OCT. 21, 1803.

The Message was read, and, together with the papers therein referred to,

ordered to lie for consideration.

Agreeably to notice given yesterday, Mr. BRECKENRIDGE had leave to bring

in a bill to enable the President of the United States to take possession

of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty

concluded at Paris on the 30th of April last, and for other purposes;

which bill was read, and ordered to the second reading. The bill is in

the following words:

_Be it enacted 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

to take possession of and occupy the territories ceded by

France to the United States by the treaty concluded at Paris,

on the 30th day of April last, between the two nations; and

that he may for that purpose, and in order to maintain in the

said territories the authority of the United States, employ

any part of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the

force authorized by an act passed the 3d day of March last,

entitled “An act directing a detachment from the militia of

the United States, and for erecting certain arsenals,” which

he may deem necessary: And so much of the sum appropriated by

the said act as may be necessary is hereby appropriated for the

purpose of carrying this act into effect; to be applied under

the direction of the President of the United States.

SEC 2.. _And be it further enacted_, That until Congress shall

have made provision for the temporary government of the said

territories, all the military, civil, and judicial powers

exercised by the officers of the existing government of the

same, shall be vested in such person or persons, and shall be

exercised by and in such manner, as the President of the United

States shall direct.

_Amendment to the Constitution._

The order of the day being called for on Mr. CLINTON’s motion of

yesterday,

Mr. CLINTON said that, as the resolution was but now printed, and laid

before the Senate, it might be proper to refer it to Monday for further

consideration, but if it was requisite, by the rules of the Senate, that

the resolution must have three separate readings, and on three different

days, he should call for a second reading on Saturday, that it might be

in readiness for a third reading on Monday, and be ultimately acted upon

that day, as the Legislatures of Tennessee and Vermont were in session,

and probably must be at the trouble of an extra session to act upon the

amendment, unless it could be sent to them before they separated.

Mr. BROWN, of Kentucky, the President _pro tem._ of the Senate, said

the written rule of the Senate determined that bills should have three

readings, and on different days, without unanimous consent to the

contrary; but the resolutions were not included; and that he should be

glad of the opinion of the Senate upon the subject.

Mr. TRACY of Connecticut said, that there was no written rule which would

reach the case, but the Vice President, upon the ground that they came

within the reason of the rule, had determined that all resolutions which

required a joint vote of both Houses to give them efficacy, should take

the same course as bills, and have three readings, and on different days,

before a final vote; and as this resolution went to the alteration of

the supreme law of the land, as the constitution was declared to be, he

thought it highly requisite to give the deliberations all the solemnity

which was required in passing bills.

Mr. BRADLEY, of Vermont, then offered two amendments to the resolution;

one went to the form only, and the other makes a majority of votes of the

electors requisite for the choice of Vice President, and in case such

majority is not obtained, places the choice of Vice President in the

Senate.

Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina, proposed an amendment by adding a new

clause, in substance: “That at the next election of President, no person

should be eligible who had served more than eight years, and, in all

future elections, no person should be eligible more than four years in

any period of eight years.”

Mr. DAYTON, of New Jersey, moved to refer the resolution, with all the

amendments, to a select committee; he said that it was a subject far too

important to be carried in this way. There has been no time to consider

it. Something more was due in this instance, than, as it were, offering

it one moment, and deciding upon it the next.

Mr. HILLHOUSE, of Connecticut, supported the motion for referring the

question to a select committee. He was opposed to entering now upon the

business. Why should this subject be hurried? Why not have taken it up

last session? We might in that case have had time to consider it. He had

not often known a resolution, of the nature of that before the House,

disposed of otherwise, in the first instance, than being referred to a

committee. He never knew it refused. In a great and free empire, like the

United States, this question is of the highest importance--no less than

the choice of the First Magistrate. It is laid upon the table to-day,

and we are to determine upon it to-morrow. He hoped not, and as he never

knew it refused before, he hoped that it would not be adopted now. He

wished it to be referred to a select committee; that it should there be

examined, line by line, letter by letter. In the present mode of doing

business, it is impossible to act with accuracy. He again trusted and

hoped that it would be referred to a select committee.

Mr. JACKSON, of Georgia, wished the business to be immediately proceeded

upon. He was an admirer of Mr. Jefferson; he was happy, and he trusted

all were happy, while he was President. But, continued Mr. J., we know

not who may follow him; we may have a Buonaparte, or one who will

be equally obnoxious to the people. He hoped the motions would be

incorporated and immediately come before the House.

Mr. WRIGHT, of Maryland, spoke for some time against the resolution going

to a committee. He was against the amendment proposed by Mr. BUTLER.

A committee might report when they pleased. He therefore thought it

necessary to proceed with the question immediately.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, wished to have some principles fixed. If the

motion and amendments were to go to a committee, he would not tack them

together, for by this mode they might both be lost. It has been said that

the subject might have been entered into last session. There was then a

multiplicity of business of importance before the House, yet this subject

might have been entered into. As it stands, this is the proper place to

make objections. The mover of the resolution does not say that it shall

be determined on Monday; he means that it shall then be before the whole

House.

After some desultory observations, in which one member observed that

he thought it disorderly, the question on Mr. BUTLER’s amendment was

put--ayes 16, nays 15.

A committee was then chosen for the purpose, namely:

Mr. BUTLER, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. CLINTON, Mr. NICHOLAS, and Mr. SMITH.

MONDAY, October 24.

_Louisiana Cession._

The bill to enable the President of the United States to take possession

of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty

concluded at Paris on the 30th of April last, and for other purposes, was

read the second time and referred to Messrs. BRECKENRIDGE, DAYTON, and

BALDWIN, to consider and report thereon.

_Amendment to the Constitution._

Mr. BUTLER, from the committee, to whom was referred, on the 22d inst.,

the motion for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,

made report, which was read.

Mr. DAYTON moved to strike out all which respected the appointment of a

Vice President.

He said the great inducements of the framers of the constitution to admit

the office of Vice President was, that, by the mode of choice, the best

and most respectable man should be designated; and that the electors of

each State should vote for one person at least, living in a different

State from themselves; and if the substance of the amendment was adopted,

he thought the office had better be abolished. Jealousies were natural

between President and Vice President; no heir apparent ever loved the

person on the throne. With this resolution for an amendment to the

constitution we were left with all the inconveniencies, without a single

advantage from the office of Vice President.

Mr. CLINTON.--The obvious intention of the amendment proposed by

the gentleman from New Jersey, is to put off or get rid of the main

question. It would more comport with the candor of the gentleman to

meet the question fairly. Can the gentleman suppose that the electors

will not vote for a man of respectability for Vice President? True, the

qualifications are distinct, and ought not to be confounded; this will

stave off the question till the Legislatures of the States of Tennessee

and Vermont are out of session, and the object must be very obvious.

Mr. DAYTON.--The custom of the gentleman from New York has been of late

to arraign motives instead of meeting arguments; on Saturday he accused

me of wishing to procrastinate, and now the same is repeated.

The reasons of erecting the office are frustrated by the amendment to the

constitution now proposed; it will be preferable, therefore, to abolish

the office.

Mr. CLINTON.--The charge of the gentleman from New Jersey is totally

unfounded that I arraign motives, and do not meet arguments. On Saturday

the gentleman accused me of precipitation; I am not in the habit of

arraigning motives, as this Senate can witness, and the charge is totally

untrue.

Mr. NICHOLAS.--To secure the United States from the dangers which

existed during the last choice of President, the present resolution was

introduced. It was impossible to act upon, or pass the amendment offered

by the member from New Jersey, with a full view of all its bearings at

this time. It ought not to stand in the way of the resolution reported by

the committee, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the State Legislatures

would be in session in two or three months; the Senate had, therefore,

better not admit the amendment, even if convinced that it was correct,

because it might jeopardize the main amendment of discriminating.

