tion on this point. Other important documents may, perhaps, likewise be in the hands of the President. Hence he considered it his duty, before the House went into a consideration of the resolutions laid on the table, to submit the following resolution:

« Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House a copy of the treaty between the French Republic and Spain, of the first of October 1800, together with a copy of the deed of cession from Spain, executed in pursuance of the same treaty, conveying Louisiana to France, (if any such deed exists;) also copies of such correspondence between the Government of the United States and the Government or Minister of Spain (if any such correspondence has taken place) as will show the assent or dissent of Spain to the purchase of Louisiana by the United States; together with copies of such other documents as may be in the departments of this Government, tending to ascertain whether the United States have, in fact, acquired any title to the province of Louisiana by the treaties with France, of the 30th of April 1803.

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the resolution would not be agreed to. He was well apprized of the aspect which it was in the power of ingenuity to give to a refusal, on the part of that House, to require any information which gentlemen might think fit to demand of the Executive, however remotely connected with subjects before them. But the dread of imputations which he knew to be groundless should never induce him to swerve from that line of conduct which his most sober judgment approved. Did he indeed conceive that the nation, or the House, entertained a doubt of our having acquired new territory and people to govern; could he for a moment believe that even a minority, respectable as to numbers, required any other evidence of this fact than the extract from the treaty which had just been read, he would readily concur with the gentleman from Connecticut in asking of the Executive, whether indeed we had a new accession of territory and of citizens, or, as that gentleman had been pleased to express himself, subjects to govern. He hoped the gentleman would excuse a small variation from his own phraseology, since, notwithstanding the predilection which some Governments and some gentlemen manifested for this form, Mr. R. asked for himself the use of such as were more familiar to American ears and American constitutions.

OCTOBER, 1803.

question, which is supported by the strongest pos-
sible evidence, and pledging herself to put us in
possession of that right, so soon as we shall have
performed those stipulations, on our part, in con-
sideration of which France has conveyed to us
her sovereignty over this country and people.
From the nature of our Government, these stipu-
lations can only be fulfilled by laws to the passing
And when these laws are about to be passed, en-
of which the Legislature alone is competent.
deavors are made to impede, or frustrate, the
measure, by setting on foot inquiries which mean
nothing, or are unconnected with the subject, and
this is done by those who have always contended
that there was no discretion vested in this House
by the Constitution, as to carrying treaties into
effect. If, sir, gentlemen believe that we must
eventually do that which rests with us, towards
effecting this object, to what purpose is this in-
quiry? Mr. R. begged the House not to impute
to him any disposition to countenance this mon-
strous doctrine, whose advocates now found it so
difficult to practise. On the contrary, he held in
the highest veneration the principle established
in the case of the British Treaty, and the men by
whom it was established, that, in all matters re-
quiring legislative aid, it was the right and duty
of this House to deliberate, and upon such delib-
eration, to afford, or refuse, that aid, as in their
judgments the public good might require. And
he held it to be equally the right of the House to
demand such information from the Executive, as
to them appeared necessary to enable them to
form a sound conclusion on subjects submitted,
by that Department, to their consideration. But
those who then contended that this House pos-
sessed no discretion on the subject, that they were
bound implicitly to conform to the stipulations,
however odious and extravagant, into which the
treaty-making power might have plunged the na-
tion-those who then said that we cannot delib-
erate, are now instituting inquiries to serve as the
basis of deliberation-(for if we are not to delib-
erate upon the result, why institute any inquiry
at all?)-inquiries, which are in their very nature
deliberation itself. But whilst he arraigned the
consistency of other gentlemen, Mr. R. said that
it behooved him to assert his own. Information on
subjects of the nature of that which they were then
discussing, might be required for two objects: to
enable the House to determine whether it were ex-
pedient to approve a measure which on the face of
it carried proof of its impolicy; or to punish Min-
isters who may have departed from their instruc-
tions-who may have betrayed the interests con-

