eedily took the form of a
discussion on the nature and extent of the treaty-making power. "The
friends of the administration maintained," says Marshall, "that a treaty
was a contract between two nations, which, under the constitution, the
president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, had a right
to make; and that it was made when, by and with such advice and consent,
it had received his final act. Its obligations then became complete on
the United States, and to refuse to comply with its stipulations was to
break the treaty and to violate the faith of the nation.

"The opposition contended that the power to make treaties, if
applicable to every object, conflicted with powers which were vested
exclusively in Congress. That either the treaty-making power must be
limited in its operations, so as not to touch objects committed by the
constitution to Congress, or the assent and co-operation of the house of
representatives must be required to give validity to any compact, so far
as it might comprehend those objects. A treaty, therefore, which
required an appropriation of money or any act of Congress to carry it
into effect, had not acquired its obligatory form until the house of
representatives had exercised its powers in the case. They were at full
liberty to make, or to withhold, such appropriation, or other law,
without incurring the imputation of violating any existing obligation,
or breaking the faith of the nation."[91]

At the outset, a member had inquired the object of Mr. Livingston's
motion, since on that would depend its propriety. It was contended, that
if the impeachment of either Mr. Jay or the president was intended, it
was a proper motion; but not so if the constitutionality of the treaty
was to be questioned, because that must depend on the treaty itself. It
was further inquired whether the house proposed to consider whether a
better treaty might not have been made. Mr. Livingston did not disavow
either of the objects suggested, but stated as his principal reason, a
firm conviction that the house was vested with a discretionary power,
allowing it to carry the treaty into execution or not. This
consideration was made the chief point in the debate, in which Albert
Gallatin took a leading part in favor of the resolution, well supported
by Madison, Livingston, Giles, and Baldwin, and others of less note. It
was opposed by Smith, of South Carolina, Murray, Harper, Hillhouse, and
others. About thirt