Mr. BUTLER moved a postponement until Wednesday, because the amendment

was important, and he had not had sufficient time to make up his mind.

Mr. WORTHINGTON said the same.

This motion was seconded.

The question for postponement was taken, and lost--ayes 15, noes 16.

The amendment of Mr. DAYTON was now before the Senate.

A motion for adjournment was now made and carried--ayes 16, noes 15.

TUESDAY, October 25.

JOHN SMITH, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Ohio,

attended and produced his credentials, which were read, and the oath

required by law was administered to him by the President.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 24th

instant, the bill to enable the President of the United States to take

possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by

the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of April last, and for other

purposes, reported it without amendment.

_Ordered_, That this bill pass to a third reading.

WEDNESDAY, October 26.

_Louisiana Treaty._

The bill to enable the President of the United States to take possession

of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty

concluded at Paris on the 30th of April last, and for other purposes, was

read the third time. And, on the question, Shall this bill pass? it was

determined in the affirmative--yeas 26, nays 6, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bailey, Baldwin, Bradley,

Breckenridge, Brown, Butler, Cocke, Condit, Dayton, Ellery,

Franklin, Jackson, Logan, Maclay, Nicholas, Potter, I. Smith,

J. Smith, S. Smith, Stone, Taylor, Wells, White, Worthington,

and Wright.

NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Hillhouse, Olcott, Pickering, Plumer, and

Tracy.[2]

SATURDAY, October 29.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE, from the committee of conference on the amendments of

the House of Representatives to the bill, entitled “An act to enable

the President of the United States to take possession of the territories

ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris

on the 30th of April last, and for the temporary government thereof,”

reported, that the Senate recede from their disagreement to the

amendments, and agree thereto, with amendments; and a division of the

report was called for.

And, on the question to adopt the report, so far as that the Senate

recede from their disagreement to the amendments of the House of

Representatives, it passed in the affirmative.

And, on the question to adopt the remaining division of the report, it

passed in the negative.

So it was _Resolved_, That the Senate recede from their disagreement to

the amendments of the House of Representatives to the said bill, and

agree thereto.[3]

MONDAY, October 31.

On motion, it was,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of the Senate, from a sincere

desire of showing every mark of respect due to the memory of the Hon.

STEVENS THOMPSON MASON, deceased, late a member thereof, will go into

mourning for him one month, by the usual mode of wearing a crape around

the left arm.[4]

WEDNESDAY, November 2.

_Louisiana Treaty._

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill, entitled “An act

authorizing the creation of a stock to the amount of eleven millions two

hundred and fifty thousand dollars, for the purpose of carrying into

effect the convention of the 30th of April, 1803, between the United

States of America and the French Republic, and making provision for the

payment of the same;” and having amended the bill--

On the question, Shall the bill pass?

Mr. WHITE rose and made the following remarks:

Mr. President, by the provisions of the bill before us, and which are

thus far in conformity with the words of the treaty, we have until

three months after the exchange of ratifications and the delivery of

possession to pay this money in. Where, then, is the necessity for such

haste on this subject? It seems to me to be anticipating our business

unnecessarily, and perhaps unwisely; it is showing on our part a degree

of anxiety that may be taken advantage of and operate to our injury,

and that may serve to retard the accomplishment of the very object

that gentlemen seem to have so much at heart. It is not at present

altogether certain that we shall ever have occasion to use this stock,

and it will be time enough to provide it when the occasion arises, when

we see ourselves in the undisturbed possession of this mighty boon, or

wherefore are we allowed these three months’ credit after the delivery

of possession? The ratifications have been already exchanged; the French

officer who is to make the cession is said to be at New Orleans, and

previous to the adjournment of Congress we shall know with certainty

whether the First Consul will or can carry this treaty faithfully into

operation. We have already passed a bill authorizing the President to

take possession, for which I voted, and it will be time enough to create

this stock and to make the other necessary arrangements when we find

ourselves in possession of the territory, or when we ascertain with

certainty that it will be given to us.

But, Mr. President, it is now a well-known fact, that Spain considers

herself injured by this treaty, and if it should be in her power to

prevent it, will not agree to the cession of New Orleans and Louisiana

to the United States. She considers herself absolved from her contract

with France, in consequence of the latter having neglected to comply with

certain stipulations in the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, to be performed on

her part, and of having violated her engagement never to transfer this

country into other hands. Gentlemen may say this money is to be paid

upon the responsibility of the President of the United States, and not

until after the delivery of possession to us of the territory; but why

cast from ourselves all the responsibility upon this subject, and impose

the whole weight upon the President, which may hereafter prove dangerous

and embarrassing to him? Why make the President the sole and absolute

judge of what shall be a faithful delivery of possession under the

treaty? What he may think a delivery of possession sufficient to justify

the payment of this money, we might not; and I have no hesitation in

saying that if, in acquiring this territory under the treaty, we have to

fire a single musket, to charge a bayonet, or to lose a drop of blood,

it will not be such a cession on the part of France as should justify to

the people of this country the payment of any, and much less so enormous

a sum of money. What would the case be, sir? It would be buying of France

authority to make war upon Spain; it would be giving the First Consul

fifteen millions of dollars to stand aloof until we can settle our

differences with His Catholic Majesty. Would honorable gentlemen submit

to the degradation of purchasing even his neutrality at so inconvenient

a price? We are told that there is in the hands of the French Prefect

at New Orleans a royal order of His Catholic Majesty, founded upon the

Treaty of St. Ildefonso, for the delivery of possession of this territory

to France; but which has never been done--the precedent conditions not

having been performed on the part of France. This royal order, it is

probable, will be handed over to our Commissioner, or to whoever may be

sent down to receive possession. We may then be told that we have the

right of France, as she acquired it from Spain, which is all she is bound

by her treaty to transfer to us; we may be shown the Spaniards, who yet

claim to be the rightful owners of the country, and be told that we have

the permission of the First Consul to subdue or drive them out, and,

according to the words of the treaty, to take possession. Of our capacity

to do so I have no doubt; but this we could have done, sir, six months

ago, and with one-sixth of fifteen millions of dollars, when they had

wantonly violated the sacred obligations of a treaty, had insulted our

Government, and prostrated all the commerce of our Western country. Then

we had, indeed, a just cause for chastising them; the laws of nations

and of honor authorized it, and all the world would have applauded our

conduct. And it is well known that if France had been so disposed she

could not have brought a single man or ship to their relief; before the

news could have reached Europe, she was blockaded in her own ports by

the British fleet. But that time was permitted to go by unimproved, and

instead of regretting the past, let us provide for the future.

Admitting then, Mr. President, that His Catholic Majesty is hostile to

the cession of this territory to the United States, and no honorable

gentleman will deny it, what reasons have we to suppose that the

French Prefect, provided the Spaniards should interfere, can give to

us peaceable possession of the country? He is acknowledged there in no

public character, is clothed with no authority, nor has he a single

soldier to enforce his orders. I speak now, sir, from mere probabilities.

I wish not to be understood as predicting that the French will not cede

to us the actual and quiet possession of the territory. I hope to God

they may, for possession of it we must have--I mean of New Orleans, and

of such other positions on the Mississippi as may be necessary to secure

to us for ever the complete and uninterrupted navigation of that river.

