|
|
Front Page  Titles (by Subject) to rufus king - The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 10
to rufus king - Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 10 [1774]Edition used:The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition) (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). In 12 vols. Vol. 10.
About Liberty Fund:Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright information:The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
to rufus king
March 16, 1796. My Dear Sir:
I thank you for your letter of the ——. My opinion on the resolution when it first appeared was that the President should answer in substance as follows, viz.:
“That it could not be admitted as a right of course in the House of Representatives to call for and have papers in the Executive department, especially those relating to foreign negotiations, which frequently embrace confidential matters. That, under all the circumstances, upon so indefinite a call, without any declared specific object, he did not think it proper nor consistent with what he owed to a due separation of the respective powers to comply with the call. That if, in the course of the proceedings of the House, a question of their competency should arise, for which any of the papers in question might be necessary, an application made on that ground would be considered with proper respect,” etc.
But after what has taken place in the discussion, if it can with propriety be got in as to form, I think a stand ought to be made by the President against the usurpation. The following propositions comprise an obvious ground.
- I—The Constitution empowers the President, with the Senate, to make treaties.
- II—A treaty is a perfected compact between two nations, obligatory on both.
- III—That cannot be a perfect contract or treaty to the validity of which the concurrence of any other power in the State is constitutionally necessary. Again:
- IV—The Constitution says a treaty is a law.
- V—A law is an obligatory rule of action prescribed by the competent authority. But—
- VI—That cannot be such a rule of action, or law, to the validity of which the assent of any other person is requisite. Again:
- VII—The object of the legislative power is to prescribe a rule of action for our own nation, which includes foreigners coming among us.
- VIII—The object of the treaty power is, by agreement, to settle a rule of action between two nations, binding on both.
- IX—These objects are essentially different and, in a constitutional sense, cannot interfere.
- X—The treaty power binding the will of the nation, must, within its constitutional limits, be paramount to the legislative power, which is that will; or, at least, the last law being a treaty must repeal an antecedent contrary law. And,
- XI—If the legislative power is competent to repeal this law by a subsequent law, this must be the whole legislative power, by a solemn act in the forms of the Constitution, not one branch of the legislative power by disobeying the law.
- XII—The foregoing construction reconciles the two powers, and assigns them distinguishable spheres of action; while
- XIII—The other construction, that claiming that a right of assent is a sanction for the House of Representatives, destroys the treaty, making powerless. and negative two propositions in the Constitution, to wit: 1. That the President, with the Senate, is competent to make treaties. 2. That a treaty is a law.
On these grounds, with the President’s name a bulwark not to be shaken is erected. The propositions, in my opinion, amount to irresistible demonstration.
|
