He said that the intention of the constitutional
convention was known to him, and that they had intended to vest the
treaty-making power exclusively in the Executive and Senate. On
that principle he had acted, and in that belief foreign nations had
negotiated, and the House had hitherto acquiesced. He declared further
that the assent of the House was not necessary to the validity of
treaties; that they had all necessary information; and "as it is
essential to the due administration of the government that the
boundaries fixed by the Constitution should be preserved, a just
regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the
circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your request."
The question was a difficult one, but there could be no doubt as to
Washington's opinion, and the weight of authority has sustained his
view. From the practical and political side there can be little
question that his position was extremely sound. In a letter to
Carrington he gave the reasons for his action, and no better statement
of the argument in a general way has ever been made. He wrote:--
"No candid man in the least degree acquainted with the progress
of this business will believe for a moment that the _ostensible_
dispute was about papers, or whether the British treaty was a good
one or a bad one, but whether there should be a treaty at all
without the concurrence of the House of Representatives. This
was striking at once, and that boldly, too, at the fundamental
principles of the Constitution; and, if it were established, would
render the treaty-making power not only a nullity, but such an
absolute absurdity as to reflect disgrace on the framers of it.
Pages:
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208