advance the propositions to be submitted in negotiations. Following its consent to the ratification of the treaty with Great Britain of July 3, 1815, resolutions were introduced advising the President to pursue the negotiations in order to obtain six, later increased to eight, specific objects outlined in the resolutions. Mr. Bibb, in a report, February 15, 1816, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which the matter had been referred, observed that an examination of the correspondence furnished satisfactory evidence that no effort which belonged to the negotiators had been neglected, and that the failure to arrange the subjects embraced by the resolutions was owing to the manifest indisposition of the British plenipotentiaries to concur in any satisfactory stipulations concerning them; that if the proper moment had arrived to renew the negotiations, the President would doubtless take advantage of it, for he had the interests of the country at heart in common with the Senate, and, since he conducted correspondence with foreign nations, would be more competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiations could be urged with the greatest prospect of success; and that, moreover, the differences of opinion between members of the Senate on propositions to advise the President would prevent that unity of design, secrecy and despatch so requisite for successful negotiations.'

As a matter of expediency individual members, and especially those on the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which all treaties are referred in the Senate, are not infrequently consulted on important negotiations. In 1871, after the unqualified rejection (44 to 1) by the Senate

'Compilation of Reports of the Senate Com. on For. Rel., Sen. Doc., 231, pt. 8, p. 22, 56th Cong. 2nd Sess. See also to same effect, report on Feb. 19, 1862, by Mr. Sumner, ibid. p. 132.

of the Johnson-Clarendon convention, Mr. Fish did not feel warranted in reopening negotiations without some understanding with members of that body. He accordingly conferred with prominent senators on both sides of the chamber, and took the advice of Mr. Sumner, who was then Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, concerning the basis of the proposed negotiations, although he did not afterwards follow the particular course that Mr. Sumner recommended.'

While practice was not uniform, yet in the most important negotiations down to, and including the treaty of commerce and navigation with Great Britain of July 3, 1815, the President submitted to the Senate for confirmation the names of the commissioners appointed to negotiate, with an intimation as to the purpose of the mission. In communicating, May 31, 1797, to the Senate for confirmation the nomination of C. C. Pinckney, Francis Dana and John Marshall as envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to the French Republic, President Adams explained in general terms that they were appointed "to negotiate with the French. Republic, to dissipate umbrages, to remove prejudices, to rectify errors, and adjust all differences by a treaty. between the two powers." The Senate confirmed the nominations June 5, and on June 22 the substitution of Elbridge Gerry for Francis Dana.3 When negotiations were reopened in 1799 the Senate was called upon to confirm new nominations. President Jefferson asked the Senate, January 11, 1803, for its advice and consent to the appointment of James Monroe and Robert R. Liv

'Moore, International Arbitrations, vol. i, p. 525.

'Executive Journal, vol. i, p. 241.

'Ibid., vol. i, pp. 243, 245.

Ibid., pp. 317, 326.

ingston as plenipotentiaries, with full powers "to enter into a treaty or convention with the First Consul of France, for the purpose of enlarging, and more effectually securing, our rights and interests in the river Mississippi, and in the territories eastward thereof." The nominations of J. Q. Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, and Jonathan Russell, were advised and consented to January 18, 1814, and that of Albert Gallatin, who had previously been rejected on the grounds that the duties of an envoy were incompatible with those of the Secretary of the Treasury, February 9, as ministers plenipotentiary and extraordinary to negotiate and sign a treaty of peace and a treaty of commerce with Great Britain.3

Since 1815 this course has been exceptional. Nearly

'Executive Journal, vol. i, p. 431.

'His successor in the office of Secretary of the Treasury was confirmed Feb. 9, immediately preceding his own confirmation as minister to negotiate with Great Britain. Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 355, 389.

'Ibid., pp. 454, 471. See for other confirmations, during this period, of special commissioners appointed to negotiate treaties, ibid., vol. i, pp. 265, 310, 311, 432, 440; vol. ii, pp. 25, 29.

'In a minority report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, signed by John T. Morgan, Eli Saulsbury, Joseph E. Brown and H. B. Payne upon the unratified fisheries treaty with Great Britain of Feb. 15, 1888, this question was examined in detail. The report states that the "whole number of persons appointed or recognized by the President without the concurrence or advice of the Senate, or the express authority of Congress, as agents to conduct negotiations and conclude treaties [prior to June 25, 1887] was four hundred and thirty-eight. Three have been appointed by the Secretary of State and thirty-two have been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate." According to the list attached to the report, only the commissioners to the Panama Congress, and those of 1880 to negotiate with China, had, since 1815, been specially commissioned by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Sen. Doc. 231, pt. 8, p. 332 et seq., 56th Cong., 2d Sess.

one-third of all the treaties concluded have been signed at Washington by the Secretary of State, while a large proportion of the remainder have been negotiated through regular diplomatic representatives confirmed as such by the Senate, but commissioned to enter upon the negotiations solely on Executive authority. In consenting to the ratification of treaties concluded by special agents appointed without its consent, the Senate has taken occasion to express its disapproval of the practice. Treaties with the King of Siam and the Sultan of Muscat were signed March 20, and September 21, 1833, respectively, on the part of the United States by Edmund Roberts, a special and secret agent commissioned for this purpose by the President. Immediately after advising their ratification, to which no opposition appears to have been made, a resolution was introduced declaring that, while the Senate deemed the ratification expedient, it felt itself constrained by a high sense of its constitutional duty to express its decided disapprobation of the practice of appointing diplomatic agents to foreign. countries by the President alone, without the advice and consent of the Senate." On the motion of Mr. Webster the resolution was tabled. In the resolutions of January 9, 1883, advising and consenting to the ratification of the treaty with the Kingdom of Korea, signed May 22, 1882, on the part of the United States, by Commodore R. W. Shufeldt, specially commissioned by the President, the Senate declared that it did not by this act "admit or acquiesce in any right or constitutional power in the President to authorize" any person to negotiate treaties with a foreign power unless such person had been appointed for such purpose or clothed with such power by

Executive Journal, vol. iv, pp. 413, 445.

and with the advice and consent of the Senate, except in the case of a Secretary of State or a diplomatic officer appointed by the President to fill a vacancy during the recess of the Senate. The purpose of the declaration. was to prevent the means employed being drawn into precedent. A resolution of similar import was introduced into the Senate July 20, 1888, relative to the negotiation of the unratified fisheries treaty with Great Britain. The Executive has recognized no limitation in this respect. Among treaties thus concluded, by special agents employed by the President, with countries with which diplomatic relations did not at the time exist, besides the three mentioned above, may be enumerated those signed in 1815 and 1816 with Algiers; May 7, 1830, with the Ottoman Porte; September 16, 1836, with Morocco; November 26, 1838, with Sardinia; various treaties of 1846 and 1847, negotiated by A. Dudley Mann with certain of the German states; February 2, 1848, with Mexico; November 25, 1850, with Switzerland; March 31, 1854, June 17, 1857, and July 29, 1858, with Japan; May 29, 1856, with Siam; November 3, 1864, with Hayti; February 8, 1867, with the Dominican Republic; December 22, 1871, with the Orange Free State; November 16, 1884, with Egypt; and July 3, 1886, with Zanzibar. Special agents have also been employed instead of the regular diplomatic officers when the latter were available. For instance, the recent reciprocity treaty with Cuba was negotiated by Gen. T. H. Bliss, who was specially commissioned by the President, although a diplomatic officer had been accredited to the new republic.

Of the five commissioners appointed by the Presi1Executive Journal, vol. xxiii, p. 585. 'Ibid., vol. xxvi, p. 314.