This I have ever been in favor of; I think it essential to the peace of

the United States, and to the prosperity of our Western country. But

as to Louisiana, this new, immense, unbounded world, if it should ever

be incorporated into this Union, which I have no idea can be done but

by altering the constitution, I believe it will be the greatest curse

that could at present befall us; it may be productive of innumerable

evils, and especially of one that I fear even to look upon. Gentlemen on

all sides, with very few exceptions, agree that the settlement of this

country will be highly injurious and dangerous to the United States; but

as to what has been suggested of removing the Creeks and other nations of

Indians from the eastern to the western banks of the Mississippi, and of

making the fertile regions of Louisiana a howling wilderness, never to be

trodden by the foot of civilized man, it is impracticable. The gentleman

from Tennessee (Mr. COCKE) has shown his usual candor on this subject,

and I believe with him, to use his strong language, that you had as

well pretend to inhibit the fish from swimming in the sea as to prevent

the population of that country after its sovereignty shall become ours.

To every man acquainted with the adventurous, roving, and enterprising

temper of our people, and with the manner in which our Western country

has been settled, such an idea must be chimerical. The inducements will

be so strong that it will be impossible to restrain our citizens from

crossing the river. Louisiana must and will become settled, if we hold

it, and with the very population that would otherwise occupy part of

our present territory. Thus our citizens will be removed to the immense

distance of two or three thousand miles from the capital of the Union,

where they will scarcely ever feel the rays of the General Government;

their affections will become alienated; they will gradually begin to view

us as strangers; they will form other commercial connections, and our

interests will become distinct.

These, with other causes that human wisdom may not now foresee, will in

time effect a separation, and I fear our bounds will be fixed nearer to

our houses than the waters of the Mississippi. We have already territory

enough, and when I contemplate the evils that may arise to these States,

from this intended incorporation of Louisiana into the Union, I would

rather see it given to France, to Spain, or to any other nation of the

earth, upon the mere condition that no citizen of the United States

should ever settle within its limits, than to see the territory sold

for a hundred millions of dollars, and we retain the sovereignty. But

however dangerous the possession of Louisiana might prove to us, I do

not presume to say that the retention of it would not have been very

convenient to France, and we know that at the time of the mission of

Mr. Monroe, our Administration had never thought of the purchase of

Louisiana, and that nothing short of the fullest conviction on the part

of the First Consul that he was on the very eve of a war with England;

that this being the most defenceless point of his possessions, if such

they could be called, was the one at which the British would first

strike, and that it must inevitably fall into their hands, could ever

have induced his pride and ambition to make the sale. He judged wisely,

that he had better sell it for as much as he could get than lose it

entirely. And I do say that under existing circumstances, even supposing

that this extent of territory was a desirable acquisition, fifteen

millions of dollars was a most enormous sum to give. Our Commissioners

were negotiating in Paris--they must have known the relative situation

of France and England--they must have known at the moment that a war

was unavoidable between the two countries, and they knew the pecuniary

necessities of France and the naval power of Great Britain. These

imperious circumstances should have been turned to our advantage, and if

we were to purchase, should have lessened the consideration. Viewing, Mr.

President, this subject in any point of light--either as it regards the

territory purchased, the high consideration to be given, the contract

itself, or any of the circumstances attending it, I see no necessity

for precipitating the passage of this bill; and if this motion for

postponement should fail, and the question on the final passage of the

bill be taken now, I shall certainly vote against it.

The further consideration of the bill was postponed until to-morrow.

THURSDAY, November 3.

_Louisiana Treaty._

The bill, entitled “An act authorizing the creation of a stock to the

amount of eleven millions two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, for

the purpose of carrying into effect the Convention of the 30th of April,

1803, between the United States of America and the French Republic,

and making provision for the payment of the same,” was read the third

time; and, having been amended, on the question, Shall this bill pass as

amended?

Mr. WELLS said: Mr. President, having always held to the opinion that,

when a treaty was duly made under the constituted authorities of the

United States, Congress was bound to pass the laws necessary to carry it

into effect; and as the vote which I am about to give may not at first

seem to conform itself to this opinion, I feel an obligation imposed upon

me to state, in as concise a manner as I can, the reasons why I withhold

my assent from the passage of this bill.

There are two acts necessary to be performed to carry the present

treaty into effect--one by the French Government, the other by our own.

They are to deliver us a fair and effectual possession of the ceded

territory; and then, and not till then, are we to pay the purchase

money. We have already authorized the President to receive possession.

This co-operation on our part was requisite to enable the French to

comply with the stipulation they had made; they could not deliver unless

somebody was appointed to receive. In this view of the subject, the

question which presents itself to my mind is, who shall judge whether the

French Government does, or does not, faithfully comply with the previous

condition? The bill on your table gives to the President this power. I am

for our retaining and exercising it ourselves. I may be asked, why not

delegate this power to the President? Sir, I answer by inquiring why we

should delegate it? To us it properly belongs; and, unless some advantage

will be derived to the United States, it shall not be transferred with

my consent. Congress will be in session at the time that the delivery

of the ceded territory takes place; and if we should then be satisfied

that the French have executed with fidelity that part of the treaty

which is incumbent upon them first to perform, I pledge myself to vote

for the payment of the purchase money. This appears to me, arguing upon

general principles, to be the course which ought to be pursued, even

supposing there were attending this case no particular difficulties.

But in this special case are there not among the archives of the Senate

sufficient documents, and which have been withheld from the House of

Representatives, to justify an apprehension that the French Government

was not invested with the capacity to convey this property to us, and

that we shall not receive that kind of possession which is stipulated for

by the treaty? I am not permitted, by the order of this body, to make

any other than this general reference to those documents. Suffice it to

say that they have strongly impressed me with an opinion that, even if

possession is rendered to us, the territory will come into our hands

without any title to justify our holding it.

Mr. JACKSON.--Mr. President: The honorable gentleman (Mr. WELLS) has

said that the French have no title, and, having no title herself, we can

derive none from her. Is not, I ask, the King of Spain’s proclamation,

declaring the cession of Louisiana to France, and his orders to his

Governor and officers to deliver it to France, a title? Do nations

give any other? I believe the honorable gentleman can find no solitary

instance of feofment or conveyance between States. The treaty of St.

Ildefonso was the groundwork of the cession, and whatever might have been

the terms to be performed by France, the King of Spain’s proclamation

and orders have declared to all the world that they were complied with.

The honorable gentleman, however, insists that there is no consideration

expressed in the treaty, and therefore it must be void; if the honorable

gentleman will but look attentively at the ninth article, I am persuaded

he will perceive one: the conventions are made part of the treaty; they

are declared to have execution in the same manner, as if they had been

inserted in the treaty; they are to be ratified in the same form, and

at the same time, so that the one shall not be distinct from the other.

What inference can possibly be drawn, but that the payments to be made by

them were full consideration for Louisiana? But the honorable gentleman

lays stress on that part of the treaty which declares that “the First

Consul of the French Republic, desiring to give to the United States a

strong proof of his friendship, doth hereby cede to the United States

the territory,” &c.; inferring from thence that our title rests on the

friendship of Buonaparte alone. Sir, let my opinion of the present

Government of France be what it may, and I confess it is not very

favorable, Buonaparte, by the consent of the nation, is placed at its

head; he is the organ through which the will of the nation is expressed,

and is and must be respected as such by all other Powers. No nation has

a right to interfere with the rule or police of another. It is enough

that the nation wills it, and Buonaparte’s act is the act of the whole

nation, which cannot recall it, even if Buonaparte should cease to govern

and another form of government be adopted. Last session we were impressed

with the necessity of taking immediate possession of the island of New

Orleans in the face of two nations, and now we entertain doubts if we can

combat the weakest of those Powers; and we are further told we are going

to sacrifice the immense sum of fifteen millions of dollars, and have to

go to war with Spain for the country afterwards; when, last session, war

was to take place at all events, and no costs were equal to the object.

