About Southern recorder. (Milledgeville, Ga.) 1820-1872 | View Entire Issue (May 9, 1820)
1 SOUTHERN RECORDER. VOL. I. MILLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1020. No. 13. PUBLISHED WEEKLY, (on Tuesdays) BY S. GKAjYTLAJYD Sf R. M. ORME, ST THREE DOLLARS, IN ADVANCE, OR FOUR DOLLARS A'T THE EXPIRATION OF THE YEAR. Advertisements conspicuously inser- tL'dat the customary rates. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APRIL 8, 1820. The following resolutions, submitted by jjjr, Clay, being under consideration, in com mittee of the whole, viz: 1st. Resolved, That the constitution of the United States vests in Congress the power to dispose of the territory be longing to them, and that no treaty, pur porting to alienate any portion thereof, as valid without the concurrence ofCon- gress. 2. Resolied, That the equivalent pro posed to be given by Spain, to the Unit ed States, in the treaty concluded be tween them, on the 22d day of February 1019, for that part of Louisiana lying west of the Sabine, was inadequate ; and that it would be inexpedient to make a transfer thereof to any foreign power, «r to renew the aforesaid treaty. Mr. Lowndes followed Mr. Clay in the Debate. Before entering into a discussion of the merits of the propositions submitted by the Speaker, he said, it appeared to him there wa3 a previous question to be settled, the determination of which might preclude a decision of the main question on its me rits. The question was, whether an attempt on the part of this house, to take, the conduct of negociations with foreign powers into its hands would not be greatly prejudicial to the interests of the country. It was worthy of enquiry, also, whether it was consistent with prudence, or with wisdom, to engage in the discussion of propositions, the adop tion of which would have that effect. Mr. L. said he was far from considering the two resolutions now before the commit tee as of the same character, lie was ready to admit that the consideration of the ques tion, how far this house has a right to inter pose in respect to treaties—of this theoreti cally abstract question, was not liable to the Mr. came objection as the discussion of the se- j 1— but he should consider the cond resolve consumption of time in its discussion utterly Cseless and wasteful at this moment. The gentleman from Kentucky had made a remark, in relation to the late communica tion of the President to Congress, which Mr Tj. said, appeared to him to have arisen en ♦irely from misapprehension of the nature of that communication. The gentleman con sidered the Message as founded on the wish « of those foreign powers, whose views on the subject our government had been appri sed of. The best attention which lie had been able to bestow on the subject, Mr. L. eaid, had led to conclusions totally different from this. The papers accompanying the message were such as ought to have been communicated for the information of Con- f ress, but were not the only grounds of the lessage. Could any man read the Message Without seeing that the ground of the delay recommended by the President, is the pro bability, of which evidence is furnished in part by communications from the Ministers foreign powers directly and indirectly to cur government, that the object of the U Btates may he accomplished without a re eort to such measures as had been reeotn mended by a committee of this house ? It would he an extravagance of independence to say, not only that foreign nations should cot interpose in a controversy between us and a foreign power, but that they should mot even be allowed to furnish us with facts; with that information without which there was no w isdom in the conduct of foreign ne gociations. Mr. L. quoted the Message o the President, to shew, that the only ground on which a delay of coercive measures a- guinst Spain was recommended, was, that there was reason to believe that the object of the United States might be attained with out resorting to them. Was it at all extraor dinary, that information on this head should be obtained from foreign powers? Was it at all extraordinary that Spain should not dcvelope her views to us, who are the ad verse party, yet should disclose them to a power which is not a principal in the con- ■ troversy, but her ally and a mutual friend ? The Executive does not reject information ■from any quarter, and least of all from a quarter where it is most to be relied on.— With regard to foreign interference, he should repel, with as much indignation as the gentleman from Kentucky, any attempt to intermeddle in our internal affairs. Yet, every man who would reflect on the condi tion in which, in the lapse of time, the Unit ed Stales may tie placed, would see, that there might he cases in which, with all our repugnance to the interposition of foreign nations,, we. may he induced, as to collisions with foreign states, to consent to the arbitra tion of other foreign states, not interested in the controversy. Thus, such a provision had been made in regard to certain eases embraced by the -treaty of Ghent; and at this very moment one of the questions aris ing between us and Great Britain in regard to that treaty tiad been referred to the arbi tration of the Emperor of Russia. If, as in tiie case provided for by the treaty ot Ghent, the mediation of a foreign power may be ac cepted with respect to questions of bounda ries, may we not go so far as