The Executive has laid before this House an
instrument, which he tells us has been duly rati-
fied, conveying to the United States the country
known under the appellation of Louisiana. The
first article affirms the right of France, to the sov-fided by the nation to their care.
ereignty of this territory, to be derived under the
Treaty of St. Ildefonso, which it quotes. The third
article makes provision for the future government,
by the United States, of its inhabitants; and the
fourth provides the manner in which this territo-
ry and these inhabitants are to be transferred by
France to us. There has been negotiated a con-
vention, between us and the French Republic,
stating, in the most unequivocal terms, that there
does exist on her part a right to the country in

To illustrate this remark, let us advert to the case of the Treaty of London, generally known as Mr. Jay's treaty. That instrument had excited the public abhorrence. The objections to carrying it into effect were believed insuperable. This sentiment pervaded the House of Representatives, and when they demanded information from the Executive, they virtually held this language: Sir, we detest your treaty-we feel an almost invincible repugnance to giving it our sanction—

OCTOBER, 1803.

The Louisiana Treaty.

H. OF R.

resolution offered by the gentleman from Con-
necticut, had he brought it forward in a respectful
manner. But the terms of the motion imply that
the Executive has made a bargain for that, to
which we have no right. He wished the gentle-
man would give a little of that confidence which
he had been in the habit of giving so liberally on
former occasions. For his part, he was willing
to see all the papers. He had no doubt of obtain-
ing possession of Louisiana; and that gentlemen
might have seen the order of the Spanish Gov-
ernment to surrender the province to the French.
Mr. LYON concluded by saying he had only
risen to express his sense of the indecency of the
motion.
Mr. GODDARD did not intend to enter upon a

"Whereas, by the article the 3d of the treaty concluded at St. Ildefonso, the 9th Vendemiaire, an 9 (1st October, 1800,) between the First Consul of the French Republic and His Catholic Majesty, it was agreed as follows:

but if, by the exhibition of any information in possession of the Executive, we can be convinced that the interests of the United States have been supported to the utmost extent;-that, wretched as this instrument is, the terms are as good as were attainable; and that, bad as those terms are, it is politic under existing circumstances to accept them, we will, however reluctantly, pass the laws for carrying it into effect. The present case, if he understood anything of the general sentiment, was, happily, of a different nature. The treaty which they were then called upon to sanction, had been hailed by the acclamations of the nation. It was not difficult to foresee, from the opinions manifested in every quarter, that it would receive the cordial approbation of a triumphant majority of that House, If such be the general opinion-long discussion of the resolution; but it seemed to if we are not barely satisfied with the terms of him that the reasons of the gentleman from Virthis treaty, but lost in astonishment at the all-im- ginia for opposing it were very erroneous. On portant benefits which we have so cheaply acquired, what ground was the opposition made? Altoto what purpose do we ask information respecting gether on the ground that Spain had actually the detail of the negotiation? Has any one ven- made the cession to France. Mr. G. apprehendtured to hint disapprobation of the conduct of the ed no such impression had been made on the Ministers who have effected this negotiation? Has House by the information before them. In the any one insinuated that our interests have been first article of the treaty they learned what the title betrayed? If, then, we are satisfied as to the terms of France was. The treaty says, of this treaty, and with the conduct of our Ministers abroad, let us pass the laws necessary for carrying it into effect. To refuse to delay, upon the plea now offered, is to jeopardize the best interests of the Union. Shall we take exception to our own title? Shall we refuse the offered possession? Shall this refusal proceed from those who so lately affirmed that we ought to pursue this very object at every national hazard? I should rather suppose the eagerness of gentlemen would be ready to outstrip the forms of law in making themselves masters of this country, than that, now, when it is offered to our grasp, they should display an unwillingness, or at least an indifference, for that which so lately was all-important to them. After the message which the President has sent us, to demand, if indeed we have acquired any new subjects, as the gentleman expresses it, which renders the exercise of our legislative functions necessary, would be nothing less than a mockery of him, of this solemn business, and of ourselves. Cautionary provisions may be introduced into the laws for securing us against every hazard, although, from the nature of our stipulations, we are exposed to none. We retain in our own hands the consideration money, even after we have possession. Mr. R. expressed himself averse to demand the Spanish correspondence. The reasons must be obvious to all. The possession of Louisiana by us, will necessarily give rise to negotiations between the United States and Spain, relative to its boundaries. These have probably commenced, and are now pending. He hoped, therefore, the House would go into committee on the Message of the President, and after resolving to pass the requisite Jaws, if further information shall be wanting in relation to the mode of taking possession, or any other object of detail, the Executive might be called upon to furnish it.

