lution may be regarded as a very proper one. It says:

"That in the present financial condition of the country any further purchases of territory are inexpedient, and this House will hold itself under no obligation to vote money to pay for any such purchases unless there is greater present necessity for the same than now exists."

But mark what my honorable friend said further to us, the members of the House, upon that occasion:

"Mr. Speaker, I do not intend that resolution to apply to the purchase of Walrussia. That is something that has already transpired and it may be that this House will feel itself under obligations to sanction what has been done there."

True, true! The promptings of the gentleman's own heart at that moment told him that he could not remonstrate against carrying into effect the treaty made for the acquisition of what he was pleased to term "Walrussia," for, Mr. Chairman, we had then negotiated fairly for the purchase; we had ratified the treaty; we had exchanged ratifications with the Russian Government; and we had sent our officials with the flag of the United States to take manual possession of the property, and that without one single note of remonstrance on the part of the Congress of the United States or any citizen of the United States.

And now let me ask, we being in actual possession of this extensive country, a region equal to about one fifth of the whole empire of the United States, having taken that possession from the emperor of the Russias through his accredited agents, are we now, at this late period, to turn on our heel and say that we will not pay the purchase money?

Mr. Chairman, after answering the argument which fell from one of my esteemed colleagues [Mr. SHELLABARGER] upon this subject, I shall give to the House an example which has really called me to my feet on this occasion, an example of legislation which we ought to respect and to which we ought to adhere.

My colleague said that we were embarking in a new political enterprise, that we were endeavoring to acquire territory where there is no contiguity of territory with our own possessions, that we were acquiring foreign possessions. Sir, as an American citizen, and a republican at that, I deny that any territory upon this western continent is to be deemed foreign to the Government of the United States when it seeks to extend its limits. I believe that if anything under the heavens be fated, it is that the American flag shall wave over every foot of this American continent in course of time. This proud Republic will not culminate until she rules the whole American continent, and all the isles contiguous thereunto.

Mr. PIKE. Including South America. Mr. SPALDING. Including South America, by all means. Now, sir, is there no contiguity between our possessions and the possessions of Russia in America? There would have been contiguity if we had not foolishly conceded to Great Britain the right to interpose between the parallel of 49° and the parallel of 54° 40'. I recollect very well when I was advocating the election of a certain statesman to the presidential chair, our rallying cry was, "fifty-four forty or fight." But the line "fifty-four forty' was abandoned, and we relinquished to Great Britain a great share of intervening territory in these six parallels of latitude. However, there is now almost a continuous line, for we are told by the learned chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs [Mr. BANKS] that for about three hundred miles on the Pacific coast there is a narrow strip of territory on the ocean which belonged to Russia, and which this treaty conveys to the United States, bringing down the continuity about half way through these six parallels of latitude.

Therefore the principle is not stretched very much, even if it be, as contended for by my colleague, [Mr. SHELLABARGER,] that there is no contiguity between the territory of the United States and Alaska or Russian America.

I wish to say to this committee now, that after we have fairly negotiated a treaty with

Russia, after that treaty has been ratified by the respective Powers, after ratifications have been exchanged between the high contracting parties, and more especially after we have sent our official agents to receive manual possession of the territory itself, and still hold possession of it without any remonstrance, if we refuse to pay the purchase money we put ourselves in the same position that Louis Philippe was in when he come very near inciting a contest between the United States and France, by reason of a non-compliance with a treaty made at Paris in 1831.

During the consulate and empire of Napoleon aggressions had been made upon the commerce of the United States to that extent that our claims upon the French Government had amounted to millions of money. For a long series of years, for a quarter of a century, perhaps, our claims were unheeded. But during the reign of Louis Philippe, and during the administration of Andrew Jackson, a treaty was negotiated at Paris by which the French Government agreed to liquidate these claims for spoliations upon American commerce by paying to our Government the sum of 25,000,000 francs. This sum was to be paid in annual installments. The first installment became due and no money was paid; no appropriation of money was made by the French Chamber of Deputies. The second installment became due, and the third, and still no money was paid.

