Chapter LXXV: Introduction (74)

The first case related to a provision for an Indian Treaty, and was suggested by the PRESIDENT, in a Message of the 7th of August, 1789, in which he says: "If it should be the judgment of Congress that it would be most expedient to terminate all differences in the Southern District, and to lay the foundation for future confidence by an amicable Treaty with the Indian tribes in that quarter, I think proper to suggest the consideration of the expediency of instituting a temporary commission for that purpose, to consist of three persons, whose authority should expire with the occasion." In consequence of this Message, Congress took into consideration the expediency of the measure recommended to them, and passed the act of the 26th of August, in the same year, appropriating twenty thousand dollars for defraying the expense of negotiating and treating with the Indian tribes, and authorizing the appointment of commissioners. The PRESIDENT having appointed commissioners to treat under the direction of the act, gave them instructions, which were communicated to the House, and from which this is an extract: "You will please to observe, that the whole sum that can be constitutionally expended is twenty thousand dollars, and that the same cannot be extended." Nothing having been effected by the commissioners, the PRESIDENT mentions the subject again in his Address to both Houses, on the 1st of January, 1792. In the month of March, in the same year, the House of Representatives adopted the following resolution, recommended by a select committee: "That provision ought to be made by law for holding a Treaty to establish peace between the United States and the Wabash, Miami, and other nations of Indians, north-west of the river Ohio; also, for regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and the mode of extinguishing their claims to lands within the limits of the United States." On the 29th March, following, a bill passed the House of Representatives, the title of which was amended in the Senate and passed, appropriating twenty thousand dollars for purposes expressed in the preceding resolution.

Mr. L. said this case was important, as it was the first communication relative to a Treaty made under the constitution. An attentive examination of its different parts would show that very different ideas were then entertained from those which were now enforced. He would first observe, that the discretion of the House of Representatives as to commerce with foreign nations, stood precisely on the same footing with that which they ought to exercise in regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes; that if one could be done without their concurrence, by Treaty, the other might also; and that, therefore, when the PRESIDENT recognized their right to deliberate in one case, he virtually did it in the other. Let us then attend to the language of the Message, said Mr. L., and we shall find that right of deliberation most expressly referred to. "If it should be the judgment of Congress that it would be most expedient"--what can be more explicit than this language? And again, "I think proper to suggest the consideration of the expediency of instituting a temporary commission." Here the same discretion is not only applied to, but the PRESIDENT, at that time supposing that no implicated power could deprive Congress of the right to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, submitted to their consideration the expediency of appointing commissioners. They passed the necessary laws, and he instructed the commissioners, not in the language that is now held, that they might stipulate for the payment of any sum, and that Congress would be obliged to find the means; but he tells them, "the only sum that can be constitutionally expended is twenty thousand dollars, and that the same cannot be extended." Why, (if the doctrine is true that we are under an obligation to comply with the terms of every Treaty made by the PRESIDENT and Senate,) why did he say no further sum could constitutionally be expended? If that doctrine were indeed true, his language would have been, Use what money may be necessary, contract for the payment of it in your Treaty, and Congress are constitutionally obliged to carry your stipulations into effect.

The resolution above quoted, Mr. L. said, was important, as it proved that Congress then supposed that they ought not only to provide by law for holding a Treaty with the Indians, but that they also had the power, and ought to exercise it, of regulating trade and intercourse with the same people, and of prescribing the mode of extinguishing their claims to lands within the United States; but all this, said he, it is now discovered may be done without their aid, by Treaty.

The second instance of the exercise of this dreaded discretion, was in the law of March 3d, 1791, appropriating twenty thousand dollars to enable the PRESIDENT to effect a negotiation of the Treaty with Morocco. This originated in the Senate, and is a decided proof that neither the PRESIDENT nor Senate had at that period any idea of the moral obligation that is now discovered, or they would, without the formality of a law, have at once stipulated with the new Emperor for the payment of the necessary sum, which must have been provided by the House.

In a third case, the PRESIDENT had thought proper to take the sense of that House in a matter that of all others demanded secrecy, and under circumstances that would have prevented his making the application, if he had conceived himself at liberty to act without their concurrence. He adverted to the Message of 30th December, 1790, where the PRESIDENT says: "I lay before you a Report of the Secretary of State, on the subject of the citizens of the United States in captivity at Algiers, that you may provide in their behalf what to you shall seem expedient."

