The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-29

new treaty; in this case IL would be ques'
| uon for the treaty-makng power TO deeldei but
whether it should be annuled by giving the nonee
provided for by the treaty itself That the giving
| lhis notice did not belong 10 the treaty-maklng
power was clear from the fact that II was neither
the making treaty, nor anything incidental 10 a
| treaty. A treaty IN the nature OF contract
IL must be assented by the parties entering into IT,
But was the annulment of this convention, by CIV
ing this notice, u treaty. Who were the parties
whose consent was necessary 10 NJ Might not
either party, without the consent of the other give
III Was, then, the giving the notice treaty. Was
il an incident TO treaty. So far from It, II was for
The annulmeDt of a treaty. not for the making any
new treaty. This power did not then belong 10 the
treaty .makng power, and that it did not belong to
the judiciary, II needed no argument 10 show. 10
what department, then, did il belong To the only
other department Of the government-the legislative
But not only because there was no other depart
ment of the government in which il could vest,
but because the right TO exercise this power was
plainly included in express grants to Congress, did
this power belong TO Congress.
Mr. Il. referred to the respective clauses of the
constitution, granting TO Congress the power TO
"proyde for the common defence and general well
fare of the United States "tO regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several States
and with the Indian tribes" and "to declare war"
as being each sufficiently broad TO include this
power-he first, in case Of its being necessary for
the common defence" TO rid the territory Of the
Onlteu states OF
ects; the second inasmueh as the occupation OF our
territory by British subjects interered with
commercial regulations, and our trade with the In
dans; and the third, inasmuch as, in order TO put
this country in a state Of preparation for war, IL
was necessary to annul this treaty. The error, as
he conceived, into which the minority of the Com
mitee on Foreign Relations had fallen, was in sup
posing there was such thing a concurrent ju-
nsdiciion between the different departments Of this
government.
But, in defence Of the position that the giving this
notice is within the power Of Congress- and IN contro
version Of the grounds taken by the minority Of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr.. +. proceeded to
refer to the precedens Of the action Of Congress in the
annulment Of treaty with France, under which II
eontended IN quarters that the United States
were bound 10 become the ally of France in her
contest with Great Britain, and that treaty, too,
| containing no provision authorizing the United
States annul II at pleasure; in the recognition by
the government, through the action of Congress, Of
the independence Of Mexico, Texas, and other IN
dependent governments carved out Of the territories
| Of other powers which powers still claimed domin-
ion over them-thus affecting our treaty relations
with the powers thus claiming; in the acts Of Con-
gross admitting the products Of foreign nations into
this country on terms affecting treaties settling the
| terms on which foreign products shall be admitted
into the United States-these, and others which he
might add, all being cases in which acts of Congress
| affected treaties made by the United States with
foreign powers. He assumed, them that there could
really be no doubt Of the power of Congress to an
null this convention by giving the required notice;
and certainly gentlemen who contended that the
/ President Of the United States alone had the power
| 10 annul solemn treaty-the supreme law of the
land-ought to maintain it by most powerful argu-
! ments, and leave the matter had been done
by the minority of the Committee on Foreign At
| fairs, on the ground Of mere declaration.
| Mr.. I. next proceeded to give his views on the
proposition of amendment of the gentleman from
Il A IL Al.
dent Of the United States to give the notice
inmate this treaty whenever, in his discretion, he
might see fl. He Mr. L need not say To those
who knew him that he had quite much confidence
in the President of the United States as any gentle.
man on this floor. That the President Of the Uni
ted States would give this notice, should the amend
| ment of the gentleman from Alabama be adopted,
and promptly give it, he did believe there could
be the slightest doubt. He did not believe that any
one, who looked at the recommendations Of the
President, or who knew the man, could hesitate for
an instant in coming to this conclusion. He went
further and said if there was no other way of Civ.
ing this notice to Great Brtain-if the notice could
pass this House IN no other mode than that pro-
posed by the gentleman from Alabama, he (Mr. t.
should vote for that proposition; but he should mos
profoundly regret the alternative Of having either to
see the notice defeated altogether, or having to see il
adopted in the form proposed by the gentleman
from Alabama What was that proposition Ii was
proposition 10 vest in the President of the United
States the power TO annul one of the most solemn
laws Of the land at his own discretion. That was the
proposition and yet gentlemen who had occupied the
attention Of the committee day after day in asserting
that the giving this notice would lead war, were
here found advocating proposition which, if their
views ofthe effect of the notice be correct conferred
upon the President the war-makng power. He mean,
nothing offensive to any one; but he must say that
gentlemen of the opposite side, who advocating
the amendment, showed themselves exceedingly
apt scholars. But few months ago. many of them
protested to be unacquaned as to who MIR Polk was.
Butso rapid had been their progress that they had not
only found out who he was but they had ascertained
that he was entitled to such confidence that they
proposed to confer upon him what they argued was
the war-makng power. He appealed to the wing
party-whose name implied that they were the OPP
posers of the executive power and the defenders oil
| the legislative power-whether it was consistent
with their proessed principles, instead of voting for
giving the notice, to confer upon the President the
war-making power of the country. II seemed to
him that there must lie a organization, OF
| rather reorganization going in that party
which should lead them to course like this. Mr.
L. further contended, inasmuch as the giving the
notice was properly legislative power, that Con-
gress ought to exercise it, and that it was unbe
coming its dignity to seek thus to eyade the respon
sibity OF IT, and to throw 1t upon the Pres
dent But vest this power in the President, and hi
must either refuse to give the notice, or he mus
give it. Everybody knew he would give IT,; ant
that the people would not be found unanimous il
its prosecution, but that it would be said by som'
that the President had plunged the country into
war with Great Britain ruthlessly, rashly ant
without necessity for it. But let the notice be gver
by Congress- and this danger would be avoided in ,
great degree.
Mr. T. was, then, in favor Of giving this motto,
by legislative act positively requiring il to be given
Why should 1t not be given However they nigh
differ in other respects, there scarcely dissen
ent voice in this; was in favor of inactivity
all were in favor, as he understood Of taking suct
measures as would secure us the whole of Oregon
raising troops, of erecting forts, creating Indian
Of agencies, extending laws settlers il
Oregon, and encouraging emigration thither. Al
were in favor Of these measures; but the difference
of opinion was that some were in favor of then
without the notice. and others were in favor of then
in addition to the notice. But the notice itsel
all admitted would not be considered offensive
to Great Britain but the offence would aris
from the circumstances in which it was given
These circumstances were the measures recommend
ed and in which ali cnnctrred. and ,,,n,la IL ~.