NOVEMBER, 1803. Iberville, and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, or in other words to the island of New Or leans; but the French Prefect on the contrary declared that he neither had nor would give his assent to the establishment of those limits, which would be regarded no longer than until the arrival of their troops. to deliver up Louisiana to France, or to the United States? We have some reason to think that such is the fact; and resistance, he presumed, was apprehended. Why, else, all this parade of war? Why had the President been authorized to employ the Army and Navy of the United States, and to call forth any portion of eighty thousand militia? Honorable gentlemen, he knew, held cheap the The same gentleman (Mr. PICKERING) has said power of Spain; they have spoken plainly their that the advocates of this measure seem to rely opinion of her feebleness and inability to with- much more upon their power than upon their stand the force of the United States: and have right, and in this assertion I am compelled to say seemed to rest the security of our title (as he re- that he has done us very great injustice. The marked on a former occasion) rather on that fee- title of the French is founded upon the often bleness and inability, than on the validity of the quoted treaty of St. Ildefonso, confirmed by the cession from the French Republic; and one hon- royal order signed by the King of Spain himself, orable gentleman has said, that Spain will be left so lately as the 15th October, 1802, directing the alone; that the French Republic is bound in honor delivery of the "colony of Louisiana and its depennot to give her any aid. The French Republicdencies as well as of the city and island of New bound in honor! For ten or fifteen years past, we had known too well what were the honor and the justice of the Government of that Republic. Perhaps Spain may not resist at the present moShe may wait until France gets the war with Britain off her hands. Then pretences will be easily found to reclaim Louisiana; and Spain, once engaged to wrest it from us by force, will receive from France, her ally, all necessary aid. Mr. P. believed that this whole transaction had purposely been wrapt in obscurity by the French Government. The boundary of Louisiana, for instance, on the side of Florida was, in the treaty, really unintelligible; and yet nothing was more easy to define. The French Government, however, would find no difficulty in the construction. An honorable member from New Jersey (Mr. DAYTON) had informed us, that the French Prefect, at New Orleans, told him, that as soon as General Victor should arrive with the French troops he should extend Louisiana far into West Florida. ment. Mr. P. said, that whatever way he turned his eyes, war was in prospect, as the final result of our pacific measures-measures deemed so wise as to have been ascribed to divine inspiration! He wished they might merit that high character; but feared, in the end, they would bear the stamp of indiscretion, perhaps of folly. Mr. DAYTON.-As the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has quoted what was suggested by me in a former debate, to deduce from it an inference which the information I gave can by no means warrant, I must be allowed the liberty of correcting him. When I said that there existed an essential difference between the French and Spanish officers at New Orleans as to the real boundaries of the province of Louisiana, I did not mean to insinuate that this disagreement extended so far as an opposition to the French taking possession. It was a question of limits only, varying, however, so much in extent as would have produced a serious altercation between those two countries, although closely allied. The Spanish Governor had taken it upon himself to proclaim that the province lately ceded and about to be given over to France would be confined on the east of the Mississippi to the river 6 Orleans, without any exception, to General Victor, or other officer duly authorized by that Republic to take charge of the said delivery." When at New Orleans in July last, I obtained from the best source a translated copy of that royal order, and can aver that it absolutely directs possession to be given without reservation or condition. It is not, and cannot be, denied that the lately ratified treaty of Paris transfers to us completely all the title acquired by France in virtue of the first treaty and order alluded to. We have, then, most incontestably the right of possession, and our object now is, by passing the bill before us to obtain the possession itself, which we can certainly never effect, consistently with good faith, if the reasonings and objections of my honorable friends from Delaware and Massachusetts should prevail. We are asked by the same gentlemen what will be the consequence if it shall appear that the royal order has been revoked? I answer, first, that it is not in the least degree probable, for neither of them pretend to have heard of such revocation, nor is it intimated in the confidential communications before the Senate. But admitting for argument's sake that it were revoked, of what avail could it be against a third party, who had in the meantime become a bona fide purchaser? Shall one nation give to another a written, formal evidence of transfer of territory, and revoke it at pleasure, especially after a third shall have been tempted and induced by that very evidence of title to contract for the purchase of it. Would an act so fraudulent be countenanced between individuals in a court of equity? Could it be justified between nations in a high court of honor? The honorable gentleman from Delaware has taken a more delicate ground of objection. He has insinuated that there exists in the knowledge of the Senate, the evidence of a serious opposition to our possessing that country, which if known to the other branch of the Legislature would probably have defeated this bill in its progress there. Allusions artfully made in this manner to documents communicated under the injunction of secrecy, place us in an embarrassing situation. Forbidden by our rules