Finally the ire of Old Hickory was aroused, and he communicated, in a message to Congress, in December, 1834, his ultimatum upon the subject. He said that the treaty having been fairly negotiated, having been ratified by the respective contracting Powers, and the ratifications having been duly exchanged, it was the business of the French Government to make appropriations to pay the amount which they had agreed to pay us under that treaty. He said it became equivalent to a debt due to us by that country; and if it should not be paid within a reasonable time, our first resort under the law of nations would be to make reprisals upon the French commerce to make ourselves good in that amount of money; and if the French did not like the reprisals it lay with them to resort to war; but the United States, whether there came war or peace, was prepared to meet the issue, and the treaty must be complied with. And, sir, the House of Representatives at that time passed by a large majority a resolution sustaining that patriotic President, and insisting that by every principle of law the French Government was bound to pay the money under that treaty, or else we had the right to make reprisals upon the property of its subjects.

Mr. BANKS. That resolution was passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. SPALDING. Now, sir, confessedly the treaty-making power of France was with the king; in accordance with the French constitution the king had the sole power of making treaties. He made and ratified that treaty on the part of France; our Government ratified the treaty on the part of the United States, and the ratifications were exchanged. It remained with the French Chamber of Deputies, and with that Chamber alone, to make appropriations of money; and they, assuming that the treaty was inexpedient and not proper to be carried into effect, refused to make the necessary appropriation. Now, how does that case differ from that of the American Congress at this hour?

Mr. HIGBY. I would like to ask the gentleman whether the House of Representatives in that instance objected to the exercise of the treaty-making power by the king without the concurrence of the Chamber of Deputies? Mr. SPALDING. Not at all.

Mr. HIGBY. The principle was in our favor then?

Mr. SPALDING. Of course it was. Mr. PIKE. Let me suggest that before the treaty was made there was a subsisting debt, the non-payment of which might have been made by us a cause of war prior to the treaty.

Mr. SPALDING. Yes, sir; I understand that kind of reasoning. But the French Chamber of Deputies did not admit the existence of the debt; they said there was no subsisting debt.

Mr. PIKE. We said there was.

Mr. SPALDING. They said that the negotiator on the part of France had improperly agreed to the payment of that sum of money, and that they would not make the appropriation. So that the question turned after all upon the terms of the treaty; and it was in virtue of the treaty that President Jackson and Congress were on the point of authorizing reprisals upon French commerce when Louis Philippe sent over here a minister to say that if we would wait a while he would endeavor to bring the Chamber of Deputies to terms; and they were brought to terms.

66

In view of this example which has been left on record by our American Congress and by our most patriotic American President, how can we at this late hour turn upon our heel and say to the Emperor of Russia, who has been our friend during at least one half a century, Although this treaty has been fairly negotiated and fairly ratified, although we have taken possession of the territory six months after the treaty was negotiated, and with full knowledge of everything that is now set up by the House of Representatives in opposition to the fulfillment of the treaty, no protest or remonstrance being made by them-after erecting in that country our national standard and planting there our institutions, we now say we will not pay the money." Why, Mr. Chairman, I have not long to stay in the Congress of the United States; within a few short months I shall go out of it; and I shall do so with pride if the character of this House should then be as untarnished as I believe it to be at this moment; but if I am obliged to go out of it drooping my head under a sense of national dishonor and national disgrace brought upon our great Republic by the action of this House, I shall wish I had never been a member at all. I have no idea my constituents would for one moment-saying nothing about parties, irrespective of parties-I say my intelligent constituents would hold me in contempt if I should refuse to vote this appropriation of $7,200,000 to carry out this treaty made in good faith with the Emperor of all the Russias.. I cannot believe this committee will agree to any such movement. I have too much faith in the virtue, patriotism, and good faith of the House. Sir, I have done.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, addressed the committee. [His remarks will appear in the Appendix.]

