{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p4", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5696, "word_count": 972, "ccnet_language_score": [0.965399980545044], "ccnet_perplexity": [930.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 and SO didregulatiens of commerce. On va rous occasions, from the beginning oI the government, Congress took actionD relation 10 foreign loans In all these instances, would t be contendcd that the power oi Congress to act ought to be taken away and given solely to the executive and Senate? Ii was strange doctrine thatthe express powers of Congress, under Ae constitution, should be broken down on the plea that the trans!erof them to the executive and Senate would give greater security to the people for the exercise ol those blowers, when 1t was the sovereignty of the States Was that represented in the Senate, and the control of th6 peoples immediate representatives in the House of Representa- tiyes was taken away.

 Another strange doctrine onthe other side was, that what was usual to be done by other nations by treaty, in relation to their adjust mcnt5 with foreign powers, was to be lntef- red as the intention of the constitution ln re-

 ation 10 this government But let this mat ter be tested. Did Mr. JGf6rson-as The ar guments of the Senators from Kentucky and Virginia would implY-hold that the treaty. making power, vested ia the executive, with

  CTS of the government in relation to foreign concerns, leaving Congress without any exer= else of power on such subjects No; there was nothing inconsistent in his views with the doctrine which he Mr.W. and his friends held, that the executive and Senate may9 by the treaty-making power, accomplish any thing in relation to subjects of treaty with foreign powers which Congress IS not en- powered by the constitution to do; and al- though in some instances the treaty making power may do what Congress also may do, if that is considered more convenient and ad- yisable, vet the power of Congress 10 carry ont it's express grants in relation to foreign affairs is not either abrogated or lessened by the exercise of the treaiy-making power

 There is no analogy between the powers under our constitution and the custom CT usage of other nations which either have no written constitution or have no legislation, or, fl they have, legislation of very limited character, because the power of declaring war, making treat e, Sc, &c., &c in monarchies, is vested in the King or Em- peror, and the legislative body, i any, eXer- ciscs no control. The French ruler traus- ieffed Louisiana to Us without consulting the people ef France, or their representatives, as cid the King el Spain Florida. Kings and Fmperor5 in the Old World have sold and transferred territory upon territory, with the people, like 8 flock of sheep. But can any thing of that kind be done here, by impliea- lion or otherwise, because il Is a custom Ill Europe All we can do is to admit, with its own consent, q neighboring country, un- dera republican form of government, wiling to abide by and support cur institutions. toa participation in our Union. This can only be done by the consent of the people apply ing for tie admission, but net otherWise.- They could not be transferred into the tnon by treaty according to the usages of moH- arehies, when the people transferred are not consulted This matter of following the usages of monafchies might lead to great ab= surdlties. For instance, suppose the chair man of the Committee on Foreign Relations Alr. AreAer1 became the chief executive of ficer of this government, and, lbeinga bache- lor,) should make q matrimonial negotiation with the fair daughter of some foreign court; would he think of sending a treaty to the Senate for ratification, by which the State of Maine or the State of Arkansas was to be set tied on the bride as doWry Great laugh ter, in which REr. Archer heartily ioined.t ] ! ct nothing was more common than trea- ties ofmarriage and doWry between European natoas.

 The true principle was this: that Congress exercises the powers given to 1t in the con- stiution, til it meets with some obstacle, when t has to stop; and if these powers are not sufficient to carry t further, the treaty. making power comes in and helps to com plete what otherwise should remain imper- feet When Congress, exercising its granted powers, comes to a stage when 1t cannot per- feet its legislation, the treaty-naking power Is called in to do that which legili- malely il alone can do The old conledera- tion met with no such impedments, for 1t exercised the treaty-making power itself.

 Now, although Congress has power, un- der the constitution, 10 make commercial re gulations with foreign nalions-aal that lhe power has been frequently exercised,is proved by the various laws on our statute book in relation to our commerce with Great Britain, which has legislative body to pass laws consenting to and accepting our legislative pfoVisions,-yet, i'll cases where there is DO one 10 treat with butan impartial ruler, such as the Emperor of Russia, the Imaum of Muscat, or the Emperor of China, such regu- lations must be made by the treaty-.nakng power, because there are no legislative bo- dies in those countries to pass recipient laws, such as we should pass by the legislation of Congress, in the exercise of the constitution al power.

 But, in reference 10 the treaty-making power exercised by the old confederation why was it taken away and conferred upon the executive and Senate? Not, certainly, because there was less security in a majority of Congress, and the approval of the Presi- dent. then there would be in rhe President and Senate alone, but because 1t was found extremely inconvenlent in practice; and therefore merely for the sake of convenience and simplifieation, the lrealy-making power was vested ia the executive, by and with the consent of the Senate. Even then, Patrick .4-