to say that there may be cases in which we shall pay considerable deference to the opinions of a disinterested foreign power where territorial acquisitions are concerned ? But, Mr. L. said, a remark of the gentle *nan from Kentucky, apart from llie main question before the committee, seemed to require that he should, before proceeding further, say something of the condition in Which the committee of foreign relations, ol Which he was one, was placed by the nics •age from the President. Whether it wa owing to insensibility or not, Mr. L. said he id ant ftel tfuit auk'vardiMSS wliicb tuu gentleman from Kentucky seemed to sup pose that committee must feel. When the committee recommended the immediate oc cupation of Florida, and when they with drew that recommendation, they ucted on both occasions from the same motive. With one information one course might be cor rect, whilst with other information a differ ent course would be proper. Though not satisfied that $ different course should he pursued from that recommended by the committee, yet, a different course being re commended by circumstances subsequently disclosed, indicating the feeling of the nation and tile sentiment of this House, would a discussion of the subject have been deemed by any gentleman advantageous to the inte rests of the conntry ? Ought the commit tee to have urged a decision on their propo sition, when no possible advantage could have resulted from it ? Must it not, on the contrary, have led to a discussion which would be as injurious as he would shew that the present discussion would be, should he not succeed in a motion which be would make, as indiscreet ns the gentleman might think it, to prevent the further discussion of it. A strong objection, even to a discussion of the resolutions of the Speaker, was, that, in relation to both of them, no possible benefit could arise from the discussion of them— nay, that a discussion, in such a manner ns to lead to a just decision of them, was im practicable. He asked any gentleman to say, whether it was not apparent that the questions involved in them could not now be freely discussed? Under the circum stances, it certainly was ; and, said lie, a dis cussion, into which we enter manacled, we ought not to enter at all. [With regard to the treaty-making power, r. E. said, he was willing to admit, that, in lation to those stipulations which apply to subjects such as are among the enumerated powers of Congress, the sanction of the Ite- lresentative body to them was necessary.— tie had, however, no intention to enter mto this general argument. If discussed, said he, it would force us into an extent of discussion which the limits of the session would he too narrow. It would include not only all the. discussions of 1790 and 1819, hut would open new grounds. The Speaker himself, he presumed, would not he disposed to in sist that this house has a power, in relation to a treaty stipulating for a cession of terri tory, which it has not in relation to a stipu lation for the payment of money. If there, be a power peculiarly ours, said Mr. L. it is the power over the purse of the nation. II it he contended, that neither can territory he ceded, nor money paid, without the consent of this House, there is a question beyond that again: will you maintain that a claim, on our part,for money or for territory, how ever well founded, cannot he yielded ? Such cases were peculiarly a subject for treaty stipulations. The very treaty of which we are speaking contains a renunciation of claims. In case of a claim on your part, not recognized by the opposite party, your rights may he renounced, by treaty, for an equiva lent, he. Mr. L. said, he had no disposition to enter at large or systematical)v into the question respecting the treaty-making pow er; but the observation which he hall made connected itself with no other. Gentlemen conversant with the history of the proceedings of Congress, might recollect the ground taken by the gentleman who is now our distinguished Minister in France: that, in addition to those powers purely Ex ecutive, which did not come in conflict with the powers of the House oi’ Representatives, Mr. Gallatin admitted, in the great debate of 1795, there was another and a resulting pow er which did belong to the treaty-making authority. That, for example, to a stipula tion that any act should no/ pass, the consent of the House of Representatives was not ne cessary, because the President and Senate, being branches of Congress, hud it in theii power to enforce and fulfil the treaty, by withholding their assent from any such act. Apply that argument to the case of a renun ciation of a claim for money or for territory Not being in the possession either of our go vernment or of a foreign power, it could be reclaimed or renounced only by negociation or Ity war, and to either course the consent of the negociating power was necessary, Ike. In relation to questions of boundary, it was admitted on all hands that the treaty-mak ing authority was competent to their adjust ment: its competency must bo equally ad mitted in relation to all unadjusted claims. He submitted then to the committee, whe ther there could beany case, of an adjust ment of a claim to boundary, which did not include a cession of supposed right to terri tory by one or the other party. You maj establish points; you may say, there a colo ny was planted—here a man was shiptt reck ed : you