Mr. BANKS. I object to the amendment as not in order. The bill is to execute a treaty, and the amendment is for an entirely different purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order on the ground that the bill is in its terms to carry into effect the treaty, to fulfil the stipulations of the sixth article thereof. The sixth article of the treaty requires the payment of $7,200,000. The Chair regards the question as not divisible, and no amendment to reduce the amount is germane. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I propose to appeal from the decision of the Chair. Mr. RAUM. At this time?

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Yes, at this time. This is like any other appropriation bill, and I take an appeal.

Mr. BANKS. I desire to say that if this is an appropriation bill that is before the committee, the amendment cannot come in because it is not authorized by law. No amendment can be offered to an appropriation bill that is not authorized by law, and therefore upon that ground which my colleague states, his amendment is clearly out of order.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. An appropriation can be limited in any way the House chooses.

Mr. BANKS. I call the attention of the Chair to the rule of the House that no amend

ment can be made to an appropriation bill that is not for a purpose authorized by law. This claim may be just; I do not assail its justice; but the payment of it is not authorized by any existing law.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already ruled the amendment out of order, and the subject is not debatable. If the gentleman takes an appeal, the Chair will submit the question to the committee.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I should like to hear the amendment reported.

The Clerk read the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has decided that this amendment is not germane to the bill, and in addition to that it is an appropriation for which there is no law. From this decision the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BurLER] appeals, and the question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the committee?"

The question was put; and there were-ayes 18, noes 18; no quorum voting.

Mr. BANKS. I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. MAYNARD. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RAUM] desires to speak this evening, and I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts will not break up the committee.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. If it is understood that there shall be a vote on the appeal when there is a quorum here, I shall be satisfied.

The CHAIRMAN. The appeal will be considered as pending to be voted on hereafter. Mr. BANKS. Then I withdraw the motion that the committee rise.

Mr. RAUM. Mr. Chairman, at this late hour of a hot day, I can scarcely hope to have the attention of the committee.

Mr. HIGBY. If the gentleman will yield, I will move that the committee rise.

Mr. RAUM. There is to be no discussion on this bill to-morrow.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that there is no probability of any further speaking on this subject until the time designated by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] when he proposes to call for the vote, except this evening, and the Chair does not know of any gentleman, except the gentleman from Illinois, who desires to speak.

Mr. RAUM. Mr. Chairman, if I can have the floor for a short time I will endeavor to present the views I entertain upon this very important question, which has been discussed with so much learning and so much ability by those who have preceded me. When I find myself differing with gentlemen of such great learning as the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER,] who has just taken his seat, the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SHELLABARGER,] who addressed the committee on Friday, and the other learned gentlemen who have addressed the committee on this very grave subject, I feel called upon to pause and to give the subject careful consideration before I make up my mind upon the legal questions involved. I approached the examination of this subject with a feeling averse to the purchase of Alaska; but, sir, my investigations have led me to the conclusion that good faith demands that the treaty for the purchase of that extensive territory shall be consummated by the passage of the bill now under consideration. The honorable gentleman from Massa chusetts [Mr. BUTLER] and the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER] have announced the doctrine that this treaty, because it provides for the payment of a sum of money, is not binding upon the United States until the action of this House is had upon the subject; and proceeding upon this ground, and adopting the minority report of the committee, they conclude that the President and Senate have made a bad bargain; and, therefore, the people of the United States should not ratify the treaty.

I propose very briefly to examine the question first stated, in reference to whether or not this treaty is binding upon the good faith of the

people of the United States for its execution. In doing so, it will be necessary to go back and examine the original grounds upon which this treaty-making power rests, and see whether or not we can ascertain what was the understanding of those who made the Constitution at the time this treaty-making power was delegated to the President and the Senate. As a power to be executed by some portion of the Government, it is no new one. It is a power as old as organized government itself. It is a power which was recognized by all the great nations of the earth, at the time the Constitution of the United States was made by the wise men of 1776 and 1787. In framing a system of Government it was necessary to delegate the treaty-making power to some portion of the Government, and in conferring this treatymaking power upon the President, in conjunction with the Senate, the framers of the Constitution were guided by the precedent which they found in the constitution of England, by which the king was invested with the treatymaking power of that great nation. With us the treaty-making power must be exercised in pursuance of the Constitution. And my reading of that instrument is that the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, is authorized to exercise the treaty-making power. In Great Britain the sovereign has the absolute and unlimited power of making treaties for that country. A treaty made and executed by the queen of England binds not only all the subjects of the realm, but it binds the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and that, too, in the teeth of the fact that no appropriation of money can be made except by act of Parliament. Now, if this is the case with reference to the treaty-making power in England and I presume that no one who is acquainted with that subject will gainsay it for a moment I demand to know why it is, when that power is conferred upon the President of the United States, who, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, is to exercise it, it is not an absolute power in respect to proper subjects of the treaty-making power?

Mr. BOUTWELL. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?

Mr. RAUM. Certainly."

Mr. BOUTWELL. Without expressing any opinion upon the propriety of this matter, I will state that it seems to me very clear that under the Constitution this treaty-making power is necessarily subject to this limitation: a treaty made by the President and Senate, which contemplates the appropriation of money, is not a treaty within the meaning of the Constitution until the appropriation of money has been made; and the Constitution being public law known to all mankind, if they deal with us they must take notice that under the Constitution no money can be drawn from the Treasury of the United States except by act of Congress, of which Congress the House of Representatives is a part; and the exercise of that power by the House must, in the nature of the case, be an exercise of the judgment of that House. Mr. BANKS. It was exactly upon that ground that we threatened to make war upon France.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Very well; that did not change our Constitution.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. Will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RAUM] allow me a moment at this point?

Mr. RAUM. Certainly.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. In this country revenue can be raised only by authority of law; by an act of Congress. In England the sovereign has sources of revenue separate from and independent of the action of Parliament. So that in that country the sovereign has money to appropriate which the President of this country does not have.

Mr. RAUM. I know upon what ground this supposed limitation rests. But I state to the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELL] and the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAWRENCE] that they lay down a principle behind which they wish to take

shelter, which I say to them they must follow to its logical and legitimate conclusion. The power to appropriate money is no more sacred in this country than the power to make any other law which the Congress of the United States may in its discretion make.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. To raise

money.

Mr. RAUM. Or to raise money; each requires an act of legislation. And if gentlemen object on the ground that a treaty providing for the payment of money cannot be executed until the House of Representatives agree to it, they must go forward to the legitimate conclusion of that proposition, and assume the inevitable consequence of their position, and conclude at once that if any act of legislation is required to enforce a treaty, the treaty cannot be binding upon the nation until the necessary legislation is first adopted.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman allow me to say a word to correct a misapprehension?

Mr. RAUM. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. I understand the gentleman to say that in England the treaty-making power is vested entirely in the Crown.

Mr. RAUM. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. It was conceded in the debate in Congress in 1796 upon Jay's treaty that the uniform usage in England was to submit all treaties, at least all treaties of this description, to Parliament, and that the final approval of all such treaties belonged to the jurisdiction of that body. More than that, I think it is unquestioned that, under the law of nations, as well understood by all the publicists, even an absolute monarch, so called, is not bound by a treaty which is not in accordance with the fundamental law of his empire.

Mr. BANKS. Let me say that no such doctrine as that stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania was conceded in the debate of 1796. On the contrary, it was denied absolutely; and it is not true of the English Government or the English Parliament in any sense

whatever.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. I think the debates will show that it was not questioned that such was the law.

Mr. RAUM. Mr. Speaker, the reading of the law of England by the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not accord with my reading of it. I understand that in the Crown of England is vested the absolute power to make treaties which bind all the people of the United Kingdom, including both Houses of Parliament. And, sir, what is the history of the exercise of the treaty-making power in England? Why, sir, divers treaties have been made by the British Crown; and the legislative branch of the Government always conforms its legislation to the treaties which have been thus made.

