rude on their
attention. Yet, as I feel myself obliged, under the solemn
responsibility attached to the station I hold here, to vote against
the bill under consideration--as I think, also, it is but a due
respect to the other branch of the legislature, from whom it is my
misfortune to differ, and but an act of justice to myself to state
the grounds of my opinion, I must be pardoned for departing from the
course which seemed to be desired by the Senate.

In the exercise of this privilege, with a view to promote the wishes
of the Senate as far as a sense of duty will permit, I will confine
myself to a succinct view of the most prominent objections which lie
against its passage, rather than indulge in the extensive range of
which the subject is susceptible. Before I enter into the discussion
of the merits of the question, I beg leave to call the attention of
the Senate to the course which was adopted by us in relation to this
subject. A bill, brought in by the Committee on Foreign Relations,
passed the Senate unanimously, declaring that all laws in opposition
to the convention between the United States and Great Britain,
concluded on the third of July last, should be held as null and
void. The principle on which this body acted was, that the treaty,
upon the exchange of its ratification, did, of itself, repeal any
commercial regulation, incompatible with its provisions, existing in
our municipal code; it being by us believed at the time that such a
bill was not necessary, but by a declaratory act, it was supposed,
all doubts and difficulties, should any exist, might be
removed. This bill is sent to the House of Representatives, who,
without acting thereon, send us the one under consideration, but
differing materially from ours. Far from pretending an intimate
knowledge of the course of business pursued by the two houses, I do
not say that the mode adopted in this particular case is irregular,
but if it has not the sanction of precedent, it appears to me to be
wanting in that courtesy which should be perpetually cherished
between the two houses. It would have been more decorous to have
acted on our bill, to have agreed to it if it were approved, to
reject or amend it. In the latter case, upon its being returned to
the Senate, the views of the other body would have been contrasted
with our own, and we might then have regularly passed upon the
subject. A different course, however, has been adopted; and if a
regard