Gentlemen seem to be displeased, because we have procured it peaceably,

and at probably ten times less expense than it would have cost us had we

taken forcible possession of New Orleans alone, which, I am persuaded,

would have involved us in a war which would have saddled us with a debt

of from one to two hundred millions, and perhaps have lost New Orleans,

and the right of deposit, after all. I again repeat, sir, that I do not

believe that Spain will venture war with the United States. I believe

she dare not; if she does, she will pay the costs. The Floridas will be

immediately ours; they will almost take themselves. The inhabitants pant

for the blessings of your equal and wise Government; they ardently long

to become a part of the United States. An officer, duly authorized, and

armed with the bare proclamation of the President, would go near to take

them; the inhabitants by hundreds would flock to his standard, the very

Spanish force itself would assist in their reduction; it is composed

principally of the Irish brigade and Creoles--the former disaffected, and

the latter the dregs of mankind. With two or three squadrons of dragoons,

and the same number of companies of infantry, not a doubt ought to exist

of the total conquest of East Florida by an officer of tolerable talents.

Exclusive, however, of the loss of the Floridas, to use the language of

a late member of Congress, the road to Mexico is now open to us, which,

if Spain acts in an amicable way, I wish may, and hope will, be shut, as

respects the United States, for ever. For these reasons, I think, sir,

Spain will avoid a war, in which she has nothing to gain and every thing

to lose.

Mr. President, the honorable gentleman appears to be extremely

apprehensive of vesting the powers delegated by the bill, now on its

passage, in the President, and wishes to retain it in the Legislature.

Is this a Legislative or an Executive business? Assuredly, in my mind,

of the latter nature. The President gave instructions for, and, with

our consent, ratified the treaty. We have given him the power to take

possession, which his officers are at this moment doing; and surely,

as the ostensible party, the representative of the sovereignty to whom

France will alone look, he ought to possess the power of fulfilling

our part of the contract. Gentlemen, indeed, had doubted, on a former

occasion, the propriety of giving the President the power of taking

possession and organizing a temporary government, which every inferior

officer, in case of conquest or cession, from the general to the

subaltern, if commanding, has a right to do; but I little expected these

doubts after we had gone so far. For my part, sir, I have none of those

fears. I believe the President will be as cautious as ourselves, and the

bill is as carefully worded as possible; for the money is not to be paid

until after Louisiana shall be placed in our possession.

Mr. WRIGHT.--Mr. President, I presumed from the observations of the

honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. WELLS,) that he had not minutely

attended to the provisions of this bill, on which the transfer of this

stock is made expressly to depend. The treaty has in the most guarded

manner secured us in the possession of the ceded territory, as a

condition precedent to the payment of the purchase money, and this bill

has expressly provided that no part of the stock shall be transferred

till the possession stipulated by the treaty shall have been obtained.

Not such a possession as the gentleman has said the President may be

satisfied with--“the delivery of a twig and turf, or the knocker of

a door.” The treaty has defined the possession intended: it is the

possession of Louisiana, the island and city of New Orleans, with the

forts and arsenals, the troops having been withdrawn from thence. But,

sir, from his remarks, it would seem that his objections to this bill

had been predicated on his want of confidence in the Executive, as he

has expressed his fears that the stock would be transferred, before

the prerequisite conditions had been performed. He says, we ought to

be satisfied that the possession stipulated by the treaty shall have

been delivered up before we pass this bill. Has he forgot that, by

the constitution, the President is to superintend the execution of

the law? Or has he forgot that treaties are the supreme law of the

land? Or why, while he professes to respect this constitution, does he

oppose the commission of the execution of this law to that organ of the

Government to which it has been assigned by the constitution? Why, I

ask, does he distrust the President? Has he not been, throughout the

whole of this business, very much alive to the peaceful acquisition of

this immense territory, and the invaluable waters of the Mississippi? a

property which, but the other day, we were told was all-important, and

so necessary to our political existence that if it was not obtained the

Western people would sever themselves from the Union. This property,

for which countless millions were then proposed to be expended, and the

best blood of our citizens to be shed, and which then was to be had

at all hazards, _per fas aut per nefas_, seems now to have lost its

worth, and it would seem as if some gentlemen could not be satisfied

with the purchase, because our title was not recorded in the blood of

its inhabitants. But that this is not the wish of the American people,

has been unequivocally declared by their immediate representatives

in Congress, as well as by this House, who had each expressed their

approbation of the peaceful title we had acquired, by majorities I

thought not to be misunderstood. And the gentleman, although he voted for

the ratification of the treaty, now again calls on us to investigate the

title. It is certainly too late.

Mr. PICKERING said, if he entertained the opinion just now expressed by

the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. WELLS,) of the binding force of all

treaties made by the President and Senate, he should think it to be his

duty to vote for the bill now under consideration. “The constitution,

and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all

treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United

States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”--But a treaty to be

thus obligatory, must not contravene the constitution, nor contain any

stipulations which transcend the powers therein given to the President

and Senate. The treaty between the United States and the French Republic,

professing to cede Louisiana to the United States, appeared to him

to contain such an exceptionable stipulation--a stipulation which

cannot be executed by any authority now existing. It is declared in

the third article, that “the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall

be incorporated in the Union of the United States.” But neither the

President and Senate, nor the President and Congress, are competent

to such an act of incorporation. He believed that our Administration

admitted that this incorporation could not be effected without an

amendment of the constitution; and he conceived that this necessary

amendment could not be made in the ordinary mode by the concurrence

of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and the ratification by the

Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States. He believed the

assent of each individual State to be necessary for the admission of a

foreign country as an associate in the Union; in like manner as in a

commercial house, the consent of each member would be necessary to admit

a new partner into the company; and whether the assent of every State

to such an indispensable amendment were attainable, was uncertain. But

the articles of a treaty were necessarily related to each other; the

stipulation in one article being the consideration for another. If,

therefore, in respect to the Louisiana Treaty, the United States fail

to execute, and within a reasonable time, the engagement in the third

article, (to incorporate that territory into the Union,) the French

Government will have a right to declare the whole treaty void. We must

then abandon the country, or go to war to maintain our possession. But

it was to prevent war that the pacific measures of the last winter were

adopted--they were to “lay the foundation for future peace.”

Mr. P. had never doubted the right of the United States to acquire new

territory, either by purchase or by conquest, and to govern the territory

so acquired as a dependent province; and in this way might Louisiana have

become a territory of the United States, and have received a form of

government infinitely preferable to that to which its inhabitants are now

subject.

Mr. DAYTON.--As the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has quoted

what was suggested by me in a former debate, to deduce from it an

inference which the information I gave can by no means warrant, I must

be allowed the liberty of correcting him. When I said that there existed

an essential difference between the French and Spanish officers at New

Orleans as to the real boundaries of the province of Louisiana, I did not

mean to insinuate that this disagreement extended so far as an opposition

to the French taking possession. It was a question of limits only,

varying, however, so much in extent as would have produced a serious

altercation between those two countries, although closely allied.

The Spanish Governor had taken it upon himself to proclaim that the

province lately ceded and about to be given over to France would be

confined on the east of the Mississippi to the river Iberville, and the

lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, or in other words to the island of New

Orleans; but the French Prefect on the contrary declared that he neither

had nor would give his assent to the establishment of those limits, which

would be regarded no longer than until the arrival of their troops.

The same gentleman (Mr. PICKERING) has said that the advocates of this

measure seem to rely much more upon their power than upon their right,

and in this assertion I am compelled to say that he has done us very

great injustice. The title of the French is founded upon the often quoted

treaty of St Ildefonso, confirmed by the royal order signed by the King

of Spain himself, so lately as the 15th October, 1802, directing the

delivery of the “colony of Louisiana and its dependencies as well as of

the city and island of New Orleans, without any exception, to General

Victor, or other officer duly authorized by that Republic to take charge

of the said delivery.”

