Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 05 (of 20)

by Charles Sumner

A debate ensued, in which the conclusions of Mr. Sumner were maintained by Mr. Seward, of New York, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, and Mr. Stuart, of Michigan,—and controverted by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, and Mr. Cass, of Michigan. Mr. Mason proposed to amend the pending resolution by striking out the second clause, which amendment Mr. Sumner at once accepted, and closed the debate as follows.

Mr. President,—My desire is simply to bring the question before the Committee, and, to accomplish this, I shall not stand on the form of the resolution. I am aware that it is argumentative, and involves, perhaps, a reflection upon the course of the Executive; but I adopted this form purposely, from a desire that the resolution should tell the whole story on its face, and speak for itself. The ample debate that has occurred supersedes all such desire. The subject is fully before the Senate, and I doubt not will receive the attention of the Committee.

In introducing this question, I remarked that it was of domestic concern under our own Constitution, with which, of course, Denmark has nothing to do. All references, therefore, to that power have been superfluous, if not illogical. Her consent is not sought in the proposed termination of the treaty. On the contrary, it will be terminated against her desires. We must look for our rule of conduct to our own Constitution. This I assume as an undeniable postulate.

The discussion, though protracted, has not been unprofitable; but at each stage we have been brought back to the clear and unmistakable distinction between the power to make treaties and the power to abrogate them, under the Constitution. The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, may make treaties; but there is nothing in our Constitution conferring upon them the power to abrogate treaties. To attribute to them any such power is to go beyond the Constitution. Nor has any Senator distinctly, and in terms, claimed for them this power. On the contrary, I think that Senators on the other side—both the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Connecticut—admit that a treaty cannot be abrogated, except by virtue of an Act of Congress. I understood the Senator from Connecticut to make this admission, and I believe the Senator from Virginia did also.

Mr. Mason nodded assent.

Mr. Toucey. I mean, except by Act of Congress or a new treaty.

Mr. Sumner. I put aside the whole idea of a new treaty, constituting in itself a new transaction, and involving the concurrence of the foreign power. The President and Senate, with the concurrence of a foreign power, may, of course, make a new treaty; but we are now dealing with the case where the whole proceeding is without any such concurrence. The question does not turn on the treaty-making power, but on the treaty-abrogating power. And I come back again to the admission of both Senators, that a treaty can be abrogated only by Act of Congress. This admission is important, and, as it seems to me, conclusive.

But here a distinction is made by these Senators between treaties which contain no provision for their termination and treaties which contain such provision. And I understand the Senator from Virginia to maintain that a treaty terminated in pursuance of such a provision is not abrogated. This is strange; for in both cases the treaty is brought to an end by our special intervention, and this is done without the concurrence of the other contracting party. If this is not the abrogation of a treaty, I do not see what can be. You may, if you choose, call it by a softer term, but still it is the same thing. The treaty is invalidated, or made to cease. But I will not argue this question. I submit to Senators opposite, who have maintained their views with so much constancy, that their position is not tenable; I say this frankly, but with entire respect for their learning and ability. The same power must be invoked to terminate a treaty containing a provision for its termination, on notice from either party, as to terminate a treaty containing no such provision; and in both cases the treaty may properly be said to be abrogated. The single distinction between the two cases is, that the treaty in one case is abrogated in defiance of the other party, and perhaps on hostile ground, while in the other case it is abrogated in pursuance of a power specially reserved, and therefore without any just cause of offence; but in both cases the life of the treaty is destroyed by our act. Permit me to add, that the distinction made between these two classes is a distinction without a difference, and the admission that a treaty can be abrogated only by Act of Congress is as applicable to one class as to the other: it settles the question.

I rest, then, confidently in the conclusion, that a treaty is part of the supreme law of the land, and cannot be set aside, terminated, superseded, disclaimed, repealed, or abrogated, except by the exercise of the highest power known to the Constitution, embodying the collected will of the whole people in a legislative act, under the sanction of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled.