The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-07-20
SPEECH OF GERRIT SMITH
MEXICAN TREATY AND "M0NROE DOC
TRINE."
In Congress, June 27, 1854.


In Congress June 81, 1854.
The bin to enable the President to fulfil the
third article of the Treaty between the United
States and the Mexican Republic, being under
consideration,
Mr.. SMITH said:
Mr.. CHAIRMAN: Until yesterday, when heard
the distinguished gentlemen from Missouri and
Virginia, Mr.. Benton and Mr. BAYLY, ! had not
intended to say one word on the subject before
the Committee. l listened with great interest to
their noble speeches, and was instructed by them.
Nevertheless, my own views did not entirely har-
monte with the course of argument pursued by
either Of those gentlemen. / am happy, Mr..
Chairman, in the opportunity, which you have
now kindly afforded me, to express these views,
in the light of which the vote, which am to
give, will be judged
The papers -" the papers I" have been,
more or less, the burden of some Of the speeches,
which we have heard. Now, do not sympathize
with this concern, nor join in this call for the pa
pers. | do not see, that we have any right to
them, or anything TO do with them. Had we un-
dertaken TO impeach the President for his con-
nection with this treaty, then our interest in the
papers respecting it would be pertinent. But
that is what we have not, as yet, undertaken.
This treaty, when approvingly and fully acted
upon by the competent Mexican authorities and
the President and Senate of the United States,
land, for the sake of the argument, l viii assume,
that il has already been so acted upon,) becomes,
by the admission of the Constitution itself,
supreme law of the land" binding upon our
nation, and capable of being enforced against our
nation by Mexico. 1t is equally such whether
il has appreciation, or disapprobation. Our
appreciation cannot give il legality. Our disap-
probation cannot take away its legality. The
treaty is not a law, upon condition, that we as
10 II IA al ad.ya Los
al, absolute law All, that we have TO do with
the treaty, is either to obey its call upon us to
vote money to Mexico; to diSobey the call,
and incur the great and fearful responsibility Of
treaty breakers-of law breakers For one, !
hold, that we may incur such responsibility, pro-
vided the amount of the money is grossly exces-
sive-say several times much, as ii should be.
Before ! close will express my opinion the
reasonableness of the amount Commanding as
is a treaty between nations-solemn as is " su-
preme law of the land, it may, nevertheless, be
possible that it is duty TO disobey this trea-
", and 10 break this law. For We can suppose
a case in which il would be right to disobey and
set at nOught, the most imposing and solemn
enactment. | will suppose an extreme case
since il is, after all, extreme case, which best
serves the purpose of establishing the fact that
there may be exceptions to the general rule.
What if there were a congressional statute
which, rivaing the wickedness of the memora-
this District two years old and under TO be slain
Must the President obey, and enforce, it? No
All admit, that. notwithstanding he is a cO-ordi
nate branch of the law-makng power, he must
not obey, and enforce, it. Commanding, as is
the source of this statute, and perfect are it's
FORMS he must refuse TO honor it. High and au-
thortatiye is the statute humanity is infinitely
higher and more authoritative: and, hence, if
be has TO trample either one, or the other, under
foot, it must be the statute, and not humanity.
/ said, that the treaty calls on us TO vote money
10 Mexico. Now, am not of the number Of those,
who hold, that are to dsobey the call, because
the President had not apprsed us of it. before the
treaty WAS concluded. The Constitution does not
require such previous notice Moreover, such
previous notice might be the means Of publicity,
and thereby of defeat, to the negotiations. Nor
would disObcy the call, because of the provision
in the Constitution, which requires all bills for
raising revenue 10 originate in the House. For I
do not believe, that this provision was intended
10 restrict, or qualify, the treaty making power,
lodged by the Constitution in the President and
Senate To understand our duty, we must sec
what we get in exchange for the money We vote
five find, that we get the worth of our money,
or anywhere the worth of our money, we
ere not to hesitate to vote the money.
There are but two material things that we get
One Of these is our release from the eleventh
article of the treaty Of Guadalupe Hidago-the
article which, although so lightly spoken of by
the honorable gentleman from Missouri, TNs.
Benton, does, nevertheless, make us liable in
some sense, and in some degree, for Indian dep
relations upon the MeXicans II is said that
our liabilities in this article arc too indefinite to
create any obligations upon US. But hold that
the more indefinite they are, the worse they are
and the more eager should we be to escape from
them. To say, that they create no obligations
whatever upon us, strikes me rs very extravagant
For one, should be willing, ny glad to see our
Government pay considerable though not an
unreasonable sum to liberate Us from the obi
cations of this article whatever those obligations
are.
The other material thing, that we get by this
treaty, is territory. This territory is valuable TO
us, because it is essential TO the best railroad
route from the southern portion of our country
TO the Pacific. But though | would have our
Government do what it reasonably can TO provide
the South, as well as the centre, and the North,
with the best railroad route to the Pacific, which
the Maker of the earth has afforded must new
ertheiess, insist, that Mexico, so far as she can
furnish the ground, should be glad to furnish it.
without price, if others viii build the roads
But this territory is much more than we need
Tor the routes of railroads. The more how
ever, the worse, said the honorable gentleman
from Missouri, Mr.. Benton j and by a good story,
told IN his own happy way of telling his good
stories, he illustrated his position that there are
lands so poor, that TO own them is to be impov-
crushed, rather than enriched. But with all
Difference TO that distinguished gentleman who
Is even more full of Learning and experience than
he rs OF years, ] am willing TO admit that the
more land we get from Mexico, 10y righteous
MEANS the better. | would, that the treaty
gave us whole provinces; yes, and even all Mex
leo.
Poor Mexico needs to be brought under radi-
caliy transforming influences Indeed she is
perisbtn9 fof the lack Of them II is for her life
that she cease to be an independent nation: and
not only so, but, also, that she become n mart of
our nation For, say what we will of its faults
and crimes, land look with very great sadness
OF heart upon some OF them, our nation is the
mightiest of all the civilizing and renoyatino
agencies that at work in the world.
And again, is there not some danger, that Mex-
leo, non annexed 20 us, will pass under the wing
OF Spain, or of some other European nation? But,
gentlemen Will tell us, that the Monroe doc
trine" is an efectual shield from that danger
Suppose, Mr.. Chairman, since we have thus
incidentally, stumbled upon the Monroe doc
trine," that we spend few minutes upon it. and
therefore, a few minutes less upon the treaty
am well aware, sir, in what admiration this
doctrine is held. 1t is glorified in this House.
and glorlted throughout the land. There is no
greater political heresy than to doubt its sound
ness. 1t is commended to us by the authority of
the greatest names. Nevertheless. il is not to
authority that would bow but TO truth: and.
as look upon the Monroe doctrine il is utterly
empty of truth, and full of arrogance and bra
yado. This doctrine is very palatable to our pa
triotism, inasmnch as it arrogates a very exalted
place and mission for our nation. II invests ms
with the right of regulating the relations between
the people Of this hemisphere and the people of
the other 1t makes US, in a word. dictator of
the whole earth.
= - =