But we are told, sir, that the power given to Congress by the constitution to regulate commerce cannot extend to that regulation which depends upon the will of a foreign nation or government, and which can only be regulated by compact, or by the Treaty-making or pactitious powers. Granting that this assertion be true, which, however, may be denied, as the general belief which I have alluded to, and on which the existence of the present Government was founded, seemed to contradict it; for it was almost universally believed that an act of Congress regulating the commerce of the United States with Great Britain, as had been proposed to the former Congress, or Congress under the Confederation, or as proposed to this House on the 3d of January, 1794, and well known by the name of Madison's propositions, or as proposed by Mr. Clark, 7th April, 1794, would have brought about a more advantageous commercial intercourse with Great Britain than any direct negotiation with the British Minister. It was thought highly probable that the Parliament of Great Britain would (if any of these propositions had been adopted by Congress) have refused to have renewed their act, by which the trade with these United States (as if they were more degraded than Colonies) was regulated by the King's Proclamation. I say, granting, however, that assertion to be true, how does it prove, or what other assertion can prove, that Congress has not a right, under the express words of the constitution, which declares that it shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to be a party to that compact, or to have some share, either previously or subsequently, in the Treaty-making business, when it regulates the commerce of the United States with foreign powers?
I may agree that a Treaty is necessary to establish a commercial intercourse between two nations, to their mutual advantage and satisfaction, but I must affirm, that as that Treaty would be a commercial regulation, and as Congress is expressly empowered by the constitution to regulate commerce, whenever such Treaty shall be made between the United States and any other nation, Congress must either direct that the negotiation be commenced upon conditions approved, or sanction the ratification of such Treaty by some act showing that the regulation of commerce, by the Treaty, was made by the authority of Congress, in conformity to the constitution.
Besides, sir, if the President and Senate can regulate the commerce of the United States with one nation, they can with all nations, and if they can with all, what nation can there be with whom Congress can regulate commerce? This argument, therefore, must fall to the ground. We are told, however, that the Treaty-making power, from its nature, is competent to all the objects at least of the Treaty under consideration, and is not to be controlled or checked by this House. Let me examine this assertion. If this be true, sir, we find that although the British King, from whose tyranny we revolted, cannot force upon his subjects, against the will of their Representatives, a Treaty, which it is acknowledged, too, he has a right to make, the President of the United States can, by his Proclamation, force upon the people who are his constituents a Treaty which their direct Representatives wish to suspend, alter, or annul. Can this possibly be a true construction of the Treaty-making power? Surely it cannot. If it be true, then, can the President repeal, as he has by the Treaty, the laws of Congress, although by the constitution he cannot negative them? He can oblige Congress to levy taxes; can withdraw impost and tonnage from their reach; prohibit the exportation of sundry articles, the produce of the United States, although the constitution forbids, the Senate and Representatives concurring, to lay the smallest duty on the exportation of any article; he can create offices and annex salaries thereto; destroy the rights of this House; provoke war; in short, he can do any thing; but this we are sworn to deny. The absurdity of that construction, then, must be evident, and the recollection of our oaths to support the constitution, of which we have been reminded, must force us to revolt at the thoughts of adopting such a monstrous construction of the constitution. We are reminded also of the President's Proclamation. I will attend to it. I look upon it as a proper notification of the ratification of the Treaty of Amity with Great Britain, but it can have no effect on the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, till sanctioned by the votes of Congress. The evacuation of the posts on our frontiers held by the British, if intended in consequence of the Treaty of Amity, ought to take place, or if in conformity to the Treaty of Peace; but, if intended as a compliance with conditions annexed to the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, good faith requires that they ought not to be evacuated until the final adjustment of the differences which may arise in the course of the discussion of the merits of that Treaty, and this with me is one reason why I wish for information from the President respecting the Treaty. I confess too, sir, that I wish for a full and free conference with the Senate on the important subject of the Treaty.
Mr. Bourne said he would have given a silent vote on this question, had it not have been for some strange doctrines which had been asserted, for he did not consider the question in itself as necessarily involving any constitutional question. The doctrine, that the formal assent of the House of Representatives was essential to the legal existence of a Treaty, struck him as a perfect novelty. That the President and Senate had power under the constitution to make Treaties, and that these Treaties were the laws of the land, he had never heard denied until this debate. It was true he had heard it said, that the House might control the President and Senate in the exercise of this power, by refusing to carry Treaties into effect by withholding appropriations of money; but he did not expect to hear the assertion, that the ratification of the House was necessary to a Treaty, before it became the law of the land.
