Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

was reasonably practicable, and from the necessities of the case was compelled to leave to executive officials the duty of bringing about the result pointed out by the statute. To deny the power of Congress to delegate such a duty would, in effect, amount but to declaring that the plenary power vested in Congress to regulate foreign commerce could not be efficaciously exerted.

Before this decision was rendered the Supreme Court, in the case of Field v. Clark (143 U. S., 649), in passing upon an act of Congress which conferred upon the President the power to suspend by proclamation the free introduction of certain imports when he was satisfied that any country producing such articles imposed duties or other exactions upon the products of the United States, uses this language:

*

*

That Congress can not delegate legislative power to the President is universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution. The act of October 1, 1890, in the particular under consideration, is not inconsistent with that principle. It does not, in any real sense, invest the President with the power of legislation. The true distinction, as Judge Ranney, speaking for the Supreme Court of Ohio, has well said, is between the delegation of power to make a law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first can not be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made.

This is the most concise statement I have ever read upon the subject.

Mr. President, before concluding I want to ask the Senate this question: If there is any genuine fear here that this commission may exceed the limits of its jurisdiction and involve us in questions that may be dangerous to the interests of the Republic, why not insert in the formal ratifications a clause such as has been suggested by Senator Rooт or by Senator BACON, which, when included in the ratifications, will advise other countries of our interpretation and will practically become a part of the treaty? We can, in general terms, retain the right of the Senate, not to review in every case the judg

ment of the high commission, but its rights and the right of this Government to reject any judgment of the high commission that would assume to pass upon questions that affect the historic or traditional attitude of the United States, or the provisions of its Constitution, or its political integrity, or any other purely governmental policy. When we do this it becomes a part of the treaty, as the Supreme Court has said in the case of Doe v. Braden (16 How., 635), when it uses this language:

Where one of the parties to a treaty at the time of its ratification annexes a written declaration explaining ambiguous language in the instrument or adding a new and distinct stipulation, and the treaty is afterwards ratified by the other party with the declaration attached, involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or explanation being duly approved by the constitutional authorities of each ratifying power, the declaration thus annexed is a part of the treaty as if it were inserted in the body of the instrument.

Mr. President, I am now concluding, and as the result of my examination of this question, I will take the liberty of giving the Senate the conclusions that I have reached.

In the first place, I believe that the decision of the joint high commission is binding, and so believing, as I have said in my minority views, if the Senate deems it proper to attach to the ratifications an emphatic statement of the propositions that we will exclude from the terms of the treaty, I have no objection to such a supplementary explanation. While I believe it is wholly unnecessary, for the reasons I have given, I would not like any captious objection to a provision of this sort to stand in the way of the accomplishment of this great project that we are engaged in.

Second. As a matter of law, I do not and can not believe that if we adopt these treaties we are in any manner delegating our constitutional treaty-making power, or that we are in any way abdicating any of the rights or privileges of the Senate as defined by the Constitution.

Third. I believe that if an agreement is now made between the President and the Department of State on the one hand and the Senate on the other, by which the Senate shall be given the unlimited right to review and set aside the decision of the joint high commission, and the Senate, in pursuance of that understanding, places a clause of this sort in the formal ratifications, it would be better to rewrite the treaty, eliminating the last clause of Article 3, and take away from the joint high commission the power to decide the proposition whether a controversy is justiciable or not. It seems to me a mockery and a farce to give the joint high commission the powers that we have given it in Article 3 in the treaty, and then outside of the treaty, and contrary to its intent, to practically deprive it of the power that we have reposed in it. If the Senate is to be the final judge and the final interpreter, then there is no necessity of any intermediary process to assist it in the performance of its duty.

This process is exactly equivalent to giving a court jurisdiction of a case, and then, after it has rendered its decision, giving either to the plaintiff or the defendant the right to reverse it. The United States is a party to the case; it is only one party, and to say that after the commission decides it to be justiciable that one of the parties shall have the right arbitrarily, for any reason it may advance, to set the decision aside is an anomaly in law that never, to my knowledge, has appeared upon the pages of any civilized code of jurisprudence. If this comedy is to be enacted, then strike from the treaty the power you have vested in the commission to send the controversy to arbitration.

Senators, I am about to conclude. I am for peace and not for war. I believe in the prerogatives of the Senate, and, so far as its constitutional power is concerned, no one in this assemblage has stood more steadfast and unwavering than I have. In every public utterance that I have ever made I have abided

close to the limitations of the Constitution,and I would not take a step here that I thought invaded in the remotest degree the prerogatives of this body, as announced in our organic charter.

I want to answer another suggestion. If I thought that this treaty meant an alliance with any foreign country, I would rather see it torn into shreds than accept it. I am opposed to any alliance with Great Britain or any other country, or any measure that will lead to an alliance for any purpose whatsoever. My own opinion is that this treaty will become, if adopted in any practical shape, the pioneer of universal peace, and, however reluctant the German Government may now be to enter into the compact, the day will come, I predict, when the situation will be changed and her great people in this country, as great a race as there is among the nations of the earth, will become a party to the proceeding, and when the United States and Great Britain and Germany and France sign and seal the covenant, the era of universal peace will dawn upon the world.

I recall that in the Alabama arbitration, Lord Russell claimed that countries could never arbitrate a question of national honor, but Gladstone arrived at a different conclusion in reference to these claims, and the parties submitted to arbitration, and the award was rendered. The words "national honor" have no meaning in any vocabulary of international law. Each nation is the judge of its own honor, and no such question can be left to arbitration. I care not about its insertion in the present convention with Great Britain of 1908. The convention would answer its purpose just as well without it as with it. It is my duty to state, and I do so frankly, that I am not at al! infatuated with the wording of the treaty that is before us. With profound respect and admiration for our great Secretary of State, who occupies a foremost place upon the field of law and of diplomacy, I am not fascinated with the phraseology of this instrument. Here it is, however, before us, and the ques

tion is: What will we do with it? Seeing no legal or constitutional difficulties that surround it, I shall accept it as it is. Its transcendent purpose is the peace of the world. No technical impediment shall obstruct me in the pathway of its realization. It is bound to come. Nothing can prevent its final consummation. We may delay it, we may retard it, we may obstruct it, but we can not crush or stifle it. When it does come by universal concession it will be the greatest achievement in all the records of civilization. All hail the hour! It has

been the dream of my earlier days, and it is the fervent hope and expectation of my maturer years. Then human sacrifice will end. Then man's inhumanity to man will cease. Then the earth will no longer rock beneath the tread of battling legions. Naval armaments will no longer patrol the waters of the world in search for the possessions of unconquered races. Then, under the guidance of the God of the universe, who will direct its flight, the dove of peace will build its nest within the cannon's mouth.

TERMINATION OF THE RUSSIAN TREATY.

Senator Rayner, on December 19, 1911, joined in the general assault upon the treaty of 1832, between the United States and Russia, which barred American Jews from the Russian Empire. This convention was shortly afterward abrogated by a decisive vote of Congress.

I do not propose, at this stage of the controversy, to discuss the various joint resolutions. The discussion upon the pending joint resolution ought to be commenced by the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. LODGE, who has charge of it, and I do not intend now to say anything at all about the resolutions. There is a joint resolution from our committee. There is a House joint resolution. There is a joint resolution either offered or contemplated to be offered by the Senator from Ne

« AnteriorContinuar »