No act having been passed by Congress in consequence of this Message, the PRESIDENT did not conceive himself authorized to bind the United States by Treaty, for the necessary ransom of their citizens; and therefore nothing was concluded until after a subsequent Message and previous appropriation, in the year 1793, when another Message was sent relative to the negotiations with Morocco and Algiers, then pending: "While it is proper (he says) that our citizens should know that subjects which so much concern their interests and their feelings, have duly engaged the attention of their Legislature and Executive, it would still be improper that some part of this communication should be made known." Part of this Message, therefore, was confidentially communicated, which shows, Mr. L. said, on some occasions, it was not deemed imprudent to trust this House with the secrets of the Cabinet; and in consequence of this Message, a law was passed, appropriating one hundred thousand dollars for the purchase of a peace with the Algerines. It was ostensibly appropriated to a more general purpose, but the intent was well understood.

The next transaction that he should quote, Mr. L. said, as favorable to his doctrine, was the Message of the PRESIDENT of the 5th December, 1793, and the measure to which it gave rise. The PRESIDENT says: "As the present situation of the several nations of Europe, and especially those with which the United States have important relations, cannot but render the state of things between them and us matter of interesting inquiry to the Legislature, and may, indeed, give rise to deliberations to which they alone are competent, I have thought it my duty to communicate to them certain correspondence which has taken place."

This Message, Mr. L. said, accompanied the papers relative to France, to Great Britain, and to Spain; and a question would immediately occur, what were the deliberations to which the PRESIDENT then thought the Legislature alone was competent, and which he therefore thought it his duty to communicate. All our disputes with the nations referred to in the Message, were such as on the new construction of the Treaty power he could have adjusted by compact, without any reference to the House of Representatives; but it is plain, by the express words of the Message, that he did not believe that construction. It was no answer, Mr. L. said, to the argument drawn from this transaction, to say that the PRESIDENT only submitted the question of War or Peace to the Legislature by this Message.

1. Because the Message related to the three principal nations in Europe, and he never could have imagined that Congress would have deliberated on going to war with them all.

2. This was evidently not his intention, because as soon as measures were proposed in that House, which he supposed would lead to a rupture with one of those nations, all these measures were palsied by the appointment of an Envoy, and the commencement of negotiation.

It was clear, then, that the PRESIDENT thought the matters communicated by his Message, which related to commerce and boundary, were constitutionally vested in the discretion of Congress. The idea was corroborated by the words of a Message relative to the negotiation with Spain:

"And, therefore, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, I appointed Commissioners Plenipotentiary for
negotiating and concluding a Treaty with that country, on
the several subjects of boundary, navigation, and commerce,
and gave them the instructions now communicated."

Why, said Mr. L., communicate the instructions to the Ministers? Because they related to commerce, to navigation, to boundary, on all which subjects the PRESIDENT must have thought the Legislature had a right of decision. He must have thought so at that period; but, unfortunately, all precedent of free communication ended here; Mr. Jay's negotiation began, and a different construction was assumed.

From this view of the acts of Government, Mr. L. said, he trusted that a far different impression would be made, than that the doctrine he contended for was a new one, originating in opposition to the English Treaty, and a desire to disorganize the Government. That, on the contrary, it had been declared by the PRESIDENT, acquiesced in by the Senate, and acted upon by the House of Representatives.

MARCH 21.--In Committee of the Whole on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution:

Mr. WILLIAMS observed much had been said upon the subject of the present resolution, and so much time consumed, that he should confine his observations within a narrower compass than he at first intended.

It was contended that in a Republican Government there ought to be no secrets; but he would ask whether it was not specified in the constitution that secrecy should be observed on particular occasions? and, had not his colleague (Mr. LIVINGSTON) quoted the secret Journals of the House? He believed if the constitution of France were examined, it would be found that their system admitted of secrets. He had the honor, he said, to be upon a committee, before whom many papers were laid, which it would be improper to publish. With respect to the present papers, he did not think there were any secrets in them. He believed he had seen them all. For the space of ten weeks any member of that House might have seen them. It was not merely with respect to the present papers that he opposed the motion, but because it would be establishing a bad precedent; and, as they were a young Government, they ought to be cautious how they established bad precedents. It was well known that in the negotiations in time of war, confidential communications were necessary; but if no papers were allowed to be kept secret, what person would ever venture to make any such communication? Hence this country, when in the greatest danger, may be much injured by improper precedents.

He quoted authorities to prove that there never was but one precedent in Great Britain of a negotiator's papers being given up; that was in the last year of the reign of Queen Anne when the Ministry were soon afterwards obliged to fly their country. He was sorry that a gentleman returned by the Republican interest of one of the first cities of the Union should have had recourse to a desperate Tory faction for a precedent.

Some gentlemen had observed that the papers ought to be obtained, because the PRESIDENT had intimated, in his Speech, that he would lay the papers before the House with the Treaty; but they were mistaken in their observations, because the papers had not been laid before us.