to expose the papers referred to, even in argument, we can only declare what impressions they have NOVEMBER, 1803. The Louisiana Treaty. SENATE. made upon ourselves. Every Senator must un- territory; the other, that the treaty stipulates for derstand him, every one must have heard and the admission of a new State into the Union; a read, and weighed deliberately the contents of stipulation which the treaty-making power is unthose documents, and, for myself, I am free to able to comply with. To these objections I shall avow my belief that, if known to every member endeavor to give answers not heretofore urged. of the other House, they would have had no effect Before a confederation, each State in the Union against this bill, but would rather have quick-possessed a right, as attached to sovereignty, of ened and insured its progress, for such is the in-acquiring territory, by war, purchase, or treaty. fluence they have upon me. This right must be either still possessed, or for The same gentleman goes on to say, that our bidden both to each State and to the General own Government undoubtedly expects to meet Government, or transferred to the General Govwith opposition, and to be compelled to use vio-ernment. It is not possessed by the States seplence, instead of receiving peaceable possession, arately, because war and compacts with foreign or why should it send there so imposing a force. Powers and with each other are prohibited to a From what source that honorable gentleman has separate State; and no other means of acquiring acquired a knowledge of the number of troops territory exist. By depriving every State of the ordered down the river, he does not tell us, nor means of exercising the right of acquiring terriindeed how many he means when he calls the tory, the Constitution has deprived each separate force an imposing one. If in times of peace and State of the right itself. Neither the means nor profound tranquillity the Spaniards have found it the right of acquiring territory are forbidden to prudent to keep there constantly at least four or the United States; on the contrary, in the fourth five hundred troops, could we be justified in send- article of the Constitution, Congress is empowered ing no greater number when so important an act" to dispose of and regulate the territory belongis about to be performed as the transfer of an ex-ing to the United States." This recognises the tensive territory with the posts connected with it, right of the United States to hold territory. The and this too before we can have had an opportu- means of acquiring territory consist of war and nity of sounding the dispositions of the inhabitants compact; both are expressly surrendered to Conand of the Indians in the vicinity, in order to gress and forbidden to the several States; and no judge what effect the change will have upon them? right in a separate State to hold territory without These are wise precautions, which our Govern- its limits is recognised by the Constitution, nor ment, I presume, would take, even if they could any mode of effecting it possible, consistent with be most certain that the delivery would be vol- it. The means of acquiring and the right of hold/untary and peaceable on the part of Spain, and ing territory, being both given to the United therefore afford no color for the presumption that States, and prohibited to each State, it follows they expect or intend to use violence. The bill that these attributes of sovereignty once held by before us is drawn up in terms which are at the each State are thus transferred to the United same time consistent with our late treaty, and States; and that, if the means of acquiring and perfectly well calculated to secure our interests, the right of holding, are equivalent to the right for it does not authorize payment of the stocks of acquiring territory, then this right merged from until after complete possession of the territory. the separate States to the United States, as indisTimely arrangements, which a law only can war-pensably annexed to the treaty-making power, rant, ought to be made for preparing the forms of and the power of making war; or, indeed, is litcertificates and for creating the stock, that every-erally given to the General Government by the thing depending on us may be ready; and where Constitution. can the discretionary power of transferring it in Having proved, sir, that the United States may payment be so well vested as with the President, constitutionally acquire, hold, dispose of, and regwho will certainly be the first to know when we ulate territory, the other objection to be considhave received the valuable consideration for it, viz: ered is, whether the third article of the treaty does actual possession? When this event happens, stipulate that Louisiana shall be erected into a Congress, which the honorable gentleman thinks State? It is conceded that the treaty-making should be the only judge and sole depositary of power cannot, by treaty, erect a new State, howthis power, may possibly not be in session, and in ever they may stipulate for it. I premise, that in this case, upon his plan, our plighted faith would the construction of this article, it is proper to rebe violated, our acquisition of the country jeop-collect that the negotiators must be supposed to ardized, and our right to it lost. If we thus sea- have understood our Constitution. It became sonably take all the preliminary steps for comply- very particularly their duty to do so, because, in ing with our stipulations, and obstacles should nevertheless exist to the attainment of our object, it will be seen and known that they are not of our creation, but that we stand ready to fulfil all the engagements on our part, as I trust we shall be to compel it, if there be need, on the part of others. Mr. TAYLOR.