may assert that these points include the territory to which you have a right; but the lines of your boundary must, alter all, be adjusted by negociation—by reciprocal agreement. Mr. L.said he should be soil) if it should he inferred, from what he had aid, that he was of opinion that the ground assumed in the resolution was decidedly er roneous. That it asserted a power much weater than had heretofore been claimed tor the House of Representatives, lie was confi dent; but he did not mean to say that he had formed a decided opinion different from that of the gentleman from Kentucky on this point, lie had thought of it hut for a day or two. It was, however, a question into which he thought the house ought not wantonly and uselessly to enter, especially as it had now no superfluous time on its hands. THcre, the hour being late, Mr. Lowndes complied with the wish of a gentleman near him, and gave way for an adjournment, lhc next day he resumed his remarks.] Mr. L. did not, he repeated, intend to ex press any opinion affirmatively or negatively on the proposition contained in the first of the above resolutions. But, he said, it touch ed a subject so complicated and difficult as to make it necessary, if acted on at all, that it should occupy a much greater portion ot time in the discussion than could he spared at this period of the session for the discus sion of an abstract proposition. There must Iq; pjany gentlemen on this floor, who re collected the length and arduous nature of the discussion of 1795, on tlii3 subject.— There were none who could not see that the resolution of the Speaker embraced a larger object than was embraced by that of 1795. The conclusion must be, that, if decided at all by this House, it would be after a long dis cussion. But, suppose the resolution went no further than that of 1795—however strong might be the opinion of a majority in favor of the resolution of 1795, it could not he ex pected hut tile re would he some debate on such a proposition. The smaller the mino rity, the stronger the reason why their argu ments should he heard and laid before the public. The resolution of 1795 remains on the Journals, and there could he no reason assigned, even did this resolution go no fur ther than that, for re-affirming it. But this resolution goes much further than that of 1795, or than the doctrines advanced by any who took part in that, discussion. It was not then as far as Mr. L. knew, contended by any one, that, in relation to territory claim ed by us, but not in our possession, a treaty for the adjustment of the title would require the sanction of this House. Would it he prudent, said lie, by anticipation, when we know not of any circumstances which make the decision of this question necessary, to undertake to decide it ? Ij> there any mem ber of this committee who supposes that the effect of a decision in favor of this proposi tion will he to preclude a discussion and de cision of the question hereafter, should the treaty be eventually ratified? Mr. L. pre sumed not. Indeed., lie said, were this pro position to be discussed now for a week, it would only serve to prepare the ground lor another discussion hereafter. Whilst, however, he had no other objec tion to the discussion of the first resolution, hut"what arose from a regard to the economy of time, he had much stronger objections to the consideration and decision of the second. He did not understand how any decision, or even free discussion of that question, could take place without endangering the import ant interests of the country. This he was sure the Speaker would do as unwillingly as any man. But, said lie, pending the ratifi cation of the treaty by Spain, are we to enter into the question of our title to the territory as far as the Rio del Norte ?— Would it be prudent to do so? Certainly not. Yet, if there was an unreserved dis cussion, that must be the preliminary step. Do you attach any consequence to a reso lution of this kind ? Do you expect it to have an influence at home, and tn he re spected abroad ; and do you not begin by a laborious aud careful examination of your right to tiie territory in question ? Will you come to a formal and solemn annunciation that you are fully entitled to all this territo ry, without deliberately and temperately examining the grounds on which that right rests ? If you determine that you will write instructions to our negotiators: that we shall on this floor prescribe what the. condi tions of a treaty for a settlement of limits shall he, it becomes necessary that the title of the respective parties shall he fully inves tigated. Our open doors shew that this is not the place to discuss what wc will ask in negotiation with a foreign power, and what we will he content to receive. It vvouid be, to use the Speaker’s figure, to display our open hand to our adversary, his being con cealed, as ours ought to he. It had been doubted, Mr. L. said, whether the other branch of the Legislature has a right to join in instructions given to our di plomatic agents with regard to the terms of a treaty. From convenience, at ’east, tliis power, given to the Senate almost by the terms of the constitution, had not, under the practical construction of that instrument, been latterly exercised by the Senate, but the Executive had been entirely charged with that duty and that responsibility. Mr. L. enlarged upon tiie inconvenience of a public discussion here of what, in an a- micable negotiation, we. mean to insist on, and what we mean to give up. He had no objection to saying, for himself, what lie would do on that head. But, he said, if a discussion was to take place on the formal proposition contained in this resolution, un less the discussion was to he utterly unmean ing, it would be necessary to examine n:s well the validity of titles as the relative value ot territory, btc. lie. it was unnecessary for him to assign reasons why an enquiry into the validity of title would he injurious.