Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-02-10

y
constitution alone is to be consulted whilst Other
parts Of the anne instrument ere to be Disregard
ed for, take them together, aud fthere be any
meaning in words, i SHAT rs TO commerce,
Congress shsl, hare power to regulate il; which
cannot be, If ancther branch OF The government
have power 20 charge that regulation, w,hou;
consulting or recdirg the cooperation of tina, boz
dy.
See, sir, 20 what consequences this doctrine
will lead; if the treaty making power rr;.y regu-
late commerce witholt'he sanction of Congress,
then the same power may declare We withou,
tie ssEction OF Congress; because the very same
constitution which gives Congress the one pow
err gives them the other and it they may be de.
prired of one, by rarity OF reason, they may he
deprived OF the other. And yet, sir, believe,
40 gentleman tas met this part OF the argument
By Affirming that the nation can be involved in
war by treaty; they have seen that such doc
trine would carry them too far that it would SO
to the extent of justiying treaty OF alliance of
tensiye and defensive, which might involve us in
all the caianaties OF war, by entanglng us in Eu-
-opean contests; when it is distinctly under
stood to have been the intention OF the CONSTITUTE
on, that the nation should never be involved in
war, but by the voice of the immediate represen-
tatives OF the people: this IS the great, the safe
guarantee, that war will never be undertaken but
tor some great national bject, when, and when
only, the people viii go with their Representa-
tive.. But this doctrine it true, does not stop
here; j: goes further; it will justify a treaty
stipulation TO supply subsidy, and will thus vio-
late that part of the constitution, which declares
that 10 money shall be drawn from the trea-
sury but by an appropriation made by law: Sir,
it goes one step further yet it would justify the
subsidy Of which have Just spoken, without IL
imitation as 10 time though the constitution ex-
prcssly declares, that even Congress shall not
make an appropriation for the support Of armies
for more than two years.
Now, sir. the criterion by which to test a posi-
ton, is TO trace it to its consequences if it leads
directly to such, as even its author, cannot de.
fend, there is no principle in logic clearer, than
tina, such position though it may be sperous
is not solid. am persuaded that no member
willgo the leagth os maintaining the position
which ] have been examining, in the consequent
ces TO which have pursued it; by this rule,
then they must gyeup the position itself.
II seems to me, to be shewn, then, that altho'
the grant of the treaty making power, is IN
words not limited in themselves, yet Just con-
struction of the constitution atfixes it to those
two kinds elimination first, that nothing can
be done by treaty, which the constitution de-
ciares she'll not be done secondly, that whene-
yer the subject OF treaty is one of the powers
delegated to Congress. that then the assent and
cooperation OF Congress are necessary TO give il
effect, by passing a law in conformity with it's
which l contend, whilst as member of the
house of Representatives disclaim all partci-
patton i'll the negotiation and making treaty.
The member from Georgia, has shewn, by a
minute research into the practice of the govern
lnent that it accords with the construction for
which have commended; rely upon this, as a
strong additional proofof the propriety of that
construction.
A reference has been made in the course of the
argument TO the practice under the British con.
shuttlon. know, sir, that this constitution Is
IN itself but . succession of precedents I know
that there are many predominant differences be-
tween the Bril- sh and American constitutions -
but there arc also, some points of analogy and
perhaps, few stronger than that in the treaty
making power in each country, il is confidcd
to the chief executive mag .strate, with this diff.
ference, that in the United States, the Senate are
associated with the President. Notwn hstauGing
however, the treaty making power IN Cireat Sri
tam resides IN the king, yet appears from the va
rious instances cited b. the member from Georgia
10 which viii add the treaty of peace of 1888,
between that country ana the United States,
that even in Great Britain, tie treaty making
power is SO FIR limited as to make it necessary TO
la treaties before Parliament, and to ask their.
aid N making appropriations for carr yng them
into execution but il this results in Great Br.-
tain, Rom the power which the House of Com
mons WITHOUT any writt,n constitution have claim
CT, ard established, OF hoIi0g The Pulse of the
nation; the argument certainly applies with in
crt ased force here, where by the express proYis-
ION OF a written constitution, tie subject upor
which this treaty operates is amongst the powers
delegated to-Congress.
VIII Ow beg leave TO answer one argument
which seems to be so much relied On, on the
other side, Is 10 be considered in itself almost de-
clsiYe ofthe question in their favor. 1t is said
that we have conceded, that the President with
TIE consent OF tie Senate, may without that Of
the congress, make treaty Of peace, and that
Tins y M effect gvlng"p the>argument'; because
o 1t requires law OF Congress TO declare war
and treaty OF peace, upon cur own concess. or,
may terminate that war, here IS al once an exam
pie OF a treaty repeating law. The answer.
SIR, isthls, the constitution gives TO Congress The
power to declare war, but it does not give them
hepower TO make peace it would have been
ldle to have given such power; to put this idea
IN strong light, let us see what would be the
language OF law enacting peace. lie il enact-
ed &c that there shall be peace between the Uni.
ted States and Great Britain. Tnt the enemy,
! willsuppose does not chuse to be at peace
notwithstanding our law therefore the war
would continue. IT is thus out Of our power
alone to make peace; but il is not out of curl
power to regulate commerce /; il is true, that we
could not regulate it in British ports but we
could regulate it in our own ports, both as TO A.
merican and British vessels without their con-
Lent. The difference then between a treaty oil
peace and treaty of cnmmerce, is this +: the Que
touches subject which can be only operated
On by tTea'yj the other embraces a subject
which may be regulated without treaty.
This question, occurred, in the discussion IN
on the British treaty in 1895; it was then YER
ably discussed | have nc doubt that in tine idens