Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 05 (of 20)Sumner, Charles
History
Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 05 (of 20)
Sumner, Charles
Slavery -- United States; Speeches, addresses, etc., American
A debate ensued, in which the conclusions of Mr. Sumner were
maintained by Mr. Seward, of New York, Mr. Fessenden, of
Maine, Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky,
and Mr. Stuart, of Michigan,--and controverted by Mr. Mason,
of Virginia, Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, and Mr. Cass, of
Michigan. Mr. Mason proposed to amend the pending resolution by
striking out the second clause, which amendment Mr. Sumner at
once accepted, and closed the debate as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--My desire is simply to bring the question before the
Committee, and, to accomplish this, I shall not stand on the form of
the resolution. I am aware that it is argumentative, and involves,
perhaps, a reflection upon the course of the Executive; but I adopted
this form purposely, from a desire that the resolution should tell
the whole story on its face, and speak for itself. The ample debate
that has occurred supersedes all such desire. The subject is fully
before the Senate, and I doubt not will receive the attention of the
Committee.
In introducing this question, I remarked that it was of domestic
concern under our own Constitution, with which, of course, Denmark
has nothing to do. All references, therefore, to that power have
been superfluous, if not illogical. Her consent is not sought in
the proposed termination of the treaty. On the contrary, it will be
terminated against her desires. We must look for our rule of conduct to
our own Constitution. This I assume as an undeniable postulate.
The discussion, though protracted, has not been unprofitable; but at
each stage we have been brought back to the clear and unmistakable
distinction between the power to make treaties and the power to
abrogate them, under the Constitution. The President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, may make treaties; but there is
nothing in our Constitution conferring upon them the power to abrogate
treaties. To attribute to them any such power is to go beyond the
Constitution. Nor has any Senator distinctly, and in terms, claimed
for them this power. On the contrary, I think that Senators on the
other side--both the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from
Connecticut--admit that a treaty cannot be abrogated, except by virtue
of an Act of Congress. I understood the Senator from Connecticut to
make this admission, and I believe the Senator from Virginia did also.
MR. MASON nodded assent.
MR. TOUCEY. I mean, except by Act of Congress or a new treaty.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account