Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1846-05-14


se1 - fes aFt H eaB .istisg3ai'55
as he. had indicated. What has Great
! Britain done? She has, through her
Minister here, proposed twice, to arbi-
(itrate this question. Were these prop
ositions made with any expectation on
1.-THE part of that Government that they
would be acceded 10 by ours? None
whatever. Similar propositions had
been made to Mr.. Adams and to Mr..
Tyler, during theirA Administrations and
had been refused, and it was known
to every body here tha, the present Elk
4 ecutive would never consent to. Then
why was it proposed? Simply to bet
terthe position Of England in the
eyes Of the world on the Oregon mat
/ ter. Should we, then, not see that we
place ourselves on proper grounds, If a
conflict should Gomez ! would (said
Mr.. P..) deprive England Of every pre-
text for not settling this question; and,
if war should unfortunately grow out
lof if, on her shoulders should rest the
consequences of it. She should not
say, ii is useless to offer to compro-
mise, as the President proposed to
compromise; for he has Withdrawn the
proposition to compromise, and has
claimed the whole territory; we will not
do the foolish thing of making an of
fer which he is pledged TO acsept. He
would say, as the representatives OF
the American people, we are yet vii
ling to do what's right in itself, and
upon England's head shall be the cor
sequences Of doing otherwise. Nor
should the President take any excep-
ton to such ar amendment, as he had
spokenof. Negotiation had failed in
his hands, and he had sent the mat
ter to Congress. In the concluding
paragraph ofthe letter of Mr.. Buchan-
an, in which, by direction of the Pres
ident, he withdraws the proposition OF
compromise, houses the very language
which he (Mr. P. would like TO use
here. If right for him to use it, it
could not be wrong to use it. But |
have ne hope (said Mr.. P. of amen
ding the House resolutions. The
minds of Senators have been made up
upon the sutherland j have said what
l have said, merely to show what |
would be wiling 20 do. No injury
could result from doing it. The time
for diplomacy with this question has
4 gone by. 1t has reached point at
which il must be settled, if ever it IS
to be settled peaceably, and both OF
the nations must be far too sagaclous
j not to see and not to know it. 20 %7e
4 A word or two { said Mr.. P. as to
the substitute offered by the Senator
from Maryland (Mr- Johnson,) for the
i House resolutions, and he would suffer
i the vote to be taken.
1 The Senator from North Carolina,
{Mr. Mangum, a few days ago, made
an elaborate argument to show that the
Legislative power of this Government
could not annuI treaty; and he said
it was not only his opinion, but that he
had conversed with emminent jurists,
and they had concurred very fully with
himself. Now, esaid Mr.. P..) | wiki
not say that the honorable Senator is
wrong, but must say have always
/ thought very differently from him. A
treaty in this country, whatever 1t may
! be in others, is lao of the land; the
| Constitution ofthe United States de-
)clares it to be the supreme laao of the
lland;and the courts ofjustice administer
it daily as a laao ofthe land. In other
flcoun,ries a treaty is mere contract
entered into between sovereign par
| ties, and is not executed by the judi.
cial pc wer, but BY the political power
! of the nations. If, then, it be a laac
! With US, Why may it not be repealed
/ by the Legislative department, as other
flaws are repealed by that Department.
/ In the same sense that a treaty is
1.-The supreme law Of the land, is an act
| of Congress The supreme law of the
.llana. If The one may be repealed by
an act ofthe Legislature, why may not
the other also? 1t is true, q treaty
lshouId not bs abrogated for Slight or
!, ordinary capsts, but for suitable rea,
4 sons it oughi,to be annulled. Then
how stands the matter (said Mr.. P.)
upon authority Judge Story, in his
& Commentaries on the Constitution ct