Mr. LYON said he might have agreed to the

"His Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his part, to cede to the French Republic, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations therein relative to his Royal Highness the Duke of Parma, the colony of province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it; and entered into between Spain and other States. such as it should be after the treaties subsequently

"And whereas, in pursuance of the treaty, and particularly of the third article, the French Republic has an incontestable title to the domain and to the possession of the said territory; the First Consul of the French Republic, desiring to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship, doth hereby cede to the said United States, in the name of the French Republic, for ever and in full sovereignty, the said territory, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as they have been acquired by the French Republic in virtue of the above-mentioned treaty, concluded with His Catholic Majesty.

Mr. GODDARD asked whether the conclusion followed that France had an incontestable title to Louisiana? There was no such evidence. If in virtue of this treaty we purchase a promise on the part of His Catholic Majesty to cede, and not an incontestable title, he would ask if the promise constituted a title? France only says, we cede all our title. This, and this only, is the language of the instrument. If this is the case, is it not proper to inquire whether there are other acts by which Spain has ceded Louisiana to France? Such acts may exist. Certain stipulations were made by France to Spain, on which the cession depended. Do we not then wish to know whether these stipulations have been fulfilled and whether

they are binding, or whether Spain has waived them? Are there in existence any documents to that effect? It has been hinted that such documents exist in the newspapers; but are we in an affair of this magnitude to be referred to the dictum of a newspaper? He apprehended that this was a novel mode of legislation.

The gentleman from Virginia says that the 4th article of the treaty stipulates for the delivery of the country. That article is to this effect:

"There shall be sent by the Government of France a Commissary to Louisiana, to the end that he do every act necessary, as well to receive from the officers of His Catholic Majesty the said country and its dependencies, in the name of the French Republic, if it has not been already done, as to transmit it in the name of the French Republic to the Commissary or Agent of the United States."

Now, what is the Commissary to do? He is, in the first instance, to receive the province from Spain. Can he transmit it to the United States before he receives it from Spain? We require to know, if Spain refuses to deliver Louisiana to France, can France transmit it to us? We desire to know whether there is any prospect of a refusal on the part of Spain.

Suppose we shall receive the colony from France, under the dictation of the First Consul to Spain, without experiencing any opposition from her. May not the time arrive, on a revolution in the affairs of Europe, when she will inquire by what title we hold it? Is it not proper then for us to obtain papers, by which our title may be fully understood?

OCTOBER, 1803.

sentiments entertained in the case of the British Treaty, he would recur to the Journal of the House. On the 24th of March, 1796, the following motion was made:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to lay before this House a copy of the

instructions to the Minister of the United States who

negotiated the treaty with the King of Great Britain, (communicated by his Message of the first instant,) together with the correspondence and other documents relative to the said treaty, excepting such of the said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed."

This resolution was carried in the affirmative by ayes and noes, and among the noes I observe, said Mr. S., the name of the mover of this resolution. The resolution was carried by a large majority, and sent to the President. What was his opinion? Not that I approve it, or am governed by it; though it ought, in my opinion, to be a rule on this occasion to those who coincided with him. On the 30th of March, the PRESIDENT communicated the following Message to the House:

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives : "With the utmost attention I have considered your resolution of the twenty-fourth instant, requesting me to lay before your House a copy of the instructions to the Minister of the United States who negotiated the treaty with the King of Great Britain, together with the correspondence and other documents relative to that treaty, excepting such of the said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed. In deliberating upon this subject, it was impossible for me to lose sight of the principle which some have avowed in its discussion, or to avoid extending my views to the consequences which must flow from the admission of that principle.

