The Woodstock age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1844-1845, 1845-03-20

think of sendns treaty to the Senate for
by which tho State of Maine
or the State of Arkansas was to be set
tied on The bride as 4 dowry' Great
Jaughlher, in which Mr. Archer heartily
Joined. Yet nothing was more common
than treaies Of marriage and dowry be-
tween European nations.
What then was the trne limitation OF
the treaty powcr3 He did not say that 1t
wins limited by only those express grants
in the constitution, IL the President and
two-thtrds of the Senate; but he said this,
that oil the powers granted to Congress
must be exercised by Congress, and
MI the powers granted TO the judiciary
must be exercised by the judiciary, aud all
powers granted to the executive must be
exercised by the executive, until they
reached point or case where they could
not be exercised without the aid Of some
other branch of the government, and then
resort might be had 10 the treaty power, "
that could conveniently complete It, Inc
limitation amounted to this, that the treaty
power included whatever related to our
concerns with foreign government when
tina government, had no legislature and
would not or could not act with us ercept
by treaty, When Congress was car ylug
out its own granted powers, and came to II
stage when it could not proceed without
the instrumentallity of trcay, then the
treaty power applied, ifthe act was eXterl-
or and customary, but its jurisdiction eX-
tended no further than the grants to Con-
prcss. Its functions was to assist Congress
in carrying out, in such cases, the views OF
the people.
In confirmation oflhis, I would inquire
who had the power ofmaking treaties be-
lore the adoption of tie present couslltu-
ton! The Congress of the confederation,
The power was then in Congress alone, and
expressly. But did Congress act upon all
subjects by treaty? Certainly not. They
acted as a Legislature till they came to
something in our foreign relations which
could not be accomplished without treaty
How could Congress, as legislature, for
example, de al with the king of Siam or the
Sultan Of Muscat, or the Emperor of Rus
sla, neither of which soverelgns had any
leg slature in their government! In these
cases the action of the two governments
could not be accomplished by mutual laws,
because on one side there was no legIsa-
turo to make law. The transaction must
then be accomplished by the medium of a
treaty, or not at all. The old Congress,
however, were placed under restraint in
reference even to some treaties. Some
commercial treaties, Tor example, could
not be made at ALL such as prohibited GER
tain importaions. Here is the clause be-
fore me. But how was it here! The treat
y.power, instead of being conhded in an
unlimited manner to Congress, as was the
case in the confederation, was taken away
from the new Congress, because its eXer-
else by that body would be cumbersome
and inconvenienl, and had been given to
the executive, checked, however, by re-
curing the assent of lwo-thirds of the Sen
ate. This change had been made for the
sake of convenience aud not for safety
The people surely might as safely have in
trusted such power with their own rep
resentatiyes, to whom war and taxation
were conGded SO largely, as have given ii
TO the executive with two-thirds Of the Sen
ute. When they wanted greater safety in
regard to any power, they went to the
House of representatives. That had been
Patrick IIenry's argument against the con-
sttution, namely, that the assert OF the
House Of Representatives was not made
necessary to the ratification of a treaty.
Withou, that it was deemed by him unsafe,
and some of the States actually propose
an amendment in the constitution to that
effect.
Let me tell gentlemen circumstance
connected with the Hartford convention
which is mentioned limo spirit Of disrespec
or taunt, but as matter of history; that very
convention recommended the assent OF two
thirds of both Houses to the ratification o
treaty. How, then, was it possible tc
say that the clause empowering Congress
t, admit new States was unsafe; and hence
that it should be so construed as TO make
1t, or the procurement of territory in al
cases the exclusive prerogatiye ofthe treat
y-making power? IfCongress could no
, admit new States without some obstacle
in their way which prevented their further
action without treaty. shen indeed they
might do it without a treaty. But in this
case where was such an obstacle, anC
why was the interposition of the treaty
power requiredi If, indeed, Texas SHOULD
refuse to accept the terms proposed ii
this Joint resolution, and, instead of com
ing as a State, should prefer to enter the
Union in as a territory and not by legisla'
ton of any kind, then the treaty-making
power would apply because then the i'm
plcation in the constitution would arise
but not till then, that treaty being nee
essary. the President must make it. The
Senate and President had no right TO in
terlere in the matter if Congress should
act, and choose to act, without them.
Again: The power to regulate foreign
commerce, for example, was given by the
constitution to Congress. Would any
gentleman say, in the teeth of this, thai
n l.,