Then, sir, I lay it down as the law of the case, that under the laws of England, the sovereign of that kingdom has the unconditional and unlimited power of making treaties to bind all the people of the United Kingdom, including both Houses of Parliament. Such was the treaty-making power to which our British ancestors were accustomed; and it was in view ouch exercise of that power under the British Crown that the treaty-making power was conferred upon the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Refer to the debates of the convention that framed the Constitution; refer to the Federalist, in which the most learned governmental writers of that day expounded the Constitution, and it will be found that they all concur in the opinion that it is for the President and the Senate to make treaties, and that all the people, including both Houses of Congress, are bound thereby, if the treaty is within the scope of the treaty-making power under the Constitution. And I lay it down as the law of this country, that wherever a treaty is made by the President, by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate, if the treaty is within the scope of the treaty-making power under the Constitution, all the people of the United States are bound thereby, including the House of Representatives and the Senate.

But gentlemen say that it is the business of the House of Representatives particularly to originate the laws necessary to raise revenue and to appropriate money, &c. Conceding that to be true (and I understand it to be the law of the case) it is no limitation upon the exercise of the treaty-making power? What is the treaty-making power? It is the power conferred upon a branch of the Government for the purpose of making contracts with foreign countries; and the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, has the right to make a contract with a foreign nation to bind all the people of the United States, including both Houses of Congress.

I say this because the Constitution of my country says it; because the Constitution has conferred upon the President and the Senate a well-known power to be exercised without the interference of other branches of the Government.

But gentlemen have said that when there is presented to the House of Representatives a treaty which requires an appropriation of money, the House has the right to determine whether or not the treaty shall be executed. I concede that; there is no question about the truth of the proposition. The Congress of the United States has entire and absolute control over the appropriation of money for all purposes. Why, sir, suppose you pass a law authorizing any particular officer of the Government to make a contract for the purchase of commissary or quartermaster stores, to be paid for by subsequent appropriations of money; when that question comes before the House of Representatives you may or may not appropriate the money; you can do just as you please about it; but will any man pretend to say that debt thus created under the sanctions of law would not be a subsisting claim against the Government, a just demand, which should be paid; and that the good faith of the nation would be bound to appropriate the money for the payment of such a claim? So it is in a case of this kind.

"Every jurist of that kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its constitution, knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the Crown in its utmost plenitude; and that the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most complete legal validity and perfection, independent of any other section. The Parliament, it is true, is sometimes seen employing itself in altering the existing laws to conform them to the stipulations in a new treaty; and this may have possibly given birth to the imagination, that its coöperation was necessary to the obligatory efficacy of the treaty. But this parliamentary interposition proceeds from a different cause; from the necessity of adjusting a most artificial and intricate system of revenue and commercial laws to the changes made in them by the operation of the treaty; and of adopting new provisions and precautions to the new state of things, to keep the machine from running into disorder." "The one can perform alone what the other can only do with the concurrence of a branch of the Legislature,"

串

*

*

That is precisely the condition of affairs in this country. While it is true the British Crown possesses absolute and unrestricted power to make treaties for Great Britain, the President of the United States can only make a treaty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. What, Mr. Chairman, is the binding efficacy of a treaty? This subject is most exhaustively discussed in the Federalist. And Mr. Hamilton there says that the only sanction at best for the execution of a treaty is the good faith of the country.

Now, sir, when I come to look at this treaty made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, I come to the conclusion that honor and good faith demand at the hands of the United States that the treaty should be executed in the spirit in which it was entered into.

Coming to the question as to the power of the House of Representatives to determine the propriety of executing the treaty, for it is nothing more nor less than executing it, why, sir, they have to exercise such a discretion in respect to this subject that they would in reference to any other subject involving the question of peace or war with a foreign country. If the House of Representatives has the power by any provision of the Constitution to nullify a treaty it can only be through the exercise of those powers which are conferred upon Congress in the Constitution. Under the Consti tution Congress has the absolute power of making war; and if a treaty is made requiring an appropriation of money to execute it, and the Congress of the United States, in the examination of the subject, should come to the conclusion that it would be better for this country that we should break off our friendly relations with the foreign nation with whom the treaty was made rather than to appropriate the necessary money to carry out the treaty, as a matter of course, exercising the high pre

"It was always considered as discretionary with Parliament to grant money to carry treaties into effect or not, and to repeal or not to repeal laws that interfere with them."