One singular argument is used by the gentleman from Virginia. This treaty, he says, is hailed by the acclamations of the country. But Mr. GODDARD Would ask if the public had had any op-cated a disposition to withhold any information which "I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indiportunity of examining it, and being fully ac- the Constitution has enjoined upon the President as a quainted with its principles and probable opera- duty to give, or which could be required of him by either tion? It had been made public only within a few House of Congress as a right; and with truth I affirm days. What evidence of popular affection for it that it has been, as it will continue to be, while I have can there yet have been manifested? Will peo- the honor to preside in the Government, my constant ple hail it with acclamation when they shall learn endeavor to harmonize with the other branches thereof, that it gives fifteen millions of dollars for a mere so far as the trust delegated to me by the people of the promise. At any rate, as all agree in the impor- United States, and my sense of the obligation it imtance of the subject, and as we are all called upon poses to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution to legislate upon it, is it not proper first to obtain will permit. all the necessary information that is to be had? The resolution goes this far, and no farther, and if gentlemen claim our confidence, ought they not to furnish us with information?

Mr. SMILIE remembered that a subject of this nature had been brought before the House, in the first session of the fourth Congress. He thought it proper to recur to the proceedings on that occasion, to learn the sentiments entertained at that day. At that day, it had been argued by certain gentlemen that the right of passing or not passing the necessary laws for carrying a treaty into effect did not belong to that House, but that they were under an absolute obligation to pass them; that they had no discretion on the subject. This was a doctrine which he did not believe true. He then believed that they possessed the right, and still entertained the same opinion. To show the

"The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy; and even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions, which may have been proposed or contemplated, would be extremely impolitic: for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences-perhaps danger and mischief in relaand secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power tion to other Powers. The necessity of such caution of making treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate-the principle on which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in the House of Representatives to demand, and to have as a matter of course, all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign Power, would be to establish a dangerous precedent.

"It does not occur that the inspection of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose under the cog

nizance of the House of Representatives, except that of an impeachment, which the resolution has not expressed. I repeat, that I have no disposition to withhold any information which the duty of my station will permit, or the public good shall require to be disclosed; and, in fact, all the papers affecting the negotiation with Great Britain were laid before the Senate, when the treaty itself was communicated for their consideration and advice.

"The course which the debate has taken, on the resolution of the House, leads to some observations on the

mode of making treaties under the Constitution of the

United States.

"Having been a member of the General Convention, and knowing the principles on which the Constitution

was formed, I have ever entertained but one opinion on
this subject; and from the first establishment of the
Government to this moment, my conduct has exempli-
fied that opinion, that the power of making treaties is
exclusively vested in the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-
thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every
treaty so made and promulgated, thenceforward becomes
the law of the land. It is thus that the treaty-making
power has been understood by foreign nations; and, in
all the treaties made with them, we have declared and
they have believed that, when ratified by the President,
with the advice and consent of the Senate, they become
obligatory. In this construction of the Constitution,
every House of Representatives has heretofore acqui-
esced; and until the present time not a doubt or sus-
picion has appeared, to my knowledge, that this con-
struction was not the true one. Nay, they have more
than acquiesced; for, till now, without controverting
the obligation of such treaties, they have made all the
requisite provisions for carrying them into effect.
"There is also reason to believe that this construction
agrees with the opinions entertained by the State con-
ventions, when they were deliberating on the Consti-
tution-especially by those who objected to it-because
there was not required, in commercial treaties, the con-
sent of two-thirds of the whole number of the members
of the Senate, instead of two-thirds of the Senators
present; and because, in treaties respecting territorial
and certain other rights and claims, the concurrence of
three-fourths of the whole number of the members of
both Houses respectively, was not made necessary, is a
fact declared by the General Convention, and univer-
sally understood, that the Constitution of the United
States was the result of a spirit of amity and mutual

concession. And it is well known that under this influ-
ence the smaller States were admitted to an equal rep-
resentation in the Senate with the larger States, and
that this branch of the Government was invested with
great powers; for, on the equal participation of those
powers the sovereignty and political safety of the smaller
States were deemed essentially to depend.

