MR. SUMNER. I put aside the whole idea of a new treaty, constituting in itself a new transaction, and involving the concurrence of the foreign power. The President and Senate, with the concurrence of a foreign power, may, of course, make a new treaty; but we are now dealing with the case where the whole proceeding is without any such concurrence. The question does not turn on the _treaty-making_ power, but on the _treaty-abrogating_ power. And I come back again to the admission of both Senators, that a treaty can be abrogated only by Act of Congress. This admission is important, and, as it seems to me, conclusive. But here a distinction is made by these Senators between treaties which contain no provision for their termination and treaties which contain such provision. And I understand the Senator from Virginia to maintain that a treaty terminated in pursuance of such a provision is not _abrogated_. This is strange; for in both cases the treaty is brought to an end by our special intervention, and this is done _without the concurrence of the other contracting party_. If this is not the abrogation of a treaty, I do not see what can be. You may, if you choose, call it by a softer term, but still it is the same thing. The treaty is invalidated, or made to cease. But I will not argue this question. I submit to Senators opposite, who have maintained their views with so much constancy, that their position is not tenable; I say this frankly, but with entire respect for their learning and ability. The same power must be invoked to terminate a treaty containing a provision for its termination, on notice from _either party_, as to terminate a treaty containing no such provision; and in both cases the treaty may properly be said to be abrogated. The single distinction between the two cases is, that the treaty in one case is abrogated in defiance of the other party, and perhaps on hostile ground, while in the other case it is abrogated in pursuance of a power specially reserved, and therefore without any just cause of offence; but in both cases the life of the treaty is destroyed by our act. Permit me to add, that the distinction made between these two classes is a distinction without a difference, and the admission that a treaty can be abrogated only by Act of Congress is as applicable to one class as to the other: it settles the question. I rest, then, confidently in the conclusion, that a treaty is part of the supreme law of the land, and cannot be set aside, terminated, superseded, disclaimed, repealed, or abrogated, except by the exercise of the highest power known to the Constitution, embodying the collected will of the whole people in a legislative act, under the sanction of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled. The resolution, as modified, was adopted. On the 7th of April, Mr. Mason, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the following resolution.