The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-07-14

made By ian says the constitution This does not mean
such law as treaty isindecd with all due Difference to
the trainers of the constitution, treaty is compact not
strictly speaking, lac at all it is an agreement between
nations and, far the parties to 1t are concerned IL
becomes part Of the law Of nations but treaty is not
law in the usual acceptaon of the term The English
courts have held hat treaty is not law When treaty
is violated the "uhna ydto is the remedy when law IS
violated court Of justice is the tribunal for its vndica-
ton. II law of Congressan act OF appropria-
ton The term appropriation used in the constitu-
ton is technical legislative term with which we are all
familiar.
But is said that treaties the supreme law of the
land and that Congress is under the obligation to
make an appropriation to execute them as IT IS 70 provide
for the payment of the salaries OF the judges and the Pres-
dent whose salaries by the constitution cannot be dmn
shed during their continuance in Office Now, sir the
great difference the different bodies which the two
instruments are supreme The constitution is supreme
in every part of ramied and complex system Of
government composed of the general and State govern
ments Treaties supreme over State laws and the SUI
premacy of them refers to those laws alone the latter
of the clause shows The judges every Statc shall
be bound thereby anything in the constitution laws Of
any State to the contrary Notwithstanding This clause
of the constitution contemplated conflict between State
laws and those of the federal government and preserve
harmony in such it declares the latter shall prevail
But treaty supreme in other relation The treaty
making power bind Congress to pass law
than Congress bind it to make treaty. They in
dependent departments and designed to check rather
than be subservent TO each other.
at loss for some time to ascertain how it that
treaty spoken of as law-and supreme law too
in the constitution Probably it from this fact Many
of the aes negotiated by the federal authority conflict
ed with State laws, and il anticipated others might
for instance the conscaon laws of the States conicted
with the treaty OF peace and in all such cases where
treaty was consutonaly made it thought best by
this clause to relieve the State judges OF all difficulty by
giving them binding judicial rule
But it is said that to produce this harmony between diff
erent clauses of the constitution you had well make the
legislative power yield TO the treaty power the latter
the former BY no means In the first place. the egsla
tive powers specific and well defined the treaty power
general and vague. And is weestablished rule Of
construction that powers which are general must yield to
those which are specific We dsnot invade the treaty
when we judge for ourselves in respect appropriation
for 1t has power Of appropriation Nor does Congress
claim to exercise part Of the treaty power when it insists
upon the exercise OF discretion in all cases where its
operation necessary to execute treaty Congress claims
no active participation in the negotiation of treaties but
when called upon for cooperation claim for it negative
in statu quoit does nothing affirmative And in this
spec it is in keeping with that general system of checks
and balances which distinguishes system of
do not claim for Congress any control treaties,
except in where is called upon pass laws carry
them into execution There many where treaties
are seecient and require no legislation to execute them
There are treaties which may be made by the Executive
which will be conclusive which will be binding the law
of the land and requiring the concurrence of nobody
cept two-thrds OF the Senate Take case for instance of
treaty of peace Congress declare war; and by the
constitution it IS for the Executive wage and carry
on by the aid OF such appropriations as the House and SEN
may make But when You finally come 10 the ones
ton of peace there the Executive can make treaty of
peace without consulting anybody hut the Senate and
without coming to this Honse at all if there be in it moth
II. "
war; but requires two parties to make peace; that
peace must be made by negotiation in the ordinary form
between the two governments through their ministers
That one OF those treaties which execute themselves And
is fortunate it is II is well that should be diff
fcu to declare than to make peace. The President
and the Senate may make peace without consulting the
House. and the House force them TO make peace h,
Withholding supplies but it requires the Of
the House. the Senate and the President declare
But there other treaties in the formation of which the
cooperation of Congress must be obtained but the coope
ration is made necessary in order harmonic the several
provisions OF our constitution as in this If you make
treaty which makes appropriation of money necessary
to execute it. then another provision OF the constitution Of
the United States comes into play and Congress alone
can make appropriations the treaty cannot be executed
until the appropriation has been made They have the
power to withhold it. but whether they ought to do it
not depends upon other considerations irrespective of the
mere power you could suppose case where the Pres
dcn of the United States with the concurrence of two
thirds Of the Senate should make treaty palpaby sub
vertng the best interests and rights of the American peo
pie ana that treaty required an appropriation of money to
carry out unquestonaby the Congress of the United
States has not only the right but in such case would be
in duty bound TO withhold the appropriation Can any
body doubt that Congress could with proprey withhold
an appropriation to carry out traorous treaty. that
runous disgraceful But hold it to be matter of
proret where treaty has been negotiated by the author
ly in whom the constitution has vested the making
power-that the President and twothrds of the Senate
that the corporation of Congress ought be with
held, except in case of patpabe disregardi will not
limit myself to traorous dsregardof the best interests
of the nation In the Of reasonable doubt where
the mind nearly balanced it ought to be turned in
avor OF the atynaklng power. ONr is mega
tive one and it ought not TO be exerted except in clear
am of those who have ever taken the ground
which wiser men than some of have taken, Mr. Pink
ney among them, who maintained that there posi-
tive and moral obligation upon the representatives of the
people to carry out the treaties negotiated in pursuance of
the constitution. do not stand here to maintain such
doctrine. plant myself upon the ground where the
publican statesmen of former days stood have thus gone
into detail Of my views to the necessity of APP
preparation by Congress to execute treaty which slipu
ates for the payment of money and the power of
this House appropriations for that purpose because
in replying to the gentleman from Missouri Mr. Benton
who maintains right TO withhold them It might seem
that differed with him on that point But do not does
the Presidents for he has here ask for the appro
priaton and thus admitted the necessity of appropra
ton Congress- and he has the treaty ITSELF and
thus admitted the propricty of our looking into it TO de-
ermne, under the restrictions have mentioned the ex-
pediency of voting it. The argument therefore of the
gentleman from Missouri Mr. BENToN1 and myself up TO
this point is purely abstract far the question before
the committee is concerned.
But the gentleman from Missouri Mr.. BESToS insists
that the President ought TO have asked for this appropa
ton in advance of the negotiation Of the treaty and his
failure to do so In where territory is to be acquired
is breach of the privileges Of this House He undertakes
show that Mr. Jefferson seemed think that by
this House in advance in the way of appropriation
necessary to confer upon him the authority TO negotiate
treaty for the acquisition of territory He tells that Mr.
Jefferson doubted the consuonality of the acquisition of
Louisiana and hence asked the sanction of the Congress
advance thought had studied the constitution of the
United States in the best school certainly thought that
had studied the views of Jefferson Madison and the great
Of that day in regard to this matter and is strange
that gentleman protesting himself to be disciple
of that school, of the expounder of its doctrines
should here and express his opinion that the founder
tff l.a