-There have been, Mr. President, two objections made against the treaty; one that the United States cannot constitutionally acquire this article itself, they have recited "the principles of the Constitution" as their guide. Hence, it is obvious, they did not intend to infringe, but to adhere to those principles; and therefore, if the article will admit of a construction consistent with this presumable knowledge and intention of the negotiators, the probability of its accuracy will be greater than one formed in a supposition that the negotiators were either ignorant of that which they ought to have known, or that they fraudu lently professed a purpose which they really intended to defeat. The following construction is reconcileable with what the negotiators ought to have known, and with what they professed to intend. NOVEMBER, 1803, out limitation? Again; the concluding member of the article is to bestow "protection in the mean time;" incorporating this stipulation, and the stipulation for citizenship, with the construction which accuses the treaty of unconstitutionality, the article altogether must be understood thus, "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be taken into the Union of States, which will instantly give them all the rights of citizenship, after which they shall be made citizens as soon as possible; and after they are taken into the Union of States, they shall be protected in the interim between becoming a State in the Union, and being made citizens, in their liberty, property and 'religion." By supposing the first member of the article to require that the inhabitants and their territory shall be incorporated in the Union, in the known and recognised political character of a Territory, these inconsistencies are avoided, and the article reconciled to the Constitution, as understood by the opposers of the bill; the stipulation also for citizenship "as soon as possible" according to the principles of the Constitution, and the delay meditated by these words, and the subsequent words "in the mean time" so utterly inconsistent with the instantaneous citizenship, which would follow an admission into the Union as a State, are both fully explained. Being incorporated in the Union as a Territory, and not as a State, a stipulation for citizenship became necessary; whereas it would have been unnecessary had the inhabitants been incorporated as a State, and not as a Territory. And as they were not to be invested with citizenship by becoming a State, the delay which would occur between the incorporation of the Territory into the Union and the arrival of the inhabitants to citizenship according to the principles of the Constitution, under some uniform rule of naturalization, exhibited an interim which demanded the concluding stipulation, for "protection in the meantime for liberty, property, and religion." As a State of the Union, they would not have needed a stipulation for the safety of their "liberty, property and religion;" as a Territory, this stipulation would govern and restrain the undefined power of Congress to make "rules and regulations for Territories." Recollect, sir, that it has been proved that the United States may acquire territory. Territory, so acquired, becomes from the acquisition itself a portion of the territories of the United States, or may be united with their territories without being erected into a State. An union of territory is one thing; of States, another. Both are exemplified by an actual existence. The United States possess territory, comprised in the union of territory, and not in the union of States. Congress is empowered to regulate or dispose of territorial sections of the Union, and have exercised the power; but it is not empowered to regulate or dispose of State sections of the Union. The citizens of these territorial sections are citizens of the United Ssates, and they have all the rights of citizens of the United States; but such rights do not include those political rights arising from State compacts or governments, which are dissimilar in different States. Supposing the General Government or treaty-making power have no right to add or unite States and State citizens to the Union, yet they have a power of adding or uniting to it territory and territorial citizens of the United States. The territory is ceded by the first article of the treaty. It will no longer be denied that the United States may constitutionally acquire territory. The third article declares that "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States." And these words are said to require the territory to be erected into a State. This they do not express, and the words are literally satisfied by incorporating them into the Union as a territory, and not as a State. The Constitution recognises and the practice warrants an incorporation of a Territory and its inhabitants into the Union, without admitting either as a State. And this construction of the first member of the article is necessary to shield its two other members from a charge of surplusage, and even absurdity. For if the words "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States" intended that Louisiana and its inhabitants should become a State If my construction is correct, all objections to in the Union of States, there existed no reason for the treaty and to this bill for fulfilling it, on the proceeding to stipulate that these same inhabitants ground of unconstitutionality, are unfounded. The should be made "citizens as soon as possible, ac- three distinct members of the third article will be cording to the principles of the Federal Constitu- each separately and distinctly complied with; first, tion." Their admission into the Union of States by an incorporation of the territory and its inhabwould have made them citizens of the United itants in the Union, as a Territory. Secondly, by States. Is it not then absurd to suppose that the admitting them to all the rights of citizens of the first member of this third article, intended to ad- United States, under some uniform rule of natumit Louisiana into the Union as a State, which ralization; and, thirdly, by protecting their libwould instantly entitle the inhabitants to the bene-erty, property, and religion, by "rules and regufit of the article of the Constitution, declaring, that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the federal States," and yet to have gone on to stipulate for citizenship, under the limitation "as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution" after it had been bestowed with lations," to be, "in the meantime," enacted by Congress, under a Constitutional power extending to Territories, but not to States. To prove the treaty unconstitutional, a member from Massachusetts, (Mr. PICKERING,) has quoted from the sixth article of the Constitution these words: "This Constitution, and the laws of NOVEMBER, 1803. such a one as the President and Senate had no The obvious meaning of this article is, that the inhabitants of Louisiana are incorporated, by it, into the Union, upon the same footing that the Territorial Governments are, and, like them, the Territory, when the population is sufficiently numerous, must be admitted as a State, with every right of any other State. All се S. Have the President and Senate a Constitutionright to do all this? When we advert to the C find that the President, by a and consent of the Senate, Now, say gentlemen, this po one gentleman says, it is unlimited. 'the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which 'shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" and he has reasoned upon the ground, that the words "in pursuance thereof," referred to treaties as well as to laws. But the difference between the phraseology in relation to laws and to treaties, is plain and remarkable; laws were to be The third article is in the following words: made "in pursuance of the Constitution;" trea"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be inties "under the authority of the United States." corporated into the Union of the United States, and This difference, probably, arises from the follow- admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles ing consideration. The objects of the Legislative of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all power could be foreseen and defined; therefore the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of laws are limited to be made "in pursuance of" the the United States, and, in the meantime, they shall be definitions of the objects of Legislative power in maintained in the free enjoyment of their liberty, propthe Constitution. But the objects of the treaty-erty, and the religion they profess." making power could not be foreseen, and are not defined; by confining the treaty-making power to a definition of its objects in the Constitution, it can never be exercised if no such definition exists; and by misapplying to the treaty-making power, the definitions of Legislative power, every right possessed by the latter would be opened to the former. But if the words, "under the authority of the United States," are considered as hav-al ing been applied to treaties, in place of these-" in pursuance of the Constitution," which are applied to laws; because the objects of treaties are not defined; then the treaty-making power retains all the political attributes belonging to it, not inconsistent with the principle of agency or subordination, interwoven with our policy in all its parts. Among these, is the right or attribute of acquiring territory. And it was probably the absence of a definition as to the objects of the treaty-making power, which suggested the precaution of checking it by two-thirds of the Senate; thus subjecting it, in this body, to the same restraint imposed upon amendments to the Constitution. Whether these observations, in relation to the quotation upon which the gentleman from Massachusetts relied, do or do not prove that the objects of the treaty-making power are undefined by the Constitution, and that it is incorrect to condemn this treaty by applying to it definitions made for Legislative power, is immaterial, if the construction I have given of the third article of the treaty is correct; because that construction proves its constitutionality upon the principles contended for by the gentleman himself; and if so, his reasoning, founded upon a construction of the Constitution forbidding the erection of new States to the treaty-making power, whether right or wrong, vanishes into smoke, as the third article requires no such thing. Mr. BUTLER next delivered his sentiments in favor of the bill, as well as generally in favor of the treaty. Mr. TRACY.-Mr. President: Ishall vote against this bill; and will give some of the reasons which govern my vote in this case. It is well known that this bill is introduced to carry into effect the treaty between the United States and France, which has been lately ratified. If that treaty be an unconstitutional compact, True, there is no definition in words of the extent and nature of the treaty-making power. Two modes of ascertaining its extent have been mentioned: one is, by ascertaining the extent of the same power among the monarchs of Europe, and making that the standard of the treaty-making power here; and the other is, to limit the power of the President and Senate, in respect to treaties, by the Constitution and the nature and principles of our Government. Upon the first criterion, it is obvious that we cannot obtain any satisfactory definition of the treaty-making power, as applicable to our Government. It is well known that, in Europe, any part of a country may be ceded by treaty, and the transfer is considered valid, without the consent of the inhabitants of the part thus transferred. Will it be said that the President and Senate can transfer Connecticut by treaty to France or to any other country? I know that a nation may be in war, and reduced to such necessitous circumstances, as that giving up a part or half the territory, to save the remainder, may be inevitable: the United States may be in this condition; but necessity knows no law nor constitution either; such a case might be the result of extreme necessity, but it would never make it constitutional; it is a state of things which cannot, in its own nature, be governed by law or constitution. But if the President and Senate should, in ordinary peaceable times, transfer Connecticut, against her consent, would the Government be bound to make laws to carry such a treaty into effect? Such a transfer of territory can certainly be made by the SENATE. The