1906. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 295
Public Library, against bill H. R. 19853, relative to im a home in Africa for ex-slaves and their offspring, where they portation of English books (previously referred to the Com shall have a free and independent government Of their own; mittee on Ways and l\Ieans)-to the Committee on Patents. which were referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. By Mr. STAFFORD: Petition of the Allis-Chalmers Com l\Ir. LA FOLLETTE presented a petition of the common pany, of Milwaukee, Wis. for relief of that company, in support council of Superior, Wis., praying for the establishment of pos of bill H. R. 2117~to the Committee on Appropriations. tal savings banks; which was referred to the Committee on By l\Ir. TIRRELL : Paper to accompany bill f9r relief of Post-Otfices and Post-Roads. John 0. Kinney-to the Committee on Military Affairs. He also pres.ented a memorial of sundry citizens of .Wisconsin, By l\Ir. TOWNSEND: Petition of the Spanish War .Veterans remonstrating against the enactment of . legislation to require of Jackson, l\Iich., . and elsewhere, for extension of the time certain places of business in the District of Columbia to be required for residence on the Shoshone Reservation, in Wy closed on Sunday; which was referred to the Committee on the oming-to the Committee on the Public Lands. District of Columbia. · By Mr. WANGER: Petition of Lancaster Council, No. 111, Mr. BENSON presented a memorial of Osage County Grange, · Daughters of Liberty, favoring resh·iction of immigration (S. No. 442, Patrons of Husbandry, of Lyndon, Kans., and a me 4403)-to the· Committee on Immigration and-Naturalization. morial of the State Agricultural College of Kansas, remonstrat ing against the enactment of legislation providing for the free distribution of seeds; which were referred to ~he Committee on · SENATE. Agriculture and Forestry. Mr. CULLOM presented a petition of the. Rock Island Busi WEDNESDAY, J?ecember 1~, 1906. ness Men's Association, of Rock Island, Ill., praying that an. ap-· Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. EDWARD E. HALE . . propriation be made for the improvement of the waterways of The Secretary proceeded to read the Journal of yesterday's the counh·y; which was referred to the Committee on Com proceedings, when, on request of l\Ir. LoDGE, and by unanimous ·rnerce. consent, the further reading was dispensed with. He also presented memorials of sundry citizens of Galesburg The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Journal ~tands approved. and Noble, in the State of Illinois, remonstrating against the en actment of legislation requiring certain places of business in the KONGO FREE STATE. District of Columbia to be closed on Sunday ; which were re Mr. LODGE. I ask · that 300 copies of Senate Report 393,_ ferred to the Cbmmittee on the District of Columbia. Forty-eighth Congres , fu·st session, l\Iarch 26, 1884, may be re l\Ir. PERKINS presented a petition of the Chamber of Com printed. It is a report relating to ·the Kongo Free State, by merce of San Francisco, Cal., praying that an appropriation be Senator l\IoRGAN, and contains many papers of great value. made for the improvement of the channel at Oakland, in that The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request State; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. made by the Senator from Massachusetts? If not, it is so He also presented a memorial of the Santa Barbara County ordered. Horticultural Society. of California, remonstrating against mr-· The order was reduced to writing, as follows : ther apropriations for the free distribution ·of garden seeds and Orderecl, That 300 copies of Senate Report No. 393, Forty-eighth Con plants; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture gress, first ~ession, 1\farch 26, 1884, be printed for the use of the Senate. and Forestry. FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS. l\Ir. ELKINS presented a paper to accompany the bill ( S. 'l'he VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communica 4383) for the relief of Elizabeth M. Earle, administrah·ix of tion from the assistant clerk of the Cotut of Claims, transmit the estate of J. B. Earle, deceased; which was referred to the ting a certified copy of the findings. of fact filed by the court in Committee on Claims. the cause of Wildey Lodge, No. 27, Independent Order of Odd l\Ir. KEAN presented the petition of George Oakley, of Pellows, of Charleston, W. Va., against The United States; Paterson, N. J., praying for the enactment of legislation pro which, with the accompanying paper, was referred to t)J.e Com viding for a readjustment of postal· rates ; which was referred mittee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Road . He al o laid before the Senate a communication from the as He also presented a. petition of the city council of Woodbury, sistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting the findings. of N. J., praying for the enactment of legislation providing' for the fact and opinion filed by the court in the cause of Adolph Har establishment of postal savings bankB; which was referred to tiens, tutor to his three infant children, Sidney L., William W., the Committee on Post-Offi"ces and Post-Road . and Mary R. :Uartiens, being the issue of his marriage with He also presented a petition of the Board of Trade of Red Mary C. Osborne Hartiens, deceased, his late wife, who was the bank, N. J., praying for the enactment of legislation to increase daughter and only heir at law of William H. Osborne, deceased, the salaries of railway postal clerks; which was referred to the v. The United States; which, with the accompanying paper, Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. · was referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be Mr. MJLLARD presented a petition of the Woman's Chris· printed. tian Temperance Union of Esceola, Nebr., praying for an in CREDENTIALS. vestigation into the charges made and filed against Hon. REED SMoOT, a Senator from the State of Utah; and also for the Mr. McCREARY presented the credentialB of Thomas H. adoption of an antipolygamy amendment to the Constitution; Paynter, chosen by the legislature of the State of Kentucky a which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Senator from that State for the term beginning March 4, 1907; He also presented a memorial of the Commercial Club of which were read and ordered to be filed. Omaha, Nebr., remonstrating against the passage of the so · PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. called "parcels-po t bill ; " which was referred to the Commit- tee on Post-Offices and Post,-Roads. · · Mr. DRYDEN presented a memorial of Thorofare Grange, He also presented a petition of sundry citizens of Albion and No. 59, Patroll$ of Husbandry, of Thorofare, N. J., and a memo Hebron, in the State of Nebraska, praying for the enactment of rial of Upper Township Grange, No. 139, Patrons of Husbandry, legislation to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors in all Gov of Tuckahoe, N. J., remonstrating against any further appropria ernment buildings anq. grounds ; which was referred to the Com tion being made for the free distribution of seeds and plants ; mittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. which were referred to the Committee on Agriculture and }for l\Ir. HOPKINS presented a petition of the Merchants' Asso estry. ciation of Elgin, Ill., praying for ·the enactment of legislation He also presented the memorial of J. W. Beardsley Sons, of to increase tl1e salaries of postal clerks; which was referred to New York City, N. Y., remonstrating against the adoption of an the Committee on Post-Offices and Post~Roads. amendment to the meat-in pection act requiring the cost of in spection to be paid by the packers, etc. ; which was referred to REPORT OF A COMMITTEE. the Committee on Agriculture· and Forestry. Mr. LA. FOLLETTE, from the Committee on Pensions, to Mr. BEVERIDGE presented memorialB of sundry citizens of whom were ref rred the following bills, reported them severally Russiaville, Middletown, Ligonier, .Anderson, Monroe County, "·ithout amendment, and submitted reports thereon:· Brown County, Sullivan County, Alaska County, Grant County, A bill (H. R. 19215) granting an increase of pension to John and Noble County, all· in the State of Indiana, remonstrating Lingenfelder ; and against the enactment ·of legi lation requiring certain places of A bill (H. R. 18363) granting an_increase of pension to Ru business in the District of Columbia to ·be closed on Sunday ; dolph Bentz. which were referred to the Committee on the District of Co- . lumbia. . SEIZ1i'R.E OF AMERICAN SCHOO ER SILA.S STEARNS• lie also presented sundry petitions of citize~ of Deming, Mr. -CULLOl\I, fr~m the ca'mmittee on Foreign Relations, N. 1.\fex., praying for the enactment of legislation providing for to whom was referred the resolution submitted by l\Ir. .1\lALLoRY 296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. DECEMBER 12;
