[Here Mr. Sumner went into details which are omitted. At this stage he was interrupted by a question from a Senator.] MR. CLAYTON. I wish to ask the Senator, whether, in his judgment, supposing the treaty to be abrogated, our Act of Congress of 1828 would not authorize the executive department of the Government to admit free of duty any articles from Denmark? MR. SUMNER. The Senator is, perhaps, right. The President may remit these discriminating duties; but I believe he can do it only after information from Denmark as to her course. He cannot do it _at once_; and I now refer to these duties simply to show that at this moment, while I speak, a practical question may arise in our courts, or at our custom-houses, as to the validity of the act of abrogation. These things will at least make you hesitate before you assert a power which is without precedent, and which at a former day was disowned in this very case. By referring to the published diplomatic correspondence, it appears that Mr. Buchanan, when Secretary of State, in a letter to our representative at Copenhagen, dated 14th October, 1848, twice over recognized this power in Congress. “_Congress_ may, therefore, at any moment, authorize the President to terminate this convention.” Mark, Sir, he did not say the Senate, but Congress. And then again he says: “It is probable that two years might elapse before the existing convention could be terminated, AS AN ACT MUST FIRST PASS CONGRESS _to enable the President to give the required notice, after which a year must expire before it could be rendered effectual_.”[61] It appears, also, that the House of Representatives, proceeding on this understanding, had already initiated a joint resolution on this subject, and therefore were in some measure seized of it, when the Senate undertook to act alone. It seems to me that the course you have commenced should be retraced, and that a joint resolution, or Act of Congress, for the abrogation of the treaty, should be introduced at once, if it is considered, in the present state of negotiations on this question among the European nations, that the abrogation of the treaty should be pressed immediately. I desire the opinion of the Senate simply on the necessity of present action by joint resolution,--leaving to another time, or to the Committee, the question, whether the joint resolution shall be prospective in its operation, or retroactive, so as to take advantage of the notice already given? In order to have a decision of this single point, I move to strike out all of the resolution now pending after the word “_Resolved_,” and insert as follows:-- “That the Committee on Foreign Relations be instructed to report a joint resolution of Congress, providing for the effectual termination of the convention with Denmark of the 26th of April, 1826.”