In order to ascertain the powers of the House, he would advert to the constitution. In the first article and first section, it was declared, "that all Legislative powers therein granted, were vested in a Congress, to consist of a Senate and House of Representatives;" and in the eighth section of the same article, the powers granted were defined and specified, such as to lay and collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, and to exercise other important powers enumerated in the several clauses of that important section. He said it was unnecessary to read them, as they had been so frequently referred to in the course of the debate; but he would request gentlemen to pause and reflect whether it could be supposed that this section was not to be efficacious and operative; was it possibly conceivable that a section so definite and so important had been introduced in the constitution merely for the purpose of being nullified and rendered nugatory by a subsequent article or section? The very supposition, he said, appeared to him the height of absurdity, and an affront to common sense; and yet this would be the case, if the doctrines advanced were true, viz: that Treaties, when made and ratified by the President and Senate, were supreme law, and that they controlled and repealed all laws that stood in their way. Congress could neither regulate commerce, borrow money, prescribe rules of naturalization, nor legislate on any other subject, because the President and Senate, by Treaty, would abrogate them all. It was in vain to consult the House of Representatives in the formation of laws, if they thus were liable to be annulled at the pleasure of the President and Senate. The present question, he said, was not, whether the House should make Treaties, but whether the President and Senate should make laws; all the power contended for on the part of the House was the power of self-preservation; it was a repelling power, a power to prevent the President and Senate, under the color of making Treaties, from making all the laws. A gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Griswold) had said, that the Legislative power occupied all ground, and was vested in Congress; and that the Treaty-making power occupied all ground, and was vested in the President and Senate; and that although Congress, who were the agents for the people, should make laws, yet, that the President and Senate, who were also their agents, might, by Treaty, repeal them. This, Mr. L. said, contradicted a sound axiom, and one he had never before heard controverted, viz: that it required the same power to repeal as to make a law. Such incongruities as the gentleman had advanced, Mr. L. said, could never be reduced to practice; two persons could not be possessed fully and completely of the same thing and at the same time. The gentleman could never reconcile his positions, the one would certainly defeat the other; upon his construction, the Treaty-making power must absorb the Legislative power, or the Legislative power would absorb the Treaty-making power.

It appeared, therefore, to him, that constitutions, laws, and all writings, ought to receive such interpretation and construction as to render them consistent with themselves; and that it was highly presumptive a construction was erroneous when it produced an absurd conclusion. If the several parts of the constitution were compared and critically examined, the determination must be, that, although the President and Senate could make Treaties, yet it could not be intended, those Treaties that entrenched on the specific Legislative powers of Congress, unless with their concurrence and consent; otherwise, it followed, that, although the three branches were consulted in the enacting laws, two might repeal them. But it had been asserted that this power, insisted upon on the part of the House, was a novel doctrine, introduced merely upon the spur of the present occasion; notwithstanding which, it had been proved by several gentlemen who had spoken upon the question, that this interpretation was given to the constitution in most of the State Conventions at the time of its adoption; that the same interpretation had also been given, at that time, by the writers both for and against its adoption. It had appeared, from the extracts of publications at that period, that whatever might have been the diversity of opinion in other respects relative to the constitution, that, in this construction, at least, both its friends and opposers perfectly agreed. This principle, then, being thus settled and understood, it remained only to show that it had been invariably admitted and recognized from the first organization of the Government until this time. The first Treaty that had been made under this constitution, he said, was that with the Creek Indians, in the year 1789; previously to the making of which, the President communicated the subject to Congress; an extract from which communication he would read, viz: "If it should be the judgment of Congress, that it would be most expedient to terminate all differences in the Southern district, and to lay the foundation for future confidence by an amicable Treaty with the Indian tribes in that quarter, I think proper to suggest," &c. Here, Mr. L. said, he wished it might be particularly noticed, that this subject was expressly referred to the judgment of Congress to determine on its expediency or inexpediency, and for what purpose, he would ask, was it referred? If the Senate and President possessed the full power of making Treaties, there could be no occasion for consulting the House of Representatives; and yet, in this case, the first that presented itself, it had been conceived necessary. In consequence of this communication, Congress had judged it expedient to hold the Treaty; and on the 20th of August, the same year, enacted a law in which the sum of twenty thousand dollars was appropriated for that purpose; and, in conformity thereto, the President appointed Commissioners and gave them instructions, which instructions had been also communicated to Congress, from which he would also read one paragraph; it was as follows: "You will observe that the whole sum that can be constitutionally expended for the proposed Treaty shall not exceed twenty thousand dollars." On this, he said, any commentary was unnecessary, as the principle that the Legislative power operated to restrain the power of making Treaties, was so fully and explicitly recognized and admitted by the President himself. By pushing inquiry further, it would be found that, in January, 1790, in consequence of communications from the Executive which were referred to a select committee, and a report made thereon, the House came to the following resolution, to wit: "That provision ought to be made by law for holding a Treaty with the Wabash, Miami, and other Indian tribes north-west of the river Ohio." In March following, a law was made, the title of which was "An act entitled an act providing for holding a Treaty to establish peace with certain Indian tribes."