en the 10th instant, reported -it without amendment; and it was :Mr. CARMACK introduced a bill (S. 7117) for the relief ot considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to, as follows : Joseph W . l\IcCall; which was read twice by its title, and re · Resolved, That the President be, and he is hereby, requested, .if not ferred to the Committee on Claims. incompatible with the public interests, to transmit to the Senate copies of all papers, documents, and correspondence now in the possession of He also introduced a bill ( S. 7118) to limit the effect of the the Department of State relatin~ to the seizure and for~ible detent~o~ of regulation of commerce between the several States and Terri the American fishing schooner Stlas Stearns by the Mexican authorities ; tories in certain cases; which was read twice by its title, and and to inform the Senate whether said schooner has been adjudged for referred .to the Committee on the Judiciary. feited . by the decree of any 1\Iexic~n court, and if. so, wh~th~r the owners of said schooner wet·e ever gtven an opportumty, by cttatwn ot· l\fr. TELLER inh·oduced a bill ( S. 7119) granting an increase otherwise, to appear in said court ·and defend ~heir property ; and ~lso of pensiQn_to Charles Boxmeyer; which was read twice by its to inform the Senate of the present status af said case and what action, title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Com if any, has been taken by this Government in the premises. mittee on Pensions. GERTRUDE A. DAVISON. l\Ir. BLACKBURN introduced the following bills; which were Mr. KE.AN, from the Committee to Audit and Control the· Con se.-erally read twice by their titles, and, with the accompanying tingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom was referred the reso papers, referred to the Committee on Claims: lution submitted yesterday by him for Mr. ELKINS, reported it A bill ( S. 7120)- for · the relief of the trustees of the Metho without amendment; and it was conside.red by unanimous con dist Episcopal Church South of Perry-ville, Ky.; sent, and agreed to, as follows : · A bill ( S. 7121) for tlie relief of the trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Paris, Ky-. ; Resolved That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he hereby is, au thorized a~d directed to pay from the contingent fund of the . Senate_ A bill ( S. 7122) for the relief of the trustees of the l\Ietho· . to Gertrude A. Davison, mother of F. L. Davison, late clerk of th~ dist Episcopal Church South of Harrodsburg, Ky. ; Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, a sum eq:aal to sl:r mbn~hs A bill ( S. 7123) for the relief of the trustees of · the Cum salary at the rate he was receiving by law at the time of J:us demise, said sum to be considered as including funeral expenses and all other berland Presbyterian Church of Ilenderson, Ky.; allowances. · A biii ( S. 7124) for the relief of . the trustees of the Bap-, BILLS INTRODUCED. tist Church of Bowling Green, Ky.; A bill (S. 7125) for the relief of the treasurer of Salt River Mr. HOPKINS introduced a bill (S. 7099) granting an in Lodge, No. 180, Free Ancient and Accepted l\Iasons of Mount crease of pension to Esther A. Cleaveland; which was read Washington, Ky. ; twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. . A bill ( S. 7126) for the relief of the directors of the Pres Mr. LONG introduced a bill (S. 7100) . for the relief of Job byterian Theological Seminary, of Kentucky ; and 0. C. Rathbun; which was read twice by its title, and. with the A bill ( S. 7127) for · the relief of the trustees . of the J essa- · accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Claims. mine Female Institute, successor to Bethel Academy, of Nicho Mr. CULLOM introduced the following bills; which were lasville, Ky. . severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Com l\Ir. BRANDEGEE. introduced a bill ( S. 7128) granting an in mittee on Pensions: crease of pension to Lurinda E. Spencer; which was read twice -A bill (S. 7101) g·ranting an increase of pension to Catherine by .its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. Matimore ; and Mr. BENSON introduced a bi11 ( S. 7129) granting a pension A bill (S. 7102) granting an increase of pension to Benjamin to Susan J. Chandler; which was read twice by its title, and F. Wells. referred to the Committee on Pen ions. Mr. ALGER introduced a bill ( S. 7103) granting a pension to l\Ir. KEAN intro.duced a bill ( S. 7130) granting an increase ot Sarah S. Craig; which was read twice by its title, and referred pension to Oliver P. Case; which was read twice by its title, to the Committee on Pensions. and referred to the· Committee on Pensions. Mr. BERRY introd_uced a bill. (S. 7104) granting an increas~ 1\fr. McCREARY introduced the following bills; which were of pension to Daniel B. 1\Icl\fullin; which was read twice by its severally read twice by their titles, and, with the accompanying. title, and, with the accompanying papel'S, referred to the Com papers, referred to the Committee on Claims: . mittee on Pensions. A bill ( S. 7131) for the relief of the trustees of the First Bap Mr. SCOTT introduced a bill ( S. 7105) granting an increase of tist CJmrch of Danville, Ky. ; pension· to Samuel Baker; which was read twice by its title, A bill ( S. 7132) for the relief of the trustees of the Antioch and, with the accompanying papers, r~ferred to the Committee Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Mercer County, on Pensions. . . Ky.; · Mr. ELKINS introduced the following bills; which were sev A bill ( S. 7133) for the relief of the trustees of the Methodist erally read twice by their titles, and referred· to the Committee Episcopal Church South, of -Mount Sterling, Ky.; · on Pensions : · . A bill ( S. 7134) for the relief of the trustees of the Regular A. bill (S. 7106) granting an increase of pension to H. H. Baptist Church, of Richmond, Ky. ; and :Michael; A bill ( S. 7135) for the relief of the vestry of Trinity Protes . A bill (S. 7107) granting an increase of pension to George tant Episcopal Church, of Danville, Ky. P. V. Tritipoe ; and l\Ir. McCREARY introduced a bill (S. 7136) granting an in ; A bill (S. 7108) granting an increase of pension to Charles B. crease of pension to Cornelia W. Clay; whieh was_read twic~ by Gilbert (with an accompanying paper). its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. 1\Ir. ELKINS introduced the following bills; which were sev l\Ir. GALLINGER introduced a bill (S. 7137) for the purchase erally read twice by their titles, and, with the accompanying of a site for a Federal building for the United States post-office papers, referred to the Committee on Claims: . at Franklin, N. H.; which was read twice by its title, and re A bill ( S. 7109) for the relief of the trustees of the Methodist ferred to the Committee.on Public Buildings and Grounds. Episcopal Church South, of Point Pleasant, W. Va.; l\fr. ·HALE inh·od1,1ced a bill ( S. 7138) granting an increase of A. bill ( S. 7110) for th~ relief of the trustees of the Methodist pension to George H. Allen; whieh was read twice by its title, Episcopal Church South, of Great Cacapon, ,V. Va.; and referred to the Committee on Pensions, A bill (S. 7111) for the relief of the trustees of the Mount Mr. LA FOLLETTE introduced a joint resolution ( S. R. 79) Olive Primitive Baptist Church, of Philippi, W. Va.; concerning railroad cars carrying United States mails; which A bill (S. 7112) for the relief of the trustees of the Methodist was read twice by its title, and referred \to the Committee on Episcopal Church South, of Ravenswood, W. Va.; Post-Offices and Post-Roads. A bill ( s. 7113) for the relief of the trustees of the German Baptist Brethren Church, of Greenland Gap, W. Va.; and AMENDMENT TO LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL. A bill (S. 7114) for _the relief of the h·~stees of Methodist Mr. SPOONER submitted an amendment relative to an in Episcopal Church of Philippi, W. Va. · crease in the salaries of the justices and associate justices of the 1\Jr. PERKINS introduced a bill (S. 7115) to amend a certain supreme court, District of Columbia, intended to be proposed by provision of the act making appropriation for the naval service, him to the legislative, etc., appropriation bill; which was re approved June 29, 1906; which was read twice by its title, and, ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be with the accompanying paper, referred to the Committee on printed. Naval Affairs. TERRITORY OF ALASKA. He also introduced a bill ( S. 7116) to provide for the purcha~e l\Ii·. BEVERIDGE submitted the following order; which was of ·a site and the erection thereon of a building for the use and considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: accommodation of he United States subtreasury at San Fran Ordered, That there be printed for the use of the Committee on Ter cisco in the State of California; which was read twice by its ritories 1,000 additional copies of Senate Document No. 14, Fifty-ninth Concrress, second session, entitled a "Message from the President .of title,'·and referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and the United States transmitting certain papers relative to the needs of Grounds. the 'I'erritory qf Alaska in matters of legislation and government."