When at New Orleans in July last, I obtained from the best source a

translated copy of that royal order, and can aver that it absolutely

directs possession to be given without reservation or condition. It is

not, and cannot be, denied that the lately ratified treaty of Paris

transfers to us completely all the title acquired by France in virtue of

the first treaty and order alluded to. We have, then, most incontestably,

the right of possession, and our object now is, by passing the bill

before us to obtain the possession itself, which we can certainly never

effect, consistently with good faith, if the reasonings and objections

of my honorable friends from Delaware and Massachusetts should prevail.

We are asked by the same gentlemen what will be the consequence if it

shall appear that the royal order has been revoked? I answer, first, that

it is not in the least degree probable, for neither of them pretend to

have heard of such revocation, nor is it intimated in the confidential

communications before the Senate. But admitting for argument’s sake that

it were revoked, of what avail could it be against a third party, who

had in the mean time become a _bona fide_ purchaser? Shall one nation

give to another a written, formal evidence of transfer of territory, and

revoke it at pleasure, especially after a third shall have been tempted

and induced by that very evidence of title to contract for the purchase

of it? Would an act so fraudulent be countenanced between individuals in

a court of equity? Could it be justified between nations in a high court

of honor? The honorable gentleman from Delaware has taken a more delicate

ground of objection. He has insinuated that there exists in the knowledge

of the Senate, the evidence of a serious opposition to our possessing

that country, which, if known to the other branch of the Legislature,

would probably have defeated this bill in its progress there. Allusions

artfully made in this manner to documents communicated under the

injunction of secrecy, place us in an embarrassing situation. Forbidden

by our rules to expose the papers referred to, even in argument, we

can only declare what impressions they have made upon ourselves. Every

Senator must understand him, every one must have heard and read, and

weighed deliberately the contents of those documents, and, for myself, I

am free to avow my belief, that, if known to every member of the other

House, they would have had no effect against this bill, but would rather

have quickened and ensured its progress, for such is the influence they

have upon me.

Mr. TAYLOR.--There have been, Mr. President, two objections made against

the treaty; one that the United States cannot constitutionally acquire

territory; the other, that the treaty stipulates for the admission of a

new State into the Union; a stipulation which the treaty-making power

is unable to comply with. To these objections I shall endeavor to give

answers not heretofore urged.

Before a confederation, each State in the Union possessed a right, as

attached to sovereignty, of acquiring territory, by war, purchase, or

treaty. This right must be either still possessed, or forbidden both to

each State and to the General Government, or transferred to the General

Government. It is not possessed by the States separately, because war

and compacts with foreign powers and with each other are prohibited to

a separate State; and no other means of acquiring territory exist. By

depriving every State of the means of exercising the right of acquiring

territory, the constitution has deprived each separate State of the

right itself. Neither the means nor the right of acquiring territory are

forbidden to the United States; on the contrary, in the fourth article

of the constitution, Congress is empowered “to dispose of and regulate

the territory belonging to the United States.” This recognizes the right

of the United States to hold territory. The means of acquiring territory

consist of war and compact; both are expressly surrendered to Congress

and forbidden to the several States; and no right in a separate State

to hold territory without its limits is recognized by the constitution,

nor any mode of effecting it possible, consistent with it. The means

of acquiring and the right of holding territory, being both given to

the United States, and prohibited to each State, it follows that these

attributes of sovereignty once held by each State are thus transferred

to the United States; and that, if the means of acquiring and the right

of holding, are equivalent to the right of acquiring territory, then

this right merged from the separate States to the United States, as

indispensably annexed to the treaty-making power, and the power of making

war; or, indeed, is literally given to the General Government by the

constitution.

Having proved, sir, that the United States may constitutionally acquire,

hold, dispose of, and regulate territory, the other objection to be

considered is, whether the third article of the treaty does stipulate

that Louisiana shall be erected into a State? It is conceded that the

treaty-making power cannot, by treaty, erect a new State, however they

may stipulate for it. I premise, that in the construction of this

article, it is proper to recollect that the negotiators must be supposed

to have understood our constitution. It became very particularly their

duty to do so, because, in this article itself, they have recited “the

principles of the constitution” as their guide. Hence, it is obvious,

they did not intend to infringe, but to adhere to those principles;

and therefore, if the article will admit of a construction consistent

with this presumable knowledge and intention of the negotiators, the

probability of its accuracy will be greater than one formed in a

supposition that the negotiators were either ignorant of that which

they ought to have known, or that they fraudulently professed a purpose

which they really intended to defeat. The following construction is

reconcilable with what the negotiators ought to have known, and with what

they professed to intend.

Recollect, sir, that it has been proved that the United States may

acquire territory. Territory, so acquired, becomes from the acquisition

itself a portion of the territories of the United States, or may be

united with their territories without being erected into a State. A union

of territory is one thing; of States, another. Both are exemplified by

an actual existence. The United States possess territory, comprised in

the union of territory, and not in the union of States. Congress is

empowered to regulate or dispose of territorial sections of the Union,

and have exercised the power; but it is not empowered to regulate or

dispose of State sections of the Union. The citizens of these territorial

sections are citizens of the United States, and they have all the rights

of citizens of the United States; but such rights do not include those

political rights arising from State compacts or governments, which

are dissimilar in different States. Supposing the General Government

or treaty-making power have no right to add or unite States and State

citizens to the Union, yet they have a power of adding or uniting to it

territory and territorial citizens of the United States.

The territory is ceded by the first article of the treaty. It will no

longer be denied that the United States may constitutionally acquire

territory. The third article declares that “the inhabitants of the ceded

territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States.”

And these words are said to require the territory to be erected into a

State. This they do not express, and the words are literally satisfied

by incorporating them into the Union as a Territory, and not as a State.

The constitution recognizes and the practice warrants an incorporation

of a Territory and its inhabitants into the Union, without admitting

either as a State. And this construction of the first member of the

article is necessary to shield its two other members from a charge of

surplusage, and even absurdity. For if the words “the inhabitants of the

ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States”

intended that Louisiana and its inhabitants should become a State in the

Union of States, there existed no reason for proceeding to stipulate that

these same inhabitants should be made “citizens as soon as possible,

according to the principles of the Federal Constitution.” Their admission

into the Union of States would have made them citizens of the United

States. Is it not then absurd to suppose that the first member of this

third article intended to admit Louisiana into the Union as a State,

which would instantly entitle the inhabitants to the benefit of the

article of the constitution declaring, that “the citizens of each State

shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the

several States,” and yet to have gone on to stipulate for citizenship,

under the limitation “as soon as possible, according to the principles of

the Federal Constitution,” after it had been bestowed without limitation?

Again, the concluding member of the article is to bestow “protection

in the mean time;” incorporating this stipulation, and the stipulation

for citizenship, with the construction which accuses the treaty of

unconstitutionality, the article altogether must be understood thus:

“The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be taken into the Union of

States, which will instantly give them all the rights of citizenship,

after which they shall be made citizens as soon as possible; and after

they are taken into the Union of States, they shall be protected in the

interim between becoming a State in the Union, and being made citizens,

in their liberty, property, and religion.”

