Washington sentinel., 1854-07-19

and concluded by President Of the United
States through the instrumentality of Secre-
tary OF State and ministers at foreign courts
consented to and ratified by two-thirds of an
American Senate-presents itself to the House
of Representatives with high and strong claims
TO its favorable consideration and action; but
this treaty has claims upon us much stronger
than under ordinary circumstances. Our minis
ter General Gadsdenl negotiated treaty in
Mexico which met the approval Of that govern
ment; but when submitted to the ordeal of the
Senate of the United States it was not accepta-
BILE to that body. The Senate amended it in
many very material parts; SO much so, that the
gentlemen from Missouri says the Senate made
it out of whole cloth. That body, after long
and laborious sessions, made what suited it,
and their action met the sanction of the Presi-
dent That treaty, modelled and fashioned by
our own Senate, and approved by the Presi-
dent, was sent to Mexico, and by that govern
ment accepted and ratified. 1t now comes to
this House for an appropriation to enable the
Executive to execute 1t. Shall we withhold
the appropriation? We can do so if we will
but is it proper, is it wise for us to do it? Have
we no confidence in our ministers, our Presi-
dent, or our Senate? Will their action weigh
nothing with us ? The Senate refused to ratify
one treaty. Mexico could take no offence at
that; but this treaty, made, as it were, by our
own Senate, and, under the circumstances, ac-
cepted by the Mexican government, it appears
to me should not be defeated by this House
unless upon the gravest objections; a few dol
lars more or less in the price will not it seems
to me, justify vote against it.
But, gentlemen say we want the correspond
ence-for what purpose? admit we have
right to it, and if it had been sought in proper
time, would have in;erposed no objection
The gentleman from Missouri Mr.. BENToN1
says the Senate made this treaty out of whole
cloth; and, if so, it is the Senate's treaty, and
the papers used in making the other treaty can
do you no good. Then why delay for the cor
respondence when time presses decision
without delay? The treaty shows you fully
what you get from Mexico and what you give
her for it. The whole transaction is before
you, and needs no elucidation. The cores
pondence applies peculiarly to another treaty,
with additional and different articles and pro-
visions, some of an Objectionable character
The Senate amended that treaty by striking
out the Objectionable parts. Those obnoxious
provisions are not before you; then what bene-
fit will 1t be you to see correspondence which
applies to that treaty, and not to this No
gentleman can fail to understand this treaty
with or without the correspondence; its fea-
lures and provisions are few and simple; it is
plain business transaction, and, under the
circumstances, / think this House should
promptly vote the money; and hope it may
do so.
NOTE.
In speech delivered by Colonel BENTON on
the Nebraska and Kansas bill, speaking of the
manner in which the President should commu-
nicate his opinions to Congress, he said:
The Presidents opinion can only be made
known to us by himself, in message in writing.
In that way it is his right, and often his duty TO
communicate with us. And in that way there il
no room for mistake in citing his opinions; no
room for an unauthorized use Of his name no
room for the imputation of contradictory opinions
10 him and in that way he becomes responsible
TO the American people for the opinions he may
deliver. All other modes of communication are
forbid to him, as tending TO an undue and uncon.
stltutional interference with the freedom of legs.
lation. It is not bribery alone, attempted upon
member, which constitutes breach Of the privi-
leges OF this House. II is any attempt TO operate
upon members vote by any consideration of
hope or fear, favor or affection, prospect or re-
ward, or dread of punishment. This is parlia.
mentary law. as old as English parliaments con-
stantly maintained by the British house of COM
mons, and lately declared in most signal manner
II was during the reign of our old master George
III and in the famous case Of Mr.. Foxs East
India bill. report was spread in parliament by
one ofthe lords Of the bed chamber that the King
was opposed 10 the bill that he wished it defeated,
and had said that he would consider any member
his enemy who should vote for IT, The house of
commons took fire at this report and Immediately
resolved:
"' That TO report any opinion, or pretended
opinion OF his majesty, upon any bill depending in
either house of parliament, is high crime and
misdemeanor, derogatory TO the honor of the
crown, breach of the fundamental privileges of
parliament. and subversive Of the Constitution of
The country
=" This resolve was adopted in full House by a
majority OF seventythree votes and was only
declaratory of existing parliamentary law-such
as II had existed from the time that English coun-
Ties and boroughs first sent knights OF the shire
and burgesses 10 represent them in the parlia.
ment house. II is old English parliamentary law,
and is so recorded by Haisel, and all the writer's
on that law. II is also American law as old as
our Congress and, as such, recorded in Jefer-
sons Manual. il is honest law; and, as such.
existent in every honest heart Sir, the President \
OF the United States can send US no opinions ex-
cept In witten messages, and no one can repor,
his opinions TO influence the conduci Of members
upon bill, without becoming obnoxious 10 the
censure which the British house Of commons pro.
upon the lord Of the bed chamber in the
case OF the king and the Fox East India billn