"1 "TV Pfjflirr
The Commoner.
4
VOLUMB 7, NUMBERS
-... -Twyr r i -?, " .
1 !
37,
j4
"It 1h no uncommon thing Tor persons In various
parts or llio counlry lo write (o their representa
tives in congress asking wlmt llio I'lilllpplnoM
, linvo cost llio UiiltcHl SIiiIom. .!. 11. McClure, dis
trict attorney of Heaver county, Pennsylvania,
wrote a Idler to Keproscntntlvo' Achoson of Penri
Hvlvniiiu llio other dav asking for a copy of the
original rosoliillfins passed l).V both houses of con
gress relative lo llio war with Spain, wiling forlli
Uial llio war so declared wan not a war of con
quest, but for liiiiiuiiiity'H Hako, and asking wlial
llio onliro cos I per aiinuin had boon lo llio Unilod
Slates ii ilntaiulng the Philippines, and also the
cost of llio Spanish war. Mr. Acheson referred
llio loiter of his eouslilnent lo llio Bureau of In
sular Affairs of (In war department nnd received
n reply from Mrig.-dcu. Clarence U. Edwards,
chief (if the bure.iu."
The substance of (leneral Edwards' reply Ts
given by (he I'os correspondent llius: "II will
be noloii Unit in lliis suilcmonl of affairs from the
chief of the Insular Bureau that he says, 'llio
only "Xpcnso igainsl the United Slates revenues
at 'present is the increased cost of the mainte
nance of troops In the Philippines over flint in
the nulled Stales.' This is leaving entirely out
of the account ihe cost of maintenance of the Phil
ippine scouts, Ihe increased cost of the navy, and
llio appropriations for formications, navy yards
and docks, magazines, and barracks, in the Philip
pines Islands. Surely these Items are as directly
chargeable to the cost of the Philippines as any
moneys the United Slates has ever ox ponded on
what wo know oiliclally as our 'non-contiguous ter
ritory.' Hoforring to the sums expended from flic
United Slates treasury for the support of llio
ninny, navy, and coast and (Jeodotle survey in the
Philippines (Jen. Edwards says blandly: Mt has
been Impossible to obtain any statement which
would show how much of such expenditures
could bo charged lo our holding the Philippines.
Expenditures for these purposes are not divided
or classed in such a way as lo make the calcula
tion possible. Decidedly, then, the lime has come
when llicso e.vpendllures should be 'divided or
classed In such a way' as to make the calculation
possible. Here Is a concrete Instance of the ten
dency on the pait of Ihe government, as pointed
out In this correspondence to the Evening Tost
on Saturday, to withhold the whole truth about
Ihe Philippines, (loverninent accounting Is notor
iously Involved, but It Is not such an Intricate
science that, If the desire existed, tabulations
could not ho made of all the sums spoellioally dis
bursed from Ihe United States treasury and di
rectly chargeable to the Philippines. When di
rected by the senate, Ihe secretary of war was
enabled to give a spoellic and detailed accounting
of the moneys expended under his jurisdiction
from May, 1SD8, to .Juno, 1002. Undeniably. If the
consent of the administration supporters in the sen
ate could be obtained, the war department would
Hud a way to make an answer to Senator Clay's
inquiry calling for similar information from
3 uly 1, 1002, to the present day."
It must be plain to every careful observer that
the American people are becoming weary of the
Philippine Islands and impatient of the ex
cuses given by republican leaders in their efforts
to conceal (he (ruth, in the language of the Post's
correspondent: "Why should not the people know
how much it is costing us to teach the Filipinos
how to govern themselves? Since we have had
possession of the islands, they have cost us mil
lions of dollars and a large number of lives.
There is not the slightest doubt that they are
going lo cost us other millions of dollars so long
as we retain possession of them. If they have
been of any particular value to us, the fact has
escaped general observation."