In March, 1791, the sum of twenty thousand dollars was appropriated for obtaining a recognition of the Treaty with the Emperor of Morocco. In March, 1793, one hundred thousand dollars were appropriated to defray the expense of a Treaty with the Indian tribes north-west of the river Ohio.

Thus it was apparent that laws had always been deemed necessary to provide for holding Treaties and for defraying the expenses thereof.[71]

March 17.—In Committee of the Whole, on Mr. Livingston's resolution.

Mr. Reed said, he saw no necessity for the papers referred to in the resolution. If the constitutionality of the Treaty should be questioned, or the propriety of making appropriations, these questions, he conceived, must be determined by comparing the Treaty with the constitution, and by attending to those stipulations contained in the Treaty itself.

It was not his intention to have troubled the committee by speaking on this occasion; but perceiving that some gentlemen, in the course of the debate, had gone further into the opposite extremes than he was prepared at present to follow them, he felt as if he ought to express his own sentiments with regard to the constitutional rights of that House relative to the Treaty in question. The Treaty was undoubtedly negotiated, ratified, and promulgated by constitutional authority. The President, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, was, in his opinion, unquestionably that authority which the United States had authorized to make Treaties. But still it seemed taken for granted that some agency of that House, in its Legislative capacity, would be needed in order to carry the aforesaid Treaty into effect. A question, therefore, arose, viz: Was that House, in all such cases, bound and obliged to put so implicit and absolute a confidence in the Executive or in Treaties as would render it entirely unnecessary to have any opinion of their own about them, or the probable consequences of their operation? For his part, if he had never seen the Treaty in contemplation, and were perfectly ignorant of its contents, or, if he fully believed, as a citizen, that it was unconstitutional, or calculated to ruin, or very materially injure the country, he should not think himself justifiable in voting to appropriate money for the purpose of carrying it into effect. It had been conceded by gentlemen that if a Treaty were evidently unconstitutional, it would not be wrong to withhold appropriations; and he conceived that a Treaty might possibly be so injurious in its effects as to justify such a measure. Supposing such a possible event should ever actually happen, did not the right of refusing to legislate in support of the said Treaty involve the right of previously examining all Treaties which need the aid of the Legislature, and of judging for themselves whether it would be proper or improper to make laws for the purpose of carrying them into effect?

In making Treaties the Executive would use his own discretion, keeping within the limits prescribed for him by the constitution. In making laws the Legislature must use their own discretion, always keeping within those limits and bounds which the constitution had fixed for them. He said, the discretionary right here contended for was not the right of doing wrong; it was not the right of violating the constitution; it was not the right of supporting a Treaty which ought to be defeated, nor of defeating a Treaty which ought to be supported; but, simply the right of judging for themselves, whether they ought, by their own act and deed, in the character of Legislators, to appropriate by law such sums of money as would be needed in order to support an existing Treaty, all things and circumstances relating thereto being suitably examined and properly considered. Perhaps it would be objected, that the constitution nowhere expressly gave the Legislators that right. He answered, the right was not precluded, but implied, and, in some respects, evidently one of the original and essential rights of man; a law of nature, prior and superior to all other laws; a law never to be transgressed in any station whatsoever. Individuals, in many cases at least, had a right to exercise their own discretion with respect to the propriety of submitting to a civil law or of risking the penalty, the consequence of disobedience; and, as a branch of the Legislature, he believed they had a right to deliberate and consult, among other things, the expediency and duty of making or of refusing to make appropriations, even in the case of a Treaty. It appeared to him that, in legislating, the Legislature should have this right of judging for themselves with respect to the propriety of making or refusing to make any law whatsoever. In most cases their duty would perhaps appear plain and obvious, particularly in the case of appropriating money where a law or Treaty actually existed. However, the obligation did not arise wholly from the circumstance of an existing law, but partly from the nature, reasonableness, and tendency of the thing itself.

A Treaty negotiated by constitutional authority was, he contended, a solemn compact between two nations. It was an important consideration; but he thought they might, with propriety, attend to other considerations, for and against it, especially when their own aid was required, in order to carry it fully into effect. This he conceived was the right of the House, and no encroachment upon the prerogative of the other branches. An appropriation was a specific sum, appropriated by a particular law to a particular purpose.

The right of appropriating the public money was not a natural right, but a right derived from the constitution; and the Legislature were to exercise that right according to the honest dictates of their own best discretion; excepting those instances in which they were expressly restricted by the constitution itself, as in the cases of compensation for the services of the President of the United States, and for the services of the Judges. Congress might deliberate and act discretionally in stating at first their salaries.