,.-.- 1906. CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-SENATE. 297
TREATY WITH JAPAN. his mind of this fancy or we must let him know that we agree with him as to the omnipotence of his jurisdiction. If he can Mr. GEARIN. I submit a resolution and ask that it may lie· take possession of the public schools of California an
·the other the same privileges, liberties, and rights, and shall be subject treaty. The favored-nation clause does not cover it, because to no higher imposts or charges in these respects than native citizens or subjects or citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. The citi this clause is restricted to the objects that are specified in zens or subjects of each of the contracting parties shall enjoy in the the treaty and no one of these objects relates to educational territories of the other entire liberty of conscience, and, subject to ihe privileges; and even if there bad been a provision in the Jap laws, ordinances, and regulations, shall enjoy the light of private or public exercise Qf their worship, and also the right of burying their :mese treaty similar to the one in the Chinese treaty, it would respective countrymen, according to their religious customs, in such not apply to this case, because the treaty with China confers suitable and convenient places as may be established and maintained educational privileges in educational institutions under the con for that purpose. They shall not be compelled, tmder any pretext whatsoever, to pay trol of the G<:>vernment of the United States, and neither the any charges or taxes other or higher than those that are, or may be educational institutions of California nor of any other Stc'lte paid by native citizens or subjects or citizens or subjects of the most of the Union are under the control of the United States. favored nation. The citizens or subjects of either of the contracting parties re!liding The educational institutions of the States are not unde:r the in the territories of the other shall be exempt from all compulsory mili control of the Government of the United States, and therefore, tary service whatsoever, whether in the Army, Navy, National Guat·d, by virtue of this provision in this treaty, the Chinese enjoy or Militia; from all contributions imposed in lieu of personal service ; a!ld from all forced loans or niilita.ry exactions or contributions. no privileges at all. Therefore, if this clause bad been incor ARTICLE XIV. The high contracting parties agree that, in all that porated in the Japanese treaty, as I shall show a .little further concerns· commerce and navigation, any privilege, favor, or immunity on, it would not cove:::- the p:;:~positlon we are now discussing. which either high contracting party has actually granted, or may hereinafter grant, to the Government, ships, citizens, or subjects of any Ur. FORAKER. Mr. President-- other State, shall be extended to the Government, ships, citizens, or The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maryland subjects of the other high contracting party, gratuitously, if the con yield further to the Senator from Ohio? cession in favor of that other State shall have been gratuitous, and on the same or equivalent conditions if-the concession shall have been con l\fr. RATh'ER. I do. di.tional; it being their intention that the trade and navigation of each l\Ir. FORAKER. I wish to call the Senator's attention to country shall be placed, in all respects, by t)le other upon the footing the fact that the United States Government has no educational. of the most favored nation. institutions as such, and that immediately following the rati 1\Ir. RAYNER. There is not a clause or a line of this treaty fication of the. treaty with China, and ever since that, under that contains by expression or intendment the slightest reference the clauses granting certain exceptions, Chinese students llave to the public school systems of any of the States of the Union, or been entitled, except as it bas been modified by treaty since, confers any rights whatever upon the citizens of Japan to enjoy to come to this country and seek education in the instih1tions the privileges of their publlc educational institutions. There is that are situated within the States and are not at all under the not a clause ·or a line, although I understand that the President conh·ol of the United States Government. has been advised to the -contrary, that, to the professional mind; l\fr. RAYNER. There is no doubt about that proposition. would admit of such a construction. The most liberal inter- Any of the States may admit any Chinese or Japanese stu . pretation of any of its terms does not allow such an int.erpola dent or any other sort if they choose who are in the United tion or insertion to be made. The treaty does not even contain · States. That in entirely within the province of the State, but the most-favored-nation clause, except in reference-to the par the question here is a question of alleged discrimination in the ticular objects that are therein specifically enumerated. public school system of California. Massachusetts or any other If I have made a mistake upon this point let some Se1;1ator State of the Union has a perfect rigpt to admit any ChineNe or upon the floor or some of the President's legal advisers upon Japanese who are here. That does not affect the question, I the· treaty refer me to the clause that carries with it such a respectfully submit, that I am discussing. I absolutely deny construction. Let the President elucidate his ·message upon that the admission of these students into the educational insti this point and give us the language in the treaty that author tutions of the State is in compliance with and in furtherance of ized him to state that he bad any power or jurisdiction over this the treaty. subject whatever. It can not be done, because here is the I might rest this entire subject right here, because this is an treaty,- and· no one arises here to justify his construction of it. end of the claim of Japan if the treaty does not, either by expres If there is·any decision in the United States that holds that any. sion or intendment, contain the controverted matter, but I have · of the lights granted by · the treaty .carry with them the priv arisen for a larger purpose and a deeper inquiry ; and inasmuch ilege to the subjects of Japan of even partaking of the ad as what has taken place here may occur over and over again vantages of the educational system of our States, let us have under the treaty-malting power of the United States, I shall now that decision. I have examined them all very carefully that proceed to the more important proposition, and that is that this relate to treaties and I find no authority to sustain such a Government has no power lillder the Oonstitution of the United proposition. . · ~tates to make any treaty with any foreign government covering Now, let me call your attention to a very peculiar ci.rcum tlle subject in question, or overriding the legislation of any State stance, and that is the Burling~e treaty, which was made with of the Union in connection therewith. China, because that does contain such a pt·ovision. It is only a few lines. The Burlingame treaty with China, which was pro- THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THl!l CO~TROVERSY. . claimed on February 5, 1870, has the following provision in it: Now, let ·me quote-because I must say that to me it bas been the most interesting .subject in constitutional law, at least that ARTICLE VII. Citizens of the United States shall enjoy all the pt'iv r ileges of the public educational institutions under . the control of the have ever examined or been interested in-the sixth article of Government of China . and, reciprocally, ·chinese subjects shall enjoy the Constitution. It is not an academic discussion ; it is likely all the privileges of the public educational i,nstitutions under the con trol of the Government of the United States which are enjoyed in the to occur over and over again with all our oriental posse sions, respective countries by citizens or subjects of the most-fn.vored na because if the President persists in his purpose, the day will tion. The citizens of the United States may freely establish and come when be will demand that be has the right, either under maintain schools within the. Empire of China at those places where foreigners are by h·eaty permitted to reside, and, reciprocally, Chinese the treaty-making power or under the amendments to the Consti subjects may enjoy "the same privileges and immunities in the United tution, to exercise this privilege in connection with the admission States. of foreign students into the public educational institutions of the "Of the United States." It does not say "of the States," but States. of the United States. · Now, one may read this article of the Constitution without un Mr. BLACKBURN. That is a distinction. derstanding it. Just read it. Let a layman read it. It leaves Mr. RAYNER. I say that is a distinction. I am coming to an impression upon the mind of every man who bas not studied that. Nevertheless it contains a provision that the Japanese the Constitution 'that the trea.ty overrides the reserved rights of treaty does not contain. 1.'he Japanese treaty does not giv-e any the States whenever it comes in contact with them. No matter rights to any public educational institution controlled by the how brilliruit the lawyer may be, no matter what his talents or United States. resources may consist of, I do not care for the opinion of anyone Now, as I was going to say, the Japanese trea1:y contains who has not thoroughly mastered and analyzed the authorities no such provision as this, and the favored clause does not upon this subject and made the proper discriminations betFeen cover it. them: Mr. FORAKER. 1\Ir. President-- This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shaH be The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maryland made in pursuance thereof, and all tJ.'eaties made or which shall be yield to the Senator from Ohio? made under the authority of the United States- . 1\lr. RAYl'i"'ER. I do. Now, that is the distinction that the extreme school plants Mr. FORAKER. If it would nof interrupt the Senator, I itself on between these two propositions. When it speaks of would ask him if he can state the respective dates of those laws, it says laws which shall be made in pursuance of the Con two treaties? Btitution. When the Constitution speaks of treaties, it says that 1\Ir. RAYNER. The Burlingame treaty, February 5, 1870. all . treaties which shall be .made under the authority not of the The ratifications of the Japanese treaty wer~ exchanged by the Constitution, but of the United States. I shall, I think, demon~ re pective Governments on the 21st of March, 1895, twenty-five strate within a few moments that there is no possible dlstinC.. years afterwards, and there is not a word of it in this Japanese tion in the authorities between these two clauses. 1~06. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE., 299
