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

land, would have required the interposi-
tion of the House of Commons. He did
not intend to draw any argument from the
resemblance of the two governments, but
20 bottom one upon the difference between
theal. 1t could cot be denied that in this
government, the Executive power, incud-
ing It's authority to make treaties, was
more limited than in Great Britain. Yet
inOreat Britain, this very treaty will re-
qure an act OF Parliament before it can be
carried completely into effect--An act
which some of US will Hive long enough to
see. This was the ordinary course in that
country. As some of the most rema rkable
periods IA British history, instances had
occurred. a commercial treaty was nego-
Grated between France and England, after
the peace OF Utrecht ; it was not carried
into effect, because the Hoese of Com.
INNS rejected the bin introduced by tire,
ministry to alter the commercial and re
venue laws according to the compact be-
tween the two nations. In the year 1886,
a treaty ct commerce between those ma
tons, was carried into effect by an act of
Parliament, framed according to its stipu-
latlons. Mr.. +. said that the Order in
Council OF the 18th August, 1915, which
he had taken occasion to read to the
| House aday or two before, was founded
upon an act at Parliament, passed, as he
liad understood, for the express purpose of
enabling the Prince Regent to conform
the existing regulations Of commerce 10 the
treaty which might be made by the Minis
ters of the United States and Great Bri-
tam, and IN the discussion of the principles
OF which they were then engaged. SThe
Orderin Council, like the act upon which
1T was founded, was to continue in force
until six weeks after the next session of
Parliament. Within these six weeks af
ter the meeting of Parliament, the necessa-
| ry provision will, no doubt, be made by
the competent authority in the ordinary
| mode.
The gentleman from N C. (dr Caston) had
auVanced singular opinion, that BY exercising
the power of passing laws to give effect to trea
l'es, you dlhinish the respons. bility without d.
,finshing the power of the President aud senate
Mt. r could not conceive how c eek upon he
exercise or any authority could diminish the re-
| sPonsloity OF the person to whom il was granted
| II wascertsinly true, when Congress passed acts
according to the provisions of treaty. they de
ciared to the people, twas better 20 perf,rn thu.
snPhiations II contained, than TO violate the faith
Tie nation, which had been pledged by the
CONSTITUTIONAL authority. Bit f Congress, from
convection that the rights of the people had been
wantoniy surrendered or the national honor tar
hsheo by treaty, should refuse to pass the laws
Secessary Ior tis execution, the President and
senate would feel, what they can feel in no other
way. the responsibility under which their power
| il exercised.
1t had been said, that treaties are the h.v oftse
iand lt Is so printed the margin of the article
OF the Constitution to which tie gentleman (NIr
.raston) had referred, and i seemed to be taken
ior granted, that law and treaty were convertible
Terms. IL has idea is correct, The distinction Ia
ken between acts and appropriation to pay the
expenses OF treaties, and other legislative acts to
carry item INTO effect, is unnecessary. The con.
stltuloh says, that money shall not be drawn out
Oh inc treasury unless aPprOpr ations are prev.
ousy made by law. But treaty beng a law an
Appropriation may be made,by treaty But Mr..
r. SAD, the Object of that part of The const.tu
ton was, TO declare the supremacy of the co.lstl,
tuition, acts made IN pursuance thereof and trea
ties made Of to be made under the autbority ~
the United States, over the Constitutions and laws
of the States. The relative force or effect of
treaties and laws waS 10 be collece ed from the
whole char.er; from the nature and dependence
OF ITS parts-from the bjects over which treat,es
md laws severally opera ed--and from the inten.
non OF the pe"pls BY whom the power of max,
ing them were grauied--aDd for whose benefit
they are TO be exercised. But, Mr.. f.. said. the
exainin ton OF these topics would REQUIRE him tn
enter further into the Constitutional ouestion
tnan e WISHED or intended 10 CO. For the nre.
sent he would content hnnselfwith the exnr.ss,,h
OF the general proposition upon the basis of VIII CHI
the bill had been reported. Wherever tre.,v
contains any hing contrary 10 the co,st,t,,t;o1
II IS void: Wherever it contains ANY thing con-
tfaFy TO existing laws, the law must be re1e.led
by Congress before the engagement, can be com
pred "lJi-becau4e the Constitution Cal, be al.
tered only By the constitutional mode of amend \
ment. iw can be epealed ouIy bv ti,e on. |
ihority which enacted II. MIR. r. sad sltbo,,'sh !
the ques on respecting the propriety of lie =. |
melldments made IN tire committee OF the whole
house, VS. superseded by the motion of inoe6u,Is
plstp0nement, he hoped to be indulgsd with |
few obseryat Ons IN reply to some sugesstions NJ
the gentleman from louisiana (Mr R,bertson1 |
rom Virginia Mr. Tucker) and from NORTH. 90, |
roma Mr. Gaston) lie was not conscious Of |
having committed any improperly IN relerr,ue. tn |
documents printed by order OF The Senate. He |
did not suppose that Information was less Va M. |
bic in one form than in another He bad not ts. |
ken his construction Of the treaty from tbe cor.
rsspDndence he had quoted, but from the nstru. |
ment ITSELF and he could not see The lrrationaI.
~ or IrTegul2rity Of referring to such documents
Tor the ntrmston of an opinion previously form.
ed. From 'he gentleman from North Carol,ns |
CHR. GastOn) be certainly did not expect obser. |
Va ions OF tie character which had dropped from
him, as ne bad been informed that they agreed
IA opinion, upon the construction Of that sTt,ole
Of tile convention which had been the source eff
d, scuss,on.
Mr. r said he was not induced 20 offer the |
amendments TO the committee, by belief that !