238 



CONGRESS. (RECIPROCITY TREATIES.) 



NAYS Brown, Colquitt, Hampton, Harris, Kenna, 

 Maxey, Morgan, Saulsbury, Slater, Vest 10. 



ABSENT Butler, Call, Cameron of Pennsylvania, 

 Edmunds, Farley, George, Groome, Hill, Jones of Ne- 

 vada, Logan, Mahone, Miller of New York, Ransom, 

 Eiddleberger 14. 



Reciprocity Treaties. The passages in the 

 President's message suggesting a policy of com- 

 mercial reciprocity with various neighboring 

 nations, the submission of proposed reciprocity 

 treaties with Spain, Nicaragua, and Mexico, 

 and the negotiation of one with the Dominican 

 Republic, all called public attention to the fact 

 that it lies within the power of the President 

 and the Senate, in executive session, to make 

 a series of treaties which may revolutionize 

 the whole revenue system of the country with- 

 out the knowledge or consent of the House of 

 Representatives. Dec. 8, 1884, a joint resolu- 

 tion, proposing to amend the Constitution by 

 requiring the consent of the House to the rati- 

 fication of treaties, was introduced in that 

 body, and Dec. 19, a second joint resolution 

 for the same purpose, but only affecting reci- 

 procity treaties, was introduced. Nothing 

 came of either resolution. In the Senate, Mr. 

 Van Wyck, of Nebraska, introduced the fol- 

 lowing resolution December 11 : 



Whereas a commercial treaty of great importance 

 has been negotiated between the Lnited States and 

 Spain, which was made public by the King of Spain 

 to such extent that it was cabled from Madrid by the 

 " Times" of New York city, and given to the Ameri- 

 can people bv that journal before the same was pre- 

 sented with Decoming solemnity and secrecy to the 

 Senate : 



Whereas the provisions of said treaty materially af- 

 fect the subject of revenues and taxation, involving 

 no serious questions of diplomacy and state secrets, 

 the discussions thereof should be in open session, so 

 that the people may be fully apprised of the reasons 

 why said, treaty should be ratified or rejected: There- 

 fore, 



Resolved, That the Committee on Eules be directed 

 to report an amendment or additional rule requiring 

 that treaties which concern matters of revenue shall 

 be considered in open session. 



December 15, Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, sub- 

 mitted the following resolution on the subject : 



Whereas the Legislature is the department of Gov- 

 ernment by which commerce should be regulated and 

 laws of revenue passed ; the Constitution in terms 

 communicates the power to regulate commerce and to 

 impose duties to that department. It communicates 

 it in terms to no other. The representatives of the 

 people, sitting in their legislative capacity, with open 

 doors, under the eye of the country, communicating 

 freely ^with their constituents, may exercise this power 

 more intelligently, more discreetly, may acquire more 

 accurate and more minute information concerning the 

 employment and interests on which this description 

 of measures will press, and may better discern what 

 trua policy prescribes or rejects than is within the 

 competence of the executive department of the Gov- 

 ernment: Therefore, 



Resolved, That the so-called reciprocity treaties, 

 having no possible basis of reciprocity with nations 

 of inferior population and wealth, involving the sur- 

 render of enormously unequal sums of revenue, in- 

 volving the surrender of immensely larger volumes of 

 home trade than are offered to us in 'return, and involv- 

 ing constitutional questions of the gravest character, 

 are untimely, and should everywhere be regarded with 

 disfavor. 



January 7, 1885, Mr. Morrill called up his 

 resolution, and made an elaborate argument in 

 support of it. He said : 



" When the question of a reciprocity treaty 

 was first presented to the Senate forty years 

 ago, it was unanimously decided that it would 

 be a grave and dangerous invasion of the pre- 

 rogative of Congress to regulate commerce with 

 foreign nations, as well as of the prerogative 

 of the House of Representatives-, as to its ex- 

 clusive power to originate revenue bills. The 

 record shows (and it was long since made pub- 

 lic) that two reports on the Zollverein treaty,' 

 with Prussia and other members of the Ger- 

 manic Confederation, were made at different 

 times by the Senate Committee on Foreign Re- 

 lations, both reaching the same adverse con- 

 clusion one by Mr. Choate, of Massachusetts, 

 when the treaty was laid upon the table, as the 

 least offensive mode of rejection ; and one later, 

 by Mr. Archer, of Virginia, when, at the re- 

 quest of the President for further considera- 

 tion, the treaty was squarely and unanimously 

 rejected, including even the vote of John C. 

 Calhoun, although, while Secretary of State, 

 the treaty had received his perfunctory sup- 

 port. That the standing of Mr. Choate as a 

 lawyer of profound learning, and the sound 

 judgment of Mr. Archer, the long-trusted con- 

 gressional leader on foreign affairs, peculiarly 

 qualified them to handle the subject, not only 

 justly, but with pre-eminent ability, will not 

 be controverted even by the present distin- 

 guished Committee on Foreign Relations. Not- 

 withstanding it was broadly claimed by Mr. 

 Archer that the treaty would have promoted 

 our interests, it was resolutely refused, and 

 solely on the ground of paramount constitu- 

 tional objections. This adverse determination 

 was again and finally confirmed in 1848 by a 

 record of the yeas and nays, with every mem- 

 ber, both of the Democratic and Whig parties 

 then present, in the negative, and at a time 

 when among the members of the Senate were 

 to be found, besides many others of national 

 renown, such celebrities as Calhoun, Critten- 

 den, Berrien, Badger, Corwin, Dix, Hamlin, 

 Mangum, Bell, Davis of Mississippi, ' Honest 

 John Davis ' of Massachusetts, Mason of Vir- 

 ginia, and Johnson of Maryland. We may 

 well feel proud even to be members of a body 

 which has been decorated with names wearing 

 such enduring national luster. I think the 

 Senate would willingly be refreshed with at 

 least a single paragraph from one of these ad- 

 verse reports, from which it -will be seen that 

 my resolution has been taken, and I will there- 

 fore read the following from that of June 14, 

 1844: 



In the judgment of the committee, the Legislature 

 is the department of Government by which commcrc( 

 should be regulated and laws of revenue passed. The 

 Constitution in terms communicates the power to reg- 

 ulate commerce and to impose duties to that depart- 

 ment. It communicates it in terms to no other. Witl 

 out engaging at all in an examination of the extent, 

 limits, and objects of the power to make treaties, the 



