Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1803-11-10
g CONGRESS-
OF THE
U N TIE D ST 4 Tt 8.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
FRIDAY, November 4.
DEBATE on the LOUISIANA I'REdI7.
FRIDAY, November 4.
DEBATE CONTINUED.

:
lUnired States are not dcsrsaste OF capaclsy 10
acquire territory, hedenaes that this acquisition
has been MAIDEN regular way = congress, says
lhe, alone is eompetens TO such ali ACT. IN TINS
transaction he scents at distance executive en-
croachnent, and we are called uponto assert our
rights, and to repelFir. If any usaFPat.on ofsthe
privileges of Congress, or OF this House, be
made 10 appear, pledge myself 70 that gentle
man to Join him IN resisting 1t. but let Us en-
cure into the fact No.gentlennan willdeny she.
right of the President to initiate business here, BY
message, recommending partieularssubJects to or
attention. If the governments OF the United
States possess the constitutional power to acquire
territory, from foreign states, the Executive, as
the organ by which we communicate with such
states, must be the prime agent, IN negotiating
sach an acquisition. Concedlpg, then, that The
power Of confirming his act, and anntxing TO the
United States, the territory thus acquired, uitl-
matelv rests with Congress, where has been the
invasion Of the privileges of that.body! Does not
the Pgesiaenrsof the United States submit this
subject to Congress fer their sanction? Does he
not recognise the principle, wheh.l trust we VII
never give up, that no treaty is binding Until we
pass the laws for executing It.; that the powcis
conferred bv the constitution on Congress caanots
be modified, or abridged, 10y any treaty whatever
that the subjects of which they have cogni-
zance cannot be taken, in any way, ont Of thet
jurisdiction In this procedure nothing is to be
seen but respect, onthe part OF the executive,
for cur rights; a recognition OF a discretion on.
our part TO accord, or refuse our sanction--
Where then is the violation Of our rights! As
to the initiative, in matter Ike this, it neces-
sarily devolsed on the Executive.
Tie unconstitutionality of this treaty is at
tempted to be shewn by the following quotation
from that instrument. 80 No preference shall be
given to the ports of ono state over those of ano.
Their state, &C." Bat by the 9TH article of TIE
treaty, French and Spanish vessels, laden VIZ
the produce OF their respective countries, are,
for II years TO be admitted into the ports Of
the ceded territory on the same terms with our
own vessels. In our other ports discrimination
is made between American aid foreign bottoms.
New Orleans, the,efofs, will enjoy an exemption,
which will enable her co trade TO the French and
Spanish colonies on tefals more advantageous
than other potts; She IS, therefore, favored
TT, in contradiction to the express letter OF the
constitution. To me it appears that this argu
meut has much more oElngenu}sy than of force
in it; more of subtlety than OF substance. Let
us suppose that the treaty, instead Ct admitting
French and SPANISH vessels on the TENS propose
merely covenantcd to admit American vessels
on eoaal terms with those Of France and Spain !;
If we had acquired this igbt Invested of the
try il would have been considered, and Justly,
as an important privilege. Annex the territory
to il and you cannot aeceptit You may indeej
ACQUIRE either the commercial privilege, or the
territory, without violating the constitution !;
but take them both, and that instrument is in
frpged But the gentleman will recolled that
the discrimination between foreign bottoms and
our own is creature OF the laq0, and not a pro
vision of the constitution. II his construction
be sound it does not involve necessary Solatiots
of the constitutions IT only involves the Necessity
of repeating these dscrimn ating duties on Frencl
and Spanish products, brought ia their own bot
| toms, into other ports than those OF the cedec
| territory.
Ir-would therefore become gentlemen to adduct
shis as proof of the inexpediency, rather thar,
of the uuconstltutionahty of the treaty. 70.
however inexpedicnt it may be 70 repeal this dis
elimination, no one win contend that it is nj.
CONSTITUTIONAL and if the constitution or the law
we're to give way, one would hesitate between
them. But ! regard this stipulation only as a
part Of the price of the territory IL was condl-
ton which the parry cedng had right 20 re
| qure, and 10 which we had a right to assent
The right to acquire involved the right 20 give
the equivalent demanded. Mr.. Randolph said,
that be expected to hear it said in the course Of
the debate, that the treaty inquestlon nigh. cast
] with the treaty Of London, 10 this particular.
He would therefore take this opportunity OF re-
/ marking, that the privilege granted 10 French
and Spanish bottoms, being part of the consi
defation for which VIC had obtained the country
and the court Of London being officially appnzed
of the transaction. and acou'eseing in the arrange