— They were sufficiently obvious. With re gard to the value of the territory in question, if the members were fully informed on the subject, it would jet be. needless to discuss it. But, he said, he believed the requisite information was not at hand, i or his part, although he had paid considerable attention to this subject, and gathered information from all sources accessible to him, he had never heard, respecting the value ot the Pro vince of Texas, any estimate of its seaport, in any degree corresponding with that given by tiie honorable gentleman from Kentuc ky- J ' If the bouse was called on to vote on this resolution, it was above all desirable that they should understand it. Mr. L. said that he thought he did understand it. Its mean ing clearly was, that it was inexpedient to cede any part of the territory which we. have west of the Sabine. Suppose our claim to that teritory to be undoubted, said lie, an we prepared to say, however worthless it may be—however great the equivalent lor it—-that wc will give up no part of it for any territory, however essential or important to us? Nuw, for myself, lam not ready to sav, that I am not willing to give up any thing west of the Sabine for any considera tion w hatever. If there be any territory of doubtful i able beyond the Sabine, 1 am not prepared to say that there is iu tiie rest ol the world nothing of so much value that I might not he induced to exchange the one for the other. Mr. L. therefore was opposed to engag ing in this discussion, mid because lie consid ered the second resolve to embrace mi ob ject adverse to the interests ot the country, as well as contrary to the spirit of the con stitution. That this house, according to the view of the Speaker, might have some pow- to deny. But, whatever that power was, he thought that a just view of the principles of the constitution w ould necessarily require that it should he a restraining, and not a di recting power. If, in progress or time, this - house should adopt the practice of giving instructions to our ministers, or, w hat is the same thing, of determining beforehand, as now proposed, wliat should be yielded and w hat retained, the effect would be to divide the responsibility of the different depart ments of the government, and destroy alto gether that of the treaty-making power.— That there was in this house a corrective power, to restrain the treaty-making power in a course, not believed to lie beneficial to the interests of the country, lie was ready to admit; but, whilst he admitted this, it was a power which lie said, ought to be exercis ed with great discretion. Otherwise, instead of restraining the Executive power, the ef fect would be, to increase its power by di minishing its responsibility. As a common t ule of action, therefore, lie was in favor of leaving the powers of the government where the constitution had placed them. If any ease could arise in which the Exe cutive would pursue a policy so repugnant to the true interests of the country as to justify the interposition of this house, Mr. L. said it would be one the very reverse of that now under consideration, it would hardly ever happen that an Executive would be averse to enlarging the boundrics of the nation, or be accused of a desire to restrict them to too narrow a limit. In the execu tive branch of every government, the dispo sition is naturally favorable to the extension of territory and the enlargement of its pow er. (In thought that we may safely intrust to the Executive of this government the charge of supporting the rights of the coun try, and extending its territorial limits us far as justice and sound policy will allow. Mr. L. made some remarks to shew that no advantage could result from the adop tion of this resolve. If, indeed, it was pro posed to employ force to support it, there might he some ground. Otherwise, he con tended, to pass them would not only he use less, hut injurious. But, Mr. L. said, he would refrain from entering into the general questions of policy growing out of this resolution : but, iu rela tion to the province of Texas, he would ray that, if Florida were not necessary to us, and therefore a desirable acquisition, in exchange for any claim we may he. supposed to have to Texas, lie should not think it important to occupy Texas at this time. If we have ajustciaimto that province, the treaty being rejected, it will be at any time in our power to enforce it. Lying between ns and Mexi co, its destiny must always essentially de pend on, as it is connected with, American interests. Whatever claim we have to Tex as, it is a claim which we are able, to sup port and enforce. This is an opinion, said Mr. L. which the Speaker applies to Flori da and l to Texas. M r. L. asked the members of this com- mittee to cast their eye a little, forward, and see, if the connection between Mexico and Spain should be dissolved, what