A gentleman from Pennsylvania said, because the King of England laid the papers relative to a negotiation before Parliament along with the Treaty to which they related, they had also a right to papers, the Governments being similar; but when the King did this, he informed them that he had concluded such a Treaty; and after a thing was concluded, he did not know what could remain for Parliament to do. He would refer to a recent authority, and not go back to 1714; it was to the case of the Treaty with Great Britain respecting American loyalists, when papers were refused to be given up, and it was deemed a most inconsistent thing to require them. This business caused great debates in Parliament, and the motion for papers was lost, there being only sixty-three for it, and one hundred and four against it. Mr. W. read the observations of different members of Parliament on the occasion, and observed, that although he was unwilling to quote precedents from a Government not similar to ours, yet this was a case in point, and this Treaty was negotiated between Mr. JAY, on the part of the United States, and Mr. OSWALD, on the part of Great Britain.

The resolution before them called for all papers, whether public or private, except such as related to any existing negotiation; but as the Treaty was completed, the resolution included all papers. He should have had less objection to the motion, if the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia had been adopted. He did not see the use the papers would be of if they were got. The House was not vested with either the power to alter or amend the Treaty. But, say gentlemen, they are wanted for information. But he believed they ought to form their judgments of the Treaty from the instrument itself. Suppose I were to employ an agent, and give him instructions to make a contract for me, on condition that it should not be binding until I had approved it; and my agent return and I approve of the contract, what light can be thrown upon it by the instructions which were given to the agent? The instrument alone was what must be had recourse to; because he had it in his power to have withheld his sanction.

If his information was right, when certain resolutions were brought forward in the year 1793, a gentleman from Virginia said that Great Britain would refuse to negotiate with this country; but immediately upon the Treaty being made known, it was every thing that was bad.

He would endeavor to answer some observations which had fallen from a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES.) It was asked if the Treaty power could receive any check? He conceived the will of the people ought to be obeyed. They had given power to the PRESIDENT and Senate to make Treaties, which if not complied with, would be to oppose their will. In speaking of the amendments proposed to the constitution by the Legislature of Virginia, it was said they were only intended to make the check more certain than at present; but he read the resolution, viz: "That no Treaty containing any stipulations upon the subject of the powers vested in Congress by the eighth section of the first article, shall become the supreme law of the land, until it shall have been approved in those particulars by a majority in the House of Representatives. That the PRESIDENT, before he shall ratify any Treaty, shall submit the same to the House of Representatives; and insisted that it might be clearly deduced from them, that they did not conceive the Treaty power to have any check in that House. That State had kept uniformly the same ground in all their actions; but the different State Legislatures to which their amendments had been proposed, had determined the Treaty power rightly placed where it is at present. But because the people will not agree that they should have a check upon the Treaty power, gentlemen seem disposed to usurp it by their present doctrines."

The same gentleman (Mr. GILES) observed, that the checks in the Government of the United States had been completely routed for these six years. He was exceedingly sorry that the PRESIDENT could bind that House, but he said that was a sword that cut two ways. It was too late in the day to assert this doctrine, when the people were become so enlightened as to be better acquainted with the nature of Government, and better educated, than the people of any other nation in the world. They would, therefore, take care of themselves.

He said that a gentleman from South Carolina had observed that the Treaty was put into operation by the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT, and made a part of the laws of the land. An honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) granted that, when completed, the Treaty ought to be annexed to the laws. Mr. W. asked, was this not done? It had been promulgated in the way in which Treaties are directed to be promulgated; and he would ask, if a case were to come before the Judges upon it, whether they would not be bound to consider it as the law of the land? If the member from Virginia (Mr. GILES) had been opposed to the Treaty going into operation, why did he not take the proper mode to prevent it? He knew of the resolution which directed how Treaties are to be promulgated and annexed to our code of laws, he knew the Treaty had arrived, and he might have had the subject discussed. If a majority were for preventing the Treaty from being promulgated in the ordinary way, then the resolution might have been done away, and some other mode adopted which was thought most prudent.

The same gentleman next contended that law can annul Treaties. But he believed that the constitution decided that there was no other way of repealing Treaties but by mutual agreement of the parties, or by war. To break one article of a Treaty was to break the whole, and war, or a new Treaty must be the consequence. The reason he gave why laws could repeal Treaties, was, because laws were the will of the people. Treaties, Mr. W. said, were as much the will of the people as laws. The people had fixed barriers to the different branches of the constitution, which could not be overleaped without endangering the whole fabric.