This sixth article which lies at the bottom of this controyersy, can be enforced, even though they may conflict with State laws or pro- visions of State constitutions. , read~ partly as foll~w ·: Third. That all provisions in State statutes or constitutions which in ARTICLE VI. This Constitution and the laws of the United States any way conflict with any treaty stipulations, whether they have been which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or made prior or subsequent thereto. must give way to the pt·ovisions of which shall be made under the authot·ity of the United States, shall be the treaty, or act of Congress based on and enforcing the same, even if the supreme law of the laiLd, and the judges in every State shall be such provisions relate to matters wholly within State jurisdiction. bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the The tenets of the school in which I have been trained are contrary notwithstanding. succinctly stated in a masterly way by that eminent consti I plant myself firmly and unalterably upon the proposition tutional lawyer, the Ron. John Randolph Tucker, in a report tbat we cnn make no treaty that violates any of the provisions that he rendered to the F,orty-eigbth Congress, and which reads, of the Constitution of the United States, that the treaty-making in part, as follows : power in the sixth article must be construed in pari materia with The language of the Constitution of the United States which gives all the other provisions contained in the Constitution, and if the the character of "supreme law" to a treaty, confines it to "treaties treaty comes in conflict with any of the limitations of the instru made under the authority of the TJnited States." That authority is ment the tr·eaty must yield and the Qonstitution prevail. limited and defined by the Constitution itself. The United States have no unlimited, but only delegated authority. The power to make As a corollary of this proposition I plant myself upon the treaties is bounded by the same limits, which are prescribed for the doctrine that any treaty that violates Article X of the Consti authority delegated to the United States by the Constitution. To tution and infringes upon the reserved rights of the States suppose that a power to make tren.ties with foreig-n nations is un limited by the restraints imposed on the power delegated to the United which haYe not been delegated to the General Government, and States would be to assume that by such treaty the Constitution itself embraces subjects that belong to the States, and that are not might be abrogated and the liberty of the people secured thereby nece sary to carry out the· purpo es of the Government as defined destroyed. The power to contract must be commensurate with and in the Constitution, is ultra vires and not within the capacity not transcend the powers by virtue of which the United States and theh· Government exist and act. It can not contract with a foreign of the Go~ernment to make. nation to do what is unauthorized or forbidden by the Constitution It is my opinion that this subject involves one of the most to be done. The power to contract· is limited· by the power to do. interesting problems that bas ever been before this ·body, and (3 Story, Com. on Const., sec. 1501.) It is on this principle that a treaty can not take away essential that the suggestion in the message of the President, with great liberties secured by the Constitution to the people. The treaty power re pect to him, is not of the slightest value here, because in order must be subordinate to these. A treaty can not alien a State or dis-· to arrive at a pr011er conclusion upon this important inquiry it member the Union, because the Constitution forbids both. In all such cases the ·legitimate etl'ect of a treaty is to bind the is necessary to a siduously examine the great mass of prece United States to do what they are competent to do and no more. dent , and autl!Orities, and deci ·ions that have been rendered The United States by treaty can only agree with another nation upon tlle subject, and I am quite sure that I am entirely within to perform what they ha>e authority to perform under the constitu tional charter creating them. The treaty makes the nexus which bounds when I say that the President has not undertaken this binds the faith of the Union to do what their Constitution gives task. authot·ity to do. A treaty made under that authority may do this; THE SEV~TIAL SCHOOLS OF CONSTRUCTIOX. all it attempts to do beyond it is ultra vires-is null, and can not bind them. There are two separate schools of construction. upon the snb · In this admirable report and careful review of the treaty ject at issue. ·These schools are profes ional schools and scllools making power Mr. Tucker remarks that- of commentators and text writers upon the Constitution, and it If the tre'aty-making power extends to the limits that are claimed is not entirely accurate to designate them as the respective advo for it by the advocates o! an inherent right, then a treaty may borrow cates of national and States' rights systems. money, regulate commerce, coiu money. establish post-offices, and pro One of these schools claims that the treaty-making power is vide for raising armies and navies of the t nited States, and may thus annul or paral)'ze all tbe powers of Congress, and admit a foreign au inherent element of so\ereignty, and though it is a conferred nation to exact, with the alternative of war, a compliance with these power in the Constitution it would exist as an essential attribute sweeping stipulations in the internal government of the people of the of this Government without delegation, and that when it is once United States. delegated it need not derive its authority from the Constitution, . I am aware of the fact that some of the conclusions reached. and that wbene\er it comes in conflict with the proYisions of a by this eminent statesman in this report have been assailed at State law or a State constitution, by ·the terms of Article VI of times, but I am f1lso aware of the fact that the main proposi the Con titution the treaty prevails. Some of the adherents of tion upon wllicb be stands, and from which I have quoted in this school have proceeded to the most unfortunate limits in tlle first instanc-e, bas never been impeached nor impugned by their construction of the treaty-making power, and have held any Federal or State authority that I know of. that this power i. superior to the Constitution and is not in any A TREATY CAN 'OT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. manner governetl by its inhibitions or limitations. . I want to proceed one step further in the particular point that The second school stands upon the doctrine that the treaty I am now discussing, and I desire to address these remarks to making power exists for the purpose of carrying out the pur the extreme advocates of the doctrine of an "unlimited treaty poses and objects of this Goyernment as prescribed and defined making power." by the Constitution, and that no treaty is valid that violates the Let me take subsection 8 of section 9 of Article I of the Con Constitution or that under its provisions surrenders the rights stitution of the United States, which provides "that no title of· reserved and belonging to the States. nobility shall be granted by. the United States." I s there anyone I tun a disciple of the second school, not alone as a party man, here that believes we would have the right in a treaty to grant but as a student of Constitutional history, and I proceed now to a title of nobility to the subject of a foreign government? give the re~sons for the faith that is in me. Subsection 4 of section 1 of Article II of the Constitution pro The most instructive step that I can take in this discussion is \ides "that no person except a natural-born citizen * * * to give, in the language of their advocates, the two standards shall be eligible to the office of President." Does anyone here that separate these two political cre~ds, so that the .distinguish believe that we could make a treaty with a foreign power abro ing features pehveen them can be clearly and fully compre· gating this section in its interests? hended and under ·tood. Article I of the amendments provides : "Congress shall make Mr: Charles Henry Butler, the present reporter of the Supreme no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the Court, and· a man of great learning and industry, in a valuable free exercise thereof." Il3 there anyone of the opinion that we text-book that be has written upon the treaty-making power of could make a treaty with a foreign nation a~itting their sub the "nited States, which I think is mainly wrong in the conC'lu jects to our shores, and then, in the same treaty, provide that sions that it reaches, but which is full of the most interesting they should not have the privilege of exercising their religious information upon the subject, thus states his own views and the belief? views of those who belong to the first school of treaty-making 1\lr. President, I am talking to the extreme advocates of this power interpretation that I have referred to: · doctrine. I am coming to the middle class presently. I :-tm First. That the treaty-making power of the United States, as vested taking now the doctrine of the men who claim that the trenty in the central Government, is derived not only from the powers ex pressly conferred by the Constitution, but that it is also possessed by making power is an inherent power, and is not circumscribed that Government as :::.n attribute of sovereignty, and that it extends to either by the delegated powers or by the limitations or inl.!ibi every subject which can be the basis of negotiation and contract be tions of the Constitution. I will come to the men of more mod tween any of the sovereign powers of the wol'ld,. or in regard to which the several St;1tes of the Union themselves could have negotiated and erate views of the first school in a few moments. I am plant contracted if the Constitution had not expressly prohibited the States ing this argument now upon the doctrine that the treaty from exercising the treaty-making power in any manner whatever and making power is an inherent power that is not governed or vested that power exclusively in and expressly delegated it to the Fedeml Government. controlled at all by the Constitution of the United States. Second. That the power to legislate in regard to all matters affected .Mr. BEVERIDGE. 1\Ir. President-- by treaty stipulations and relations is coextensive with tbe treaty-mak The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from .Maryland ing power, and that acts of Congress enforcing such stipulations which, in the absence of treaty stipulations, would be unconstitutional as in yield to the Senator from Indiana? fringing upon the powers reserved to the S~ates, are constitutional. and Mr. RAYNER. Certainly.
- 300. 00NGRESSIONAL -RECORD-SENATE. D ECEl\fBER 12,
Mr. BEVERIDGE. 1\Iight not the power be inherent in sov- Mr. BEVERIDGE. -Will the Senator allow me? e1·eignty and at the same time be limited by the Constitution'? .Mr. RAYNER In a moment. I have examined, I think, : Mr.· RAYNER. Never. · It can not lie in grant and lie in every treaty in existence between this Government and every sovereignty. It must either lie in sovereignty or lie in grant. other government, and I can-though I do not propose to do it There is no such thing as a granted power under the Constitu- now, because it would take too much time-but I can now show, tion carrying within its terms an inherent and sovereign power. and I am willing to trace every subject-matter in tho e treaties I utterly deny the suggestion of the Senator from Indiana. ever made with any foreign government to some delegated power Whatever inherent powers exist have been merged forever jn contained in the Constitution of the United States. I challenge the granted powers of the Constitution. It must be either one the Senator from Indiana to point me to a single case that will or the other. show this Government has ever made a treaty passed upon by .Mr. BEVERIDGE. That was not my question, although I am .the courts, and held to be valid by the courts, that was not for happy to hear the Senator upon that. the purpose of carrying out the delegated powers of the Consti- 1\Ir. RAYNER. Then I misunderstood the Senator. tution conferred upon the United States. 1\Ir. BEVERIDGE. The question was, Might not the power Mr. BEVERIDG:m. Mr. President- - be inherent in sovereignty and at the same time be limited by .Mr. RAYNER. Let me give one more quotation, and then I the prohibitions of the Constitution? will yield. Section 1 of Article XIII of the amendments to the · Mr. RAYNER. There is not an inherent power in the Gov- Constitution provides that- · ernment of the United States, because the Government of the Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment United States is not a government of inherent powers. I deny for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist that the Government of the United Stales bas any inherent within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. powers save the power to exist and to perpetuate itself, and Is this an inherent power? Is there any power · under the wbile it might be inherent and still. limited, the fact is it is treaty-making power, except the power to carry out the dele- not inherent. That answers the question. gated powers of the Unit.ed States_? According to 1\Ir. Butler Mr. CARMACK. 