The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-01-17
CONGRESSIONAL.
SPEECH OF MIR. GEORGE q. HOUSTON,

/ OF ALABAMA
Pesidents giving the why he declined
to give 70 The 4 ouse in eomplanoe with its CALL the in
| stractlois 10 Mr.. Sdel.
! Mr.. GEORGE s. HOUSTON rose and said
| MIR. SPEAEEa was not III good position to hear
distinctly the remarks of the venerable gentleman from
Massachusetts,, Mr. j. @. ADAMS i but If understood
them correctly desire to make brief reply And in
the course OF what propose to hope to be able to
satisfy hum, as well this House, that he is IN error
not only as 70 the character Of the resolution, constituting
the call upon President Washington but also in the ac
ton which the House OF Representatives took Upon the
message responding to that call.
Before do so, however, will say something of what
has just fallen from the gentleman from Ohio, MIR
ScHENcHl who is calling upon the President OF the
United States for information as to the origin and char,
that sooner He Processes To seek for light; but
let ask, with what sort of grace does call for nfor-
nation upon this important subject come from men,
Der OF this body who, but few short days since under
the solemn obligations of oath, recorded his vote that
our brave and patriotic army in Mexico was engaged
I'm mar unnecessarily and unconstutionaHy begun BY
the President Of the United Stdtes?" He has formed and
expressed an opinion i'll regard to III he has, according to
his own showing, prejudged the case, and condemned
the President OF the United States, charging him with
violation OF the constitutionnot only without hearing,
but In the absence OF what he deems important in
formation upon that very point; which he then knew
was in existence, and which, he contends he has
a right to demand and have of that officer And
aftera all thisafter his condemnaory vote (gven IN
the dark, he virtually admits) has been entered
upon your journalistic calls for light Mr. Speaker in
hcal to that honorable member; but that time with HIM
is passed and gone, and, far information on this
important subject concerned he may be given over to
"hardness Of heart and reprobacy OF mind"
The gentleman from Massachusetts MIR. j. q. ADAMs]
has made points, to which propose to call the
attention of the House Ii mlsstate him, hope he will
correct me as proceed
The first is, that, in the case of President Washington
to which the message before REFERS the resolution
calling for the instructions, correspondence and other
documents, not mandatory, but that it contained
exception for papers which he might consider not proper
to be furnished at that time.
Secondly, that the then House OF Representatives
pressy, by formal vote, declared against President
Washington in his resistance refusal to furnish the
papers called for by that body
These clear and distinct propositions and intend
to meet them in proper spirit. will proceed, then,
with the remarks intend to submit upon those points in
the order in which they presented for consideration
To sustain my position upon the first point it will only
be necessary to read the resolution making the CALL and
let its terms and phraseology be distinctly brought to
the notice OF the House Suffer me to read it:
'esoped That the President of the United States be
questcd to lay before this House copy OF the instructions
the minister Of the United States who negotiated the
his message of the LIST instantly together with the
pondenco and other documents relative to the said treaty
excepting such Of the said papers as any existing negoa-
ton may render improper to be disclosed"
Thus, sir, do see that SO far as the papers which
related exclusively to that treaty. and had reference to
any existing ncgotiao, concerned, the call was
mandatoryhed discretion given was confined in express
TERMS to sct Of SAID papers as any srisng negotiation
may render improper to be disclosed In order to test
leave oil the exception" which it contains in that
case, could doubt its mandatory character Then
take the exception by ITSELF and see what papers are ex
emped by it. Does il exempt all of them from the call of
the House Surely not; but only ''such any existing
negotiation may render improper to be disclosed" AS to
all others connected with that treaty. the President
allowed no discretion.
Let proceed one step further. The journal shows
that amendment proposed to the resolution in the
such any ersing negotiation may render improper to
be disclosed" and in lieu of them insert, "ercep much
The sad as n rs ldgs J may o o. con- r.
DISCLOSE This amendment proposed to give to the Presi-
dent discretion to withhold any all of said papers,
whether they related to erisng negogtions or mol IT.
se Nth the interest of the United States" Its effect
would have been had it been agreed to, to insert in
the discretion Of the President which papers lf any
should be furnished under the resolution, and which
withheld The House, however disagreed to the amend
ment and after several days debate adopted the resolu
ton in its original form thus showing, beyond reason
able doubt that did not intend to give any discretion
as to the papers relative to that treaty. other than such
as might relate to erisiing negotiation" AS to all
others, as have before observed, was mandatory
and 50 was evidently regarded by President Washing
tom will be upon examination OF his message in
which he says:
their must often depend on secrecy and even
when brought conclusion full disclosure of all the
measures demands and eventual CONCESSIONS which may
have been proposed contemplated would be extremely
mpolitic; for this might have perncous influence on
perhaps danger and mischief relation to other
The necessity of such caution and secrecy cogent
for vesing the OF making treaties in the Pres
den with the advice and consent OF the Senate the prn
small number OF members To admit then, right in the
House of Representatives demand and TO hare, mat
of COURSE all the papers respecting negotiation with
foreign power, would be to establish dangerous prece
dent"
If he did not regard it as mandatory, why did he go
into an Argument TO show that, under the constitution
he possessed the power to withhold the papers Why
his rights the Executive of the United States
they had not been in his opinion invaded? Why speak
of the call as "demand? If the resolution had sub
mitted 10 his discretion to publish not in view of
the public interest," he doubtless would have been con-
tent to refuse the papers under that discretion, and
there suffered the matter TO rest
Mr. Speaker, upon the second proposition laid down
BY the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. j. @.
ApAMs,] shall necessarily have to more time
That may arrive at proper conclusion on this sub
ngtons message refusing the papers demanded through
its various stages of legislation in the House of Repre-
senatlves as far as cam in the short time allowed me
for examination and what action had upon 1t
| by that body. The message communicated to the
House OF Representatives the Both OF March, 1876,
and on the next day COMMITTED to Committee of
| the Whole House." On the 1s of April the resolutions
which now ask permission to read, were offered IN the
House of Representatives, and also committed to the
same committee:
Rssored As the opinion of this House, that the consi-
the President and Senate and the House Of Rspresen-
tatves do not claim any agency in making OF lies, or
raiitying them when made.
Resolved, As the opinion of this House, that when
treaty made which requires law laws to be passed
carry into effect that in such the House OF Rep
have Il right deliberate and