In speaking of power, gentlemen say it is more likely to be abused in the Executive than in that House. But, in the year 1789, when amendments were first proposed to the States, a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) asserted "that it was less necessary to guard against abuse in the Executive Department than any other, because it was not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker; it therefore must be levelled against the Legislative, for it is the most powerful, and the most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control;" and Mr. W. quoted several laws which had originated in that House, by which very large sums of money had been expended to little purpose, which he would explain when they were in a Committee of the Whole on the report from the Committee of Ways and Means.

But gentlemen say, "Have we not as much power as the House of Commons in Great Britain?" He answered, their powers were limited; the constitution was their guide. He thought gentlemen proceeded as if they were about to form a constitution rather than discuss a constitutional question. Some gentlemen had said, Treaties of Amity ought to be vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate; others, that Treaties for a cessation of arms ought to be vested in the Executive; thus they wander, well knowing the ground they had taken was not tenable. It brought to his mind an observation made by an Indian Chief, in a Treaty at Albany, since the late war, who, after thanking the Great Spirit for directing them back in the good old path, which made them happy, lamented, that ever since they had wandered from that path, they had been miserable. So it would be with them if they left the constitution; they would wander from the right path, and involve themselves in difficulties. Appropriations for the army and navy in Great Britain must be made annually, without which they must be discharged. By our constitution we may appropriate for two years for the army, and no mention as to what time for the navy; so that we can make appropriations for a longer time for our army and navy than in Great Britain.

The gentleman (Mr. GILES) further observed, that the opinions entertained in that House three years ago, were not to influence them now; it was necessary however, in Mr. W.'s opinion, that whenever nations changed their customs, some notice ought to be given of the change, that it might be known by nations with whom they may have any transactions. To prove this, he quoted _Marten's_ Law of Nations. The Treaty had been laid before them, that they might appropriate money for carrying it into effect. On the first of June, the British were to give up the Western posts; if money was not appropriated, would they not be deceived?

Before he proceeded to remark on what had fallen from his colleague (Mr. LIVINGSTON) he would mention, that they had, for some years, in general concurred in their political opinions, and during the present session they had varied very little; in the question before the House, however, they should differ very considerably. Soon after the constitution was framed, a Convention was held in the State of New York, in which he had the honor to be a member. He was fully of opinion at that time, as he was now, that the Treaty power was a dangerous power, and, in consequence, gave his dissent to it.

He would proceed to remark on what had fallen from his colleague. He had said, how could they determine whether the Treaty was constitutional or not, or whether an impeachment was necessary, without information? The papers, as he had said before, were open for ten weeks, during which time gentlemen might have had access to them. But that gentleman said, they had denied him of late, and so they had been to him; but he understood they were at the Secretary of State's office, and might be seen there. He mentioned a case of a Treaty with a foreign country, in which their Minister might have received presents; but declared, that he did not believe there was any corruption in the negotiation of the Treaty in question. It appeared to him, therefore, inconsistent still to talk of impeachment.

Suppose, for instance, his colleague was Attorney General of the State of New York, and a man were to charge another with being guilty of burglary, whose character, reputation, and standing in life were irreproachable, would he subpoena him to meet the charge? No, he would not. And still the case is exactly similar to the present.

If, said Mr. W., his colleague or any member of the House wanted the papers, they had only to rise in their place and declare there were grounds of suspicion for an impeachment; would any member refuse the call? But he presumed no such thing was thought of. Why, then, expend so much precious time unnecessarily? The gentleman believed that the Minister had deviated from the instructions originally given him; but that he received new instructions. Whatever instructions were given to him, it appears, by the Treaty being ratified, that he executed them to the satisfaction of his employer.

It may be, said Mr. W., that this House may determine that it has a check on the Treaty-making power; but the next Congress may say there is no such thing. Whether there is, or there is not this check, it is necessary for the stability of the Government to have it determined; and he would join in sentiment with the gentleman from Maryland in a wish that it might be settled. But he would have the amendment constitutionally made; for, if we ourselves do not understand the constitution, it is not likely that our constituents at large should understand it. If I am wrong now in the true meaning of the constitution, I have been wrong since its adoption. The people are the sovereign; their will shall be my guide, from which I will not, knowingly, depart. I live in the midst of a body of plain but intelligent freemen, whose employment is the cultivation of the earth, and who prize nothing beyond the freedom they enjoy. They are jealous of their liberties, but they are obedient to, and willing to respect and support the laws of the land. How will they know the laws, if we do not understand the constitution after it has been in operation for nearly eight years?

Gentlemen observed, that if the Treaty-making power was meant to be vested solely in the PRESIDENT and Senate, it would have been said so explicitly; but, he thought, if the constitution had intended that House to have interfered in Treaties, that would have been expressed, as a few words would have done it.

