariff law the same as it has author
ity to change any other act of congress, |
and we have seen that it has been |
clearly held from the decisions of Chief |
Justice Marshall down to the present |
that the president and senate by treaty |
can change or modify a law of con- |
gress.'
Mr.. Cullom also said:
This question before us here has |
been before the senate for a hundred |
have taken one position and that is that |
a treaty is the supreme law of the land. |
That position has been sustained by the |
supreme court. On the other hand dur |
ing all these hundred years the house of |
representatives has as a rule insisted |
that they should be considered in refer |
ence to certain treaties. That does not |
relieve the senate of the duty of stand
ing for our prerogatives and our rights, |
and insisting that the rights of the exec |
utive shall be maintained. A treaty |
made by the executive and ratified by |
the senate is the supreme law of the |
land as well as an act of congress If |
congress is not satisfied with the |
treaty, it has a perfect right to repeal |
it, let the consequences be what they !
may. But until such action is taken, the |
treaty remains a part of our municipal |
law"
IN THE HOUSE
Washington, Jan. 29.-When the house |
met today Mr.. Henry Comm reported |
the oleomargarine bill from the commit |
tee on agriculture. With the report were |
the views of the minority OF |
the committee and the substitute offer |
ed by them There being no special or |
der and no appropriation bills ready the |
committees were called
Not single committee responded and |
Mr.. Payne, IN. " the majority floor |
leader remarked sententiously that later !
on in the session members would COM |
plain that they had no opportunity I'M I
der the rules, to secure consideration |
for their bills.
Mr.. Hopkins (Ill.) reported the per-
census bill and gave notice that |
he would call it up tomorrow.
Mr.. Henry Comm asked unanimous
that the oleomargarine bill be
made a special order for Monday, Feb
ruary 3. The request met with a chorus /
of objections from the Democratic side.