Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-09-07

WASHINGTON: SATURN
power command oil necessary assistance ia the execution
Of his duty" Here, them and extensive powers n|
conferred unconneced with the execution Of process CI
II be doubted that sheriff may, of his authority ne
fore to suppress riot And what would be the eharactefpe
an armed force marching into Mexico obsuct the ext
ton of the law Il would be nothing but not and %
the marshals might interfere suppress with all the
they could command. te4fas wisA. 4*
Mr.. CLINGMAN. There are no msrshas there. #n
Mr.. DCER. Then certainly they could overcors e|
resistance, and the for the use Of military power uo
sooner occur. What am showing is that the au11G
iy Of the President interfere Is confined the c.
resistance process The law does not require that sS
must act In the first instance. The reference to them -
have said before, only to measure tho strength Of the
ton by which the execution of the laws s obsruced
words mean thsnthat where the civil power si
quate, military power may be employed ssssfSZ
The gentleman from Georgia, who addressed the comip
Yesterday, mr. TooNss.) read some extracts from s
Of General Jackson in 1884, show that in the css ~
difficulties with South Carolina the President did ho thlk
that the act of 1896 conferred the requisite power. Ihx
not had opportunity TO refer to that message, and DO
know what particular defect the President supPossd 70 %
in the act referred to-. He Speaks ssI undsrsood the
tlenan in reading Of some slight modicaions bsing
sasy can well iusgine, in such emergency, ne0ly
ia various respects for additional legislation The message or
calling forth the militia, and his remarks may have ped to
that branch Of the public service and not to the army Bot
however that may be- s worthy of observation that the
constitution makes marked distinction between the employ
ment Of the militia and the employment Of the army aid nsy
for the purpose of executing the laws The constitution pro-
vdes that Congress shall have power o provide for calling
forth the militia the laws Of the Union, suppress
Instructions and repe invasons;" but it is nowhere pro-
vded that they shah have power to authorize the employment
Of the army and navy for such purposes Why this daer
ence May not have been because supposed hat
the military power properly and exclusively belonging to The
United States applicable those purposes without peda
authority Of Congress The constitution provides that he
Executive power shall be vested in the President and that
sshe shall take that the laws be faithfully executed " a,d
confers upon him the command Of the army and navy The
execution of the laws implies the exercise Of force here the
power s give and the force requisite also gv
thing commanded to be done and the given
do it; may not the means be employed for the aainnentof
the end Suppose that what the constitution and the treaty
with Mexico together contain were in single law suppose
that provided in such law that the inhabitants Of New
Mexico should be protected in their liberty pfopey, and
religions that the President should have power and thatt
should be his Duty that thislaw faithfully executed
and that armed force placed at his command could
he not that force for the purpose designated If Con-
gress pass law declaring with foreign naon may not
the President the army execute that law If So why
not TO execute any other law !!
It is denied that the .army may be consttuionay
poyed to execute domestic laws, well carry war;
The gentleman from Virginia Mr. SEDDoS) denies that it
from Georgia Mesas. STEPHENS and TooMBs contend that
cannot be employed under the act of Congress- except
in aid Of judicial process but deny that such employ
men of the military power of the Union in accordance with
the constitution But the President may not by virtue Of
the powers vested in him by the constitution employ the army
and navy execute the laws whence do Congress derive the
power to authorize him to do So All the power given to
them is to raise and support armies provide and main
tain navy and " to make rules for the and
guaon Of the land and naval forces to have been
taken for granted that the force of the nation might be employ
ed to give effect the will Of the nation, and that the powers
conferred upon the President rendered any special authorize
ton BY Congress unnecessary. These views may be novel,
and If so unsound It is intended TO dsny that Con-
gess may limit and regulate the Of the army for the
poses referred My suggestion goes further than this
that where Congress thing be DONE requiring,
that may require the exercise of oce and place
ed force at the disposal of the President he may under the
power vested in him by the constitution the force they
give him accomplish what they have commanded him
But whether this be is material in the present
case since the requisite have been clearly conferred
upon the President have endeavored show by the
Of 1895 and 1907.
Another objection (f understand him) Of the gentleman
from Georgia Mr. STEpHESs h that this treaty Is not now
the law Of the land that become the law of the
land until Congress shall pass the acts necessary to
force it.
Mr. STEPHENS. hold that the obligation Of the treaty
rests upon the Government Of the United States one
Of its departments only, but upon ALL Legislative, executive
and judicial conjoiny and unhe making power shall
define the rights under the treaty. and the judiciary shall pass
upon them, it not for the Executive to execute it.
Mr.. DUER The constitution declares that treaties made
under the authority Of the United States shall be the supreme
law of the land It the language precisely with re-
spect to treaties and Of Congress- and dsr-
between the power of the President and n
the other do deny that in treaties may
quire the action Of Congress before they have effect
treaty may spulate for what beyond the treaty making
power perform In such case is promssory merely md
binds the faith Of the Government But far as treaty
executes ITSELF and requires the action Of other department
Of the Government to give effect 1t is binding act
Of Congress The gentleman asks, if treaty promise pay
money, the President his hands into the treasury and
take it out No, certainly not because the appro
pirate money is exclusively in Congress. But this 10 not
such there is defect here in the iymakiDg
power We may certainly regulate by treaty the acquisition
Of that which acquire by treaty If may by treaty ac
qure sovereignty people, may, by the treaty,
place limitations that sovereignty may stipulate to
leave them their property their religion. give full effect
to what have promised to these people, do dispute
that legislation necessary. We have promised that they
shall into the Union, and that will require law. Le-
gslaon, ioo requisite TO them that protection
which, in the time, has been guaranteed. But when
the treaty says that they shall be maintained and
in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and
The following the passage the message of Gen. Jack
son referred TO by the gentleman from Georgia:
is believed that these referrng certain measures be-
fore recommended would adequate unless the military
forces OF the State OF South Carolina authorized BY the Of
the legislature should be actually embodied called out in
aid their proceedings and Of the provisions the ordinance
generally Even in that case, however, 10 believed that no
adapt the act of l795 the emergency by that
provisions