His colleague asserted, that that House had the power of carrying into effect or not any Treaty; but he thought the House obliged to carry into effect all Treaties constitutionally and completely made. To support his doctrine, Mr. LIVINGSTON had referred to the practice of Great Britain, and singled out the Treaty of Utrecht.

In England, said Mr. W., the Treaty-making power is in the King. A Treaty, when made by him, pledges the public faith and binds the nation; but the Courts of Law and the officers of the revenue do not consider Treaties as the supreme law (when they change the regulations of commerce or interfere with previous acts of Parliament) until Parliament has passed acts conformably to such stipulations of a Treaty. The propriety, and, indeed, necessity of this rule, results from the monarchical form of that Government, the power of the King alone to repeal existing laws being a just ground of apprehension. From a like apprehension, a Treaty, though negotiated and made in all its parts by the PRESIDENT, must be submitted to the Senate for their ratification. The Senate is a popular assembly, and representing the States. The concurrence of two-thirds is equal on every principle of combining the public will with the acts of the constituted authorities to the sanction of Parliament.

In England, Treaties of Peace, of Alliance, and, perhaps, many others, are perfect and binding without co-operation of Parliament. The opinion of some is understood to be, and _Blackstone_ seems to be of the number, that every Treaty, when made by the King, is obligatory without the concurrence of Parliament. The practice, however, is to lay Treaties before Parliament when laws are necessary to carry them into effect, and for Parliament to pass such laws. And, although a very broad discretion has been claimed in Parliament to pass or reject such laws, the uniform practice, except in one instance, has been to pass them. The faith of the nation is considered as pledged. The case where laws to carry the Treaty into effect have been refused, is the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1714. The credit of the example is much abated by the circumstances of the times when it happened. The Duke of Marlborough had been displaced, but his friends were powerful; a Tory Minister was in power and much hated; Queen Anne was decaying, and died that year, and the succession to the Crown was doubtful. Parties were ready to draw the sword against each other, and the most distinguished Ministers were soon proscribed and fled the country. A civil war broke out in 1715, the next year. One only example in such times, and the forerunner and cause of such events, weighs little against the course of practice in numberless cases, all issuing another way. It proves that the practice of Parliament corresponds with our doctrine. If, however, their maxims are different, so is their constitution in this particular. The act of the King should be compared with the act of the PRESIDENT alone; and the ratification of the Senate should be, and, by our constitution, it must be, considered equal to the sanction of Parliament. The doctrine ascribed by Mr. GALLATIN to the Parliament affords a reason for their calling for papers; because, he says, they are to act upon them. Yet such call is seldom made, and would probably be refused, if made without manifest occasion for the papers. Our constitution has settled a different doctrine; and, as the papers cannot be needed, they cannot properly be asked for.

He doubted not that the Treaty lately concluded with Great Britain had ere now been laid before Parliament, and a sum of money granted for recompensing spoliations committed in this country. Should they then attempt to refuse appropriations for carrying the Treaty into effect, on their part, where would be their national honor, their national faith? Suppose the Treaty were a bad bargain, that would not authorize them to break it. No: if a bad bargain be made to-day, make a better to-morrow. Neither should they determine the thing before it came before them. Probably they may not find it so bad as it had been represented; for though it might, in some respects, narrow our commercial intercourse, yet, perhaps, by so doing, the agricultural interest would be proportionally benefited. He was convinced that the agricultural interest was the true interest of this country. If by the Treaty we find that it tends to the welfare of the farmer, we may conclude our negotiator had the true interest of his country in view; and it was his (Mr. W.'s) opinion that a man taken from the plough and put on board a vessel was a man lost to the true interest of this country. This country is not like that of Great Britain: they are confined to small islands; we have a country extensive and fertile, and it is our duty to encourage settlers, increase our numbers, and, by so doing, we shall soon be in a situation to bid defiance to all the world. He was willing to encourage commerce to its full proportion, but not so as to injure the agricultural interest. The third article in the Treaty had been quoted by a gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) as having a tendency to operate unequally in our impost duties; Mr. W. observed he did not think that was very exceptionable, so far as it had been explained. He did not think the third clause of the Treaty a bad one: it only went to this, that when Great Britain carried goods through our country they were to pay the same duty as American citizens. And would not this be a greater advantage to the United States than if they went up the rivers St. Lawrence or Mississippi, and paid no duty? All the duty received of them would be so much gain to the country.

His colleague (Mr. LIVINGSTON) went on too contemporaneous a construction, and said that the House were better able to judge of the meaning of the constitution than the conventions which were held to consider upon its adoption. He did not think so. He said, he had always been called an anti-Federalist, and was so considered to this day. He would willingly join to obtain an amendment to the constitution with respect to the Treaty power; but, because he did not believe the constitution contemplated an interference in that House in respect to Treaties, he could not agree to the proposed doctrine.

