Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1903-09-12
WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
VALIDITY OF CUBAN TREATY Sc.
RlouSlY DISPUTED.

Unbroken Array of Precedents Show
ing That the Senate Has No Power
to Originate Legislation Affecting
Questions of Revenue.
The strongest, ablest and most con-
vincing presentment of the Cuban reci-
procity question that has yet come un-
der our observation is that which is
embodied in a contribution to the
American Economist by Hon. Lionel A.
Sheldon of California. Mr.. Sheldon was
a member of the Forty-first, Forty-sec-
ond and Forty-third congresses and, as
is clearly indicated by his interesting
paper, is lawyer of exceptional equip
ment in the domain Of constitutional
law. He rightly wastes little time and
space In considering the moral obliga-
ton" phase of the question. That false
and specious pretext has long since
been abandoned. Sugar trust philan-
thropy exploited it quite strenuously in
the earlier stages of the controversy.
Latterly, however, moral obligation
has been shelved, and the argument in
favor of reciprocity with Cuba now
rests wholly upon the basis Of selfish
advantages to be gained by the greater
nation through a bargain forced upon
the lesser nation.
Mr.. Sheldon's objections to the pro-
posed dicker with Cuba and to the gen.
eral scheme of reciprocity in competing
products are briefly stated:
First.-The harm that would be
worked to several of our important In
dustries.
Second.-Reciprocity by treaty pro-
notes some interests to the detriment
Of others, disarranges customs laws,
creates inequalities and by the exercise
of favoritsm and discrimination COM
plicates our international relations.
"Our external commerce." he urges,
'will be best promoted under equal
laws for all nations"
Third.-The proposed Cuban treaty is
in direct violation Of the constitution
In that it originates with the executive
and the senate, whereas the constitu-
ton explicitly requires that call bills
for raising revenue shall originate IN
the house Of representatives"
1t is in connection with the consttu'
ton part of the question that Mr.. Shell
don's argument is entitled to and vii
doubtless receive the most serious con
sideration at the hands Of senators and
representatives in congress. Numerous
precedents are cited to show that from
the foundation Of the government up to
the time when early in 1903 the senate
ratified the Cuban treaty and left 1t to
90 to the house for approval it has been
uniformly and invariably held that
there is no power in the senate to origi'
nate legislation either to raise revenue
to increase revenue or to decrease reve'
nue.. On this point Mr.. Sheldon's un'
broken array of precedents would seem
to be incontrovertible. Certainly he
puts the case with unanswerable force
when he says:
"Never in the whole history Of con-
gress has q revenue or general appro'
priation bill that originated in the SEN
ate been enacted into law"
There is enough in this statement to
compel more than casual attention on
the part of thoughtful men. 1t was
we'll said by Junius that precedent be-
gets precedent" Is the country dis
posed to enter upon an era Of prece,
dents that shall strain and distort both
constitution and law? If so where shall
the dangerous procedure end?
In this very exhaustive and instruc'
tive contribution by ex-Congressman
Sheldon there is much matter Of great
gravity and profound consequence that
may we'll engage the serious regard OF
senators and representatives when an
extra session of congress shall have
been called for the express purpose OF