By supposing the first member of the article to require that the

inhabitants and their territory shall be incorporated in the Union,

in the known and recognized political character of a Territory,

these inconsistencies are avoided, and the article reconciled to the

constitution, as understood by the opposers of the bill; the stipulation

also for citizenship “as soon as possible” according to the principles

of the constitution, and the delay meditated by these words, and the

subsequent words “in the mean time,” so utterly inconsistent with the

instantaneous citizenship, which would follow an admission into the Union

as a State, are both fully explained. Being incorporated in the Union as

a Territory, and not as a State, a stipulation for citizenship became

necessary; whereas it would have been unnecessary had the inhabitants

been incorporated as a State, and not as a Territory. And as they were

not to be invested with citizenship by becoming a State, the delay which

would occur between the incorporation of the Territory into the Union and

the arrival of the inhabitants to citizenship according to the principles

of the constitution, under some uniform rule of naturalization, exhibited

an interim which demanded the concluding stipulation, for “protection in

the mean time for liberty, property, and religion.” As a State of the

Union, they would not have needed a stipulation for the safety of their

“liberty, property and religion;” as a Territory, this stipulation would

govern and restrain the undefined power of Congress to make “rules and

regulations for Territories.”

Mr. TRACY.--Mr. President: I shall vote against this bill, and will give

some of the reasons which govern my vote in this case.

It is well known that this bill is introduced to carry into effect

the treaty between the United States and France, which has been lately

ratified. If that treaty be an unconstitutional compact, such a one

as the President and Senate had no rightful authority to make, the

conclusion is easy, that it creates no obligation on any branch or

member of the Government to vote for this bill, or any other, which is

calculated to carry into effect such unconstitutional compact.

The third and seventh articles of the treaty are, in my opinion,

unconstitutional.

The third article is in the following words:

“The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated

into the Union of the United States, and admitted, as soon

as possible, according to the principles of the Federal

Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages,

and immunities of citizens of the United States, and, in the

mean time, they shall be maintained in the free enjoyment of

their liberty, property, and the religion they profess.”

The obvious meaning of this article is, that the inhabitants of Louisiana

are incorporated, by it, into the Union, upon the same footing that the

Territorial Governments are, and, like them, the Territory, when the

population is sufficiently numerous, must be admitted as a State, with

every right of any other State.

Have the President and Senate a constitutional right to do all this?

When we advert to the constitution, we shall find that the President, by

and with the advice and consent of the Senate, may make treaties. Now,

say gentlemen, this power is undefined, and one gentleman says, it is

unlimited.

True, there is no definition in words of the extent and nature of the

treaty-making power. Two modes of ascertaining its extent have been

mentioned: one is, by ascertaining the extent of the same power among the

monarchs of Europe, and making that the standard of the treaty-making

power here; and the other is, to limit the power of the President and

Senate, in respect to treaties, by the constitution and the nature and

principles of our Government.

Upon the first criterion, it is obvious that we cannot obtain any

satisfactory definition of the treaty-making power, as applicable to our

Government.

The paragraph in the constitution, which says that “new States may

be admitted by Congress into this Union,” has been quoted to justify

this treaty. To this, two answers may be given, either of which are

conclusive in my favor. First, if Congress have the power collectively

of admitting Louisiana, it cannot be vested in the President and Senate

alone. Secondly, Congress have no power to admit new foreign States

into the Union, without the consent of the old partners. The article

of the constitution, if any person will take the trouble to examine

it, refers to domestic States only, and not at all to foreign States;

and it is unreasonable to suppose that Congress should, by a majority

only, admit new foreign States, and swallow up, by it, the old partners,

when two-thirds of all the members are made requisite for the least

alteration in the constitution. The words of the constitution are

completely satisfied by a construction which shall include only the

admission of domestic States, who were all parties to the Revolutionary

war, and to the compact; and the spirit of the association seems to

embrace no other. But I repeat it, if the Congress collectively has this

power, the President and Senate cannot, of course, have it exclusively.

I think, sir, that, from a fair construction of the constitution, and

an impartial view of the nature and principles of our association,

the President and Senate have not the power of thus obtruding upon us

Louisiana.

The seventh article admits for twelve years the ships of France and

Spain into the ceded territory, free of foreign duty. This is giving a

commercial preference to those ports over the other ports of the United

States; because it is well known that a duty of forty-four cents on

tonnage, and ten per cent. on duties, are paid by all foreign ships

or vessels in all the ports of the United States. If it be said we

must repeal those laws, and then the preference will cease, the answer

is, that this seventh article gives the exclusive right of entering

the ports of Louisiana to the ships of France and Spain, and if our

discriminating duties were repealed this day, the preference would be

given to the ports of the United States against those of Louisiana, so

that the preference, by any regulation of commerce or revenue, which the

constitution expressly prohibits from being given to the ports of one

State over those of another, would be given by this treaty, in violation

of the constitution. I acknowledge, if Louisiana is not admitted into

the Union, and that if there is no promise to admit her, then this part

of our argument will not apply; but, in declaring these to be facts, my

opponents are driven to acknowledge that the third article of this treaty

is void, which answers every purpose which I wish to establish, that

this treaty is unconstitutional and void, and that I have, consequently,

a right to withhold my vote from any bill which shall be introduced

to carry it into effect. I acknowledge, sir, that my opinion ever has

been, and still is, that when a treaty is ratified by the constituted

authorities, and is a constitutional treaty, every member of the

community is bound by it, as a law of the land; but not so by a treaty

which is unconstitutional. The terms of this treaty may be extravagant

and unwise, yet, in my legislative capacity, that can form no excuse

for an opposition; we may have no title, we may have given an enormous

sum, we may have made a silly attempt to destroy the discriminating

duties, yet, if the treaty be not unconstitutional, every member of the

Government is bound to carry it into effect.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE observed, that he little expected a proceeding so much

out of order would have been attempted, as a re-discussion of the merits

of the treaty on the passage of this bill; but as the gentlemen in the

opposition had urged it, he would, exhausted as the subject was, claim

the indulgence of the Senate in replying to some of their remarks.

No gentleman, continued he, has yet ventured to deny, that it is

incumbent on the United States to secure to the citizens of the western

waters, the uninterrupted use of the Mississippi. Under this impression

of duty, what has been the conduct of the General Government, and

particularly of the gentlemen now in the opposition, for the last eight

months? When the right of deposit was violated by a Spanish officer

without authority from his Government, these gentlemen considered our

national honor so deeply implicated, and the rights of the western people

so wantonly violated, that no atonement or redress was admissible, except

through the medium of the bayonet. Negotiation was scouted at. It was

deemed pusillanimous, and was said to exhibit a want of fellow-feeling

for the western people, and a disregard to their essential rights.

Fortunately for their country, the counsel of these gentlemen was

rejected, and their war measures negatived. The so much scouted process

of negotiation was, however, persisted in, and instead of restoring the

right of deposit, and securing more effectually for the future our right

to navigate the Mississippi, the Mississippi itself was acquired, and

every thing which appertained to it. I did suppose that those gentlemen,

who at the last session so strongly urged war measures for the attainment

of this object, upon an avowal that it was too important to trust to

the tardy and less effectual process of negotiation, would have stood

foremost in carrying the treaty into effect, and that the peaceful mode

by which it was acquired would not lessen with them the importance of

the acquisition. But it seems to me, sir, that the opinions of a certain

portion of the United States with respect to this ill-fated Mississippi,

have varied as often as the fashions. [Here Mr. B. made some remarks on

the attempts which were made in the old Congress, and which had nearly

proved successful, to cede this river to Spain for twenty-five years.]

But, I trust, continued he, these opinions, schemes, and projects will

for ever be silenced and crushed by the vote which we are this evening

about to pass.

