“It is certainly a novel doctrine to pass a law declaring a treaty void; but the necessity arose from the peculiar situation of this country. In most countries it is in the power of the Chief Magistrate to suspend a treaty, whenever he thinks proper. _Here Congress only has that power._”[56] This view was in no respect controverted or questioned. On the contrary, it was recognized by the whole debate. Mr. Dana, of Connecticut, said:-- “France has violated the faith pledged by her treaties with America. This, by the Law of Nations, _puts it within the option of the Legislature to decide_, as a question of expediency, whether the United States shall any longer continue to observe their stipulations.”[57] Mr. Gallatin, whose position in our public affairs was afterwards so justly distinguished, employed the very language applicable to laws, when he spoke of the proposed abrogation of the treaty as a _repeal_. “He knew of no precedent of a Legislature _repealing a treaty_. It is therefore an act of a peculiar kind, and it appeared to him necessary that _Congress_ should justify it by a declaration of their reasons.… It is not sufficient to say, that, because a treaty has been violated, _we will repeal it_.”[58] Such is the first and leading precedent in our history. The next is more recent, and of hardly less importance. It was the notice to Great Britain of the termination of the convention of 1827, relating to the joint occupancy of certain parts of Oregon. This was not done by the President, with the advice of the Senate in secret session, but by Act of Congress. President Polk, in his annual message of 2d December, 1845, called upon Congress to act. These are his words:-- “Under that convention, a year’s notice is required to be given by _either party_ to the other, before the joint occupancy shall terminate, and before either can rightfully assert or exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any portion of the territory. This notice it would, in my judgment, be proper to give; _and I recommend that provision be made by law for giving it accordingly_, and terminating in this manner the convention of the 6th of August, 1827.”[59] In pursuance of this recommendation, _provision was made by law for this notice_. You will remember, Sir, the debate which for months occupied both Houses of Congress, and was closed by the passage of a joint resolution, approved 27th April, 1846, which, after a preamble, proceeds as follows. “_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized, at his discretion, to give to the Government of Great Britain the notice required by the second article of the said convention of the sixth of August, 1827, for the abrogation of the same.”[60]