motive could Spain have for desiring to retain the possession of the Province of Texas. What has been her object in ceding Florida ? T< get in exchange a boundary, well defined, between Mexico and the United States. To secure herself against what she believes (and what Mr. L. feared all the (lowers of Europe believe) our ambition, sbe was willing to cede Florida. But, suppose, the connection between Spain and Mexico to be dissolved ; suppose all hope, on her part, of her resum ing the control of that country was destroy ed, what motive could she have for ceding Florida ? Mr, L. said, he had not adverted to this contingency with a single view to her relinquishment of Florida to us, but with a view also to the preponderance which a re duction to a single island of the colonial pos sessions of Spain would give to another pow er ; when Spain- would no longer be mis tress of her own actions, hut the agent to serve the interests of another power. And if we relinquished now 1 lie acquisition of Florida in order to gain Texas, that, in the contingency just adverted to, when Florida was overflowed by Royalists, and the value of Cuba increased, what possible motive w ould Spain have, under such circumstances, for the cession of Florida to us? We must obtain it, then, by force, or not at all. But it would always he as easy a matter as it may he now, to obtain Florida by force. It w ould be more easj r , lie said, to obtain Ca nada by force, than it would be to obtain Florida by force, if the power to whom it belonged was determined to hold it. It would be an error fatal to the best interests of the country, to refuse to receive Florida into our possession whilst we can. Mr. L. did not saj’ it was so important an acquisiti on that it ought not for any consideration to he postponed for a day ; but that a combi nation of circumstances make that practical now which may not be a year or two hence, lie thought was very clear. i re concluded, by saying, that he had had no intention of entering into the gejieral dis cussion of these resolves. He meant only to shew, that they could nut be discussed with out giving so ranch time to the subject as could not be afforded at this time ; and that the discussion would moreover he prejudici al to the public interests. Under these cir cumstances, he thought it his duty to move to lay the resolutions on the table. Mr. Archer of Virginia, said, that the withdrawal of the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Lowndes) having removed the obstacle to discussion of the re solutions under consideration, hr. would pro ceed to submit his views of them tu the com mittee. The attention of this body, Mr. A. observed, was a species of joint stock coil- demands upon the public, that moderation in llieir amount formed no unessential condition of their success, had, ill no instance, stronger application, than in relation to demands ad dressed to the patience of this assembly. Mr. A. adverted to the place which the sub ject of our relations with Spain had recently occupied in the public attention, and the uni versal expectation that some measure expres sive of the sense of Congress, would, before this period of the session, have been adopted. The measure, which, alter long delay, the gentleman from South Cnrolins,(Mr. Lown des) had reported from the committee of Foreign Relations, had been recenlly wrest ed from the consideration of the House, in consequence of the suggestion of n foreign potentate, who, Mr. A. believed, was pretty much in the habit of exerting an operative influence in the affairs of other Hates, with the same declaimer, it was probable, in every instance, of an intention to (lo bo, which had been employed in relation to ourselves. If the motion which the. gentleman from South Carolina had intimated an intention to renew, should prevail, a fate similar to that which had attended his own proposition would be served for the prepositions now under con sideration. Mr. A. confessed lie felt surprise at the intimation of resort to such a course, both on account of the importance of the subject and the character of the proceeding itself: the subject involving, as it did, the policy of the alienation of perhaps the most valuable portion, in proportion to its extent, of the territory of the Union, was surely well entitled to consideration, from its magnitude. In this respect, it was to he regarded as se cond only to the question which had been connected with the discussion of the Missou ri bill, to which, indeed, it bore a strong cha racter of affinity. That uuestion related to the propriety of the transfer of the common territorial property of the Union, to the ex clusive benefit of the population of one por tion of it. The question now presented, in volving a consideration of the. policy (which it was the purpose of the resolution to coun teract) of the transfer of the most valuable portion of this common property, ton foreign power. If a question, involving a considera tion of great momentous character, had no claim to the maturest deliberation of the House, Mr. A. was unaware of any, wbieh could be regarded as invested with sneli a claim. The effect, too, of the success of the motion of the gentleman from South Caro Finn, ought not to escape observation. It would he to preclude all effective expression of the public sentiment in relation to the po licy of the ratification :;f the Spanish treaty. The ease had no