Permit me to examine some of the principal reasons which are deemed so

powerful by gentlemen as to induce them to vote for the destruction of

this treaty. Unfortunately for the gentlemen, no two of them can agree

on the same set of objections; and what is still more unfortunate, I

believe there are no two of them concur in any one objection. In one

thing only they seem to agree, and that is to vote against the bill. An

honorable gentleman from Delaware (Mr. WHITE) considered the price to be

enormous. An honorable gentleman from Connecticut, who has just sat down,

(Mr. TRACY,) says he has no objection whatever to the price; it is, he

supposes, not too much. An honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

PICKERING) says that France acquired no title from Spain, and therefore

our title is bad. The same gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. TRACY) says

he has no objection to the title from France; he thinks it a good one.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. PICKERING) contends that the United

States cannot under the constitution acquire foreign territory. The

gentleman from Connecticut is of a different opinion, and has no doubt

but that the United States can acquire and hold foreign territory; but

that Congress alone have the power of incorporating that territory into

the Union. What weight, therefore, ought all their lesser objections to

be entitled to, when they are at war among themselves on the greater one?

The same gentleman has told us, that this acquisition will, from its

extent, soon prove destructive to the confederacy.

This, continued Mr. B., is an old and hackneyed doctrine; that a republic

ought not to be too extensive. But the gentleman has assumed two facts,

and then reasoned from them. First, that the extent is too great; and

secondly, that the country will be soon populated. I would ask, sir,

what is his standard extent for a republic? How does he come at that

standard? Our boundary is already extensive. Would his standard extent be

violated by including the island of Orleans and the Floridas? I presume

not, as all parties seem to think their acquisition, in part or in whole,

essential. Why not then acquire territory on the west, as well as on the

east side of the Mississippi? Is the Goddess of Liberty restrained by

water courses? Is she governed by geographical limits? Is her dominion

on this continent confined to the east side of the Mississippi? So far

from believing in the doctrine that a republic ought to be confined

within narrow limits, I believe, on the contrary, that the more extensive

its dominion the more safe and more durable it will be. In proportion

to the number of hands you intrust the precious blessings of a free

government to, in the same proportion do you multiply the chances for

their preservation. I entertain, therefore, no fears for the confederacy

on account of its extent.

I had hoped, sir, that the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. TRACY,) from

the trouble he was so good as to give himself yesterday in assisting to

amend this bill, would have voted for it; but it seems he is constrained

to vote to-day against it. He asks, if the United States have power to

acquire and add new States to the Union, can they not also cede States?

Can they not, for example, cede Connecticut to France? I answer they

cannot; but for none of the reasons assigned by him. The Government of

the United States cannot cede Connecticut, because, first, it would be

annihilating part of that sovereignty of the nation which is whole and

entire, and upon which the Government of the United States is dependent

for its existence; and secondly, because the fourth section of the

fourth article of the constitution forbids it. But how does it follow

as a consequence, that because the United States cannot cede an existing

State, they cannot acquire a new State? He admits explicitly that

Congress may acquire territory and hold it as a territory, but cannot

incorporate it into the Union. By this construction he admits the power

to acquire territory, a modification infinitely more dangerous than

the unconditional admission of a new State; for by his construction,

territories and citizens are considered and held as the property of

the Government of the United States, and may consequently be used as

dangerous engines in the hands of the Government against the States and

people.

Could we not, says the same gentleman, incorporate in the Union some

foreign nation containing ten millions of inhabitants--Africa, for

instance--and thereby destroy our Government? Certainly the thing would

be possible if Congress would do it, and the people consent to it; but it

is supposing so extreme a case and is so barely possible, that it does

not merit serious refutation. It is also possible and equally probable

that republicanism itself may one day or other become unfashionable,

(for I believe it is not without its enemies,) and that the people of

America may call for a king. From such hypotheses it is impossible to

deduce any thing for or against the construction contended for. The true

construction must depend on the manifest import of the instrument and the

good sense of the community.

The same gentleman, in reply to the observations which fell from the

gentleman from South Carolina, as to the admission of new States,

observes, that although Congress may admit new States, the President and

Senate, who are but a component part, cannot. Apply this doctrine to

the case before us. How could Congress by any mode of legislation admit

this country into the Union until it was acquired? And how can this

acquisition be made except through the treaty-making power? Could the

gentleman rise in his place and move for leave to bring in a bill for the

purchase of Louisiana and its admission into the Union? I take it that

no transaction of this or any other kind with a foreign power can take

place except through the Executive Department, and that in the form of a

treaty, agreement, or convention. When the acquisition is made, Congress

can then make such disposition of it as may be expedient.

Mr. ADAMS.--It is not my intention to trespass long upon the patience

of the Senate, on a subject which has already been debated almost to

satiety; but, as objections on constitutional grounds have been raised

against the bill under discussion, I wish to say a very few words in

justification of the vote which I think it my duty to give.

The objections against the passage of the bill, as far as my recollection

serves me, are two: the first, started by the honorable gentleman from

Delaware who opened this debate; the second, urged by several of the

other members who have spoken upon the question.

The gentleman from Delaware admits the necessity of making the provision

for carrying into execution, on our part, the treaty which has been duly

ratified by the Senate, _provided_ we can obtain complete and undoubted

possession of the territory ceded us by France, in that treaty. But

he observes, that the term possession is indefinite; that it may mean

nothing more than the delivery of a twig, or of the knob of a door. That,

from sources of the authenticity of which we have no reason to doubt,

we are informed that Spain is very far from acquiescing in the cession

of this territory to us; that probably the Spanish officers will not

deliver peaceable possession; and that we ought not to put out of our

own hands the power of withholding the payment of this money, until it

shall be ascertained, beyond all question, that the territory, for which

it is the consideration, is in our hands. But, sir, admitting that the

word possession were of itself not sufficiently precise, I think, with

the gentleman last up, that the fourth and fifth articles of the treaty,

read by him, render it so in this instance. The fourth, stipulating

that the French commissary shall do _every act necessary_ to receive

the country from the Spanish officers, and transmit it to the agent

of the United States--and the fifth, providing, not only that all the

_military posts_ shall be delivered to us, and that the troops, whether

of France or Spain, shall cease to occupy them, but that those troops

shall all be embarked within three months after the ratification of the

treaty. Now, when the country has been formally surrendered to us, when

all the military posts are in our hands, and when all the troops, French

or Spanish, have been embarked, what possible adverse possession can

there be to contend against ours? Until all these conditions shall have

been fulfilled on the part of France, neither the convention nor the

bill before us requires the payment of money on ours; and we may safely

trust the execution of the law to the discretion of the President of the

United States. For, even if I could see any reason for distrusting him

in the exercise of such a power, under different circumstances, which I

certainly do not, still, in the present case, his own interest, and the

weight of responsibility resting upon him, are ample security to us,

against any undue precipitation on his part, in the payment of the money.

On the other hand, I am extremely solicitous that every tittle of the

engagements on our part in these conventions should be performed with the

most scrupulous good faith, and I see no purpose of utility that can be

answered by postponing the determination on the passage of this bill.

