Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-07-01

- -
on the subject as to whether the army should
be longer continued or not. If we were to ad.
init tins unlimited power in the President and
Senate to pass treaties, and we we're bound to
make the appropriations. what would become
of this great power by which our ancestors in
tended to preserve their liberties and to put it
outsof the power of any ambitious general or
chieftain, at any future time, to have a stand
ing army If you permit this absolute power,
contended for by the gentleman from New
York, the President and Senate may enter into
treaty stipulations with some foreign nations
and engage to give subsidies or keep up stand
ing armies for any length of time, and this
great clause, intended to secure the liberties of
the country would be nugatory. ! cannot con-
sent to any construction of the Constitution
which would lead to such disastrous conse-
quences.
Again, may not this House refuse to make
appropriations which have been commenced by
a previous Congress? Suppose laws were
passed by previous Congress by which it was
enacted that certain appropriations should be
made for certain works, or any particular pur
pose, has not every House of Representatives,
as it comes here, the right to determin whether
it shall carry out those appropriations or not?
Undoubtedly they have. The law requiring
them TO do so is the law of the land. Trea
ties can be no more at the utmost than the
laws of the land but the law of Congress is
not irrevocably binding on another. One Con-
gress may enact that there shall be appropria-
tons, but the next Congress may refuse to
make these appropriations if, therefore, we
have the right to refuse to make appropriations,
though called for by the President, House
of Representatives, and the Senate, how much
more have We the right to refuse to make ap.
preparations under treaty ratified by the
Senate and the President? | think this view
of the subject is conclusive, for even admitting
treaties to be laws in reference to all the sub
jects of which they dispose, yet this House
would not even then be absolutely bound to
make treaty appropriations. But cannot and
do not admit that treaties are laws where they
undertake to provide for the payment ofmoney.
They are not fully operative and efficacious on
this point until they have been affirmatively
acted upon by the House.
would beg leave to call the attention of the
committee to this important fact, that the
restrictions upon the powers of the government
contained in the Constitution, are restrictions
on the Legislative powers of the government,
not on the treaty-making power. The Consti,
tuition, for instance, prescribes that Congress
shall pass no bill of attainder, and that no pre-
ference shall be given to the ports of one State
over those of another, and that no laws shall
be passed concerning the establishment of reli.
gion. All these great principles of liberty
which are embodied in the Constitution are, in
form, restrictions only upon the legislative
power of the government. They are not re-.
strictions upon the treaty making power. What
follows, then, as consequence? If the Iegis.
lative authority granted to this House to lay
taxes and pass appropriation bills is no restric-
ton upon the treaty making power, much less
would the exceptions to the legislative author.
ity Of this House be any restriction on the
treaty-making power. And thus you would
arrive at this monstrous result, that the treaty
making power was an unlimited power, and
the President and the Senate might do what
they thought proper, without being bound by
the limitations Of the Constitution. 1t is i'm
possible that such construction of the Const-
tuition can be sound. And, therefore, we must
admit what i have been contending for, that
the Legislative powers granted to this House
over the purse are limitations on the treaty
making power.
/ was surprised to hear the gentleman from
New York Mr.. SMITH give the treaty-making
power so broad construction as he did; but
his conclusion is entirely at variance with his
argument. After assuming that treaties place
us under moral necessity TO vote the money
they require, he tells us he will not vote for
this appropriation. 1t is eontended by some
that the Constitution imparts q peculiar sane
tity and vigor to treaties, when it declares they
shall be the supreme law Of the land. But in
what sense does the Constitution say that
Supreme over what? Not over Congress, and
not over the House of Representatives, but
they shall be supreme mean in the last
instance, when they become laws-supreme
over State laws and constitutions. That's the
meaning Of the word supreme" in this con-
nection. For instance, after this treaty shall
have been passed upon favorably by this House,
IL it is so favorably passed upon, it is to be-
come the supreme law of the land in reference
TO State laws and State constitutions. The
word supreme" as it is found in this connec-
ton in the Constitution, is not intended to
mean that the treaty making power shall be
supreme over the legislative power; and that
the action of the Senate and President, upon
the subject Of treaty, shall be supreme over
this House, where it concerns any matter over
which this House has Legislative discretion. No
such thing. Suppose the ground contended for
ny tic uOuOtdblC BCHAchbh rum NtW
is correct, that treaties are supreme, and that
we are bound TO execute them under all cir
cumstances, what limit would there be to the
power Of the President and the Senate in max
ing treaties They would have carte blanche
to do whatever they might think proper to do,
there would be no barrier to their discretion,
and where there is no limit to discretion there
is no liberty.
The objects Of free constitutions is to throw
around governments the barriers of laws and
restraints. j think there is danger that this
treaty-making power may be carried too far
1t is the tendency of power constantly TO in
crease; il is continually stealing from the many
to the few. The tendency Of this treaty-mak
ing power is to absorb all other powers, and
It behooves us, the representatives Of the peo-
pie, to see that it does not transgress beyond
its proper limits. Take the instance Of this
treaty. If the treaty making power can appro
pirate money, and we are bound to carry out
their will, what limit will there be to the
treaty-making powerf None; none whatever.
For there is no legislative power In all the
grants of the Constitution So closely hedged