As a Representative of a small State, he felt himself much interested in opposing the doctrine contended for. Under the former Confederation Rhode Island had an equal vote with any State in the making of Treaties. This right was thought to have been fully preserved under the present constitution. But, if the sentiments he was combating prevailed, the small States would be deprived of one of their most essential rights; for the power of making Treaties, as one of the principal rights of sovereignty, was vested in all the States separately when they became independent, was afterwards, and in the old Confederation, vested in Congress, each State having an equal vote. It was now, in his opinion, exclusively vested in the President and Senate, in which body the great and small States had the same equality of suffrage. The opinion which he advanced was not merely the opinion of Rhode Island when the constitution was adopted. A gentleman from Massachusetts had already shown from the debates of the Virginia Convention, that that Assembly entertained the same opinion. He was sure the opinion prevailed in the Convention of Massachusetts—he had attended their debates when this part of the constitution was the subject of discussion. Objections were raised against it, from the indefiniteness of the power vested in the President and Senate of making Treaties. No one suggested that the House of Representatives had any control over, much less a participation in this power. It was urged, from the nature of the power, that it ought to be placed where it was—in the President and Senate. The Senate represented the sovereignty of the States; besides, from their small numbers, they were better adapted to the exercise of this power in respect to secrecy and despatch, necessary in negotiations. Objections were raised on the ground of the possible abuses to which the power of making Treaties, unlimited and undefined as it was, might be carried. No one said the President and Senate did not possess the power, nor was it pretended that Congress had any power to control it.
He then called the attention of the committee to the debates of the Convention of North Carolina. He had been a little surprised to hear a member from that State yesterday say he was a member of the Convention, and that it was understood that Congress could control the President and Senate in making Treaties, so far as respected commerce; the power of legislating on commercial regulations being given to Congress. What created his surprise was, that he had read the debates of the first Convention, and found no such sentiment. The gentleman had explained himself by saying, there was a second Convention called in that State, of which he was a member, and there the doctrine alluded to had been advanced. The debates of this Convention Mr. B. had not seen.
Mr. Brent said he should not in the present debate touch on the merits of the Treaty, which he conceived foreign to this question. On a motion to ask for papers with respect to the Treaty, he did not conceive with what propriety the fitness of the instrument could be brought into view.
The turn which the debate had taken had given rise, he said, to an important constitutional question; he did not believe its decision of consequence to the decision on the present motion; but as the debate had taken that turn, he should pursue the same road in answer to the arguments of gentlemen. He laid this down as a sound inference from the provisions of the constitution on the subject of the Treaty power: that the President and Senate possess the right of forming Treaties, and of carrying on the necessary negotiations with foreign countries; but when these contain stipulations bearing a relation to the specific power vested in the Legislature, the House had a right to take cognizance of it, and such a Treaty could not become the supreme law of the land until sanctioned by the Legislature. To show the justness of this position, he should examine this subject, he said, in a threefold light. He should examine it by a recurrence to the words of the constitution; then to the opinions which prevailed as to its meaning at the time it was framed and adopted; and, lastly, he should examine what construction was best calculated to preserve the liberties of this country.
The constitution contains two clauses in reference to the Treaty-making power. The first declares that the President, with two-thirds of the Senate, shall have power to make Treaties. He proceeded to inquire whether this clause gives them the right to make Treaties the supreme law of the land? To determine this it was necessary to examine the import of the word in those countries where the Treaty power had been frequently exercised, and to consult the opinions of the best civilians. The general power of making Treaties is under the control of the constitution. In despotic countries, where all power, Legislative, judicial, and Executive, is in the hands of one person, there the Treaty-making power is without control, and a Treaty as soon as made becomes, ipso facto, the supreme law of the land; but in all limited governments, the Treaty power is subject to the limitations in the constitution. The practice of this principle may be found even in the British Government. There, though the King originates Treaties, as the President and Senate do here, they do not become the supreme law of the land, respecting Legislative subjects, until the co-operation of Parliament is obtained. Thus the power of making Treaties does not imply the power of making those Treaties in all cases the supreme law of the land. If the Executive make a Treaty involving none but Executive powers strictly, then it becomes immediately the supreme law; but if they contain provisions, which involve the Legislative authority, the Executive can make them but conditionally, and they do not become supreme until the Legislature choose to make them so. The British Government furnishes an example where this doctrine has been practised, and it is by a reference to the practice of despotic Governments, that the mistaken idea is taken up that all Treaties, as soon as made, become the supreme law of the land. The clause in our constitution, he concluded, does not give authority to the President and Senate to make a supreme law of the land.
When this clause of the constitution is compared with the other parts of it, it will be found, he said, that the above interpretation is just; for the Treaty-making power is delegated as a general power, while to Congress specific powers are granted. The rational and admitted rule of construction in these cases is, that specific power restrains general powers; and here, then, the general Treaty power must be restrained by the specific powers of Congress. He admitted that the Executive had full power, under the general authority vested in them by the constitution, to originate Treaties and to carry on negotiations with foreign powers; but that if the provisions of a Treaty so negotiated clashed with specific powers granted, the authority exercising those specific powers must give it their sanction before it becomes the supreme law of the land.