H. OF R.

with Great Britain exhibits in itself all the objects re-
quiring Legislative provision, and on these the papers
called for can throw no light; and as it is essential to
the due administration of the Government, that the
boundaries fixed by the Constitution, between the dif-
ferent departments, should be preserved; a just regard
to the Constitution, and to the duty of my office, under
all the circumstances, of this case, forbid a compliance
with your request.
GEO. WASHINGTON.

"UNITED STATES, March 30, 1796."

Mr. SMILIE Concluded by saying he perceived no necessity for the papers desired by gentlemen, and should therefore vote against the motion.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, if the gentleman from Connecticut would confine his motion to the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, he should be ready to acquiesce in it, though he did not believe that instrument would throw any new light on the subject.

Mr. GREGG said his wish was that the resolution should be divided, and that the Treaty of St. Ildefonso only should be requested. It had been conceded that it might be of some use in ascertaining the limits of the cession. To the other members of the resolution he was opposed. He therefore moved a division of the question. Mr. GRISWOLD remarked that it would be more orderly to move the striking out the last paragraph. Mr. SANFORD did not rise to say, with his colleague, (Mr. LYON,) that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Connecticut was indecent, but to say that, in his opinion, it was altogether unnecessary. It appeared to be a fact, well understood in the United States, that Louisiana did, before the late convention, belong to France. The fact was recognised in the treaty. If this fact be acknowledged, what remains for us to do, but to pass the necessary laws for carrying into operation the convention concluded on the 30th of April? Though there might be no official information to that effect, he was correct in saying possession of the country had been given to France by Spain. What then can be necessary on our part to obtain possession, other than the passage of the necessary laws to carry the treaty into effect?

Mr. ELLIOTT was opposed to every part of the call on the Executive for papers. He had a variety of objections to this request, with the mention of all of which he should not, however, trouble the House. His great objection was, that the call was premature, and this appeared-in his opinion, clearly appeared-even from the showing of the honorable gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr.GRISWOLD.) and his honorable colleague, (Mr. GoDDARD.) To their brilliant talents he was disposed to give the highest homage. The first gentleman was not only ingenious and indefatigable, but likewise thoughtful and profound. He had already been frequently delighted with his eloquence, and instructed by his intelligence. The remarks also of his colleague were ingenious, and worthy of attention. But still he thought them premature. For what purpose was this call made? The gentleman says his attention is called to the subject "As therefore it is perfectly clear to my understand-by the President informing us in his Message that ing that the assent of the House of Representatives is it is necessary to pass temporary laws, and that not necessary to the validity of a treaty; as the treaty thence it becomes desirable to learn whether we

"If other proofs than these, and the plain letter of the Constitution itself, be necessary to ascertain the point under consideration, they may be found in the journals of the General Convention, which I have deposited in the office of the Department of State. those journals it will appear that a proposition was made, that no treaty should be binding on the United States which was not ratified by a law, and that the proposition was explicitly rejected.

In

H. or R.

C

have acquired either new territory or new sub-ted States, by which the First Consul has transjects. Mr. E. was clearly of opinion that as yet we had not, though in a short time, if the treaty were carried into effect, we shall acquire them. The difficulties stated by the gentleman, the least investigation will show to be imaginary. Young as I am, said Mr. E., and little conversant in diplomatic knowledge, I believe the views I shall exhibit will be as clear as those of that gentleman. The Message of the President, at the opening of the session, announces that "the enlightened Gov'ernment of France saw, with just discernment, the importance to both nations of such liberal arrangements as might best and permanently promote the peace, friendship, and interests of both and the property and sovereignty of Louisiana, which had been restored to them, has, on certain conditions, been transferred to the United 'States by instruments bearing date the 20th of April." The President then informs us, that, 'when these shall have received the Constitutional sanction of the Senate, they will, without delay, 'be communicated to the Representatives also, for 'the exercise of their functions, as to those conditions which are within the powers vested by the 'Constitution in Congress." The Message goes further, and informs us-not in the phraseology of the gentleman from Connecticut, that we have acquired new subjects, but-that if the treaty shall receive the Constitutional sanction of the Senate and House of Representatives, we shall gain an acquisition, not of subjects, but of citizens. With 'the wisdom of Congress, says the President, it 'will rest to take those ulterior measures which may be necessary for the immediate occupation and temporary government of the country; for its 'incorporation into our Union; for rendering the change of Government a blessing to our newly adopted brethren."

