226 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



adjustment of all complaints between the two nations 

 have been repelled with indignity," and that " under 

 authority of the French Government there is yet pur- 

 sued against the United States a system of predatory 

 violence, infracting the said treaties, and hostile to the 

 rights or a free and independent nation." 



The enactment, as a logical consequence of these 

 recited facts, declares " that the United States are of 

 right freed and exonerated from the stipulations of 

 the treaties and of the consular convention heretofore 

 concluded between the United States and France, and 

 that the same shall not henceforth be regarded as 

 legally obligatory on the Government or citizens of 

 tie United States." 



The history of the Government shows no other in- 

 stance of an abrogation of a treaty by Congress^ In- 

 stances have sometimes occurred where the ordinary 

 legislation of Congress has, by its conflict with some 

 treaty obligation of the Government toward a foreign 

 power, taken eifect as an infraction of the treaty, and 

 been judicially declared to be operative to that result. 

 But neither such legislation nor such judicial sanction 

 of the same has been regarded as an abrogation, even 

 for the moment, of the treaty. On the contrary, the 

 treaty in such case still subsists between the govern- 

 ments, and the casual infraction is repaired by appro- 

 priate satisfaction in maintenance of the treaty. 



The bill before me does not enjoin upon the Presi- 

 dent the abrogation of the entire Burlmgame treaty, 

 much less of the principal treaty of which it is made 

 the supplement. As the power of modifying an exist- 

 ing treaty, whether by adding or striking out provi- 

 sions, is a part of the treaty-making power under the 

 Constitution, its exercise is not competent for Con- 

 gress, nor would the assent of China to this partial 

 abrogation of the treaty make the action of Congress, 

 in thus procuring an amendment of a treaty, a com- 

 petent exercise of authority under the Constitution. 

 The importance, however, of this special consideration 

 seems superseded by the principle that a denunciation 

 of a part of a treaty, not made by the terms of the 

 treaty itself separable from the rest, is a denunciation 

 of the whole treaty. As the other high contracting 

 party has entered into no treaty obligations except 

 such as include the part denounced, the denunciation 

 by one party of the part necessarily liberates the other 

 party from the whole treaty. 



I am convinced that, whatever urgency might in 

 any quarter or by any interest be supposed to require 

 an instant suppression of further immigration from 

 China, no reasons can require the immediate with- 

 drawal of our treaty protection of the Chinese already 

 in this country, and no circumstances can tolerate an 

 exposure of our citizens in China, merchants or mis- 

 sionaries, to the consequences of so sudden an abroga- 

 tion of their treaty protections. Fortunately, how- 

 ever, the actual recession in the flow of the emigration 

 from China to the Pacific coast, shown by trustworthy 

 statistics, relieves us from any apprehension that the 

 treatment of the subject in the proper course of diplo- 

 matic negotiations will introduce any new features of 

 discontent or disturbance among the communities di- 

 . rectly affected. Were such delay fraught with more 

 inconveniences than have ever been suggested by the 

 interests most earnest in promoting this legislation, 

 I can not but regard the summary disturbance of our 

 existing treaties with China as greatly more incon- 

 venient to much wider and more permanent interests 

 of the country. 



' I have no occasion to insist upon the more general 

 considerations of interest and duty which sacredly 

 guard the faith of the nation in whatever form of obli- 

 gation it may have been given. These sentiments 

 animate the deliberations of Congress and pervade the 

 minds of our whole people. Our history gives little 

 occasion for any reproach in this regard, and in ask- 

 ing the renewed attention of Congress to this bill I 

 am persuaded that their action will maintain the pub- 

 lic duty and the public honor. 



B. B. HAYES. 

 ErsounvK MANSION, March 1, 1879. 



The Speaker: "The question is, Will the 

 House on reconsideration pass this bill, not- 

 withstanding the objections of the President ? " 



The question was taken, and resulted as fol- 

 lows: 



YEAS Atkins, Banning, Bayne. Beebe, Bell, Black- 

 burn, Boone, Brentano, Bridges, Butler, Cabell, John 

 W. Caldwell, Carlisle, Chalmers, Clarke of Kentucky, 

 Clark of Missouri, Cobb, Cole, Collins, Cook, Covert, 

 Samuel S. Cox, Cravens, Crittenden, Culbersonj Hor- 

 ace Davis, Joseph J. Davis, Deering, Dibrell, Dickey, 

 Durham, Eden, Eickhoff, Elam, Errett, I. Newton 

 Evans, John H. Evins, Ewing, Ebenezer B. Finley, 

 Jesse J. Finley, Forney. Fort, Foster, Garth, Gause, 

 Giddin<*s, Glover, Goode, Gunter, Hale. Hamilton, 

 Harmer, Hartzell, Hayes, Hazelton, Henkle, Henry, 

 Herbert, House, Hubbell, Frank Jones, James T. 