resemblance to that of an ordinary postponement of a subject, the con sideration of wliieli might, at a succeeding session of Congress, be resumed. Every person knew that, before the ensuing session of Congress, the treaty would he ratified The government of Spain could have no o- ther design iu sending the Minister who was know n to have been despatched here. And the determination which would operate with our own government to accept the ratifica tion, (unless this determination should he ar rested by the expression of public sentiment in some mode) could not lie a subject of question. The prevalence of the motion to lay the resolutions on the table, would then be decisive iu relation to the important inte rests conceived to he. involved in their adop lion. By the policy of avoiding conflict, the fruits of complete victory would bo achieved. The Speaker had treated the questions, presented by the resolutions, as affording scope forexpatiatiou Jo a considerable extent in tiie general field of Spanish relations.— This example, alluring as the subject was, from the variety and interest of the topics it involved, Mr. A. said, that, not having the same claims with lhc Speaker, on the atten tion of the committee, lie should forbear to follow, and confine himself strictly to lb questions arising on tile resolutions. These were of sufficient dignity and extent, indeed to merit a distinct consideration. The ques lion presented by the first resolution was that which had heretofore given occasion to considerable discussion, relative to the cha racter and extent of tliu treaty-making 1 pow er in our government. To the President and Senate was given the power “ to mat, treaties." To Congress were given various powers, among others, that “ to dispose ol the territory of the United States.’ And the question was, whether the general pow er to make treaties, confided to the President and Senate, took place of the particuls grant of powers to Congress, so as to operate conclusively on the subjects of this particular grant, w ithout any necessity for the concur- encc and assent of Congress. In contemplating this question, the atten tion could not fail, Mr. A. said, to be attract ed to the extravagance of tiie pretensions of this treaty making power, in point of ex tent, the power claimed to cover all the oh jects which fall within the scope of interna tional stipulation, that is to say, all the ob jects of national interest, which were not of essential municipal character. This was the claim in point of extent of jurisdiction. In point of force of authority, the power claim ed the exertion not only of a superceding but a mandi lory influence, over the legisla tive department; the direct representative of the national authority ; in relation to all subjects of its exercise, whether comprelien ded or not, within the delegation of jurisdic tion to that department of the government. The claim was not only to exclude Congress from all participation of control over sub jects specifically submitted to its control by the constitution, but to bind it to an undeh- berating ministerial execution of the stipula tions of the President and Senate, in relation to these same subjects, wherever they might of required, to confound the appropriate func tions oft he.se authorities. To the President anil Senate was assigned the exclusive fa culty of exercising deliberation 5 fcnd on l on- gress was imposed the unqualified duty oi conforming to, and effectuating, without any exercise of discretion, the results of that de liberation. .... Such an assignation of functions would present a ease of political anomaly, w Inert was not predicable of the character of^th® constitution. Tiie entire exclusion ot (ron- gresB from authority over the subjects as signed to the jurisdiction of the treaty-mak ing power, would involve no political incon sistency. This was designed in relation to all but a particular class of subjects. Eut, if tin* operation of tiie legislative powei were admitted at all, it e.ould only be.admitted in its proper character of a power involving es sentially the exercise of discretion.. The re cognition, therefore, of the necessity forth® co-operation of the authority of Congress in the execution of treaty stipulations, was. in lation to all the subjects to which it exten ded, a recognition of the legislative, as a part of, and a check upon, the treaty-making power Mr, cem, of which all iis members were equally jw appeared, participant in interest. He now appe for the first time, to assert a claim to any share, and he did not doubt that the claim would meet with due allowance from the courtesy of the committee, unless indeed, (he fund on which it was addressed, had al ready been exhausted by the drafts which had been made upon it. One recommenda tion this claim would have, that it would not require the intervention of legislative details, and a resort to municipal authority, for their execution. The exertion of the power ot tiie President and Senate was said, bv com mitting the public faith for its stipulations, to bind the other departments of the govern ment, to an obligation of co-operation in the objects of those stipulations. Such was tiie claim of this treaty-making power in point of authority. The first remark, Mr. A. said, which arose upon this statement of the cha racter of the powers, related to its effect, er in regard to treaties for the cession or ac- be an