ferred to us the domain and jurisdiction of Louisiana. In the treaty it is stipulated that a commissary shall be sent to receive the country from the Court of Madrid and give us the possession. If these two articles be carried into effect, and they must be to make the treaty binding, we must obtain not only the actual but also the legal possession. It is incumbent, therefore, on us to do everything necessary on our part to realize the possession.

Mr. THATCHER said, though the gentleman who had just sat down had acquitted himself handsomely, he had neither convinced him that the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was ill-founded or unnecessary. As they were, in the capacity of a legislative body, called upon to pass laws for new territory and new citizens, it was, according to his understanding, necessary, in the first instance, to learn that they had acquired new territory and new citizens. The title to Louisiana, as derived to France from Spain, was stated in the first article of the treaty. [Here Mr. T. read the first article.] By this it appears that another treaty had been formed between France and Spain. It was admitted that the province had belonged to Spain; and to her it must still belong, unless France has performed certain stipulations agreed to as the price of the cession. The object of the mover is to obtain this treaty, and to learn whether France has performed these stipulations.

Gentlemen objecting to this resolution, have taken different grounds. Some oppose it as inconsistent with the sentiments that prevailed in the case of the British Treaty; others, because it is premature, and others, because it is unnecessary. He did not expect the first objection from any member on that floor; much less did he expect it Whether we acquire this territory and these cit- from the quarter in which it originated. The adizens is consequential on the Constitutional ratifi-vocates of the motion were charged with inconsiscation of the treaty.

But it is said that our title to Louisiana is deducible from the first article of the treaty, and that that article only contains a promise: and it is triumphantly asked whether the people of the United States will be satisfied with paying fifteen millions for a mere promise [Mr. ELLIOT here quoted the first article of the treaty.] I acknowledge, said he, that this is only an assertion of France of her incontestable title, and an assurance that on certain terms she will convey this title to the United States. But, according to the treaty and convention, an agent is to be appointed by France, who is to deliver up the possession before we pay the fifteen millions. But, say gentlemen, though this may be done, Spain may not abandon her title to the province. No such consequence, however, can result. The convention that follows the treaty contains a stipulation, that the stock created shall not be delivered until "after Louisiana shall be taken possession of in the name of the Government of the United States." So that, taking the treaty and the convention together, there can result none of the inconveniences apprehended. A treaty has been made between the First Consul and the Uni

tency. He was not a member of the House at the time of the British Treaty, but, on referring to the Journal, it would be perceived that the object of gentlemen who then called for papers was to go into the merits of the British Treaty. It would not be denied that the ground then taken by gentlemen on the other side was, that the House had a right to examine the merits of the treaty, and to the assertion of that right it was that the President answered. We now say that it is not necessary for us to act in our legislative capacity, intending, if it shall appear to be necessary, not to withhold acting. Mr. T. therefore conceived that they exhibited no inconsistency, as they did not purpose at this time to go into the merits of the treaty, and as they acknowledged the treaty, if constitutionally made, to be binding. But they wanted information on subjects of legislation.

It has been said that the newspapers inform us of the order of Spain to deliver Louisiana to France. But they were not to be guided by newspaper accounts. We desire to know from an authentic source whether the stipulations entered into by France have been executed. By the first article of the treaty it appears that "His Catholic