The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-10
From the Baltimore Republican

NEW TACK.
The Committge on Foreign Relations has, by ila
chairman Mr.. G.. J. lngersol, reported a resolution
recurring the President to give notice forthwith OF
the termination Of the joint occupancy Of the Oregon
territory. This resolution is in accordance with the
Recommendations Of the President in his Message
and will perhaps pass the House. II is useless 10
speculate upon the question whether IL will OF
not, in few weeks we can make up a definite
opinion by looking at the current Of debate which
will then begin TO run, II not sooner. Mr.. Garrett
Davis, who comes from the district in which Mr..
Clay lives, and Is personal friend and political adj
herent Of his brought forward the following resolu-
ton:
"Resolped That the question whether a notice to
terminate the convention between the United States
Of America and Great Britain, of October, 1918, and
continued in force by the convention August 1927
ought TO be given, is not matter for the decision
Of Congress, and upon IL, this House at present
refrains from the expression OF any opinion"
The resolution is put forth by Mr. Davis az the
counter report Of the minority of the Committee
on Foreign Relations, and is in the nature Of a
plea TO the jurisdiction. This resolution seems TO
fall short Of the intention Of the movers. and one
part seems 10 negative the other. The intention
manifesy was to deny the right Of Congress to ex-
press opinion upon the question of notice no
notice; but in it We find the words sat present" in
serted, which is an admission that Congress has
such right, but not at this particular time. Cues
tons as to the rights of Congress do not depend
upon the lapse Of time. If has not the right to-
day, it cannot have IL tomorrow, unless by an
amendment of the constitution IL we will leave out
the words Sat present" altogether the resolution is
then consistent with itself, and the meaning of its
movers is clear enough We then have the PROPOSE
ton stated and supported by these gentlemen, that
the President alone, or by the concurrence Of two
thirds of the Senate terminate the convention of
Joint occupancy. That one of these methods must
be pursued, because all others unconstitutional.
We do not assent to these views, and are firmly
persuaded that the right 10 terminate the convention of
joint occupancy belongs to Congress, and not to the
Executive solely, or to that officer and the Senate
jointly. We cannot see how any man can arrive
at the conclusion to which this resolution leads, by
linking this power to give notice to the Senate and
the Executive a branch of the reaty-making
power. treaty is a stipulation entered into between
nations There must be at least two parties to
it, acting by their agents. Now suppose that the
President and the Senate in secret session. take the
matter into consideration, and finally agree to
give the notice: would this be making treaty, or
anything akin to a treaty. Certainly not. Where
are the two parties' There is but one party, to wit
the federal government. That is the only party
acting by the President and the Senate who are its
agents. The provisions of treaty to be carried
into effect by law Of Congress, and in this way the
agency of the House, the Senate, and the President
all required to eectuate atreaty when it is made
We conceive that this power to authorize the Presi-
dent to give the notice required by the convention Of
1927, belongs to Congress, and not to the Senate.
This resolution seeks to throw the responsibility
upon the President, and to keep the wings from an
expression of their opinions upon the subject. How
polite the latter may be- think that the Pre-
sdent would be glad to be convinced that the power
rested solely with him, unaidcd by the action of Con-
0ress.