1\Ir. President-- . and the various lecturers upon the revised edition of the The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maryland United States Constitution, who agree with him, it i~ clnimed yield to the Senator from Tennessee? that the power is not bound by the limitations of the Consitu- 1\Ir. RAYNER. I do. tion. I ask, is there anyone here who believes that we could Mr. CARMACK. I wi~h to suggest to the Senator from Mary- haye put a provision fnto the treaty of Paris providing for a land tliat each of the States prior to the ·formation of the Con- system of slavery iii the Philippine Islands? If it is an in~ stitution of the United States possessed this treacy-making herent power, if it does not depend upon the delegated powers, power, and t~at the Ge?eral Government possesses it now only if it is a sovereign power beyond and above the Constitution, by reason of Its delegatiOn by the States. . . then we can violate every article in the Constitution, and there Mr. CULBERSON. The States p~ss~ssed It mherently. would be no inhibition upon us at all from violating this par- 1\Ir. CA~l\IAC~;, T~ey P?sse~e~ It ~herently ; and the Gen- ticular provision an~ institut;i~g or contim~i?g,. a. s I believe we eral Government bets It by de~ebatwn from the s.t~tes .. · lla\e done anyway m a port10n of the Phihppme Islands-the l\Ir. RA~ER. I was commg to that proposition m a mo- 1 Senator from Indiana will know more about that question than n;t~t. I ~bink the Senator from. Tennessee states that propo- I do-the system ·of slavery that exists in a certain portion of sitwn a little too broadly-that IS, that the States granted to those islands · the United States all th~ powers they possessed. Mr. BEVERIDGE). I want to ask the Senator a question 1\Ir. CARMACK. I did not say that. before be leaves. that subject. 1\fr. RAYNER. I beg pardon. I underst~od the Senator to The VICE··PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maryland s~y that :~eO' States had granted to the Umted States all the yield to the Senator from Indiana? tleaty-makmo power. . . . 1\fr. RAYNER. Certainly. . Mr. CARMACK. No, I did not mean. that J but all th~ pow- 1\Ir. BEVERIDGE. It was rather an interesting statement ~s the General Government possesses m that respect are d~ th S t 0 made that h~ did not concede that the States had rivOO. from the gra.nt by the States-- deTeg:~~ :wa; ail of their treaty-making power. Under sec~ Mr. RAYNER. Undoubtedly. t·1 10 0 f Article I of the Constitution what part of the treaty~ . Mr: BEV~RIDGE. We ca_n not hear a word over here of what ~· (1' r does the Senator think ~ny State has? · IS bemg said on the other side of the Chamber. m me powe . Mr. CARMACK. That all the treaty-making power was in 1\Ir. RA~ER.. No State .has. any treaty-makmg power, ex- the States prior to the formation ·of the Constitution. Each eept as provi.ded m th:. <;Jonstltutwn.. The st::~e~ have -c:elegate.d State possessed the treaty-making power. When .the Constitu- ~o the Federal ~uthonties. all the treaty-I?~o power ~?at It tion was formed the States delegated to the General Govern- 1s necessary for the Government ~o ~ave m order to carry out ment the treaty-making power, and the tre.:'lty-making power UJ,e delegated powers of the Constitution. possessed by the General Government is measured by the ex- 1.Ir. BEVERIDGE. I understood the Senator to say _a mo~ tent of that delegation. ment ago, in ans~er to the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. C~- l\Ir. FULTON. May I ask the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. MACK], th.at he did not. concede that the States had ~arted w~th CARMACK] a question? all of thell' treaty -~akmg powers. I ~er.ely call his attentron The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maryland to section 10 of .Article. I of the CoJ?sh~tion . . . yield to the Senator from Oregon? l\Ir. RA.YNER. I said the Constitution prohibits the States l\Ir. RAYNER. I wish the Senator would ask me the ques- from makmg a treaty. tion. l\Ir. BEVERIDGE. Certainly. Mr. FULTON. Then I will ask the Senator if that del ega- Mr. RAYNER. The Feder.al Government can make. evezy, tion of power to the General Government, when exercisable; is treaty, and the States h~ve given the Government. the n gllt to . nevertheless not resh·icted by the prohibition on the General make every ti·eaty that 1s necessary to c~rry out 1~ delc~ated Government contained in the Federal Constitution? powers, and you must take the treaty-malnng power tn pan ma . 1\Ir. RAYNER. 1\lr. President, I am coming to the argument tet·ia with the delegate~ powers .that are given to t~e
delegated powers, and you can not construe one independently think, in this connection, and it would be well to read it. It is of tile other. section 10, Article I , of the Constitution, which declares: Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President-- No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confedet·ation. The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maryland Mr. BEVERIDGE. That is the section to which I specifically yield to the Senator from Ohio? called the Senator's attention a moment ago when the Senator . Mr._RAYNER. I do. . ventured the remark that the States had not parted with a ll Mr. FORAKER. I only want to remark, if I may be per their h·eaty-making power. · . mitted to do so, that the result of the Senator's contention, as Mr. RAYNER. Do not le.t the Senator from Indiana mistm· I understand, is that that part of the old treaty-making power clerstand tbat proposition. Do not let us get him wrong-- whicll the States originally possessed bas become dormant or Mr. BEVERIDGE. No. has been, by the provisions of the. Constitution, placed in abey Mr. RAYNER. Because I understand the Senator delivered a ance, does not belong to anybody, and can not be exercised by lecture on t hat subject, and while I am against tbe lecture, I any governmental. authority anywhere. . do not want the Senator trom Indiana to misconstrue what I Mr. RAYNER. The Senator from Ohio evidently has misun have said on this subject. I say, again and again, the States deriltood me. I will state the proposition over. again. baye granted to the Federal Government all their h·eaty-making Mr. FORAKER. · I hope the Senator will not- - powers that are necessary to carry out the purpose of the Gov 1\lr. RAYNER. I want to answer the Senator's observation. ernment as constituted by the Constitution. That is the exact There is rio dormant power anywhere, because the Government language of Mr. Jefferson, and I can not improve on it. It has of· the United States contains the full treaty-making power for never been improved on, except by Mi·. Butler, who says Jeffer the purpose of caiTying out all of its delegated powers, and son bas been reversed. Jefferson has never been reversed by there is no dormant po\Yer any place under the Constitution. anybody except 1\Ir. Butler, and I will take Jefferson against l'J>ery power under treaties necessary to perfect the delegated my friend and. the distinguished reporter of the Supreme Court _powers has been parted with by the States, and the States have on that subject. parted with their h·eaty-making power, but I repeat again that This brings me right down to the precise point involved in the h·eaty-making power must be construed in pari mate1·ict this discussion, and that is to the tenth article of the amend with the delegated powers. ments, which reads as follows : 1\Ir. BACON. Will the Senator permit me a moment?· ·ARTICLE 10. The . powers not delegated to the United States by the The VICE-PRESIDE1\TT. Does the Senator from Maryland Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the yield to the Senator from Georgia? States, respectively, or to the people. Mr. RAYNER. Yes. Ba>e we a right to violate the Constitution of the United Mr. BACON. In connection with his suggestion as to whether States and incorporate in a treaty powers not delegated to the or not the powers are dormant, I wish to call the attention of United States, powers that are not necessary and proper for car- the Senator to the fact that the Constitution does contemplate . rying into execution the powers that are delegated, and barter that there may be questions in which a State may be interested away the privileges and rights reserved to the" States respec and which may require a compact or a h·eaty which are n:ot Fed tively by virtue of the instrument and of the tenth amendment eral questions; but its exerciEe of any power in connection with thereto that I have just referred to? The power of a State to that is restricted and made dependent upon the consent of Con regulate its public school system is clearly among its resened gre s. I will read the section to which I allude as illush·ative powers. Ha>e we, therefore, a right to provide in a treaty t h:l.t of the question propounded by the Senator from Ohio in connec the citizens of foreign lands .shall possess privileges in . the tion with the contention of the Senator from Maryland. Arti public schools of the States that are prohibited either by the cle 1, section 10, paragraph 3, of the Constitution, to be found Constitution or by the laws of the State in which they are on page 201 of the present edition of the Constitution and claimed? If we can, in defiance of the laws and constitution of a Manual, reads as follows : State incorporate any such provision in :i h·eaty so as to bind No State shall, without the consent of Congress; lay any duty of ton the State, then we can undoubtedly deprive the State of every nage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace; enter int o a ny reseHed right that it possesses, and rescind and annul its laws agl'eement or compact '\'Orith another State, or with a ·foreign power·, or and its constitution whenever they· c-ome in conflict with the engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. . treaty-making power. I h·ample upon this appalling doctrine. If the Senator will . pardon me just a moment, the point in lf eYer such a deformity as this should creep into our judicial connection, I think, with the subject under discussion is illus decisions it would disfigure the Constitution to such an extent trati-ve of the fact that it was in the contemplation of the Con that its features would no longer be capable of recognition. It stitution that there were subjects-matter possible of compacts would annul the charter; it would frush·ate the intention of the or h·eaties in which the States might be direcly interested and men who framed it; it would undermine the entire framework which did not relate to the General Government .in its Federal of the instrument, and it would convert us from a constitutiOJlal capacity, but which subjects were in their h·eati.llent by the go>ernment into a dictatorship, with the States in abject serv Statel!l !PI' in .dealing with by the States-so restricted that there itude to Federal power, and with the Executive in practical con could be no action with reference thereto unless Congress t rol of the destinies of the Republic. should consent; in other words, that there were questions which THE LEADL'G AUTHORITIES UPON THE SUBJECT. could be and properly would be the subjects-matter of treaties I want now to go over the cases. I know it is monotonous interesting the States directly, but which were subsidiary en in the Senate to read cases, and I will not read them, because tirely to the general power of the Governm~nt and required to I think I can recollect them. There are two lines of cases. Tile be subject to its supervision. first line is made up of the three cases of Ware v. Hylton (3 Mr. RAYNER. l\fr. President, I was coming to that in a Dallas)., the case of Chirac v. Obirac, from my own State (2 moment. · While I am quite willing to submit to any interrup Wheaton, 259), and a case in Virginia, Fairfax :v. Hunter (7 tions, I think tbere will be plenty of questions to ask me when Cranch, 603) . I get into the cases. Ware v. Hylton is the great case that is quoted against the Mr. CULBERSON. Will the Senator allow me just to read proposition that I am arguing here now. That case was argued another section of the Constitution which will clear up this par by Marshall. It was the only case that Marshall e-ver argued ticular matter? in the Supreme Court of the United States. It was decided by The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maryland Jt~st.ices Chase, Patterson, Cushing, Wilson, and Iredell, and the yield to the Senator froni Texas? · . case covers 100 pages. Let me see if I can give it in a few Mr. RAYNER. I was going to read all of those sections, I wo:rds. will say to the Senator. I ha-ve the clause in mind to which Virginia bad confiscated the debts of all British creditors. be refers. After the Revolution Congress made ·a treaty with Great Britain -Mr. CULBERSON. What clause is it? providing that British subjects should have the right to pro e Mr. RAYN"BR. There are three clauses I was going to read cute their claims in the courts of the United States without im ffom the Constitution. The first clause is in relation to the · pediments. There was a conflict between the act of Virginia ' right of the President and the Senate to make a treaty ; the sec confiscating the debts of British subjects and the treaty of the ond clause the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON] has read, United States giving British subjects without impediment the and the third clause is the clause prohibiting a State from right to sue. The United States courts held that the tr·eaty pre making a treaty. _ vailed and that the laws of the State of Virginia were in conflict Mr. CULBERSON. That is the one I desired to read. with it and were void. I give you that case in a very short Mr. · RAYNER. Do not misunderstand my purpose. I am com,pa~s. I want to take the cases of Fairfax v. Hunter and willing that the Senator should interrupt me. Chirac v. Chirac. . ·Mr. CULBERSON. It is very pertinent, Mr. President, I Mr. MALLORY. Mr. President-- 302 OONGRESS:(ONAL RECORD-SENATE. DECEJ.\-IBER 12, ~ f - • • • - • .. - - - ~ -