 Jones, Jorgensen, Kenna, Kimmel, Knott, Ligon, 

 Luttrell, Maish, Majors, Manning, Marsh, Martin, 

 May ham, McKenzie, McMahon, Mills, Money, Mul- 

 drow, Muller, Neal, Page. T. M. Patterson, Bea, 

 Eeagan, Eeilly, Americus V. Bice. Eobertson, Boss, 

 Sayler, Scales. Shallenberger, Shelley, Singleton, 

 Slemons, Southard, Sparks, Steele. Stenger, E. W. 

 Townshend, Turner. Turney, Walker, Whitthorne, 

 Wi<rginton. Jere N. Williams, Eichard Williams, Al- 

 bert S. Willis, Wright, Yeates 110. 



NAYS Aldrich, Bacon. Bagley, William II. Baker, 

 Ballou, Banks, Blair, Bliss, Boyd, Brewer, Briggs, 

 Browne, Bundy. Burchard, Burdick, Camp, Candler, 

 Cannon, Caswell, Eush Clark, Conger, Crapo, Cum- 

 mings, Cutler, Danford, Denison, Dunnell, Dwight, 

 Eames, James L. Evans, Frye, Gardner, Garneld, 

 Hardenbergh, Benjamin W. Harris, Henry E. Hams, 

 John T. Harris, Henderson, Abram S. Hewitt, Hun- 

 ter, Humphrey. Hungerford, Ittner, James, John S. 

 Jones, Keifer, Kelley, Ketcham, Killinger. Landers, 

 Lapham. Lathrop, Lindsey, McCook, Mitchell, Mon- 

 roe, Morse, Norcross, Oliver, Oyerton, G. W. Patter- 

 son, Peddie, Phelps. Phillips, Price, Pridemore. Pugh, 

 Eainey, Eandolph, William W. Eice, G. D. Bobinson, 

 M. S. Bobinson. Sampson, Sexton, Sinnickson, Smalls, 

 A. Herr Smith, Starin, Stewart, John W. Stone, 

 Joseph C. Stone, Strait, Thompson, Amos Townsend, 

 M. I. Townsend, Waddell, Wait, Ward, Warner, 

 Wateon, Harry White, Michael D. White, Andrew 

 Williams, C. G. Williams, James Williams, Benjamin 

 A. Willis 96. 



NOT VOTING Acklen, Aiken, Bailey, John H. 

 Baker, Beale, Benedict, Bicknell, Bland, Blount, 

 Bouck, Bragg, Bright, Brogden, Buckner, Cam, W. 

 P. Caldwell, Calkins, Campbell. Chittenden, Claflm, 

 Alvah A. Clark, Clymer, Jacob D. Cox, Davidson, 

 Dean, Ellis. Ellsworth, Felton, Fleming, Franklin, 

 Freeman, Fuller, Gibson, Hanna, Harrison, Hart, 

 Haskell, Hatcher, Hendee.G. W. Hewitt, Hiscock, 

 Hooker, Hunton, Joyce, Keightley, Knapp Lock- 

 wood, Loring, Lynde, Mackey, McGowan, McKmley, 

 Metcalfe, Morgan, Morrison, O'Neill, Pollard, Potter, 

 Pound. Powers-Eeed, Eiddle, Bobbins, Eoberts, Eyan, 

 Sapp, William E. Smith, Springer, Stephens, Swann, 

 Thomburgh, Throckmorton, Tipton, Tucker, Vance, 

 Van Vorhes, Veeder, Walsh, Willits, Wilson, Wood, 

 Wren, Casey Young, John S. Young 84. 



So the House refused to pass the bill, not- 

 withstanding the objections of the President. 



In the House, on February 2d, the bill mak- 

 ing appropriations for the support of the army 

 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, was 

 considered. 



Mr. Hewitt of New York said : " "W hen I re- 

 ported the army appropriation bill last year, 

 I undertook to show the House (and I think I 

 succeeded in showing) that the army could be 

 reorganized so as not to impair its efficiency 



