Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-07-10
DAILY NATIONAL ERA.

under the Constitution, with powers, or au-
thority, derived solely from that compact II
follows, that no representative Of the United
States, aoting in any capacity whether US
Legislators, or executive functionaries, can do
anything forbidden by that compact, or u',au-
ttorfsed by il.
| Now, the Constitution does not empower or
authorize the Legislative or Executive Depart
ment to ALLEVIATE portion of the territory OF
any Of the States. A Treaty involving such an
alienation, could not be made "undey the at-
lhority Of The United States" and would not
therefore be the supreme law Of the land"
SO, Treaty involving the necessity of raising
revenue, and of an appropriation of money, is
not made strictly under the authority Of the
United St1tss,n unless Congress has been previ-
ously consulted, and has signifod its assent to
such appropriation: for, it is expressly provi-
ded that g all bills for raising reuenue shall
originate in the House Of Representatives. J" and,
further, that no money shall be drason from The
Treasury bat IN consequence Of appropriations
made By ta0D
| No such law can be enacted without the
vote Of majority Of each House and the sane
ton Of the President Therefore, Treaty,
formed, ratified, and agreed to- as described by
Mr. Smith, if it require for its contamination
an appropriation Of money, which, by the Con-
sstution, cannot be made unless By las0 Of
Congress, as not the supreme law Of the land
until such law DO passed--for thon only can
it be properly said, that it is . Treaty " made
sender The authority of the United States"
1t will not do to reply, that the making Of
such q Treaty imposes upon tho House the OBJ
| legation to raise revenue and make An appro-
priation to pay what it stipulates Congress
must Judge Independently of its own duties,
and determine its own action, without dicta-
ton from the President, or coercion by the
treaty making Power. The President has no
right to attempt to impose on it an obligation,
| to assume priori its consent to Treaty, to
pledge the nation to pay money, which the
nations representatives alone have the power
to dispose of.
| Such conduct is gross usurpatiop, and i'm
plies that, in the Judgment Of the President,
Congress ID the mere creature of his will, the
mere register of his edicts. Had we been a
member of the House. and had the provisions
Of the Treaty with Mexico been unexceptiona-
BILE, still, for the sake Of great Principle, for
the purpose Of rebuking Executive usnrpation,
Of indicating the independence of Congress,
Of imposing salutary, all important restraint
on the Treaty-making Power, especially in
view Of further stupendous acts of usurpation,
now cherished by that Power, we would have
voted against the Bill.
We hold that in all negotiations involving
appropriations of money it is the duty Of the
Executive either to state frankly to the For
eign Power with which it il about to form q
Treaty, that as it STIMULATES for the payment Of
money, and money can be drawn from the
Treasury Of the United States only by appro-
priations made by law, said Treaty will not be
held az binding until such appropriation shall
be made; or, before the ratification Of tho
Treaty, submit the subject to Congress, with
request that the necessary appropriation may
be placed at his disposal
As to the objection that this course would
he attended with publicity that might be
detrimental to the interests Of the negotiation,
the obvious reply is that both Houses may, il
they please, SIT with closed DOORS under an IN
junction Of secrecy, while tho subject is under
consideration.
Who can lpseeing the pre- eminent propri-
ety OF such course? II would DO safe, respect
ful TO Congress, constitutional. Had the House
Of Representatives the spirit, to establish such a
usage, it would be the greatest safeguard that
could be provided against abuses Of tho Treaty
making Power, and secure to the democracy
of the People that controlling influence over
our foreign relations, Of which il is now de-
prived by Executive usurpation.
We had intended to comment upon Mr.
| Smiths doctrine Of Territorial acquisition
whether with or without Slavery, but we have
no room today.
UScoNsrITUTIoSALrrY or SLAVERY IN THU
SrATrs.n--The communication from a CORES.
pondent in Hudson, o, on this subject, is de-
clined, not because it is not ably and courteous
" written, but because we have allowed the ad
yocates Of this doctrine already more than 0
fair proportion of our columns TO present and
advocate ii. Mr.. Smith, in his worry extended
speech on the Nebraska Bill, went over the
whole subject, and il constitutes the burden o.
the series Of articles by William Goodell, com
menced some months since in the Era. Now
when il IL considered that we are utterly op
poacd 70 anything looking like consolidation
Of the Federal Government that according q
our theory the States alone and tho People
thereof hayo original Sovereign Power, that
their institutions arc under their solo control
seycrally, unless they have expressly delegated
in the Constitution, power to the Federal Gov
eminent to act in relation to them, and, in
that case, just 50 far as tho express grant Of
power may authorize, that there is no grant Of
power to Congress or any branch of the Fed