enate in the
exercise of this constitutional function. It cannot in any way
enlarge, limit, or attach conditions to the treaty-making power,
and the subcommittee concluded their report on this branch of the
subject with this statement:
"The committee is clearly of the opinion that nothing contained in
section four of the Dingley Act constitutes any valid restriction
upon the jurisdiction and power of the Senate to act upon the
commercial treaties now pending."
That question being disposed of to my satisfaction, I proceeded to
urge the consideration of the treaties at every meeting of the
committee for many months, but it was not until June, 1902, that
I secured the favorable report of all the treaties, excepting the
treaty with the Argentine Republic and that with Jamaica.
There was another very serious question which I raised myself, and
that was, whether legislation was necessary to carry them into
effect, or whether the treaties were self-executing. None of the
treaties contained any provision for legislation, and by their
terms, they would go into effect without legislation. John A.
Kasson, who negotiated them, told me that he purposely left out
any reference to legislative action, because the executive department
had serious doubts on the subject, and preferred to permit the
Senate itself to pass upon it.
I have always contended that reciprocity treaties, like other
treaties in general, are self-executing, if by their terms they do
not provide for legislative action.
I made a very extended address in the Senate on January 29, 1902,
because I wanted to get the attention of the Senate to this important
constitutional subject. I said in opening:
"Has Congress any power or authority, under the Constitution, over
treaties? This subject has been discussed at different times during
our entire Constitutional history. It is a very complicated
question, not only because the authority of the House on the subject
of treaties has been disputed and argued almost from the very
adoption of the Constitution, but the fourth section of the Dingley
Act specifically provides how and when such treaties shall be made.
. . . In my opinion the fourth section of the Dingley Act, so far
as it attempts to confer, limit, or define the treaty-making power
is not only an unwarranted interference with the powers of the
President and Senate, but is unconstitutional, because it comes in
conflict with that clause of the Constitu
|