Again, on the next page, he says:

"On the same principle the King of Great Britain, when he mentioned the American treaty, promised to lay it before them in proper season, that they might judge of the propriety of enacting the necessary provisions to carry it into effect.

"It remains to be examined (said Mr. Gallatin) whether we are to be in a worse situation than Great Britain; whether the House of Representatives of the United States, the substantial and immediate Representatives of the American people, shall be ranked below the British House of Commons; whether the legislative power shall be swallowed up by the treaty-making authority as contended for here, though never claimed even in Great Britain."

I undertake to say, from my recollection of this debate, that it was conceded the practice was as I have stated it.

Mr. RAUM. In answer to the gentleman allow me to quote from an authority found in Story on the Constitution; and I wish to be brief in these quotations:

"The king of Great Britain is the sole and abso

they would have the control over the subject, and might say, "We will not carry out this treaty; we prefer to have your displeasure, and to risk the consequences; and you must either peacefully rescind the contract, or, if you choose, settle the question by an appeal to arms."

Mr. Chairman, by reference to the Journal of the Federal Convention you will see that our forefathers, when they came to frame the Constitution of the United States, discussed this whole subject of the treaty-making power, and after a most exhaustive debate they came to the conclusion that they would confer that power upon the President, to be exercised by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. On the 7th of September, 1787, a proposition was made to amend the second section of the second article of the Constitution, which devolved upon the President and Senate the treaty-making power, so that the House of Representatives should have a voice in the making of treaties. It was proposed to confer upon the House of Representatives the authority to join the Senate in ratifying treaties, but that proposition was voted down by a large majority.

Now, sir, I undertake to say that the treaty.

making power, conferred as it is by the Constitution upon the President and the Senate, is a power which is to be exercised to the exclusion of all interference by the House of Representatives. And when this House shall undertake to say that a contract made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, is not binding upon the people of the United States until it is confirmed by the House of Representatives, I say that it will be doing violence to the landmarks of the Constitution, and to all the memories which cluster around the adoption of that sacred instrument.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. A single question. Suppose the contract imported a declaration of war, or involved it by an alliance offensive and defensive; what then?

Mr. RAUM. I have an answer for the gentleman from the Constitution itself. The Constitution devolves upon Congress the warmaking power, and a treaty cannot be entered into so as to absorb the powers which are delegated to the Congress of the United States. The President and Senate cannot make war; that power is conferred upon the Congress of the United States.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. Then am I to understand the gentleman as admitting that in those cases where Congress has power expressly conferred upon it its jurisdiction remains untouched, anything in the treaty made by the President and the Senate to the contrary notwithstanding?

Mr. RAUM. I answer the gentleman by saying that the powers which are delegated absolutely to the Congress of the United States cannot be executed by means of a treaty. But that is not the question before the House. The question is whether or not a contract made by the President and the Senate shall bind the people of this country when it is made in good faith? Not whether the House of Representatives may refuse to execute a treaty. But is a treaty made in good faith, and which is within the scope of the Constitution, binding upon the people. I affirm that a contract thus fairly and constitutionally made is binding upon the good faith of this nation without the approval of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, from the examination I have given this subject I have come to the conclusion that cases may arise where it would be the duty of Congress to refuse to execute a treaty; and to refuse to execute is all it can do. Congress does not ratify a treaty; it has only to execute the contract. If a treaty, although valid as being within the scope of the treatymaking power, was to devolve certain enormous consequences upon the country, such as would prove ruinous or dangerous to execute it, I, as one of the Representatives of this great people, would not hesitate to assume the responsibility of refusing to execute it, and to say to the foreign country, "You must not insist upon its execution; if you do we will go to war with you if need be rather than execute it."