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maryland to the conclusion that be has made a mistake, and that you can yield to tlre Senator from Florida? not make a treaty which interferes with the re erved rights of :Mr. RAY1\TER. Certainly. the State; and the only question to his mind i whether it is a Mr. :MALLORY. In the case of Hylton v. Ware the Supreme reserved right of the State. If it is once settled that it is, wllen Court expressly declined to give an opinion as to whether a you once admit it is ·a reserved right of the State, then it treaty could override the Constitution. . . can not come within the treaty-making power, because you can :Mr. RAYNER. I am coming to that in a minute. f have not no more violate article 10 of the Constitution than you can fini bed with Ware v. Hylton. I have had Ware against Hylton violate any other article of the Constitution in onnection with in my mind for pretty nearly forty years now, and I am going its inhibitions and limitations. to finish with it in forty seconds, if I can. It occupies a hun Let me read a very peculiar passage from this author against dred pages in the reports; so I do not intend to read it. himself. I am quoting now from a hostile authority to sub I am coming now to the other cases in the first line. Mary_ stantiate the propositions for which I am contending, because I land passed a law, and so did Virginia, that aliens could not hold have the most eminent authorities in the country to su tain property. The Government made a treaty with France that ·the propositions upon which I stand. aliens could hold property· in the United States. The laws of I read fl'om page 31 of Butler on the Treaty-~Iaking Power, a Virginia and Maryland came into conflict with the treaty, and most interesting book. If it were not all wrong on this point it the Supreme Court of the United States held that the treaty would be the most valuable book upon the subject that we have pr'evailed. Those are the two cases that are cited to sustain the in· the United States. Upon page 31, . ection 344, o:f.lt this work proposition that Mr. Butler is contending for and against the we find the statement which I shall read, made by my friend, Mr. proposition that I am advocating. I want to say one word about . Butler, whom I know personally very well, and of whom I think those cases. The treaty referred to in Chirac v. Chirac and in very highly, and I, do not intend that any criticism of mine upon 'Vare v. Hylton 'vas made under the Articles of Confederation~ his work shall in the slightest degree l'e:fiect upon his great in It was not made under the Constitution at all. If you will look dustry and talent as a lawyer and a"' an author. He represents at the sixth article of the Constitution, you will see that it rati the same school that my friend the Senator from Indiana rep fies all treaties that have been made. This was one of the resents-the school that believes that we are a government of treaties that it ratified, because it was a treaty under the Arti-· inherent sovereignty. . cles of Confederation, and, furthermore, Justice Cushing, in SEc. 344. State statutes up1~eld; Chinese laun£lt·y oases.-It must uniting in the opinion of the court, says that Virginia was a not be presumed, however, that the Federal courts have always· inter party to the treaty, and being a party to the treaty she could fered to prevent State action in regard to mattet·s which at·e wholly under their control, and that they have used the treaty-making power not abrogate her own act, and she was estopped by having par~ as an· excuse for interfering iu their internal affairs. In 1885 the same ticipated in it and having been a party to it. We all _recollect learned justice of the Supreme Court who bad declared the San Fran that under the Articles of Confederation it was necessary that cisco queue ordinance invalid sustained a municipal ordinance of ~an Francisco imposing certain regulatioRs and restrictions upon laundries, nine States should assent to a treaty before it became effective. · and which was as undoubtedly aimed directly at the Chinese as the Let me get _to the second line of cases, which the Senators queue ordinance had been. The Supreme Court held, however, that the from the Pacific coast will recollect without my going into de regulation of laundries was a matter which came within the right of the municipality, and that treaty stipulations as to rights to live and tails. Both California and Oregon passed laws in referenct' to labor should not be used to prevent the proper enforcement of municipal this question. California passed a law that no Chinese labor~rs regulations. · should he employed by any corporation, and Oregon, passed a law Upon page 56. we iind the following statement: that Chinese laborers should not be ~mployed upon the public The Supreme Court has, in regard to treaties, as it has in regard to works of that State. The question came up under the Chinese Federal statutes, ever kept in view the exclusive right of States to tre ty-and. the cases are reported in 5 and 6 Sawyer; they are regulate th~ir in.ternal affairs. circuit court cases-the question came up under the Chinese Upon page 350, section 455, we find this remarkable statement treaty, Does the treaty prevail or do the law of California and from the same author, which seems to be in direct conflict with the law of Oregon prevail? Is the law of California a .valid law almost every other statement that he has made in this valuable which provides that no Chinese laborer shall be emp,loyed by work upon this subject: any corporation in the State of California? Is the Oregon law SEC. 455. Power must ue limited, as no unl-imited powers exist. a valid law which provides that no Chinese laborer shall be He bas been arguing in 454 sections that unlimited powers employed upon any public works in Oregon? The Supreme exist and when he comes to the four hundred and fifty-fifth Court said no. Why? Because, they held, the treaty having secti~n he says the powers must be limited, as no unlimited provided that Chinese -at that time should have the right to live powers exist; and in order to apologize for the remarks he here, that the right to live here carried with it the right to has made in the antecedent sections he goes on to say : labor here; that a man can not live without earning a livjng; After perusing the foregoing chapters the reader may think he is jus that if we bad the right by treaty to give them the privilege of tified in presuming that the author does not consider that there are any coming h~re, _ the treaty .by intendment and construction carried limitations whatever on the treaty-making power of the United States, either as to · the extent to or subject-matter over. which it may be with it their right to earn a living; but the court never touched exercised. • upon the reserved rights of the States. I should think we were justified in presuming so w~en he Now, I want to take up the last case I am going to quote on has argued that question in the sections which have preceded the other side of this subject, because I want to. argue it fairly. this section. I come now to the 'decision in 92 United States,. that most unfortu Then says the author: nate decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It does Such however, is not the case; the fact that the United States is a not trench at all upon the argument I am now making. Cali constitutional government precludes the idea of any absolutely un fornia provided that no woman of ill repute should come into limited power existing. the ports uf California. . That is the Freeman case (92. U. S). He has never said t{lat before. IIe continues: What did the Supreme Court decide there? As the Sen~tor The Supreme Court bas d~clared .that it m~st. be admitted as to from Wisconsin knows, they did what they had never done be every power of society over Its members that 1t IS not absolute and fore. They went back of that statute. They never construed unlimited; and this rule applies to the exercise ?f the treaty-making power as it does to every other power vested m the Central Gov the statute according to the language of the statute, but they ernmeilt. The question is not whether the power is limited or unlim held that California intended, by that provision of her law, to ited, but at what point do the limitations begin. exclude Chinese women, although there . was not a word said If the author had said that in the fir t section, it would ha\e about Chinese women or women of any other race. It was o_ne saved him the trouble of writing the greater part of his book. of those peculiar cases in which the Supreme Court of the United Now, Mr: President, let me come to the citation of my ca es, States has gone into the motives of a ·State legislature in order and I will finish them very briefly, although it is a subject very to determine the validity of her stati1tes. But, Ur. President, difficult to cover in the space I am devoting to it. I llave the when they come to decide that case they never touched upon cases where this identical question has arisen:._where the u the reserved rights of the State. ·If you will examine the Free preme Court itself, and in approval of State authoritie , has man case you will see that the Supreme 'Court held in that case held not only that a reserved right of the State does not come that it was a regulation oi commerce, and that California had within the h·eaty-making power, but has held that this right ot pa sed a statute violating that article of the Constitution which a State to admit a particular class of pe<>ple into its educational gives the Congress of the United States the right to regulate institutions is a reserved right of the State, and the Government coilllllerce with foreign nations. has no control over it whatever, either in the treaty-making Now I want to give ·my cases. I could give numbers of other power or in statutes. cases, but before I give my cases, I wish to read one or two ex Let · me read an extract from the case of Geoffroy v. Riggs tracts from this author whom I have quoted here upon sev:eral (133 u. s" 267), as follows: occasions, to show how he contradicts himself upon this point, The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms un and how, when he i arguing against himself, he is finally forced limited except by those restrain.ts which are found In that tastrument 1906. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 303