immoderate one. And, Mr. A. heliev-1 where the co-operation of legislative and imiuliou of territory, he did rjot juw mean ed that the general remark, iu reference to I Executive authorities wwif ndayitted to U A. had been adverting to « statement of the pretensions of this treaty-making lower, ns furnishing evidence sufficient, to tis mind, to condemn them. If other evi dence were wanted, it would be . found in the discrepancy which the power in the ex tension claimed for it, presented to the cha racter of the. genera! grant of power contain ed in the constitution and of the more im portant particular powers which made up the composition ot that grant. It was to be expected of every political systi m, and more especially of a system sprung from men so illustrious for wisdom as the framers of our federal form of polity, that It would he found presenting a general consistency of structure and elements. But the consti tution was admitted to convey hul a limited grant of power. All Its more important omponent powers, the power over the purse, over the sword, the power of punish ment, were limited, by express restrictive qualifying provisions. The admission of the treaty-making power, therefore, in the absolute, unrestricted character it assumed to wear, would be a violation of the whole consistency of the constitution. Mr. A. said that a person observing v ith nj' degree, of attention the progress of our government, could not fail to be struck with the conflict between many of the principle® adopted in the construction of the Consti tution and its true character and intendment* The framers of this instrument lmd expend* d the resourees of an incomparable wisdom, in devising limitations on the powers which it conveyed, and in the contrivance of ade quate sale-guards against, the exercise of o- ther now era In the illusion of ngenerou* confidence, they had no doubt conceived that these safe-guards would he found sufii- ient. But, in the current of the administra tion of a constitutional government, ther® was generated a reptile destructive or dan gerous to the dams and mounds w hich wer® instituted to restrain it. The name of this reptile was construction. Such was its fc- undity, that it was impossible to extinguish the race. Such was its subtlety and activity f nature, that it was difficult to counteract its operations. This reptile had been at work in the mounds of our Constitution, nor was it a little to be feared, that the breaches had already been effected which were des tined, in future time, to give, a general ad mission to discretionary power. It might possibly he objected to what bad iccn observed, that the power confided to the President and Senate, was a power to make or conclude treaties, and that the con struction contended for, would convert their faculty, in this respect, into a mere function of initiating treaties. But the distinction was, that the power which, in relation to tho general subjects of treaty stipulation, was xclusive in the President, and Senate, in rc» ation to the particular class of subjects un der discussion ; those confided to the con trol of Congress, was a concurrent power.— in the clause of the Constitution, indeed, creating the (lower to make treaties, there was no express designation of limits to that power. But, as exclusive powers were no less effectually defined by the coterminous relation of their respective spheres of opera tion, Ilian by an express designation of lim its ; so concurrent powers were indicated, in us satisfactory a manner, by separate grants of the same subjects of jurisdiction, to seve ral (lowers, as they could be. by a grant pur porting in its terms to be a joint one. It was to be recollected, too, that no consideration affecting either (tie efficacy of the treaty- niaking power within its appropriate sphere, or its relation to the public convenience, re quired that it Simula be exclusive over all the subjects of its operation. In the denial of any particular subject or class of subjects to its exclusive jurisdiction, the efficacy of the power would suffer no impairment, in relation to others which were conceded.—- And, as respected public convenience, this consideration, so far from requiring any in definite extension or character ofthe power, demanded, on the contrary, that its dispoa- ing control should be guarded in relation to subjects of public interest of more than ordi nary delicacy or magnitude, by the check of the necessary co-operation of some depart-* ment of concurrent jurisdiction. Nor, ad mitting this observation to be just, w as there any subject of public intercut, characterized by a more indisputable title to the peculiar safeguard in question, than that which relat ed to the disposal of llie territorial property ofthe nation. The power of the President and Senate to tiienate territory, might perhaps be inferred as a consequence of their power to acquire it, Mr. A. both objected to tne consequence, a® illogical, and protested against the mode of construing the powers ofthe government by which it must be derived. An incidental power would have to be derived from an in cidental power; and this first incident, tho source of others, was itself supposed to bo derived in a mode still more unauthorized, not from any specific power, but as a result of the general collective powers and sove reign character of the government. In sceh , a. mode of derivation of powet, it ghtr”,.