Mr. W. said, it was not necessary for him to go into the argument which induced the convention to fix the Treaty-making power: it need only be mentioned that they knew how and where that power was exercised in Great Britain; and, in order to avert the difficulties which had arisen there, the convention vested the power with the PRESIDENT and Senate; and, to guard against undue influence, directed that two-thirds of the Senators present should concur with the PRESIDENT. The convention had many difficulties to surmount in this article; they had to do away the equal power the small States shared, under the Confederation, with the large States. But, to do away the discordant interests of the different States and to give the small States satisfaction, agreed that all the States should be equally represented in the Senate. In the Treaty-making power each State hath an equal voice. To extend it further, for another check, without the consent of the smaller States, would be doing away, in part, that power which the small States had retained.

He read the observations of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, when debating on the merits of the constitution in the convention held in that State, to prove that Treaties were considered to be paramount to any law. Among the several passages from the debates of the Convention of New York, Mr. W. read the following proposed amendment of Mr. Lansing, who was a member of the convention that formed the constitution of the United States, whose abilities and candor were not doubted by any who knew him:

"_Resolved_, As the opinion of this committee, that no
Treaty ought to operate so as to alter the constitution of
any State; nor ought any commercial Treaty to operate so as
to abrogate any law of the United States."

He believed that the amendments proposed in the Virginia Convention arose from their considering that there was no check in that House: the contrary supposition, he said, would be like rowing a boat one way and looking another.

His colleagues read extracts from the journals to prove that the PRESIDENT had laid before that House instructions which he had given his Ministers employed on the Treaty business. He believed, when much money was likely to be wanted, it was prudent and right to do so. It was as if he asked that House whether it would agree to a proposed negotiation or declare war--as if he had said, "I cannot unlock your Treasury; which way would you have me act?" It was inconsistent to say that he had diminished his power by asking advice. Books, he said, might be produced without number; but nothing could be brought to justify the breaking of a contract constitutionally made. It has become the law of the land. The House has, indeed, the physical power to refuse to appropriate to carry such a Treaty into effect; but the constitution meant that what was done by one branch of the Legislature should be confirmed by the others, except the act was unconstitutional. If a Treaty was constitutional, they were therefore impliedly bound to carry it into effect.

His colleague denied that any danger lay in the popular part of the Government; he thought differently. To say there was more danger to be apprehended from the Executive than the Legislative branch of Government was unsound doctrine. He should enlarge on this subject when the Treaty came before the House, and he trusted he should clearly show that the greatest danger of abuse lay in that House. Have there not bills originated in this House which have caused the expenditure of much money to very little purpose? Is there not more responsibility in one man than in large bodies? and was not the member from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) of this opinion, as I have before stated?

Where have (said Mr. W.) the acts originated that have cost so much money to be expended, by reason of which the report of the Committee of Ways and Means states the necessity of borrowing such large sums to meet the necessary demands--the laying additional taxes and duties? Did these acts originate with the Executive? No. Where then? In this House. All money-bills must originate in this House, being so directed by the constitution.

Though his colleague represented Great Britain as being in chains, yet he was drawing precedents from their Government. At first, he thought he had fallen in love with the Government, but he afterwards found his mistake. In that Government, said Mr. W., one precedent creates another, and they soon accumulate and form laws; but his friend was drawing precedents from that nation to support the checks, which, Mr. GILES said, had been for six years completely routed from the Government of the United States. He feared, if the gentlemen were permitted to take their course, we should soon have a curious sort of constitution.

But, to conclude, the ruin or prosperity of the nation depended much on the present Government. He said, if the people flourish and are happy; if they are industrious and at peace, they will not complain of their Government. If this be the case, it will scarcely be admitted that the checks in the Government have been completely routed for these six years; if they were, however, he thought the nation could not be better than happy.

Mr. MILLEDGE observed, that as the hour of adjournment was drawing near, he would not detain the committee long. The length of the debates, on both sides of the question, had left him little room for observation; but as a constitutional question had been involved in the resolution before the committee, and as all constitutional questions were important in their nature, he could not think of giving a silent vote. He perfectly agreed with the gentleman who had spoken last, from the State of Connecticut, that we ought not to put our foot from off the constitution, and on that, he said, he would stand. Nor did he think it necessary to resort to this or that Government to know their usages, or to know what was said in this or that State, or what was written by this or that man--but, according to the common and most obvious meaning of words contained in the constitution, to draw our conclusion. That part of the constitution which had been often mentioned, he begged that he might be permitted to read--that all Treaties made by the authority of the United States should be the supreme law of the land. He asked, what was the authority of the United States? Powers derived from the constitution. What are these powers? Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The better to understand these, let us see, said he, in what order they present themselves to us. In the constitution we find that in the very first section all Legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. This, then, is the Legislative power, the statute making power, the ordaining power, the enacting power, or any other name by which it may be called. Now, then, said he, let us see the extent of this power. In the 8th section, Congress shall have power to make _all_ laws. It would be necessary, he said, to attend to the monosyllable _all_. If the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate have a right to make a law, do Congress make all laws? Certainly not.

