THE ABROGATION OF TREATIES.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, MARCH 6 AND MAY 8, 1856.

THE effort to obtain for the Senate the power to abrogate treaties had peculiar interest at this time, from the known desire of certain Senators to terminate the stipulation between the United States and Great Britain, requiring a naval force on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave-trade. In 1854 Mr. Slidell brought forward a proposition to this effect in Executive Session, assuming that the stipulation could be terminated by a simple vote of the Senate. Mr. Sumner insisted that the prerogative belonged to the law-making power, and could be exercised only by Act of Congress. By his effort the proposition was defeated.

The power of the Senate over the abrogation of treaties was brought forward in Legislative Session, on the motion of Mr. Sumner, in connection with the Danish Sound dues, being the tax at Elsinore laid by Denmark upon the cargoes of vessels passing through the Sound into and out from the Baltic Sea. In 1841, Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, traced the origin of this tax to the treaty of 1645 between Denmark and Holland, embracing a tariff of the principal articles then known in commerce; which treaty was the basis of our own concluded with Denmark in 1826, and limited to continue ten years from date, and further until the end of one year after notice by either party of an intention to terminate it; but he contented himself with recommending friendly negotiations, "with a view of securing to the commerce of the United States a full participation in any reduction of these duties, or the benefits resulting from any new arrangements respecting them which may be granted to the commerce of other states."1 In 1848, Mr. Buchanan, as Secretary of State, instructed our Minister at Copenhagen, that, "under the public law of nations, it cannot be pretended that Denmark has any right to levy duties on vessels passing through the Sound from the North Sea to the Baltic." President Pierce, in his annual message of 1854, proposed to terminate the treaty of 1826; the

1 Webster's Works, Vol. VI. pp. 406, 409.

Senate, by simple resolution in Executive Session, March 3, 1855, undertook to terminate it; and the President, in his annual message of 1855, announced that the proper notice had been given to Denmark.1

Mr. Sumner, impressed with the conviction that this notice was a bad precedent, and in the interest of the Slave Power, which controlled the Senate, besides being inadequate under the Constitution, brought forward the following resolution :

"Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations be directed to consider the expediency of some act of legislation, having the concurrence of both Houses of Congress, by which the treaty with Denmark regulating the payment of Sound dues may be effectively abrogated, in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution, under which every treaty is a part of the supreme law of the land,' and in conformity with the practice of the Government in such cases, and especially to consider if such legislation be not necessary forthwith, in order to supply a defect in the notice of the purpose of the United States to abrogate the said treaty, which the President has undertaken to give to Denmark without the authority of an Act of Congress, and in disregard of the function of the House of Representatives in the abrogation of all existing laws."

On his motion the Senate proceeded to its consideration, March 6 when he spoke as follows.

MR.

R. PRESIDENT,- If I can have the attention of the Senate for a brief time, I will explain the object of this inquiry. The subject may be dry, but it is important, and, at this moment, of direct practical interest.

The President in his annual message named three different questions, arising out of our relations with foreign nations. Two of these, concerning England, have been discussed in the Senate; the other, which concerns the payment of the Sound dues to Denmark, has not yet been mentioned here. Introducing it now, I have no purpose to say anything on the character of these dues, or to arrest the efforts of the Government for the relief of our commerce from foreign exactions.

1 Wheaton, Elements of International Law (ed. Lawrence, 1863), note, pp. 334, 335, Part II. Ch. 4.

That is a broad field of history and of public law, which for the present there is no occasion to enter. My desire is simply to open a question of domestic interest under our own Constitution, with which, of course, Denmark has no concern, but which is necessarily involved in the determination of our course on this matter.

The President, in his annual message, announces:

"In pursuance of the authority conferred by a resolution of the Senate of the United States, passed on the 3d of March last, notice was given to Denmark, on the 14th day of April, of the intention of this Government to avail itself of the stipulation of the subsisting convention of friendship, commerce, and navigation, between that kingdom and the United States, whereby either party might, after ten years, terminate the same at the expiration of one year from the date of notice for that purpose."1

The treaty, it will be noted, reserves to either partythat is, to either of the Governments between whom it is made the privilege of terminating it by notice; and the President, without the sanction of an Act of Congress, but simply in pursuance of a resolution of the Senate, passed in Executive Session, has constituted himself the Government, so far as to give such notice, and by such notice to abrogate the treaty. Acting under his instructions, our Minister at Copenhagen, on the 14th of April, 1855, notified the Danish Government, that,

"After the expiration of one year from the date of this communication, the United States will regard the general convention of 'friendship, commerce, and navigation,' agreed upon by Denmark and themselves on the 26th of April, 1826, as finally abrogated, and that after that period its provisions will not be binding upon our Government." 2

1 Exec. Doc., 34th Cong. 1st Sess., 1855-56, No. 1, p. 9.

2 Ibid., p. 30.

Thus undertaking, merely with the consent of the Senate, and without the concurrence of the House of Representatives, to abrogate a treaty, the President has assumed a power inconsistent with the Constitution, and disowned by the practice of the Government, adopted, after debate, on leading occasions. Such a usurpation cannot be justified by the good that is sought; for that good might have been sought, and may still be sought, by another course, in entire harmony with the Constitution and the practice of the Government. Nor will any temporary purpose justify the removal of constitutional safeguards.

The Constitution declares that the President "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"; but it does not declare that the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, shall have power to abrogate treaties. The absence of all language conferring this extraordinary power is itself an unanswerable argument against the existence of the power. But we are not left to found our conclusion even on irresistible inference. There are explicit words of the Constitution, which determine it beyond doubt. It is declared, that

"This Constitution, and the laws of 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.'

Thus declaring treaties to be "the supreme law of the land," the Constitution not only gives to them the highest authority, but places them under the highest safeguard known to our institutions. When once made, they are obligatory on our side as laws, and can be ab

rogated by no power less than that which may abrogate existing laws. Not the President alone, not the President and Senate, can set them aside; but for this purpose the whole power of the Government must be invoked, in its most solemn form, by Act of Congress. In conformity with this requirement, the power to declare war, involving, of course, the abrogation of treaties, is expressly lodged with Congress. The President, with the consent of the Senate, cannot declare war; and it is difficult to see what greater power he possesses in the abrogation of a treaty, involving possibly the rupture of friendly intercourse with a foreign nation, and involving certainly the overthrow of what the Constitution declares to be the supreme law.

Thus placing treaties under all the sanctions of law, I follow the best authorities. The eminent commentator, Mr. Justice Story, in speaking of them, gives them this character. Expounding this very clause, he says:

"It is therefore indispensable that they should have the obligation and force of a law, that they may be executed by the judicial power, and be obeyed like other laws. This will not prevent them from being cancelled or abrogated by the nation, upon grave and suitable occasions; for it will not be disputed that they are subject to the legislative power, and may be repealed, like other laws, at its pleasure." 1

And the Supreme Court of the United States affirm the same principle.

"A treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. . . . . In the United States a different principle is established. Our Constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is consequently to be re

1 Commentaries on the Constitution, § 1838.