The Washington herald., 1920-09-25
Declares Congress Without
Constitutional Powers
To Direct Executive to
Abrogate Certain Sec
tions of Treaties Which
Conflict With Law.
PubIic Ledger scrviccD

President Wilson, through the
State Department yesterday, an
nounced that he would not carry out
the provisions of the merchant ma
rine act instructing him to give no.
tice to foreign governments that
they must terminate certain sections
of commercial treaties which con-
nfct with the act of the American
Congress.
The President held that Congress
is without constitutional power to
direct the Executive to abrogate
parts OF treaties.
The action sought to be imposed
upon the Executive" the President
declares. would amount to nothing
less than the breach or violation of
said treaties"
Merely AnnuIs Section "a.
In an official statement issued by
the State Department the point is
made that the Presidents refusal to
comply with the direction of Con-
gress does not nullify the entire
shipping act, but merely makes in
operative section 81, which requires
the President to serve notice on ma
tions that the merchant marine act
is supreme.
The statement said:
The Department of State has
been informed by the President that
he does not deem the direction, con-
4
merchant marine act. an exercise of
any constitutional power possessed
by the Congress.
Under the provisions of the sec
tion referred to. the President was
directed within ninety days after the
act became law, to notify the several
governments. with whom the United
States had entered into commercial
treaties. that this country elected to
terminate so much of said treaties,
as restricted the right of the United
States to impose discriminating Gus
toms duties on imports and discrimi-
natory tonnage dues, according as
the carrier vessels were domestic or
foreign, quite regardless of the fact
that these restrictions are mutual
operating equally upon the other
governments which are parties to the
treaties. and quite regardless also of
p the further fact that the treaties
contain no provisions for their ter
mination in the manner ContempIat-
ed by Congress.
President Refuses Action.
The President, therefore, consid-
ers it misleading to speak of the
termination of the restrictive
clauses of such treaties. The action
sought to be imposed upon the Ex-
ecutive would amount to nothing
less than the breach or violation of
said treaties, which are thirty-two
in number and cover every point of
contact and mutual dependence
which constitute the modern rela-
tiOns between friendly states. Such
a course would be wholly irreconcil-
able with the historical respect
which the United States has shown
for its international engagements,
and would falsify every profession
of our belief in the binding force
and the reciprocal obligation Of
treaties in general.
Secretary Colby, commenting on
the point made by the President,
that Congress had exceeded it's DOW
ers, called attention to the veto by
President Hayes of an Act passed by
Congress in 1879, which required the
President to give notice to China of
the abrogation of Articles V and VI
OF the Burlingame treaty. President
Hayes declared that the power of
making new treaties or of modifying
existing treaties is not lodged by the
Constitution in Congress, but in the
President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, as shown
by the concurrence of two-thirds of
that body"
Precedent Cited.
On this subject. as well as the ef-
tect OF an attempted partial abroga-
ton of treaty. as contemplated by
the recent Act, the words of Presi-
1ent Hayes are significant. He said:
AS the power of modifying an
existing treaty, whether by adding
Or striking out provisions, is a part
81 the treaty-malIing power under
The Constitution, its exercise is not
competent for Congress, nor would
he assent Of China to this martial
ibrogation of the treaty make the
iction of Congress in thus procuring
IN amendment of a treaty, a compe-
.ent exercise of authority under the
constitution. The Importance, how
sver. OF this special consideration
seems superseded by the principle
hat denunciation of a part of a
:resty, not made by the terms of the
Teaty itself separable from the rest.
denunciation of the whole
Testy. As the other high contract
ns party has entered into no treaty
obligations except such as include
he part denounced, the denunciation
~ one party of the part necessarily
CONTINUED ON PAGE THREE,