The sun., 1906-02-20

The Washington Post expresses sur
prise that THE Sun should even think OF
a Joint resolution as a means Of dealing
with those conditions in Santo Domingo
which have been described as dangerous
by President ROOSEVELT
If the treaty should fail on account Of
what our contemporary agrees with us IN
regarding as most vicious, outrageous
and revolutionary resort by the minority
of the Senate to caucus dictation, there
remains an equally constitutional method
Of making effective the policy which the
President has proposed for safeguarding
our national interests with regard to
Santo Domingo. We are not discussing
now the merits of the case, or the neces-
sity for intervention; merely the eff
cheney, constitutionalty and entire pro-
prietv of the alternative form of legisla-
ton.
OF this there is not the least question.
A Joint resolution when adopted by both
houses of Congress and approved by
the Executive becomes the law of the
land, Just as treaty becomes the law
Of the land when it has been ratified by
the Senate. The status of one form Of
law is no higher than that of the other.
The difference between the two is solely
in the machinery of enactment. The
treaty requires a two-thirds vote in the
Senate, without any action or partcipa-
ton by the House, The joint resolution
requires a majority vote in both Senate
and House. Both require tho approval
making power. except that in the absence
of his approval the joint resolution may
become operative, over his veto, by a
two-thirds vote in both houses.
Now, why does the Washington Post
believe or pretend to believe that the
establishment by joint resolution of a
policy of Intervention in Santo Domingo
would be "evading the Constitution. to
use its own singular language; or that
it would be "violation of the spirit Of
the Constitution"; or that it would be
as dangerous, revolutionary and out
rageous as the plan attempted by the
Democrats in the Senate?
Has our contemporary forgotten by
what process intervention in Cuba WIS
undertaken eight years ago?
If So we recall it's attention to the
speech delivered in the House on April
10, 1893, by the Hon. JOSEPH W. BAILEY
of Texas, urging the adoption Of a
policy of intervention in Cuba by means
of a joint resolution proposed by the
| Democratic minority as a substitute for
| the joint resolution reported by the
majority. Tho joint resolution of tho
! Democrats went oven further than that
of the Republicans. The Democratic
! Joint resolution recognized tho indie
| pendencc of the Republic Of Cuba; it
directed the President to employ imme-
| United States to assist Cuba in main
tanning her recognized independence
| 1t directed the President to extend immc-
diate relief TO the starving people OF
! Cuba. There was no talk in any quarter
so far as we remember, of the constit,l.
tional inferiority of this method of pro,
ceeding to intervene in Cuba.
And if the Democratic JOINT resolution
had been adopted, as the Republican
Joint resolution was adopted. does the
Washington Post think that the consti
tutional warrant for the proposed policy
with regard to Cuba would have beer
weaker or the authority and duty of tn,
President to act lcssened in any degree
had il happened that the joint rcsolu
ton passed by "a bare majority in botl
houses of Congress-?
Mr. Speaker" shouted Mr.. BALE
of Texas, amid vocifcrous expressions
of Democratic approval, I'VE woulc
rather have action at last without dis
cussion than to have the practice of th
last twelve months allowing amp
discussion and no decision"