But, sir, what shall we say of a treaty made in due form of law under all the sanctions of the Constitution, and within the unequivocal scope of the treaty-making power, when it is within the reasonable power of the people of the United States to execute it, when it does not devolve upon them the performance of any extraordinary duty or threaten any danger whatsoever? What shall we say when the Representatives of the people rise up in their places and declare that they will not carry out in good faith a treaty which the country is able to execute without doing any violence to its interests? Sir, as for me, I stand here ready to assist in carrying out such a treaty. I believe we can carry out this treaty not only without injury to this country, but with positive good. I believe in so doing we will aggregate to ourselves a great territory which will be a benefit to us. We will secure that distant territory which we are destined to have, and which will be of vast importance to us after the construction of our great thoroughfares penetrating to the Pacific coast.

one railroad? The roads from Baltimore, from Philadelphia, from New York, and from Boston westward are no more necessary now than an equal number of lines of railroad to the Pacific will be at a very early period. We must have more than one Pacific railroad. We must have a northern Pacific railroad. We must have the Kansas Pacific railroad. And we must have the International Pacific railroad provided for in House bill No. 847, from Cairo southwest through Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas, striking Mexico on the Rio Grande, and reaching the Pacific coast at San Blas or Mazatlan. The construction of all these railroads will aid in the aggrandizement of this great Republie by possessing the trade which must inevitably be developed on the Pacific ocean. And now, sir, in view of the existence of the law governing the treaty-making power as I have presented it, in view of the fact that good faith requires us to execute this treaty, and in view of the great law of expansion which must control the destiny of this country, I am ready to cast my vote for this bill to consummate the purchase of Alaska.

Mr. BANKS. I want to read a single extract from the document on Russian America, which was printed by order of the House, in reference to Major Kennicutt's passage through this country:

"In consequence of this suggestion he ultimately undertook, eight years since, his first trip by Lakes Superior, Winnepeg, Athabasca, and Great Slave lake down to Fort Simpson, where he spent the first winter; thence down the Mackenzie to the tide waters of its deltas; thence up the Pearl river to Fort McPherson; thence over the Porcupine mountains, the northern termination of the Rocky mountains, to the Porcupine river, and down to its junction with the Yukon, on the one hundred and forty-seventh degree of west longitude, where the British fur company have a large post over a degree on Russian territory." There he died, and his dead body was carried down to Behring strait.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman is mistaken; it was on a different expedition.

Mr. BANKS. The gentleman is correct. Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania, I did not dispute the fact that he had been as far as the junction of the Yukon and the Porcupine, but that the territory between the junction of those two rivers and New Labrador, a distance of one thousand miles, was unexplored.

Mr. BANKS. It has been explored, but Major Kennicutt died before making his report. If he had lived he would have given us invaluable testimony of this territory.

i

say

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. that the country was never explored, and we have never had any report of it.

Mr. BANKS. There was no report, because Major Kennicutt died before he could make it. I move that the committee rise.

The motion was agreed to; and the committee accordingly rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. GARFIELD reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state

of the Union had, according to order, had the special order under consideration, being House bill No. 1096, making an appropriation of money to carry into effect the treaty with Russia of March 30, 1867, and had come to no resolution thereon.

REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I report back from the Committee on Reconstruction a bill (H. R. No. 1355) for the removal of certain disabilities from the persons therein named. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at five o'clock and forty-five minutes p. m.) the House adjourned.

PETITION.

The following petition was presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committee:

By Mr. GARFIELD: The petition of Charles E. Broyles, of Dalton, Georgia, for the removal of political disabilities.

IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, July 8, 1868.

Prayer by Rev. E. H. GRAY, D. D.

On motion of Mr. CONNESS, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a letter of the Secretary of the Interior communicating a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in relation to the appropriation for subsisting the Navajo Indians on the Bosque Redondo reservation, New Mexico; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

He also laid before the Senate a report of the National Academy of Science, in conformity with the requirements of the act of incorporation, approved March 4, 1863, showing the operations of the National Academy of Science during the past year; which was referred to the Committee on Printing.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. WILSON presented the petition of Nancy Smith, widow of Benjamin Holden Smith, praying to be allowed a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. CATTELL presented a petition of citizens of New Jersey, praying an extension of the provisions of the thirty-third section of the bankrupt law; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. FOWLER presented a petition of Rob ert Wilson, praying to be allowed a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

On motion of Mr. CORBETT, it wasOrdered, That the petition of Henry Failing be rereferred to the Committee on Claims.

LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that he was directed to inform the Senate that in communicating the action of the House on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 605) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, amendment No. 223 was erroneously announced as having been agreed to, the same not having been agreed to.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. HOWARD, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 550) providing for the sale of a portion of the Fort Gratiot military reservation, in St. Clair county, in the State of Michigan, reported it without amend

ment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1354) to provide for the issue of arms for the use of the

militia, reported it without amendment.

Mr. RAMSEY, from the Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 571) to provide for the more economical administration of the government of the several Territories of the United States, and for other purposes, reported it without amendment.

Mr. MORGAN, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. R. No. 306) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to remit the duties on certain articles contributed to the National Association of American Sharp-shooters, reported it without amendment.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I am directed by the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 293) to regulate and limit the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in certain cases, to report it back with the expression of the opinion that it ought not to pass. It appears to the committee that the principles of maritime law that now prevail are the appropriate ones for the administration of justice, and this bill would

be no improvement. I move its indefinite postponement to get it off the Calendar. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. VAN WINKLE, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the followlowing bills, reported them without amend

ment:

A bill (H. R. No. 218) granting a pension of seventeen dollars per month to David Duhigg, of Lynden, Vermont, father of late First Lieutenant Dennis Duhigg, of company M, first regiment Vermont artillery;

A bill (H. R. No. 256) granting a pension to George Truax, late a private in company H, first regiment Virginia volunteers;

A bill (H. R. No. 1164) granting a pension to Margaret Davis;

A bill (H. R. No. 1165) granting a pension to Elizabeth Cassidy;

A bill (H. R. No. 1166) granting a pension to Louisa M. Williston;

A bill (H. R. No. 1167) granting a pension to Esther Graves;

A bill (H. R. No. 1168) granting a pension to Frederic Denning;

A bill (H. R. No. 1169) granting a pension to Joseph B. Rodden;

A bill (H. R. No. 1170) granting a pension to Eliza M. Matthews;

A bill (H. R. No. 1171) granting a pension to William F. Nelson;

A bill (H. R. No. 1172) granting a pension to Lucinda J. Letcher;

A bill (H. R. No. 1173) granting a pension to Julia A. Barton;

A bill (H. R. No. 1174) granting a pension to Julia Carroll ;

A bill (H. R. No. 1175) granting a pension to Cornelia Peaslee;

A bill (H. R. No. 1176) granting a pension to Mary Cover, widow of Samuel Cover, deceased, late a private in company G, of the fifty-sixth regiment of Pennsylvania volunteers;

A bill (H. R. No. 1177) granting a pension to Malinda Ferguson, widow of James Ferguson, late a private in company C, of the first regiment of Kentucky cavalry; and

A bill (H. R. No. 1178) granting a pension to Mary Merchant, mother of Timothy H. Pittsford, deceased, late a private in company G, of the first United States veteran engineer

corps.

Mr. TRUMBULL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1206) to restore to certain parties their rights under the laws and treaties of the United States, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Claims; which was agreed to.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Committee on the

Judiciary, to whom was referred a resolution as to the propriety of a law to authorize Indians to testify in certain cases, have instructed me to report it back and ask to be discharged from its further consideration, on the ground that the committee are of opinion that the Indians have a right to testify under the law as it stands and no statute is necessary on that subject.

The report was agreed to.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 90) to authorize and require the administration of oaths in certain cases, and to punish perjury in connection therewith, recommend its indef inite postponement, being of opinion that the laws already authorize the chairmen of committees, both standing and special committees, to administer oaths. There is no necessity for the bill.

The motion to postpone indefinitely was agreed to.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1194) to provide for the inauguration of State officers in Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, and Alabama, and for the meeting of the Legislatures of said