The constitution being his guide, he felt supported by a just confidence in his opinion; but he would not say but he might be mistaken, and was unwilling to commit himself. It was his opinion, then, that Treaties ought to be bottomed on a law before they can have any binding influence. To elucidate this, he said, it would be necessary to read the whole of the clause: Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, (which are, he said, seventeen in number, particularly expressed,) and _all_ other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any _department_ or officer thereof. Here, again, he observed, we find the monosyllable _all_. What does it import? Every one--the whole. Of what? Of all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any _department_ or officer thereof. What is the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate? The Treaty-making _department_. Therefore, being a _department_, whatever powers are vested in them by the constitution cannot be carried into execution but by a law, otherwise the clause in the constitution means nothing. What is a law? The will of the people made known. Where is that will to be found? In the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled. Are the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate Congress? No; therefore they cannot make a law.

The gentleman from New Hampshire asked, what do the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate operate upon? I answer, with him, on Treaties; but in their nature they are only a department, and whatever a department does cannot, he repeated, be carried into execution but by a law. The Treaty-making power is an intermediate department, and no instrument they can make can operate the repeal of a law, the same force being required for a repeal as to enact. The gentleman from Rhode Island observed, that if the House of Representatives was to have a control over Treaties, small States might be injured in their commerce, because the representation on that floor was unequal. Mr. M. observed, that though his State was not a small State, yet it was small in representation, but he apprehended no danger. Under the Articles of Confederation, it was a Government of States; under the present Government, it was a Government of departments, of checks. He said, the local interest of one State was so blended with another that the security of the one became the security of the whole, founded on a proportion of sovereignty surrendered by each to the whole, and each drawing from the whole its proportion of security. Let us then, said he, examine the compact made by each with the whole on the score of commerce. Here he read part of the 9th section: No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State; no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another. He said, the negotiators of the Treaty, in the 12th article, had laid a prohibition on the exportation of cotton to any part of the world, except in British vessels--cotton, the growth of our own soil, an important staple in the two Southern States, particularly in the one he had the honor to represent. But it is said, and so we find it, that this article is suspended, and open to further negotiation. He called on the committee for any member to deny that the principle did not still exist. He said, then, if a principle still exists in that Treaty which militates with a fundamental principle, a principle in the constitution, he left to the committee, which ought to yield. Were this principle to prevail, it would destroy a vital part of the constitution, and injure the agriculture of the States. He called on that gentleman to beware of admitting such a principle; for, if once allowed, it would extend not only to the cotton of Georgia, but to the flaxseed of Rhode Island, the flour of Pennsylvania, and the tobacco of Virginia.

Mr. M. concluded by observing, that, from all he had said, it was to be understood that the powers of legislation were only with Congress, and that the House of Representatives could not, on the subject before them, legislate without information. Before he sat down, he could not help observing that it was somewhat strange that the first Treaty negotiated under the present Government with a European nation, should produce such a contrariety of sentiment on the meaning of the constitution, and that he was reminded by this circumstance of the pertinent words of a celebrated writer:

"The works of human invention are progressive, and are not completed but by degrees. At the last improvement we are apt to sit down satisfied, and vainly imagine that we have accomplished the end we have proposed, but time soon unravels the fine-spun system, and we find ourselves obliged to interweave fresh materials to repair the disordered texture."

Mr. KITCHELL observed, that he could not think of giving a silent vote on so important a question as this had become; but he should not go into an argumentative discussion on the subject, nor should he inquire into the opinions held in different conventions at the adoption of the constitution, or refer to Great Britain for precedents. He would look at the constitution alone, and see what were the powers given to the different branches of Government. When it says that such and such powers are vested in Congress, and such in the Executive, he would abide by that decision. Where that instrument says Congress shall lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce with foreign nations, establish a uniform rule of naturalization, provide for the common defence, &c., and that the Executive shall have power, by and with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, to make Treaties, appoint Ambassadors, &c., the directions of the constitution must be abided by.

