The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-03-04

on It's runs whose principle uncompromslng hostll-
ny towards the United States OF course MIR Sldell was
also rejected by this new administration and he returned
bafied TO the United States. II IS true, therefore, that
when the troops were ordered to the Rio Grande, nor
nation was before the President that negotiations must
fan with Mexico. Had he no right, under the crcum-
stances have detailed, without the direction OF Congress,
to order our roopnot to take possession not to control
the authorities OF Mexico, civil or military but moesng
no one In power person, pTopeTtysmpy 10 enter the
territory lying between Corpus Christi and the Rio
Grande' Was this order unconstitutional II IT was,
then II will be difficult TO show that the President can
under any circumstances consttuonay order our army
anywhere for any purpose, within the United States
But make no argument the facts II there Is any
who thinks that Congress mot the PresidenD Is com
mander- Chief Of the army and navy OF the United
to Congress- not the President is Entrusted
The executive power and the duty OF repelng lnva-
sion" and OF Seeing the laws faithfully execued-let
hun rail at the President for usupng the powers OF Con
gTess, and uncOnsttutonaly beginning the war with
Mexico. II would be as absurd to dispute the facts
the reasonings tf such Let him go further-pro
pose an act, military order by Congress, designating
where the army shall be placed; and further slthat it
shall be immoveabe forever until the House, by its
clerk or sergeant at arms gives the order to march.
Mr. Chairman, the last faacy referred TO, resulting
from the false principle that Congress is the making
power is, that Congess-no, this House-has the right
to all information in the possession of the Executive re-
speeding treaties or the its operations Upon this
ground, this House has peremptory demanded OF the
sion to Mexico 1t is commended that it is unconsttu
nona outrage the rights of the House for the Pres
dent to refuse to communicate these instructions
Now no one doubts that this House has right to call
for any information il pleases from the Executive, under
standing that the Executive has right TO refuse giving
It, H. IN his opinion, incompatible with the public inter-
est Such right, if right it be called, is mere
right to seek and obtain information, and may be
cised towards any one within without the United States
But this cannot be what the advocates of the late call
the President mean they would not have struck out
there is discretion the President to answer but that
his constitutional duty is to obey the call and that, if he
does not obey he violates the constitution and the cons
utonal rights OF this House They mean this, or they
mean nothing
Let us turn to the constitution and what are the
powers OF TINS House. as part only OF Congress IT. has
three grants OF authority To judge OF the elections,
member. g. To bring impeachments. In carrying out
any of these objects, suppose this House may compel
the attendance OF witnesses and the production of nfor
nation Was the call upon the President, for his instruc
tons to Mr. Slidell, to aid the House in performing its
duty with respect to either of the above grants of power
Certainly the House may say we want this information,
and will not legsate without it. For this any other
1t may refuse TO vote troops supplies to carry the
existing war But is it an unconstitutional, an mpeach-
able act, for the President to refuse the information
Departing from the express grants of power to this
House In the constitution, have heard only vague and
vain declaration to support such position We are the
people the sovereignty of this Unonwhich the Presi-
dent has virtually disobeyed and deed Sir. we forget,
IN our towering sell -exal taon, who we are. We are
not the peoples but, like the President himself elected
by the people, and nrusted with certain limited powers,
for which responsible. We are not the sover-
eighty of the Unon but only of its agencies, to OBJ
tain just and free government liable to be overruled
by the Senate in all legislation, and by this very
President, whom affect to have rghtful con-
troll, in matters belonging peculiarly to the functions of
the Executive.
But although the House may have no right to demand
information of the Executive, may not Congress do it
Congress, the War making power-n the matter of
operations!
The only clause in the constitution having the least
bearing on this pretension is that which requires the
President "from time to time, to give to the Congress
information of the state of the Union, and recommend
such measures as he shall judge necessary" Here is a
duty undoubtedly, which the President performs in his
annual messages The time, mode, and manner of per-
forming it, are clearly within his discretion. Like the
duty of nominating officers, appointing ambassadors,
he is responsible and Improbable for delinquency But
is information concerning Mr. Slidelrs instructons-a
single circumstance of detail-the information of the
of the Union which the President is bound to COM
muncate to Congress- And if it is is it communicable
may wait until he is asked of Congress 1t is duty to
be exercised in common with Congress, which requires,
at their discretion the information to be submitted to them
from time to time If Congress fails to ask this nforma
it; consequently he is not impeachabe for not dischar
gng this duty Sir, he is Improbable if he fails to dis
charge this duty; because to give information to the
Congress from time to time of the state of the Union is
his duty, and his duty only.
But admit that Congress may demand the information
required-of Mr. SlidelPs instructions have they done
IT. ana ney dld DO II, what could tney DO, out go 10
the President and ask his assent to the law which de-
mands II? If Congress, consisting of the House and the
Senate, would have to submit to this course to obtain
this information, does it not show that this House, act
ing separately, cannot command it Even in the case
of treaty. the Senate itsefa part OF the treaymaking
power-canno command all information from the Exc
cutive. Certainly, it must be very extraordinary
which would justify the President in keeping anything
relating to treaty from the Senate, whilst asking their
continuation But such case might exist Suppose a
treaty made highly advantageous to the country, by the
of the secret service fund annually placed at the dis
position of the Executive-a fund which the gentleman
from Massachusetts, Mr. ADAMsl has said on this floor
he used when President, and but his successor
knew how he used it-woud the President be bound to
disclose to the Senate the means he used to obtain the
treaty. The constitution says, he must submit the treaty
the Senate for ratification but does not require him
TO submit the mode and manner by which it is obtained
The Senate may reject the treaty If they think proper,
the ground that all transactions concerning were not
submitted TO them. This is their constitutional priv
ege. But the part of the President, II is his duty to
make treaties, and, after making them he submit or
withhold them from the Senate. If he wlthholds them,
they fail as treaties But in submitting them, may he
not withhold any matter elatve to them which he
deems the public interest requires Take the case out
of which has arisen the claim of the House OF Repre-
sentatives to information from the President Suppose
treaty made tomorrow with Mexico, and submitted to
the Senate and the Senate should pass the very esou
ton this House passed, demanding of the President to
communicate to the Senate the instructions given two
years ago to MIR Slidel in his mission to Mexcowoud
the President be bound to communicate them May he
not say My instructions to Mr. Slidell never had any
existence He was not received minister to Mexi-
and therefore had occasion to break their seal
and If they ever had any existence they have no
bearing upon the treaty have sent to you for con-
irmation. therefore decline communicating them
to you" Ii the Senate not satisfied with this
answer, they could reject the treaty. but they could
not, in my opinion, complain that any constitutional