The effort to obtain for the Senate the power to abrogate
treaties had peculiar interest at this time, from the known
desire of certain Senators to terminate the stipulation between
the United States and Great Britain, requiring a naval force on
the coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave-trade. In
1854 Mr. Slidell brought forward a proposition to this effect
in Executive Session, assuming that the stipulation could be
terminated by a simple vote of the Senate. Mr. Sumner insisted
that the prerogative belonged to the law-making power, and
could be exercised only by Act of Congress. By his effort the
proposition was defeated.
The power of the Senate over the abrogation of treaties was
brought forward in Legislative Session, on the motion of Mr.
Sumner, in connection with the Danish Sound dues, being the
tax at Elsinore laid by Denmark upon the cargoes of vessels
passing through the Sound into and out from the Baltic Sea.
In 1841, Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, traced the
origin of this tax to the treaty of 1645 between Denmark and
Holland, embracing a tariff of the principal articles then
known in commerce; which treaty was the basis of our own
concluded with Denmark in 1826, and limited to continue ten
years from date, and further until the end of one year after
notice by either party of an intention to terminate it; but
he contented himself with recommending friendly negotiations,
“with a view of securing to the commerce of the United States
a full participation in any reduction of these duties, or the
benefits resulting from any new arrangements respecting them
which may be granted to the commerce of other states.”[47]
In 1848, Mr. Buchanan, as Secretary of State, instructed our
Minister at Copenhagen, that, “under the public law of nations,
it cannot be pretended that Denmark has any right to levy
duties on vessels passing through the Sound from the North Sea
to the Baltic.” President Pierce, in his annual message of
1854, proposed to terminate the treaty of 1826; the Senate,
by simple resolution in Executive Session, March 3, 1855,
undertook to terminate it; and the President, in his annual
message of 1855, announced that the proper notice had been
given to Denmark.[48]
Mr. Sumner, impressed with the conviction that this notice
was a bad precedent, and in the interest of the Slave Power,
which controlled the Senate, besides being inadequate under the
Constitution, brought forward the following resolution:--
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Foreign Relations be
directed to consider the expediency of some act of legislation,
having the concurrence of both Houses of Congress, by which the
treaty with Denmark regulating the payment of Sound dues may be
effectively abrogated, in conformity with the requirements of
the Constitution, under which every treaty is a part of ‘the
supreme law of the land,’ and in conformity with the practice
of the Government in such cases,--and especially to consider
if such legislation be not necessary forthwith, in order to
supply a defect in the notice of the purpose of the United
States to abrogate the said treaty, which the President has
undertaken to give to Denmark without the authority of an Act
of Congress, and in disregard of the function of the House of
Representatives in the abrogation of all existing laws.”
On his motion the Senate proceeded to its consideration, March
6, when he spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--If I can have the attention of the Senate for a brief
time, I will explain the object of this inquiry. The subject may be
dry, but it is important, and, at this moment, of direct practical
interest.
The President in his annual message named three different questions,
arising out of our relations with foreign nations. Two of these,
concerning England, have been discussed in the Senate; the other,
which concerns the payment of the Sound dues to Denmark, has not yet
been mentioned here. Introducing it now, I have no purpose to say
anything on the character of these dues, or to arrest the efforts of
the Government for the relief of our commerce from foreign exactions.
That is a broad field of history and of public law, which for the
present there is no occasion to enter. My desire is simply to open a
question of domestic interest under our own Constitution, with which,
of course, Denmark has no concern, but which is necessarily involved in
the determination of our course on this matter.