The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-03-28

Under the heading, Treaties and tn
Law of the Land. The Journal of Com
merce has the following sensible com
ment:
An effort is being made to Sc
cure a change in the federal judi
ciary law providing for an appeal
to the supreme court in cases
which involve q treaty right. A
bill for this purpose is now before
the judiciary committee Of the
house. This was drafted by the at
torney general, it Is said, at the
instance Of the secretary Of the
treasury. specifically with a view
to carrying to the supreme court
the question Of the validity Of the
rebate Of s per cent from duties
UPON imports brought in American
vessels, which has been carried to
the court of customs appeals from
tho decision Of the board Of gen.
sral appraisers, but which can go
no further without Il change in the
Judiciary law allowing an appeal
to the supreme court in such
The secretary OF the treasury. 1t
will be recalled, has held that this
rebate cannot be allowed to Amer
lean vessels without being granted
to those Of other nations with
which we have treaties binding
the Eeverhraent not to make any
such discrimination, because there
In q pFevtgo to the provision in the
tariff act specifically declaring
fAat 1t shall not DO construed to
seTes4te, impair or IN any way at
feet any provision In q treaty with
other natAens. TO any ordinary
minds this would make it perfect
w clear that IL the rebate was al
lowed, upon goods brought in
American vessels 1t would have no
be allowed upon those imported
In vessels OF several other nations
with which we have undoubtedly
agreed not to make any discrim-
4hatiea In that respect. In spite
OF tho plain language and evident
meaning Of this jroy!so and the
known purpose OF putting 1t into
the tariff bill in conference COM
snittee, the board OF general an-
pfaiseTs has held that the discrina-
iRatieF may and should be made
90 American vessels only, because
st assumes that such was the IN
Ieiitiea Of tho provision in grant
Ing the rebate at all. II allowed to
the other tfeaty nations, which in
Glide those having the largest
amount OF shipping and Of trade
with the United states, American
vessels would receive little or no
benefit from It.
not change the meaning Of the
proviso. This construction would
~ accented, deprive 1t of all Q
Ing. end 1t may be assumed that 1t
was intended to have a meaning.
The question Is said to be raised
In considering the matter at
Washington whether the law Of
the land ~supersedes a treaty right
or whether a treaty right super
sedes the law Of the land. This
question Is as foolish as the other.
A treaty Is the law Of the land,
Just as much as an act Of con-
eress. And either may modify or
supersede the other. It, depends
upon which is the latest. The con-
~sfitution itself says in SO many
words: "This constitution and the
laws Of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance there
OF, and all treaties made or which
shall be made under the authority
OF the United States, shall be the
supreme law Of the land" An%act
of congress may repeal or modify
a previous act, and it may by pro-
yiso in regard to any particular
provision declare that It shall mo-
repeal, impair or affect anything
In a previous act. There is no
doubt about what that naeans, II
may also declare that a particular
provision shall not abrogate, i'm
pair or affect any previous treaty
provision. That is precisely what
this tariff prcyiso does and the
meaning is just as clear in one
case as the other.