Why not Immediately pave the way for dis
charging our duty to ourselves and to the Filipi
noes? Why not make a declaration df the na
tion's purpose to surrender the Philippines to the
Fillplnoes on the same terms upon which we sur
rendered Cuba to the Cubans? Why not while
, giving liberty to the Filipinoes and giving the
Philippines to liberty give relief to the American
people who have at their own doors problems no
grave and pressing as to require their best thought
niwl li!ilinvjf nnilinvrn''
oooo
TREATY POWER LIMITED
Orwell C. Kiddle of Columbus, Ohio, has writ
ten for The Commoner an interesting article on
"Treaty Power Limited." The article follows:
In The Commoner of February 22 was an ex
cellent communication from Joseph IT. Call of Los
Angeles, Cal., on the subject "The Treaty
rower." While in full agreement with the views
expressed by air. Call, and especially the last
three paragraphs of his letter, there is one sentence
to which the writer desires to note an exception.
The particular sentence reads: " A valid treaty
Is, of course, a law of the United States, and can
change or amend any other existing law, whether
made by the two houses or in the form of a
treaty."
This (statement seems lo correctly express what
llio writer believes to be a popular error, and it is
a desire only to correct such an erroneous opinion,
If possible, in no spirit of cavil or criticism, that
prompts this dissenting opinion.
It Is possible the growing opinion that a treaty
can alter or abrogate a statute or a part of the
constitution Is due lo an assertion of the president
in his instructions to Secretary Metcnlf, and re
peated by Mr. Melcalf to the people of California
when he went to San Francisco as the special
emissary of the president to inquire into the Jap
anese school 'Miibroglio. The president told Mr.
Melon I r lo tell the Callfornians that a treaty is
"the supreme law of the land," and Unit is what
Mr. Melcalf told them: which gives us another
proof of how il is possible for half a truth to be
come a whole falsehood. For the president's ut
terance, reiterated by Mr. Metcalf, is only half a
truth.
If il were true that a valid treaty "can change
or amend any oilier existing law," then, as Mr.
Call pertinently remarks, the treaty making power
would have no limitations, llio reserved powers of
the states would be obliterated, the power of the
lower house of congress suspended, and the treaty
power become superior to the constitution.
But on iliis subject the constitution itself has
something to say. After vesting in the president
and senate the authority to make treaties with for
eign nations, the constitution thus clearly defines
the status of a treaty and specifically fixes its
limitations:
"This constitution, and the laws of the
United States which shall be made in pursu
ance thereof; Mid all treaties made, or which
shall be made under the authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme law of the
land; and the judges in every state shall be
bound thereby, anything In the constitution or
laws of any state lo the contrary notwithstand
ing." Article V), section 2 of the constitution.
Stripped of all the verbiage of court opinions,
and getting back to the homespun meaning of
words standing alone or sympathetically assembled
In sentences, this section of the constitution means
that the supremo law of the land Is, first, the con
stitution Itself, therefore It is predominant; then,
the statutes enacted by congress, if they conform
to the constitution, therefore subordinate, then
treaties that conform to the constitution and
statutes, if there bo a statute, or to the constitu
tion itself if there be no statute, therefore also
subordinate.
That the framers of the constitution themselves,
meant to give priority and supremacy to the con
stitution is patent from the fact that In setting
forth what shall be the supremo law of the land
they designated the constitution hrst, then laws
in consonance with the constitution, then treaties
in consonance with the constitution or laws, or
both. The judges are not admonished that they
are to be bound by treaties only, and that state
constitutions and laws are impotent under treaties
alone, but that courts are to be bound by and
state const it u (Jons and laws must be in accord
with, first, the federal constitution, then federal
laws that are constitutional, and federal treaties
that arc constitutional.
No amount of conjuring with words can make
this section of the constitution read that power is
reserved to the president and senate to enact
through treaties any law not specifically authorized
by the constitution, or to override by treaty any
law enacted by a state under its reserved rights
guaranteed the state by the federal constitution,
for if this could bo done the states would have
no reserved rights whatever, would be stripped
of their sovereignty, and made subservient to the
federal administration. For it must be distinctly
understood that the word "authority" in the con
stitution does not mean that the president and sen
ate are given unrestricted power to make treaties,
but that they may make such treaties as are au
thorized by the constitution within the bounds
fixed by the constitution. So that instead of being
ultra vires, the treaty power is limited to the stip
ulations of the constitution.
As the validity of a statute must stand or fail
by the test of conforming to the constitution so
must the validity of a treaty stand or fall by the
same test, with this difference, that it must also
conform to a law, if there be one, as well as the
constitution. And as an act of congress may be
reviewed in court, so also may a treaty bo re
viewed in court, it being one of the trilogy which
constitute the supreme law of the land, but re
moved in the third degree from the head of the
trilogy.
