sought for, he would say so to
them. A question might arise whether the House should get at those
secrets even if the President refused the request, but that was not the
present question. In reply to Mr. Murray, who asserted that the treaty
was the supreme law of the land, and that there was no discretionary
power in the House except on the question of its constitutionality, Mr.
Gallatin said that Congress possessed the power of regulating
trade,--perhaps the treaty-making power clashed with that,--and
concluded by observing that the House was the grand inquest of the
nation, and that it had the right to call for papers on which to ground
an impeachment. At present he did not contemplate an exercise of that
right. Mr. Madison said it was now to be decided whether the general
power of making treaties supersedes the powers of the House of
Representatives, particularly specified in the Constitution, so as to
give to the executive all deliberative will and leave the House only an
executive and ministerial instrumental agency; and he proposed to amend
the resolution so as to read, "except so much of said papers as in his
(the President's) judgment it may be inconsistent with the interest of
the United States at this time to disclose." But his motion was defeated
by a vote of 47 nays to 37 yeas.

The discussion being resumed in committee of the whole, the expressions
of opinion were free on both sides, but so moderate that one of the
members made comment on the calmness and temper of the discussion.
Nicholas said that, if the treaty were not the law of the land, the
President should be impeached. But the parts of the treaty into which
the President had not the right to enter, he could not make law by
proclamation. Swanwick supported the call as one exercised by the House
of Commons. On the Federal side, Harper said that the papers were not
necessary, and, being unnecessary, the demand was an improper and
unconstitutional interference with the executive department. If he
thought them necessary, he would change the milk and water style of the
resolutions. In that case the House had a right to them and he had no
idea of requesting as a favor what should be demanded as a right.
Gallatin, he said, had declared that it was a request, but that in case
of refusal it might be considered whether demand should not be made, and
he charged that when, at the time the motion was made, the question had
been asked, what use was to be made of