The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

TT ATT apy TTT TTT AAEM UU -- VOL. 50 NEW YORK President Refuses to Obey La Executive Will Ignore Part of Jones Act Despite NOVEMBER, 1920 ( HURUNUI ND HH AULA CLEVELAND No. 11 w Supreme Court Decisions--Hurts American Shipping HIP operating. and shipbuilding occupy a peculiar position among Amierican industries. Originally ranking as the prime factors in building up a country from among the loosely united colonies, these indusiries suffered the penalty of their own success. in other words, after they had aided in making a country, the momentum they had imparted carried the country itself away from the sea and left the maritime industry to fight a long battle for existence. The result of the country's neglect was clearly shown when the declaration of war against Germany found the United States unable to exert its full strength until ihe shipyards were restored and were able to supply the carriers for placing troops and supplies in Europe. Now the President of the United States has signaled out the marine field for another rare distinction. He has publicly refused to carry out the provisions of a law purposely drawn to trausfer the war-given marine strength to a peaceful commercial fleet. No other law passed by congress within the memory of the present generation of shipping men has aroused hopes like the Jones act. It offered a bulwark against - the return of the anemic days between 1860 and 1917. Congress has always been regarded as the stumbling block in securing proper marine legislation but the past few weeks have shown that even favorable law- making by congress is not sufficient as the President may stili arrogate the power to decide whether or not he will obey a law he himself has signed. Works Injury to American Ships The weakness of the defense for the President's relusal to notify foreign uations of the intention of the United States to regain its freedom of action on the question of imposing discriminating customs duties 1 imports in foreign vessels, is beyond dispute. The injurious effects of his refusal to obey the Jones law are for future determination but are certain to do incalculable harm to America's sea opportunities. The action of the Executive is based on his an- Nounced belief that the constitution gives the President fot only the right to draw up new treaties, but to Mitiate any modification of existing treaties, always, of course, with the advice and consent of the senate. The Supreme Court has clearly stated an exactly opposite cofistruction of the constitution. In effect, the President in this case has placed the executive department in the position of refusing to carry out a law passed by the legislative branch well within the rights given it by the judicial branch. The equality of power between the three government departmetits is made a mockery. Under the constitution, a treaty ranks as the supreme, law of the land. Its status is that of a congressional act and it is similarly subject to abrogation or modifi- cation. The Supreme Court has rendered decisions stating that "A treaty may supersede a prior act of congress and an act of congress may supersede a prior treaty'"--"A treaty * * * is subject to such acts as congress may pass for its enforcement, modification or repeal"--"A treaty can be deemed only the equiva- dent of a legislative act to be repealed or modified at the pleasure of congress." Obey in 1915 But Not in 1920 Against these decisions of the Supreme Court, the secretary of state sets up only a veto message by President Hayes written in 1879. Secretary Colby chose from that message the clause questioning the right of congress to modify treaties but failed to call attention to the first half of the same sentence whiere congressional authority. to terminate a treaty is ac- knowledged as "free from controversy." In 1915, congress in a section of the seamen's law phrased in the sane words as the disputed section of the Jones law, called for the abrogation of clauses of treaties conflicting with the LaFollette act. The President at that time notified 21 nations of the country's intention to abrogate such clauses. Some protests were filed but withdrawn. The only ,change between 1915 and 1920 is evidently in the President's decision to obey or disobey a law as he. sees fit. The American merchant marine now has a new struggle for existence just at a time when many of its problems had apparently been solved. The experi- ence in such a battle gained during years.of discotrage- met will prove an asset now.