He would inquire what Treaties could be entered into by the PRESIDENT and Senate, without infringing upon the powers placed in Congress? He believed Treaties of Peace, of Amity, and Friendship, could be made by them. If this could be done, he said, those were the powers meant to be vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate, and not that Treaties should embrace objects which are expressly appointed to the management of Congress. In this view, the PRESIDENT and Senate would not have the power to influence that House in their proceedings; but commercial or other Treaties which embraced objects the regulation of which was placed in Congress, must be laid before them for the purpose of their passing or refusing to pass laws to carry them into effect, in the same way as Treaties with the Indians had been laid before them.

He did not think the question of itself before the House important, as it related to the production of papers, but only as it involved in it an important principle, viz: that when Treaties were made by the PRESIDENT and Senate, and presented to that House, they had nothing to do but appropriate money to carry them into effect. It was true gentlemen had seemed willing to allow them what they called discretion; but it was such a sort of discretion as a criminal might be said to have, who was told he might choose this or that posture of suffering, but that he must die.

It had been said that the PRESIDENT and Senate were equally the Representatives of the people with that House. He would inquire how they became so? The constitution has appointed that Representatives shall be chosen by the people in proportion to their population. Were the Senate so chosen? No. The people have no vote at all in choosing them. Are they amenable to the people for their conduct? No. Therefore, in no shape can they be called the Representatives of the people. The Senate, he said, represented the several State Legislatures, and that House the people at large. He was sure, therefore, that every thing in which the interests of the people at large were concerned should be submitted to their consideration, before it was carried into effect.

A great deal, he observed, had been said upon this subject, some things well said, and a good deal that might have been as well unsaid, for any good effect it was likely to produce. He was sorry to hear what had fallen from a gentleman from Rhode Island with respect to the interests of small States. He said he was himself a Representative of a small State, and he believed his constituents were well satisfied with the present distribution of power, and did not wish that of the PRESIDENT or Senate to be increased.

He did not think what fell from his colleague, when he said gentlemen wished to amuse the people with the cry of liberty, liberty, and spoke of the groans of three or four hundred thousand slaves assailing his ears, was meant as a reflection upon any gentleman in that House who might hold slaves; but an earnest wish that the people at large might never bend their necks to slavery.

He did not think the subject of the Treaty at all before the House. He should give his vote for the papers; not so much on account of their being of great importance in themselves, but in order to repel the doctrine, that they had no right to discuss the merits of any Treaty whatever.

MARCH 22.--In Committee of the Whole on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution:

Mr. COIT said, the attention of the committee was doubtless fatigued with the subject before it; to those gentlemen who had already delivered their sentiments upon the occasion, he need not make any apology; and to those who had not done so, he would assure them that he would not occupy much of their time.

Most of the gentlemen who had gone before him, he observed, had regretted that the debate had taken the turn it had, but he was happy it had taken such a turn. It appeared to him, that the motion was intended as a stepping-stone to a violation of the rights of the other branches of the Government by that House. It became him when he made a declaration of this kind to say, that he did not impute other than pure motives to any member of that House. He believed the general wish was to discover the true sense of the constitution; yet it was not extraordinary if in doing this men were actuated by the sentiments which they had long been in the habit of considering as well-founded, to lean to that construction which most favored their favorite opinions. He had no idea that any gentleman meant to make inroads on the constitution; but it was his opinion that if the doctrines now insisted upon prevailed, they would have that effect.

He was happy, for two reasons, that the true ground of the present motion was made to appear. Because, if the resolution had passed without discussion, the motives which led to it would not have been seen; and because he wished the question of what were the powers of that House, with respect to Treaty-making, to be discussed, independent of the Treaty, which was likely soon to come before them. They stood now on the pure ground of an abstract constitutional question.

Some obscurity, Mr. C. thought, had arisen from not distinguishing the application of arguments to the different principles on which the resolution had been advocated, which he should endeavor to avoid. He considered the Treaty-making power as absolutely vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate; still, that when Legislative acts were necessary to carry a Treaty into effect, the Legislature were not without discretion in the passing of them; if the Legislature had a hand in making Treaties, there could be no question of the propriety of calling for papers; he should then, in the first place, examine the propriety of calling for papers, taking for granted that the Legislature had no hand in making Treaties.

If they were to consider the power by which a Treaty was made, there would be found two nations concerned, whose consent would be also necessary to repeal it. But were there no other ways of cancelling a Treaty? There were certainly ways of breaking a Treaty. There were circumstances in which the breaking of a Treaty would be justifiable. For instance, if, before a Treaty was carried into effect, there was such a change of circumstances as to make it necessary to declare war; could they not discuss the subject, whether it were more advisable to carry into effect the Treaty, and keep at peace, or break it and declare war? If a question of this kind came up, there could be no impropriety in looking into it; not with an idea of having any concern in making the Treaty, but because such alterations had taken place in the state of affairs, as to make it necessary to discuss the propriety of going to war.