it may be, are disposed to leave the decision where the constitution has placed it. But an occasion was wanting, and the instrument, by those who required it, was deemed well calculated, for the purpose of working upon the affections of the people of this country towards those of France, whose interests and rights under our treaty with them they represented as being violated; and, with the aid of the provision order, and other irritating conduct of the British ships of war and agents, as mentioned before, the means were furnished, and more pains taken, than upon any former occasion, to raise a general ferment with a view to defeat the treaty.

But knowing that you have other correspondents, who have more leisure, and equally capable of detailing these matters, I will leave you to them and the gazettes for fuller information there and a more minute account of the prevailing politics. And thanking you for the interesting intelligence and opinions contained in your letter of the 22d of August, I shall only add, that, with sincere esteem and regard, I am, dear Sir, your affectionate friend. *

2. THE TREATY-MAKING POWER

TO THE SECRETARIES OF STATE, THE TREASURY, war, AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

SIR,

PHILADELPHIA, 25 March, 1796.

The resolution moved in the House of Represen

tatives, for the papers relative to the negotiation of the treaty with Great Britain, having passed in the affirmative, I request your opinion,

1. Whether that branch of Congress has or has not a right, by the constitution, to call for those papers?

2. Whether (if it does not possess the right, it would be expedient under the circumstances of this particular case to furnish them?

3. And, in either case, in what terms would it be most proper to comply with, or to refuse, the request of the House?

These opinions in writing, and your attendance, will be expected at ten o'clock to-morrow. I am, &c.1

1 For the execution of the treaty negotiated by John Jay with Great Britain, certain appropriations, which could be made only by both Houses of Congress, were necessary. After the treaty had been ratified by the Senate, Washington, without awaiting the action of the House of Representatives, promulgated it as a part of the law of the land. The House, incensed by this, then adopted, by a vote of sixty-two to thirty-seven, the following resolution:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to lay before this House a copy of the instructions to the Minister of the United States, who negotiated the Treaty with the King of Great Britain, communicated by his Message of the first of March, together with the correspondence and other documents relative to the said Treaty; excepting such of said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed.”—Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, 1st Session, 759.

Washington then asked the members of his cabinet for their advice, and they were unanimously of the opinion that the request of the House should be refused.

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 30th, 1796.

GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

With the utmost attention I have considered your resolution of the 24th instant, requesting me to lay before your House a copy of the instructions to the minister of the United States, who negotiated the treaty with the King of Great Britain, together with the correspondence and other documents relative to that treaty, excepting such of the said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed.

In deliberating upon this subject, it was impossible for me to lose sight of the principle, which some have avowed in its discussion, or to avoid extending my views to the consequences, which must flow from the admission of that principle.

I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold any information which the constitution has enjoined upon the President as a duty to give, or which could be required of him by either House of Congress as a right; and with truth I affirm, that it has been, as it will continue to be while I have the honor to preside in the government, my constant endeavor to harmonize with the other branches thereof, so far as the trust delegated to me by the people of the United States, and my sense of the obligation it imposes to "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution," will permit.

The nature of foreign negotiations requires

caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy; and, even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated, would be extremely impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers. The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate; the principle on which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in the House of Representatives to demand, and to have, as a matter of course, all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power, would be to establish a dangerous precedent.

It does not occur, that the inspection of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of the House of Representatives, except that of an impeachment, which the resolution has not expressed. I repeat, that I have no disposition to withhold any information which the duty of my station will permit, or the public good shall require, to be disclosed; and, in fact, all the papers affecting the negotiation with Great Britain, were laid before the Senate, when the treaty itself was communicated for their consideration and advice.

The course, which the debate has taken on the resolution of the House, leads to some observations

on the mode of making treaties under the constitution of the United States.

Having been a member of the general convention, and knowing the principles on which the constitution was formed, I have ever entertained but one opinion on this subject; and, from the first establishment of the government to this moment, my conduct has exemplified that opinion, that the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every treaty, so made and promulgated, thenceforward became the law of the land. It is thus that the treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations; and, in all the treaties made with them, we have declared, and they have believed, that, when ratified by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, they became obligatory. In this construction of the constitution, every House of Representatives has heretofore acquiesced; and, until the present time, not a doubt or suspicion has appeared, to my knowledge, that this construction was not the true one. Nay, they have more than acquiesced; for till now, without controverting the obligation of such treaties, they have made all the requisite provisions for carrying them into effect.

There is also reason to believe that this construction agrees with the opinions entertained by the State conventions, when they were deliberating on the constitution; especially by those who objected to it, because there was not required, in commercial