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

tiations or closing them. It's power is sim
ply negative power; and most useful power
it is. h
It is beautiful illustration Of the working,
OF the concurrent majority principle on which
Mr.. Calhoun constructed his profound theory
Of government The very fact that the House
OF Representatives have this negative power t.
refuse to make appropriations if they, in the
exercise of their best judgment, think that the
appropriations ought not to be made may be
used as very powerful weapon of negotiation
by the President and Senate, because if for
elgn governments require too much money in
the treaties we are forming with them, they
may say to them, 1--WE, ourselves, might be will
ing to accept your offer, and give you this
amount OF money, but this treaty has to pass
through the ordeal of the House Of Representa-
tives. The representatives of the people have
to be satisfied on the subject; and they are a
little particular al out the money of the people.
They might refuse to pass the appropriation
bill to enable us to comply with the terms OF
the treaty, and thus the treaty would become
null and void" SO far, then, from the power
OF the House of Representatives to pass upon
this point being injurious, it is power which
might be OF the greatest benefit as it can be
used by the President and Senate as power
ful argument to resist the demands of a foreign
power for an exorbitant sum of money, in the
negotiation of treaty. On all these accounts,
then, conclude that the House of Represents.
tives, on the question of appropriating money
which is required by a treaty, has an entire and
free discretion in the exercise of a sound iudg-
inert. They are not bound to appropriate
money, unless, in the exercise of a reasonable
discretion, they think that the best interests Of
the country require that they should
On this point beg leave to read passage
from Mr.. Madison, as embracing very fully NV
views on the subject. Mr.. Madison says:
I" He came next to the fifth construction, which
left with the President and the Senate the power
Of making treaties, but required at the same time
the Legislative sanction and cooperation in those
cases where the Constitution had given express
and SPECIFIC powers TO the legislature. II was to
be presumed, that in all such The legislature
would exercise its authority with discretion allow
ing due weight to the reasons which led 10 the
treaty, and TO the circumstances of the existence
OF the treaty. Still, however, this House, in its
legislative capacity, must exercise its reason; it
must deliberate for deberaton is impli. d in lie.
gisation. Iftmust carry all treaties into effect, il
would no longer exercise a legislative power; it
would be the mere instrument of the will Of ano-
Their department, and would have no will of it's
own. Where the Constitution contains a specific
and peremptory injunction on Congress 10 do a
particular act, Congress must, of course, do the
act, because the Constitution, which is paramount
over all the departments, has expressly taken
away the Legislative discretion of Congress- The
case is essentially different where the acl Of one
department of government interieres with power
expressly vested in another, and no where ex
pressly taken away here the latter power must
be exercised according TO its nature and if il be
legislative power II must be exercised with that
delberaion and discretion which is essential 10
the nature of Legislative power
have said thus much upon this branch OF
the subject, not so much because i considered
it necessary upon the present occasion, as be-
cause ! desired, for one, to put upon record nv
opinions of the power of this House over the
appropriation of money where it is required by
treaty; and because / cannot foresee what may
occur hereafter, and do not want to act blind.
fold upon this subject.
/ will now, for few moments, turn my at
tenton to the consideration of the particular
treaty now before US, and give the reasons
which induce me to vote for this appropriation.
In the first place, the fact that the treaty has
been negotiated by the President, with the con-
sent of two-thirds Of the Senate, is a strong re-
commentator in favor of the treaty. So far
as the President himself is concerned, have
much respect for his Judgment and great con-
fidence in the correctness of his purposes.
/ repeat, then, that the fact that it comes with
the Recommendation of the President, is an
argument to my mind in its favor. The fact
that il has received the appreciation of two
thirds of the Senate body composed of men
as patriotic and intelligent as can be found in
the country-after mature deliberation; and
the further fact that the treaty is of their own
thau he, &c, g. A.
treaty. which they rejected and sent back to
Mexico. / say that these facts afford strong
argument in its favor. But while say this, /
do not say would yield my views to any such
authority when they come in conflict
! look to the treaty itself in the next place,
and find enough in that instrument to satisfy
me that ought to vote for the appropriation.
The first point i notice in it, is, that It settles
the Mesilla Valley difficulty. There is no
doubt that q serious difficulty exists between
this country and Mexico in regard to that ter.
ritory. In running the boundary line between
the two countries, according to the terms of the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, our commits
sioners and surveyors did not agree. Our gov
eminent contended for one boundary, and
Mexico for another. The American commits
sioners did agree with The Mexican commits.
sioners in the first instance.
have read, with some degree Of care, the
views Of those who understand this subject, and
! must confess the argument, to my mind, is
strongly in favor of the American claim. And
! so look upon it, not because it is the Amer-
can argument, but because il is based upon the
rules which should have governed the commits.
sion in settling the boundary. But, sir, we do
not want to go to war with Mexico. / would
rather, much rather, give up the Mesilla Valley
than to go to war with that nation in her weak
and distracted condition; much rather would
yield TO her demands, unreasonable though
they may be, than to 60 to war with her. /
would shun war at any time by all honorable
means, but if we must have it, let us 90 to war
with nation from which we may win glory,
with nation equally powerful with ourselves,
and not weak, distracted, oonvulsed, and tot.
tering power like Mexico. Sir, am glad of
the opportunity to settle, by treaty, our difficult
ties with Mexico, in a manner honorable to both
parties; which will satisfy the demands Of that
nation without too great cost on our part.
Further, think we have gained an important
f..