{"newspaper_name": "American watchman and Delaware advertiser.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 3564, "word_count": 632, "ccnet_language_score": [0.984499990940094], "ccnet_perplexity": [845.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
iority OF the Senate was IN us iaso.' oo nno"
and that il would have passed y 'ce mad haa time


Thus, according to the high evidence OF tne oeha-
tor from Maryland, three times deiiverea' ~ was
not the Pnys1pEsr. but rant Of tim. that pre-,
vented the passage of the bill at the session prior


to the last--a rather strange cause, by the way


when we recollec that the session was OF about SIX


mouths duration. This evidence OF Gen. SMITH
ought to be deemed conclusive, as his speech ap-


pgars to have been so deemed by the majority OF


the Senate, Of whom he was one.


Mr.. JOHNSTON, Of Louisiana, IN ms speeGh'


SAYS, " At the last session, memorial, praying the


removal of the discriminating duty, was referred


to the Committee of Commerce, who made report
declining legislation, because it was proper sub
ect for negotiation A bill for that purpose was,
however, introduced, but was not acted upon tor


rant of time" "When the gentleman from Ma
ryland applied to the President and Secretary OF
State, they both said it might be repealed they


made no objection they did not dissuade him ;
they both told him there was no longer any diff
Guilty in the adjustment of the affair with Great


Britain; that the negotiations were about TO be re-
newed. 1t was mere question, whether It was
better to give them this in advance, or hold it in
entirely at liberty, and he so stated in his speech
of last year"


Thus it appears that II was not the Aiministra-
ton, but the want of time, that prevented the pas
sage of the bill. The President and Secretary OF
State when applied to,t appears, frankly gave their
opinion. They thought it best to effect the object
by negotiation, the means in which both Govern
ments, up to that time, had confided; but they did
not attempt to control the action OF the Senate,
which was left free to pursue its own course, and
which appears would have passeda bill if it could
have found the time.


After all. neither the Administration, nor the
0pp f,np IN fhn dnin or N nh
account of the present state of this question:
Great Britain alone is chageable with the existing
condition Of the controversy. Had she notified the
American Government, in March, 1895, that she
would not negotiate, instead of inviting It to renew


the negotiation, the question might have been salts
factorily settled at the session Of Congress pre-
vious to the last for the difference between an
adjustment by legislation and by treaty is one OF
mode only, not materially affecting the substance.


The past, however, ls gone by, and cannot be re-
called Supposing both Governments to have bean
actuated by equal sincerity, the case exhibited is
one Of mutual misapprehension. Our Executive,
acting in conformity to the mode agreed upon by
both parties, appears to have supposed that the af
fair would be adjusted by negotiation. The Brit
ish Government, without communicating any
change of its intentions in that respect, seems to
have expected an arrangement By reciprocal legis-
lation. The present difference between them is
one Of FORM In this state Of things, the hope may
be INDUCED that the two Powers will yet reconcile
their interests in some mode or other. In the
mean time, as Congress has adjourned without
passing any new law without afiording to the Ex-
ecutive any additional aid, or any light as to its
wishes, we can see other alternative but for the
President to issue the proclamation which by the
act of the 1st of March, 1928, he is enoed 70 put
forth and which, it appears. he has felt himself
bound to do. Nat Intel.