against ·the action of the Government or of its department!!, and those question in such case would not be solel'y what is provided for by the arising from the nature of the Government itself and of that of the treaty but whether the State retained the power to enact the con States. tested' law or had given up that power to the General Govet·nment. If the State retains the power, then the President and Senate can not take In 5 California, in the case of The People v. Gerke, the court, it away by a treaty. A treaty is supreme only when it is made in pur in its opinion, said : suance of that authority which has been conferred upon the treaty The language which grants the power to make treaties contains no making department and in relation to those subjects the jurisdiction words of limitation; it does not follow that the power is unlimited. over which has been exclusively intrusted to Congress. When it tran lt must be subject to the general rule, that an instrument is to be scends these limits, like an act of Congress which transcends the con construed so as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts. stitutional authority of that body, it can not supersede a State law If it were otherwise, the most important limitation upon the powers of which enforces or exercises any power of the State not granted away the Federal·Government would be ineffectual, and the reserved rights of by the Constitution. To .hold any· other doctrine than this would, if the States would be subverted. This principle of construction, as ap carried out into its ultimate and possible consequences, sanction the plied not only in reference to the Constitution of the United States, supremacy of a treaty which should entirely exempt foreigners frl:lm but particularly in the relation of all the rest of it to the treaty-making taxation by the. respective States or which should even undertake to grant, was recognized both by Mr. Jefferson and John Adams, the two cede away a part or the whole of the acknowledged territory of one leaders of opposite schools of constraction. of the States to a foreign nation. I now refer to the case of The People v. Gallagher, in 93 New In addition to this case, I want to refer to the important York Reports, page 438, :ind to the case of Roberts v. The City of ra es in 119 Federal Reporter, page 381, and in 5 Howard, Boston, 5 Cushing, 198, both of which cases have been cited with page 613, to the opinion of Justice Daniel, which is conculTent approval by the Supreme Court of the United States, and in · upon the proposition from which I quote, and which reads as which the question whether a separation of the races in the follows : · public schools was a violation of the " privileges and immuni This provision of the Constitution, it is to be feared, is sometimes applied or expounded without those qualifications which the character ties" guaranteed by the Constitution came before the courts. of the parties to that instrument, and its adaptation to the purposes I quote from the first ca e : fot· which it was created, necessarily imply. Every ~,>ower delegated to The school authorities have power, when, in their opinion, the inter the Federal Government must be expounded in coinctdence with a per ests of education will be promoted thereby, to establish schools for the fect right in the States to all that they have not delegated ; in coinci exclusive use of colored children; and w.hen such schools are estab dence, too, with the possession of evet·y power and right necessary for lished and provided with equal facilities for education, they may ex their existence and preservation ; for it is impossible to .believe that clude colored children from the schools provided for the whites. these ever were, in intention or in fact, ceded to the General Govern The establishment of such separate schools for the exclusive use of ment. Laws of the United States, in order to be binding, must be the different races is not an abridgement of the " privileges or immuni within the legitimate powers vested by the Constitution. Treaties, to ties" preserved by the· fourteenth ·amendment of the Federal Constitu· be valid must be mr de within the scope of the same powers, for there tion, nor is such a separation a denial of the equal protection of the can be 'no " authority of the nited States," save what is derived laws given to every citizen by said amendment. mediately or immediately, and regularly and legitimately, from the It seems that the "pr·ivileges and immunities " which are protected Constitution. A treaty, no more than an ordinary statute, can arbi by said amendment are those only which belong to the citizen as a cit!-. trarily cede away any . one right of a State or of any citizen of a zen of the United States- State. ! beg my friends to draw the distinction here between a citizen I wish to refer now to a case in 118 Federal Reporter. of the United States and a citizen of a .State, because a man may This was a rase where a Chinese girl filed a petition for a be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any mandamus against the public school tt·ustees of San Francisco, State- I think, asking_admission · i.rito the white .school. It was denied. The case \Vent to the United States court, and the court said those which are granted by a State to its citizens and which depend solely upon State laws for their origin and support are not within the that she had no right to be admitted into the white public scpools constitutional inhibition and may lawfully be denied to any class or of California; that there were schools set apart for her, and race by the State at its will and discretion. she could go into those schools. Is it not a strange thing that It seems also that as the privilege of receiving an education at the expense of the State is created and conferred only by State laws, it California can pass a law provi~g that the Chine~e children . may be granted or refused to any individual or class at the pleasure of who live there shall be separated in the schools, and can not pass a the State. law that the Chinese rhildl·en who do not live there, those who · .Mr. FULTON. May I ask the-Senator from - 1\I~ryland a ques shall come there hereafter . shall be not separated, but that tion? ·they must he put in 'the white schools? · Mr. RAYNER. Certainly. l\Ir. -FLINT. l\fr. President-- ' Mr. FULTON. I wish to say first that I am in accord with The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the !Senator from 1\Iarylan thing incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as the ernment the power to cover by treaty every right, privilege, and natives of the country, submitting themselves to the laws there estab lished. conces ion that comes within the treaty-making power in order "ART. 3. The citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall to carry out the objects and purposes of this Government as receive in the States and TeHitories of the other the most constant pro defined in the Constitution. I do not for a moment set up the tection and security for their persons and property, and shall enjoy in this re:;>pect the same rights and privileges as are or shall be gmnted reserved rights of the States against the exercise of any con to the natives, on their submitting themselves to the conditions im stitutional power that may be incorporated in a treaty. I ad posed upon the natives." mit that the United States can enter into any treaty with any Under these articles the complainants have the same rights as citi zens of the United States. It would be absurd to say that they had foreign power in reference to any subject embraced in the Con greatet• rights. We have seen that the right to sell intoxicating stitution. I deny, however, that it possesses any inherent right liquora is not a right inherent in a citizen, and is not one of the to make a treaty, and I claim that the treaty-making power privileges of American citizenship ; that it is not within the protec lies in grant and not in sovereignty and must be construed in tion of th~ fourteenth n.mendment; that it is within the police power. The police power is a l"ight reserved by the States, and has not been pa1·i mate1·ia with all the other clauses of the instrument that delegated to the General Government. In its lawful exercise the creates it, and that in interpi·eting the h·eaty-making power we States are absolutely sovereign. Such exercise can not be affected by must be governed by the principles of international law, it any treaty stipulations. usages and its practices, as those principles, usages, and prac In addition to the case that I have cited, and ih closing the tices appertain to our form of constitutional government. I entire reference, I desire to now adveit to several diplomatic utterly deny that we have any right to make a h·eaty tllat precedents of great value upon this subject. The first incident violates the Constitution, or deprives the States of their reserved took place during the administration of Mr. Marcy over the rights to conduct their local affairs over which the Federal Gov Department of State, and I quote his opinion in the matter: ernment has no jurisdiction,. and which .they alone have the [l\Ir. Marcy, Secretary of State, to Mr. l\!a on, minister to France, rigbt to administer according to their own constitutions a!ld September 11, 1854.] statutes. It is not, as you will preceive by examining l\!r. Drouyn de L'Huys's dispatch to the Count de Sartiges, the application of the "principle " THE ·RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE STATES. to the particular case of M. Dillon which is to be disavowed, but the A I said at the commenc~ment, this is a grave and profound broad and general proposition that the Constitution is paramount in authority to any treaty or convention made by this Government. question tllat we have encountered. The local problem sinks This principle, the President directs me to say, he can not di avow, into insignificance be ide the great principle that i here in nor would it be candid in him to withhold an expression of his belief volved. It affords a timely warning and admonition that at that if a case should arise presenting a direct conflict between the Constitution of the United States and a treaty made by authority any time, tllrougll the treaty-making power, a deadly blow may thereof, and be brought before our highest tribunal fot· adjudication, be aimed at the entire fabric of our institutions, and they can be the court would act upon the principle that the Constitution was the leveled to the g1;ound. If the President can practically make a paramount law. treaty, and that is what he is doing in other direction , nnd The second incident also took place during the administration dispose of the reserved rights of the States, then the treaty of l\Ir. Marcy : making power is above and beyond tile Constitution, and the [Mr. l\Iarcy, Secretary of State, to Mr. de Figaniere, Portuguese charge supremacy of the States within their own borders departs nnd d'affaires, March 27, 1855.1 vanishes forever. If the Democratic 11arty accepts such a doc Although the language of .Article II of the consuJar ·Convention between the United States and France of February 23, 1853, exempt trine as this, tllen it has alRo parted with its birthright and ing consuls from compulsory process, is general and unrestricted in abandoned tile historic ground upon which it has stood for over terms, "yet it is here held that it does not take a way the right n century. I believe in the complete exercise by the F deral which the defendant in a criminal prosecution has to resort to such Government of every Federal pbwer contained in the Constitu process to procure the witnesses in his favor, for this right is secured to him by the express language of the United States Constitution." tion, but beyond the delegated power· and the right to pas al~ That instrument is paramount in authority to the laws of Congress la""s necessary to execute the delegated powers, I would never or of any of the States, and to all treaty stipulations. justify the slightest encroachment upon the re erved right of At a very late date the question _arose with the Department sovereign States within their own· borders. In the night of our of State, presided over by Secretary Hay, and I read the conclu despair, this resened right of the States is the only. con tella sion that the Secretary reached upon this subject, quoting from tion that for our party has no "fellow in the firmament." We l\Ir. Moore's valuable treatise upon international la'f: ""ere born under its horoscope; and if there is any life left in u .July 19, 1899, the Department of State declined a proposal of the we mu t for ake the worship of grotesque and meaningle. s British Government to negotiate a treaty to prevent discriminatory idols and follow it like a pillar of fire to the land of our nativity. legislation by the several States of the United States, subjecting foreign fire-insurance companies to higher taxes than domestic com EXECUTHE SESSION. panies. The reason given for 'the declination was that the negotiation of such a h·eaty would probably be futile on account of the indi. posi ::\Ir. CULLOM. I move that the Senate proceed to the con id tion of the people to permit any encroachment upon the exercise of eration of e:s:ecuti...