The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1903-06-26
The Proposed Cuban Treaty Uncon
stitutional and Void.


The strongest, ablest and most con-
yincing presentment of the Cuban reci-
procity question that has yet come under
our observation is that which is embod
led in contribution to the American
Economist by Hon. Lionel A. Sheldon
of California. Mr.. Sheldon was mem
Der of the Forty first, Forty and
Forty third Congresses, and, as is clear
ly indicated by his interesting paper, is
a lawyer of exceptional equipment in
the domain of constitutional law. He
rightly wastes little time and space in
considering the moral obligation"
phase of the question. That false and
specious pretext has long since been
abandoned. Sugar trust philanthropy
exploited it quite strenuously in the
earlier stages OF the controversy. Lat
terly, however "moral obligation" has
been shelved, and the argument in favor
of reciprocity with Cuba now rests
wholly upon the basis of selfish advan-
tages to be gained by the greater nation
through a bargain forced upon the less
er nation.
MIR. Sheldon's objections to the pro-
posed dicker with Cuba and to the gen
eral scheme of reciprocity in competing
products are briefly stated:
1. The harm that would be worked
to several of our important industries
2. Reciprocity by treaty promotes
some interests to the detriment of others,
disarranges customs laws, creates in
CAPABILITIES, and by the exercise of favor
ism and discrimination complicates our
international relations. Our external
commerce" he urges, will be best pro-
NOTED under equal laws for all nations. ,"
g. The proposed Cuban treaty is in
direct violation of the constitution in
that it originates with the executive and
the senate, whereas the constitution ex-
plicitly requires that "all bills for rails
ing revenue shall originate in the house
of representatives"
1t is in connection with the constitu
lion part of the question that Mr., Shell
don's argument is entitled to and will
doubtless receive the most serious con-
sideration at the hands of senator's 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 sem
ate ratified the Cuban treaty and left it
to go 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 I'M
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 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 wa
well said by Junius that Precedent be $
gets precedent" Is the country dis
posed to enter upon an era of precedents
that shall strain and distort both con-
stitution 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 well engage the serious regard of
senators and representatives when an
extra session of congress shall have been
called for the express purpose of forcing
final action on the Cuban treaty.
American Economist