But it has been argued that the bill ought not to pass, because the

treaty itself is unconstitutional, or, to use the words of the gentleman

from Connecticut, an extra-constitutional act; because it contains

engagements which the powers of the Senate were not competent to ratify,

the powers of Congress not competent to confirm, and, as two of the

gentlemen have contended, not even the Legislatures of the number of

States requisite to effect an amendment of the constitution are adequate

to sanction. It is therefore, say they, a nullity; we cannot fulfil

our part of its conditions, and on our failure in the performance of

any one stipulation, France may consider herself as absolved from the

obligations of the whole treaty on her. I do not conceive it necessary

to enter into the merits of the treaty at this time. The proper occasion

for that discussion is past. But, allowing even that this is a case for

which the constitution has not provided, it does not in my mind follow,

that the treaty is a nullity, or that its obligations, either on us or

on France, must necessarily be cancelled. For my own part, I am free to

confess, that the third article, and more especially the seventh, contain

engagements placing us in a dilemma, from which I see no possible mode

of extricating ourselves but by an amendment, or rather an addition to

the constitution. The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. TRACY,) both

on a former occasion, and in this day’s debate, appears to me to have

shown this to demonstration. But what is this more than saying, that the

President and Senate have bound the nation to engagements which require

the co-operation of more extensive powers than theirs, to carry them into

execution? Nothing is more common, in the negotiations between nation

and nation, than for a minister to agree to and sign articles beyond

the extent of his powers. This is what your ministers, in the very case

before you, have confessedly done. It is well known that their powers

did not authorize them to conclude this treaty; but they acted for the

benefit of their country, and this House by a large majority has advised

to the ratification of their proceedings. Suppose then, not only that

the ministers who signed, but the President and Senate who ratified this

compact, have exceeded their powers. Suppose that the other House of

Congress, who have given their assent by passing this and other bills

for the fulfilment of the obligations it imposes on us, have exceeded

their powers. Nay, suppose even that the majority of States competent

to amend the constitution in other cases, could not amend it in this,

without exceeding their powers--and this is the extremest point to which

any gentleman on this floor has extended his scruples--suppose all this,

and there still remains in the country a power competent to adopt and

sanction every part of our engagements, and to carry them entirely into

execution. For, notwithstanding the objections and apprehensions of many

individuals, of many wise, able and excellent men, in various parts of

the Union, yet such is the public favor attending the transaction which

commenced by the negotiation of this treaty, and which I hope will

terminate in our full, undisturbed and undisputed possession of the ceded

territory, that I firmly believe if an amendment to the constitution,

amply sufficient for the accomplishment of every thing for which we have

contracted, shall be proposed, as I think it ought, it will be adopted

by the Legislature of every State in the Union. We can therefore fulfil

our part of the conventions, and this is all that France has a right to

require of us.

Mr. NICHOLAS.--Mr. President: The gentlemen on the other side differ

among themselves. The two gentlemen from Delaware say, that if peaceable

possession is given of Louisiana this bill ought to pass; the other

gentlemen who have spoken in opposition to it have declared, that if they

believed the constitution was not violated by the treaty, they should

think themselves bound to vote for the bill. To this Senate it cannot

be necessary to answer arguments denying the power of the Government to

make such a treaty; it has already been affirmed, so far as we could

affirm it, by two-thirds of this body; it is then only now necessary to

show that we ought to pass the bill at this time. In addition to the

reasons which have been so ably and forcibly urged by my friends, I will

remark, that the treaty-making power of this Government is so limited,

that engagements to pay money cannot be carried into effect without the

consent and co-operation of Congress. This was solemnly decided, after a

long discussion of several weeks, by the House of Representatives, which

made the appropriations for carrying the British treaty into effect,

and such I believe is the understanding of nine-tenths of the American

people, as to the construction of their constitution. This decision

must be also known to foreigners, and if not, they are bound to know

the extent of the powers of the Government with which they treat. If

this bill should be rejected, I ask gentlemen whether they believe, that

France would or ought to execute the treaty on her part? It is known to

the French Government that the President and Senate cannot create stock,

nor provide for the payment of either principal or interest of stock; and

if that Government should be informed that a bill, authorizing the issue

of stock to pay for the purchase, “after possession shall be delivered,”

had been rejected by the only department of our Government competent to

the execution of that part of the treaty, they would have strong ground

to suspect that we did not mean to execute the treaty on our part;

particularly when they are informed, that the arguments most pressed in

opposition to the bill were grounded upon a belief that the Government of

the United States had not a constitutional power to execute the treaty.

Of one thing I am confident, that if they have the distrust of us which

some gentlemen have this day expressed of them, the country will not be

delivered to the agents of our Government should this bill be rejected.

The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. TRACY) muse consider the grant of

power to the Legislature as a limitation of the treaty-making power,

for he says, “that the power to admit new States and to make citizens

is given to Congress, and not to the treaty-making power;” therefore an

engagement in a treaty to do either of these things is unconstitutional.

I cannot help expressing my surprise at that gentleman’s giving that

opinion, and I think myself justifiable in saying, that if it is now

his opinion, it was not always so. The contrary opinion is the only

justification of that gentleman’s approbation of the British treaty,

and of his vote for carrying it into effect. By that treaty a great

number of persons had a right to become American citizens immediately;

not only without a law, but contrary to an existing law. And by that

treaty many of the powers specially given to Congress were exercised by

the treaty-making power. It is for gentlemen who supported that treaty,

to reconcile the construction given by them to the constitution in its

application to that instrument, with their exposition of it at this time.

If the third article of the treaty is an engagement to incorporate the

Territory of Louisiana into the Union of the United States, and to make

it a State, it cannot be considered as an unconstitutional exercise of

the treaty-making power; for it will not be asserted by any rational man

that the territory is incorporated as a State by the treaty itself, when

it is expressly declared that “the inhabitants shall be incorporated

in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible,

according to the principles of the Federal Constitution.” Evidently

referring the question of incorporation, in whatever character it was to

take place, to the competent authority; and leaving to that authority to

do it, at such time, and in such manner, as they may think proper. If,

as some gentlemen suppose, Congress possess this power, they are free

to exercise it in the manner that they may think most conducive to the

public good. If it can only be done by an amendment to the constitution,

it is a matter of discretion with the States whether they will do it

or not; for it cannot be done “according to the principles of the

Federal Constitution,” if the Congress or the States are deprived of

that discretion, which is given to the first, and secured to the last,

by the constitution. In the third section of the fourth article of the

constitution it is said, “New States may be admitted by the Congress

into this Union.” If Congress have the power, it is derived from this

source; for there are no other words in the constitution that can, by

any construction that can be given to them, be considered as conveying

this power. If Congress have not this power, the constitutional mode

would be by an amendment to the constitution. If it should be conceded

then that the admission of this territory into the Union, as a State, was

in the contemplation of the contracting parties, it must be understood

with a reservation of the right of this Congress or of the States to do

it, or not; the words “admitted as soon as possible,” must refer to the

voluntary admission in one of the two modes that I have mentioned; for in

no other way can a State be admitted into this Union.

The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, and carried in

the affirmative--yeas 26, nays 5, as follows:

YEAS--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Bailey, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,

Brown, Butler, Cocke, Condit, Dayton, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan,

Maclay, Nicholas, Olcott, Plumer, Potter, Israel Smith, John Smith,

Stone, Taylor, Worthington, and Wright.

NAYS--Messrs. Hillhouse, Pickering, Tracy, Wells, and White.

FRIDAY, November 4.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES:

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States_:

By the copy now communicated of a letter from Captain

Bainbridge, of the Philadelphia frigate, to our Consul at

Gibraltar, you will learn that an act of hostility has been

committed on a merchant vessel of the United States, by an

armed ship of the Emperor of Morocco. This conduct on the part

of that power is without cause and without explanation. It is

fortunate that Captain Bainbridge fell in with and took the

capturing vessel and her prize; and I have the satisfaction

to inform you that about the date of this transaction, such a

force would be arriving in the neighborhood of Gibraltar, both

from the east and from the west, as leaves less to be feared

for our commerce, from the suddenness of the aggression.

On the 4th of September, the Constitution frigate, Captain

Preble, with Mr. Lear on board, was within two days’ sail of

Gibraltar, where the Philadelphia would then be arrived with

her prize; and such explanations would probably be instituted

as the state of things required, and as might perhaps arrest

the progress of hostilities.

In the mean while, it is for Congress to consider the

provisional authorities which may be necessary to restrain the

depredations of this power, should they be continued.