Louisiana Treaty. NOVEMBER, 1803. monarchs in Europe, under the head of the treaty- It is agreed, by the friends to the treaty, that making power. I am convinced, sir, that only a the President and Senate cannot transfer a State. cursory view of this subject will be sufficient to Let us examine the power of introducing a State. show every reasonable man that the treaty-mak- Suppose Louisiana contain ten millions of ining power in the United States cannot be the same habitants; or, for the sake of argument, let it be that it is in the European Governments; and fur- supposed that we had a President inclined to monther, that the only method to obtain a sound con-archical principles, and he lived in the northern struction of that power, as part of our Constitu- part of the Union, say in Connecticut or Massation, is by examining it with a view to the Con-chusetts, and that two-thirds of the Senate were stitution, and the nature and principles of our Government. with him in sentiment, and that the four northern provinces of Great Britain contained ten millions of inhabitants, and were all determined monarchists, would the parties of the Union say it was competent and Constitutional for the President and Senate to introduce these ten millions of monarchists, who could at once out vote us all; and even give fifteen millions of dollars for the benefit of having them? The principles of our Government, the original ideas and rights of the partners to the compact, forbid such a measure; and without the consent of all the partners, no such thing can be done. A number of States, or independent sovereignties, entered into a voluntary association, or, to familiarize the subject, it may be called a partnership, and the Constitution was agreed to as the measure of power delegated by them to the Federal Government, reserving to themselves every other power not by them delegated. In this Constitution they have restricted the powers of Congress, or the Federal Government, in a number of instances. In all these, I think the treaty-making power is clearly restricted, as much as if it had been mentioned in the restriction. For instance, Congress can lay no tax or duty on The principle of admission, in the case of Louarticles exported from any State. If this restric- isana, is the same as if it contained ten millions tion should be violated by treaty, could it be thought of inhabitants; and the principles of these people valid? Congress can give no preference by any are probably as hostile to our Government, in its regulations of commerce or revenue to the ports true construction, as they can be, and the relative of one State over those of another. Can this pref-strength which this admission gives to a Southerence be given by treaty, and the preference be Constitutional? If the treaty-making power is so extensive as not to be limited by the Constitution, we must submit to the most extraordinary condition, of seeing the parts of a Government, when acting separately, possessing more power than the whole when acting together. And this further absurdity would follow: Congress itself would be released from an equivocal restriction, contained in the Constitution in the cases mentioned; for if a treaty, containing stipulations to tax exports, or giving commercial preference to one port over another, be Constitutional, it is, of course, binding on every branch of the Government, and we should see the Government not only released from a Constitutional restriction, by such a treaty, but absolutely bound by it to act in open violation of the Constitution. Many instances could be given, but I cannot conceive, that any sober opinion can be entertained, that the treaty-making power is not limited by the restrictions contained in the Constitution. To give a precise definition, and mark out unerring limits to the treaty-making power, by the nature and principles of our Government, is not an easy task, neither is it requisite for the purpose of obtaining clear ideas upon the point now before us. ern and Western interest, is contradictory to the principles of our original Union, as any can be, however strongly stated. The paragraph in the Constitution, which says that "new States may be admitted by Congress into this Union," has been quoted to justify this treaty. To this, two answers may be given, either of which are conclusive in my favor. First, if Congress have the power collectively of admitting Louisiana, it cannot be vested in the President and Senate alone. Second, Congress have no power to admit new foreign States into the Union, without the consent of the old partners. The article of the Constitution, if any person will take the trouble to examine it, refers to domestic States only, and not at all to foreign States; and it is unreasonable to suppose that Congress should, by a majority only, admit new foreign States, and swallow up, by it, the old partners, when twothirds of all the members are made requisite for the least alteration in the Constitution. The words of the Constitution are completely satisfied, by a construction which shall include only the admission of domestic States, who were all parties to the Revolutionery war, and to the compact; and the spirit of the association seems to embrace no other. But I repeat it, if the Congress collectively has this power, the President and Senate cannot, of course, have it exclusively. I think, sir, that, from a fair construction of the Constitution, and an impartial view of the nature and principles of our association, the President and Senate have not the power of thus obtruding The object of the original sovereignties, or partners to the compact, is obvious, from the Constitution itself; they united as equals in power, to promote the political welfare of all. Certain powers they gave: but no one partner can be supposed stupid enough to give power to trans-upon us Louisiana. fer itself, without and against its consent, to the Government of Algiers, or any other despotic Government. But it is said, that this third article of the treaty only promises an introduction of the inhabitants of Louisiana into this Union, as soon as the prin |