VIEWS OF MR. DANFORTH. The undersigned, a member of the Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, is opposed to the action of that committee, at its meeting held this morning, in approving the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 39) proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of the several States. My objections are on the following grounds: That said proposed amendment is unwise; that the committee has not been afforded time nor opportunity for a careful consideration of the same, requisite for the decision of a question of so much importance. APRIL 12, 1911. 6 HENRY G. DANFORTH. O 62D CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 1st Session. § { RECIPROCITY WITH CANADA. REPORT APRIL 13, 1911.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. UNDERWOOD, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 4412.] The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4412) entitled "A bill to promote reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes," having had the same under consideration, report it back to the House without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. This bill is the same as that which passed the House at the Sixty-first Congress, except for the amendment to authorize the President to negotiate agreements with the Dominion of Canada wherein mutual concessions are made looking toward freer trade relations and further reciprocal expansion of trade and commerce, added as section 3. In its report on the bill (H. R. 32216), dated February 11, 1911 (Rept. No. 2150, 61st Cong., 3d sess.), the Committee on Ways and Means reviewed at length the various provisions of the reciprocal agreement, and it is therefore considered unnecessary to discuss them further at this time. As was stated by the committee in the report of February 11: The bill takes a long step toward establishing for the Continent of North America a policy of unrestricted trade and commerce, recognizing natural conditions that have been too long ignored. The President, in his special message of January 26, 1911, to the Senate and House of Representatives, earnestly recommended that the reciprocal agreement between the two nations be promptly enacted into law, and the bill (H. R. 32216) to effect the enactment of this agreement was prepared under the direction of the President and to expressly comply with his recommendations by the officials of the Department of State. This measure, which provides for the exemption from duty of a large number of articles and the substantial reduction of many duties intended to be protective, constitutes an important revision of our tariff laws. There has been no delay or suggestion of delay on the part of the President in connection with this legislation pending the collection of statistical data or the completion of investigations by the Tariff Board. On the contrary, the President has urged immediate and favorable action by the Congress, naming reasons fully in accord with longestablished Democratic principles. Quoting from his message of January 26, 1911: No yardstick can measure the benefits to the two peoples of this freer commercial intercourse, and no trade agreement should be judged wholly by customhouse statistics. We have reached a stage in our own development that calls for a statesmanlike and broad view of our future economic status and its requirements. The Ways and Means Committee of the Sixty-first Congress, following the thought of the President, stated in substance in the report above referred to (Rept. No. 2150, 61st Cong., 3d sess.) that to lower duties on the necessities of life would increase the purchasing power of the customer and contribute to his prosperity, inasmuch as trade with nations is the same as with men; and that no taxes are so objectionable as those levied on the necessities of life, because these taxes bear most heavily on the persons least able to endure them. Notwithstanding the urgent reasons given by the President to the Sixty-first Congress for immediate action upon this agreement, that Congress expired without having taken definite action, and the President has convened the Sixty-second Congress in extraordinary session for the purpose of considering this measure. This reciprocal agreement is in the interest of the great majority of the people of the country, and is in accord with the well-established Democratic principle of guarding the welfare of the masses. The committee recommend the passage of the bill. 1st Session. Part 2. RECIPROCITY WITH CANADA. APRIL 18, 1911.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. DALZELL, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the following as the VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. [To accompany H. R. 4412.] The undersigned members of the Ways and Means Committee can not agree with the majority of the committee who have favorably reported the "Bill to promote reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes." Said bill is essentially a Democratic bill, in line with the historic free-trade policy of the Democratic Party, and at variance with the historic protective policy of the Republican Party. The bill was passed in the House of the last Congress substantially without consideration in committee, and under a drastic rule which prohibited amendment in the House. It was passed without even having been read, having, however, been first adopted by a Democratic caucus. The purpose of the bill is to carry into effect an agreement with Canada revising our tariff laws. That agreement did not originate in the House of Representatives where, under the Constitution, all measures raising revenue must originate. The agreement was made by the Executive on his own authority, so far as has been disclosed, without consultation with anyone authorized to speak for the party in power. Certainly no party convention suggested or authorized it. The agreement was made without authority of law. There is nowhere in the Constitution of the United States an authority delegated to the President of the United States to make such an agreement. There is nowhere in the Constitution any authority for Congress to validate such an agreement. The President's power to negotiate with foreign governments exists nowhere outside of the treaty-making power. The treaty-making power does not extend to revenue measures; they belong exclusively in their initiation to the House of Representatives. Even if the treaty-making power could be invoked to sustain an agreement relating to tariff changes, such H R-62-1-vol 1—2 power must be exercised in the manner prescribed by the Constitution; the agreement must have the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senate. The requirement of the two-thirds vote in the Senate can not be avoided by calling the treaty a "trade agreement" and securing its indorsement by a majority vote of the two Houses. The action of the President is an invasion of the constitutional prerogative of the House of Representatives to originate revenue legislation. To say that this bill originated in the House of Representatives is merely to juggle with words. The bill is merely the form, the agreement is the substance. The agreement is not submitted to the House of Representatives for consideration and legislation, to be perfected and amended in accordance with the judgment of the House. It is submitted by the President in his message to be approved. Under the Constitution the power is given exclusively to the House of Representatives to select the subjects of taxation and measure the rate of tax. In this case the President and our Canadian neighbors have selected the subjects of taxation and fixed the rate of the tax. The House has no duty to perform but that of confirmation. When this bill is enacted it will simply be an illegal validation of an illegal act. We protest against the passage of this bill, for the following amongst other, reasons: (1) It renews a trade agreement with Canada similar to one that heretofore existed from 1854 to 1866, and the operation of which proved disastrous to the United States. As a business proposition it is wholly indefensible. Advantages under it will accrue to Canada without any corresponding advantages to the United States. It is uncalled for by any great body of our people. (2) It is un-Republican. It proposes reciprocity in competing products, which is absolutely inconsistent with the policy of protection. It is an abandonment of the protective policy. It is in violation of the history, the traditions, and the platforms of the Republican Party. (3) It is class legislation of the most obnoxious character. It selects from out all the classes of our community the farmer and deprives him of the protection accorded to all other classes. It is in the interest of the foreigner and against the American. "The agreement of the bill is the reciprocity agreement of 1854 over again, with comparatively little change," says Mr. Fielding, one of the Canadian commissioners, speaking in the Canadian Parliament. "It promises prosperity to the people of Canada, and this house will make a grave mistake and do a grave wrong if it refuses to take advantage of it." An examination of the provisions of the bill and of the terms of the reciprocity agreement of September, 1854, will confirm Mr. Fielding's statement that the two are substantially the same. There is this difference, however, that under the 1854 agreement we obtained something certain fishery rights-under the present we get nothing. That the treaty was one-sided, vexatious, and unprofitable appears from the fact that in the last year and three-quarters of its life we remitted to Canada duties amounting to $70,152,163, and the balance |