The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-07-15


itaon the former. This mode of argument is equally
available for both sides and proves nothing for either
Upon the admission which my doctrine freely makes,
that there is discretion in the House OF Representa-
tyes in relation to carrying out such provisions IN urea
ties as may require their action the gentleman contends
that If there be discretion at all in the House 1T must
be in all cases full and unlimited discretion There
cannot be, meiapbyscally he says such thlhg as
half discretion This argument is indeed, metaphysical
nor do think that the gentleman himself practically
carries it out In another part OF his speech, this
evening he conended earnestly for limitation upon
the discretion of the President and Senate tor SAID
he @where there is limit to discretion there Is no
liberty Well distinction between discretion
which has Ifad and limited discretion If the gentleman
means to give to the term unlimited discretion the only
meaning in which is applicable TO this subjeehat Is
the power of acting according to ones own VIII uncon
trolled by any blgation in law moraI differ widely
from him hold that there is such idea in the created
universe that of unlimited discretion Our dis
creon here representatives is in every case limited by
the constitution and by obligations to our constituents
and to the country Our discretion as agents for others IS
in all limited by the nature and terms of our agency
Our discretion own property, our own time, or
powers physical or mental is limited by the laws
of the land duty to neighbour and our duty to our
God 1t impossible for to conceive of position al
| lowing an unlimited discretion The discretion Of the
House of Representatives in the case alluded to- is limited
| in the which have already described.
Another argument of the gentleman was, that "a treaty
is but iaw Of the land and law of one Congress
is binding another" IT. says he one Congress pass
law requiring appropriation TO be made by the next
that next Congress has right to refuse such appropriation
if it shall think proper The gentleman thinks too that
agree with MIN the contrary, ii seems to Inc to have no
bearing the subject because the analogy of the
not complete A treaty is law il is true, and supreme
law of the land. But it is more 1t is contract creating
reciprocal rights in two different parties. Now if law
| could be passed by Congress comforting rights
foreign nation in consideration of advantages received
could future Congress rghtfuy disregard those vested
rights That is the question The doctrine that treaty
is the utmost only ordinary law would lead to this
result We might make treaty. get and enjoy all the
benefits accrung from it, and ihen without dischar
ging the obligation due from to the other party under it,
we might terminate it at our viii. Establish such doc
rne the doctrine OF our country and what consequences
woul1 result? The door of friendly negotiation would be
forever closed to there would be escape to from
the controversies incident situation except dark and
desolating We would become an Ishniael among
ons till at last stripped of and torn by do
nestle discussions, would struggle through brief and
troubled to the catastrophe of national existence
This is the doctrine of deception strife and The doc
which maintain is the doctrine of good faith peace
and prosperity Truth bears in its hand good gifts while
| error feeds its followers on Dead-sea fruits
has been said that the doctrine of the sancy OF treaties
in the proper sphere of the trcatymakng authority places
the House Of Representatives below the British House OF
Commons gentlemen too have spoken Of the English
oluton and Of the execution of Charles as resulting from
that doctrine In this they clearly in error. If Cen
era Pierce had ordered the Secretary of the Treasury TO
take this money and pay it to Mexico without consulting
he had sought by his own power to put Congress
under constran there would have been analogy be-
tween that and those alluded to from English history
Between this and those there analogy. All admit here
that the Executive has right to take money unless 1t he
appropriated by Congress Charles claimed the right to
I slse to compel its appropriation by Paraainaat.
1t has been said again that Madison and the other repub-
cans of that day contended in the debate jays trea
ties for the full dscreion' doctrine The point OF that
has think been misapprehended The main question
there whether the discretion of the House of Repre-
sentatves full limited one but whether there
was any discretion notwhether they could look into
the matter far to call for the correspondence
The federalists contended that the duty of the
House of Representatives without question or hesitation
to register the decree of the treaty ynakng authority The
republicans held that they hada right to inquire what they
were called to do There cordially agree with them
am on the republican side of that ISSUE The obligation
in good faith, of treaty debt, properly made would
scarcely have been disputed then
Il think AN contradcted in my statement Of the
question then issue by the resolution yesterday quoted
by the honorable gentleman from Missouri He adduced
containing just exposition OF the views OF the demo-
into the House by Mr. Blont of North Carolina the
cep of the message from President Washington declining
communicate certain papers affecting the execution OF
the Jay treaty previously demanded by the House 1t
claims right in the House to Deliberate but does not dis
the extent OF the discretion of the House in the pren
{ ses.
III The question here different from that which
discussed then and involves different considerations Tho
treaty here has been approved by the President and not
4 only ratified by twohirds of the Senate but actually
shaped by that body 1t is the Senaes treaty 1t agrees
give Mexico ten millions Of dollars for land and Other
benefits granted by her II is fair its face involves
no express violation of the constitution That there was
e no fraud corrupt colusion in its negotiation results al
most necessarily from the fact already stated that wa
oil shaped by the Senate Only question remains Doe
al it embrace stipulaons which properly subjects
h treaty regulation? In other words docs the treaty
legitimately extend TO the contracting of debts for lant
purchased This had supposed would scarcely be doubt
ed a this day How many treaties nave been made by th
United States for precisely such purpose? The treaty to
the purchase Of Louisiana, the treaty for the cesson
It Florida the treaty for the acquisition of California
New Mexico and various of our Indian treaties case
y in point
The idea of exchanging benefits OF unequal value
Sariy implies the payment of money the side tn
other That lands should be of the benefits trans
erred results from the necessity of settling boundaries b.
c treaty. How il be otherwise 1t is common ma
IS perhaps il is universal The fact that constitution
does expressly provide for acquiring territory in i
Of way caused Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison at first to hcs
d and doubt the subject 1t apparent however
that the power TO make treaties interpreted by the usag
Of nations included this right The requirements OF inter
national intercourse and the pressing exgences Of the
cason persuaded them strongly in that direction The
yielded their doubts and since then the question has bee
considered settled AS to the previous consultation of h
ID House of Representatives which has been spoken of ha
appears to 10 be all fancy, all moonshine whether
it look the OF the the history of the country
little money has sometimes been needed in the progres
he of treaty and has been asked for That the whole
10 Good has resulted to thus far from the exercise
this power See what have added to the extent an
greatness of country by treaty Behold and admire
C. But this good work may not yet be done These
IT, bnt the first fruits which usher in rich harvest We hop
1T by friendly negotiation again udciously employed
TO lead Cuba the Queen of the Antilles into the serhood
our republic Again and again. proper occasion sha
OF offer the of diplomacy may be extended till
he greatness shall culmnne and destiny shall be
he pshcd Who will set bounds to grandeur WI
ch would cripple and destroy the peaceful of its
psmeut3 The doctrines Of the present may tell weight
y on the future Of country Let gentlemen look to
ir This treaty being such have said, bold that
not at liberty in the exercise of good faith TO refuse h
hp aita tho .cl,,