_Thirdly._ The Constitution has stepped forward, and expressly declared that treaties shall be “the supreme law of the land”; and I know no way in which these words can have complete efficacy, unless they are held to impress upon treaties _the character of law, so that they will not only be recognized as such by the courts, but also be irrepealable except by Act of Congress_. And this conclusion is confirmed by the practice of the Government on two important occasions, in abrogating all subsisting treaties with France in 1798, and in abrogating the convention with England relating to Oregon as late as 1846. I do not dwell on these instances, or their authoritative character; for I went over them at length on a former occasion. Now, for the first time in our history, an opposite practice is adopted, contrary to precedents, and also, as it seems to me, contrary to reason. It is proposed to terminate a subsisting treaty with Denmark, establishing reciprocal privileges of trade, and especially regulating the payment of Sound dues, without any Act of Congress, but simply by virtue of a resolution of the Senate. The novelty of this course creates an impression against it. But this is vindicated by the Committee on Foreign Relations, in an elaborate report, on the ground of a peculiar provision in the treaty, as follows. “The present convention shall be in force for ten years from the date hereof, and further until the end of one year _after either of the contracting parties_ shall have given notice to the other of its intention to terminate the same,--_each of the contracting parties_ reserving to itself the right of giving such notice _to the other_ at the end of the said term of ten years; and it is hereby agreed between them, that, on the expiration of one year after such notice shall have been received _by either from the other party_, this convention and all the provisions thereof shall altogether cease and determine.” It is admitted, as I understand, that, without this provision, the treaty could not be terminated, except by Act of Congress; but it is said, that, under this provision, no such Act is required. It is difficult to understand the ground of this distinction; for there is nothing in this provision to take power from Congress and confer it upon the Senate alone. Point out the words, if they exist. They are not there. How, then, can you infer them? The treaty is to be terminated on notice from _either party_; and this notice must proceed from _the same power_ which, in the absence of such provision, would be competent to act. The mode of action is different, but _the acting power_ is the same in both cases.