Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-01-27
CONGRESS.
DEBATE on THE TREATY.
On hes House Of REPRESENTATIVES.
CONTINUED
Saturday,. Januaru G

Saturday, January 6.
Mr.. WRIGHT said, he hoped and trus-
ted the amendment proposed in this bill
object, he said, the establishment of an u
niformity OF the impost and tonnage, as
we'll as of the drawbacks on articles the
growth, produce or manufacture of his
Brtansic Maiesty's territories in Europe,
imported into any of the ports Of the Uni
ted States. The amendment proposes to
limit the importations by adding g directly
from the the territories aforesaid" The
treaty, in its terms, may include the indi-
rect, as well as the direct trade, and has
been ratified by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, and
has become the supreme law of the land.
This treaty is a contact between Great
Britain and the United States.-'rhe Brit
ish Parliament has no power but to pass
laws to carry treaties into effect-the king
has the sole power of making them and
here the President and Senate have the
power of the King-from whence results
the improperly of our attempting, in law
to carry the treaty into effect, any additions
to the Treaty. We have no diplomatic
power. If there is any ambiguity in any
article, we, who represent only one of the
PoitiCS, nave NO power 10 Ditlu ttlS Olner
party by any act or construction that
can be effected only by an explanatory ar
tee made by the agents of both parties. -
SIR any condensation about the treaty and
its true import, this amendment, ifadopted,
could not be considered rs part of the in
strument. The treaty is a record, and like
all others, can be tried only by itself. |
ask, if the Judiciary, in expounding this
treaty, were tote of opinion that it inclu-
ded the indirect as well as the direct trade,
what would be the operation of the pro-
posed amendment, if adopted? 1t certain
ly would be considered as the act of but one
party, as having no operation in the case
work, therefore, of supererogation.
dZr. Castor haUing noved to POSTPONE,
the further consideration Of the bill INDIE
FTNI1ELr-
The bill was, on motion Of Mr.. Tucker,
laid on the table.
.Rondau. January 8.
The House resumed the considera-
ton OF the bill and of Mr. Gastcn's mo-
ton.
Mr.. FORSYTH said, that the motion
tor an indefinite postponement of the bill
made by the gentleman from North Car
DINA, (Mr. Gastoni rested upon the ground
thatit was not necessary to legislate upon
the subject of the convention. Mr.. F. pre-
sumed that it was not the intention of gem
tlemen to enter into the investigation of the
treaty making power, or of the nature Of the
obligation imposed by treaty when made.
He could not suppose it was intended to
take up the ashes of the dispute on that
question in the year 1895. The constitue
tonal principle had been settled so far as
1t pendedupon the representatives of the
people, at that period on the first treaty
with a foreign government which had been
concluded after the adoption of the consti-
tuition. By referring to the Journals of
the proceedings of Congress. it would be
found that the principle established was,
" that when treaty stipulates regulations
on any Of the subjects submitted by the con-
stitution to the power of Congress, it must
depend for its execution as 10 such stihl-
tations, on a law or laws to be passed by
Congress. The recollection of the gen
tleman from North Carolina was, there
fore, not faithful, when he supposed the
doctrine of that day confined the power of
Congress, in the execution of the treaties,
to cases of appropriation only. The rule
was general, and applied to all cases, with
out distraction, over which power was spe-
cially given By the constitution to the legis-
lltive department. This general rule,
since that period, has been uniformly and
consistently observed. In the execution of
the British Treaty, no law was passed at
the per Cd of the memorable dispute now
alluded to, but one appropriating mogey;
but the cause might be discovered by re-
terring to the treaty itself. None of its
provisions were inconsistent with the ex-
isting laws. Subsequently, however, it was
found NECESSARY to provide by law for the
faithful execution of the 10Th article. By
this article,i IL was stipulated, that when
one party was belligeTent and the other
neutral power, to prevent injury to the
property. &c. OF the neutral upon the o.
ceap, from the improper conduct Of the
captains and crews of private armed YES
sells. the owner and master should give
bond and security in the sum of 1900 or
5000 pounds, according to the size ct the
vessel and the number Of her crew, to an
swer for the injuries which might be sus-
tanned by such misconduct. Wnen the
quasi war was authorised against France,
the President was empowered TO grant
commiss ons to private armed vessels, the
stipulation Of the treaty was embodied in
the act of Congress. The same provi-
sion was made in nearly the same words,
IN the war against Tripoli. The conduct
iof the government has been regulated by
the same rdle in their legislative acts TO
carry into effect the treaty with SPAIN
An appropriation law was passed, to pay
the necessary expences. This was ell that
was then deemed necessary. But the 10
Article Of the Treaty intended to provide
tor the case of vessels of either uafion