It must stand to reason, then, that if a treaty
transgress any right guaranteed by the federal
constitution to a state, whether expressed or re-
served, it is as invalid as any act of congress that
undertakes to do a like violence.
Which is lo say: The president -and senate n?
a treaty making function have no more richt or
authority under the constitution to make a trenf
touching the right of California (or any other
state) as one of its reserved prerogatives, to reg
ulate schools as it may deem best for its citizen
ship, than congress would have to regulate the
schools of California, or any other state, by a fed
eral statute.
If the president, in collusion with the senate
can override the constitution in respect to schools
by a treaty with a foreign nation, by the same au
tocratic power lie could, if able to cajole the sen
ate into giving him the necessary "advice and con
sent," negotiate treaties with wine producing
nations to abrogate the temperance laws of any
state; or make treaties to regulate railroad rates,
trusts, corporations, insurance companies, child
labor, strikes, inspection of beef, milk tests, the
price of butter and eggs and farm products, in
ternational marriages and divorces, race suicide,
orthography, football rules, the code duello, jlu
jitsu, equestrian etiquette, rules for rocking the
cradle, to regulate the, doses of paragorlc, or do
any fool thing in the form of a treaty for which
no authority can be found in the constitution and
laws of the United States.
Such power would go a step further. If a
president "by and with the advice and consent"
of the senate can enact laws in a way that will
take precedence over the constitution and statutes,
then wo have reached the highest degree of auto
cratic monarchy, and our boast of being a republic
a mere hoax.
If a president and ninety men, acting as sen
ators, can do by treaty what the combined pre
rogatives of the president, senate and house can
not do by statute, then we have no need of the
house of representatives and it might as well be
abolished. Wo might as well "have all our laws
enacted that way, say in the guise of treaties with
San Domingo or Panama; also abolish all our state
legislatures and govern the states through treaties
with Japan, China and other "heathen nations,"
with the "most favored nation" clause, inserted to
let in the civilized, or so-called Christian nations
on thes ame level. ORWELL 0. RIDDLE. '
Columbus, 0., February 25.
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE
"John J.," Pittsburg, Pa. Please allow me to
suggest, through your columns, the formation of
local associations of Commoner readers. Such as
sociations would be productive of good for the
country, good for the members of such associa
tions and good for the Commoner. The great mul
titude of Commoner readers commune in spH'it
with each other. On the broad principles of gov
ernmental reform they think, they believe and
they hope along the same lines. Why not get to
gether in the flesh, occasionally. In local political
matters they can counsel with each other and liy
united action or even an effort at united action
help along the great good work and aim of The
Commoner, which is the promotion of the cause
of an ideal and a pure democratic government m
the United States, in fact as well as in form.
While we (the readers of The Commoner) are
not alone in high hopes or lofty aspirations for
our country's good still we might justly be termed
a class of crusaders believing and working indi
vidually; accomplishing what good we can but not
near so much as we might accomplish if we had
the advantages that local organization would af
ford. Reading The Commoner promotes a love
of right and justice in legislation, bo it local or
national, as much as reading the Bible promotes
the faith among Cnristians. While it may not
cause a republican to forsake his party it will
have a strong tendency tp make him insist on re
forms within his own party. Local organizations
of Commoner readers could map out plans for
placing before their republican friends the inanv
dignified arguments for good government that The
Commoner contains.
A Postal EmployePostal matters are now be
fore congress and the allowance in the appropria
tion bill for the various branches of the depart
ment of postal affairs will soon be passed upon
Ninety per cent of the postmasters of the first and
second class offices draw 90 per cent more salary
than thoy earn and their immediate assistants and
some other subordinates draw far in excess of
services rendered, while many clerks in the
classes that do the heavy work of handling and
distributing the mail get but little more, If anv
more, than unskilled laborers. I handle thousands
of dollars every day in the form of registered let
ters and other matter and at a great risk of loslns
?n,?TLmore laasca nntl my Position with them,
for I have not the conveniences of a safe place to
leave them while I am going about the depot
climbing over trains to look after loading mails
J
"Mr
-'
v
i
' IS.v,!'. jlu,
