Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-02-20

the Constitution had given TO it the most power
One OF the very first principles Of jurisprudence
was acknowledged TO be, that nothing could repeal
legislative act but another legislative act: and if
this were SO, how could il be possible that treat,
had ehcacy TO repeal laws The treaty is not n
law as long as there exists another law i'm opposj
lion TO 1t, or IT II was law, two equals would
heu'ralize each other. But il IS claimed 10 he more
uah law, ana IL Is insisted that a treaty may
take OH tax without the consent of the R.p,e
sentstives OF the People. 1t had be.n .,;I Ina,
ueaies were sort ofl-g i.laiion' Fb-v n,iyh,
be sort OF legislation, but it was not legislation
under The Constitution
MI. Is. concluded by explaining himself no,
10 mold, that when the regulations of treaty do
not depend for their execution upon law The
House could touch the exercise of The ,r.,,v
making power.
Mf Wood of New York, said, it was contend
Cd that law was necessary 10 fulfil these trea-
ties, but surprising the law had no, passed. he in
CURED whether the nav CATION law did no, ex-
pressly authorize the President to susDcnd the
discriminating dues? If it did, there was law
already, and he called for the reading of that ac,
While the Clerk occupied in turning to
the law,
Mr.. Miner inquired of gentlemen who Jenv ,ba,
treaty could rere,l law, aud maintain that mo-
thing could repeal an act Of legislation but another
act OF legislation, whether the act declaring war
against Great Britain had ever been repealed o,
II any thing had repealed ii but The treaty of pearef
ENJOY their Imaginary triumph for few minutes
and suppose tina, no answer could be given IN
their question. He had not heard the gentleman
from Pennsylvsnia, he should have answered
MN sooner. There was a very easy way TO get
OFT OF the Gieul'y. The Constitution eave IN
the House the power 10 make war and 10 the
PRESIDENT tie power to make peace. War was
one state and peace was another. The Consti:u-
tion provides for both.
MIR. Powell replied to Mr.. Livingston and in
sisted that that gentleman had not understood hi
Argument. He had charged him with amentnp
the delays which arose from the S.na,e,s h.;na
concerned III ra,ifying treaties. He was sure II
the gentleman had not misunderstood, he would
not have msrepresented him. lie had EXPRESSED
no regret at that delay, and was persuaded that
valuable results often followed 1t. But while he
would not take from The Senate the mower ,ba,
belongs 10 that body by the Constitution, he woulJ
not give to this House power which the Consti-
tuition had not conferred upon it. The gentleman
had insisted that there TO valid distinction
which applied to acts of this House approptia,ina
money, as acts fulfilling any o,Ler stipulation Of
treaty, and had challenged his opponents 20 poin,
out the distinction Mr.. p. though; The distinc-
ton very obvious. When treaty srjpulates for
tie payment oil money, the money cannot be paid
without subsequent act Tor lis appropriation
ms the House ;nay grant refuse. But when
treaty st:pulates for The suspension of a ,Iiscrmi
mating duty, the duty can be, and has been sus-
pended, without any act of the House. In the
one case legislation is indis pensabie and in the
heEft is not treaty lie held TO be the SUI
preme law OF the land supreme over every inter
ieIInS law OF Congress- But to CRAFTY his yene-
raole colleague, (Mr. Basseu.) he would suppos.
II TO be only OF equal authority with the law of
Congress. If it is made after such a law. doe,
II not re: cal the opposite and foregoing law .
Repeal it just tAuch, g. in the sau,e manner. AS
subsequent law would have :epealedi IL CON
tains what is equivalent 10 an act repealiny rrevi
Gus and contrary acts. Applying these princi
pies to the present treaty, and examining " lra, are
its provisions, II would be found that il had re-
pealeu the discriminating duties. Duing its con-
tinuance, those duties repealed and il was
only by 'te expiration of the treaty that the Is,y
imposing those duties revived.
Tue law OF 1924 was NOW read at the Clerks
table.
Mr. Bas.et now repei to The question OF Mr..
Miner a. 70 me repeal Il The raw declaring " ar
against Great B'itain That gentleman had suo
posed that 1t was repealed by the treaty of peare
but, Tor his pari, he placed the matter on differ
en-. ground. BY the Constitution, no power wa.
given TO either OF the branches OF Goyernmen, IN
conclude peace. |; seemed 20 have been cosys
OWissus; but this power must be got al from ,b.
nature of thing. All arrangements OF a beI,;oo
rent character are settled, OF course by a treaty. of
peace The law is II oI repealed, but ceases. as a
matter OF course, wien nation passes INTO a new
state.
He did not wish TO be understood sc boIlin.
indispensable TO carry into effect the powers which
were TO be considered withheld IL. knew
that some gentlemen went this length. and tha,
great controversy existed on this subject, I'm,
while some might go too far, he thought there
were others WHO were not inclined 10 20 far a.
nough.
MIR. Weems inquired what had been the mace
tce, whether the House had not been in the babi,
OF repeating which stood in the yyav of IN.
execution of ,reaic. And if so, whether il
than TO start the abstract question at this late pc,
Tiod OF the session!
MIR. Webster observed, that. from The ac, which
had been read il must be manifest ,ha, the cona,i
tutonsl question did not now necessarily arse
and he hoped that the gentleman would ei,bsr
withdraw his amendment, or that the House ,vonld
reject il.
Mr. Forsyth ssid that if he agreed in opjnion
with the gentleman, he should Withdraw il; but he
believed that the law required that the pfesidso,
mould hrst Issue his proclamation, and in the pre-
sent case, this had not been done.
Mr.. Webster dezied that the law renuired i,
Wbereupon, the1aw again rea l.
Mr. Forsyth replied, that the act of 1924 referred
20 only one branch of his amendment, viz. ,ha,
which referred to discriminating duties Bat the
amendment also referred to the N,ytgatiou sc,
lie acknowledged that in both acts there was
pfoviso which might be held TO apply to the case.
ard rom which it might be commended that no le !
gis.aiion was necessary on the part of the House.
IL was the knowledge of this fact " hjcb had io
aJced him to inquire Of the Chairman of The Com
niuee OF Commerce, whether any legislation was !
~ this case necessary The answer of that gen. !