-e bu. iness. powers of the local legislation. The motion ""as agreed to ; and the Senate proceeded to tlle A.RE THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA THFJ PROPE.RTY OF CALIFOll~I.A. consideration ·of executive business. After three hours and OR OF THE UNITED STATES? forty-eight minutes spent in executive session, the doors were Is it necessary for me to say anything further? Are the reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m.) the Senate ad public schools of alifornia the property of California or the journed until to-morrow, Thur day, December 13, 1VOG, at 12 prope1'ty of the United States? Does the public school s tern o'clock m . . of California or of any other State belong to the State tllat creates and supports it, or to the Government that has neither created nor sustained it? Does this subject come witllin the NO~IIN A.TIONS. h·eaty-making power? Does it come within the delegated pow E xecutive nominations 1·eceived by the Senate Decenwer 12, 1906. ers of the Constitution? Have the United States the right to in ENVOYS E..XTRAORDI ~ ARY A D MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY. corporate into a treaty a provision that the States shall, out of their own treasury, educate the citizens of foreign governments? Leslie Combs, of Kentucky, now envoy extraordinary and min Is there any power in any treaty to deprive any of tlle Stutes ister plenipotentiary to Guatemala and Honduras, to be envoy of their reserved rigllt to regulate and manage their local affairs extraordinary and mini ter plenipotentiary of the United States according to their own usages and statutes? Are not foreign to Peru, vice Irving B. Dudley, nominated to be amba sador ex governments that deal with us presumed to know the nature traordinary and plenipotentiary to Brazil. and the character of our institutions, and is not this principle .John W. Riddle, of Minne ota, now envoy extrnor minister plenipotentiary to Peru, to be ambassador extraoi.·dinary, That. so much as relates to the levees of the Mississippi River be referred to the Committee on Levees and Improvements of the Mis- and plenipotentiary of the United States to Brazil, vice Lloyd sissippi River. . · . C. Griscom, nominated to be ambassador extraordinary and 'Ihat so much as relates to patents, copyrights, and trade-marks be plenipotentiary to Italy. referred to the Committee on Patents. That so much as relates to the pensions of the dvil war be re ferred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. CONFIRMATIONS. 'l'hat so much as relates to the pensions o! all the wars of the United States, other than the civil war, be referred to the Committee Execut-ive nominations oonfinned by the Senate December 12, on Pensions. · 1906. That so much as relates to the affairs of the District of Columbia (excepting appropriations) be referred to the Committee on the Dis ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. trict of Columbia. William B. Moody, of Massachusetts, now Attorney-General, That so much as relates to reform in the civil service be referred to the Committee on Reform in the Civil Service. to be associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United · That so much as relates to the election of the President, Vice States. President, or Representatives in Congress be referred to the Committee SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. on Election of President, Vice-President, and Representatives in Con gress. Victor H. Metcalf, ·of California, now Secretary of Commerce That so much as relates to the irrigation of arid lands be referred and Labor, to be Secretary of the Navy, vice Charles Joseph to the Committee on Irrigation of .Arid Lands. That so much as relates to immigration or naturalization be re Bonaparte, nominated to be Attorney-General. ferred to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. ATTOR EY-GEl'I"'EBAL. That so much as relntes to printing be referred to the Joint Com mittee on Printing on the part of the House. Charles Joseph Bonaparte, of Maryland, now Secretary of the ·That so much as relates to the industrial arts and expositions, other Navy, to be Attorney-General. than revenue and appropriations, be referred to the Committee on Indush·ial .Arts and Expositions. · SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR. The committee amendments are as follows : Oscar S. Straus, of New York, to be Secretary of Commerce In line 4, page 2, strike out "intercolonial railways and cables." and Labor. In line 13, page 3, strike out the words "and to Cuba." 1\fr. PAYNE. l\1r. Speaker, I do not ca1·e to have it read. . U:ITERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF ALGECIRAS. This is a resolution for the distribution of the President's mes The injunction of secrecy was remo>ed from the resolution sage, and I silnply ask to have it referred to the Committee of ratifying the general act and an additional protocol signed on the· Whole Bouse. April 7, 1906, by the delegates of the powers represented at the The SPEAKER. Without objection, it will be so referred. conference which met at Algeciras, Spain, to consider Moroccan HOLID.AY ADJOUBNME T. affairs. Mr. PAYNE. I also present the following resolution. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the same. ' HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Dlerk read as follows : i Concurrent resolution No. 45. WEDNESDAY, December 12, 1906; Resolv ed bJJ the House of ,Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Thursday, December 20, they The House met at 12 o'clock noon. stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian, January 3, 1907. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. HE BY N. CouoEN, D. D. l\fr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the adoption of the I'eso The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and ap lution. proved. The question was taken ; and the resolution was agreed to. DISTBffiUTION OF PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. On motion of l\1r. PAYNE, a motion to reconsider the last vote 1\fr. PAYNE. l\Ir. Sp'eaker, I present the following privileged was laid on the table. report from the Committee on Ways and 1\Ieans. MRS. MARY HILL. The SPEAKER. Tlie gentleman from New York presents a l\1r. CASSEL. l\Ir. Speaker, I present the following privi privileged report from the Committee on '\Yays and Means. leged report from the Committee on Accounts. The resolution is as follows: The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report it. Resolution No. 647. The Clerk read as follows : Resolved, That so much of the annual message of the President of the Resolution No. 639. United States to the two Houses of Congress at the present session as relates to the revenue and the bonded debt o! the United States be re Resolved, That the Clerk of the House is hereby authorized and di fen·ed to the Committee on Ways rend Means. rected to pay to Mrs. Mary Hill, widow of Isaac R. Hill, deceased, late '.rhat so much as relates to the appropriations of the public revenue employee on the rolls of the Doorkeeper of . the House o! Represeuta for support of the Government as herein proYided, namely, for the leg tives, a sum equal to six months' pay at the rate of compensation re islative, executive, and judicial expenses ; for s1mdry civil expenses ; ceived by him at the time of his death, and a further sum, not exceed for fortifications and coast defenses; for pensions; fot· the District of ing $250, on account of the funeral expenses of said Isaac R. Hill, said Columbia, and for all deficiencies, be referred to the Committee on .Ap amounts to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House. propriations. The question was taken ; and the resolution was agreed to. That so much as relates to the judiciary of the United States, to the administration of justice, to the punishment and prevention of crime MRS MARY A . WEBB. and the organization of courts be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. CASSEL. I also present the following. That so much as relates to banks and banking and the currency be The SPEAKER. 'l'he Clerk will report the same. referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency. The Clerk read as follows : '.rhat so much as relates to commerce, life-saving service, interco lonial railways and cables, and the Isthmian Canal be referred to tile Resolution No. 648. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Resolv ed, That the Clerk of the House is hereby authorized and di That so much as relates to the merchant marine and fisheries be re rected to pay Mrs. Mary A. Webb, widbw of Homer B. Webb, deceased, ferred to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries. late a messenger on the rolls of the Doorkeeper of the House of Rep That so much as t·ela tes to agriculture, and appropriations tberefot·, resentatives, a sum equal to six months' pay at the rate of compensa and to forestry be referred to the Committee on Agriculture. tion received by him at the time of his death, and a further sum, not That so much as relates to the foreign affairs, the consular and dip exceeding $250, on account of the funeral expenses of said Homer B. lomatic service, including appropriations therefor, be referred to the Webb, said amounts to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House. Committee on l•'oreign Affairs. · Tha t so much as relates to the military establishment, and appro The question was taken; and the resolution was agreed to. priations therefor, be referred to the Committee on Military .Affairs. COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS. 'l'hat so much as r elates to the naval establi s ~m e nt a nd to the con struction of additional vessels for the Navy, and appropl:iations there 1\Ir. CASSEL. I also offer the following. for, be referred to the Committee on Naval .Affairs. The Clerk read as follows : That so much as relates to t he post-offices and post-roads and to the carrying of the foreign mails, and appropriations therefor, be referred R esolved, That the Clerk of the House is hereby authorized and di to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. rected to pay out of the contingent fund of the House, upon vouchers That so much as relates to the public domain be referred to the Com to be appt·oved by the chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Har mittee on the Public Lands. bors, a sum not exceeding $250, for extra stenographic service to be That so much as relates to the relations of the United States to the rendered said committee. Indian tribes, and appt·opriations therefor, be referred to the Com- The question was taken ; and the· resolution was agreed to. mittee on Indian Affairs. • That so much as relates to the Territories, .Alaska, and the Hawaiian FLORENCE Q. NORTON. .Islands, and to the admission of States, be referred to the Committee on the Territories. Mr. CASSEL. I also present the following. That so much as relates to the islands which came to the United The Clerk read as follows : States through the treaty of 1899 with Spain, and to Cuba (except so R esolved, That the Clerk of the House is hereby authorized and dl· much as relates to the revenue and the appropriations), be referred rected to pay out of the contingent fund of the House to Florence Q. to the Committee on Insular .Affairs. Norton, the sum of $30 for services rendered to the late Representa· That so much as relates to education be referred to the Committee tive Henry C. .Adams from July 1 to July 9, 1906, both dates in· on Education. elusive. That so much as relates to' labor be referred 'to the Committee on Labor. The question was taken ; and the resolution was agreed t C\. XLI--20