New-York tribune., 1920-09-27
A Law Unto Himself

Inc PRESIDENT takes an oath to eX-
ecute the laws. Congress passed a
shipping bill at the last session and
Mr.. Wilson gave it his approval.
His refusal now to execute it empha-
sizes again the purely personal and
arbitrary character of his concep-
tions of government.
The reasons given for this refusal
reveal an extraordinary capricious-
ness Of judgment. The section of
the shipping act directing the Pres
ident to give notice of the termina-
ton of engagements with foreign
powers which interfere with the lay
ing of discriminatory duties on i'm
ports followed closely the language
of the section of the La Toilette sea-
mems act which directed the Presi-
dent to give notice of the termination
Of agreements inconsistent with its
provisions. Mr.. Wilson signed the
La Toilette act and modified those
agreements, without, however, inn
pairing the validity of other por-
tions of our treaties of commerce and
navigation. What he did then he de-
clines to do now, on the ground, ap-
parently, that the Unieed States is
under moral obligation to prolong
indefinitely it's existing commercial
agreements with foreign powers.
The President also suggests that
the shipping act infringes his consti-
tutional prerogatives. He vetoed the
Federal budget act Of the last ses.
sion because Of an alleged infringe
ment, exceedingly trivial in it's con-
sequences. But he refrained from
vetoing the shipping act, although a
protest against the section regarding
the termination Of certain parts OF
existing agreements with other coun
tries was made at the time by Secre
tary Colby.
AS to the main question now raised
the inviolability II trade and navi
! gaIlon compacts-common sense anC
practice are all against the Presi
dents contention. Such treaties arr
not intended to be perpetual. They
usually contain clauses providing fol
termination. Twelve South Ameri
can countries and one European
country have terminated such agree
ments with the United States by CIV
ing the stipulated one years notice
1t is incomprehensble that any
breach Of faith should be charged
against a nation wishing to with
draw concessions which arc termi
nable at the option Of either party.
Our treaty Of commerce will
/ Great Britain, proclaimed in 1923
contains an article providing for it.
termination on one years notice, a
any time after 1888. Great Britain
however, subsequently accepted tn,
reciprocity proposals contained in al
act Of Congress passed in 1928, ant
her shipping relations with US ar
determined by that act as we'll as b,
the treaty. Yet Congress can repea
or modify the act Of 1928. The ship
ping bill, in fact, constitutes an indi
rect modification Of it.
Secretary Colby's recent statemen
seems to be based On the contention
that the United States cannot abro
gate part of treaty without abro
eating the whole of it. But thi
argument is elusive. The Wilson Ad
ministration did abrogate parts O
treaties when it enforced the La Fol
lette seamen's act. And the Suprem
Court has held that subsequent legis
lation by Congress can affect ,
treaty 80 far as it's execution within
the United States is concerned.
Mr.. Wilson's refusal to apply Sec
tion 81 Of the shipping act is NJ
doubt due at once to his contempt To-