Thus he told the House, on a former occasion, that he did not dispute the power of the President and senate to make treaties; he only contended that those treaties, when made, were not binding, till the House had concurred in them by granting appropriations: in other words, that the President and senate could make treaties, which, however, though made were in fact not treaties, till ratified by the House; that is, that there might be treaties which were not treaties. This was the substance and amount of that gentleman's reasoning on a former occasion, and it exceedingly resembles his present argument, as just now explained by himself.

The question, therefore, between the gentleman from Pennsylvania and us, is, whether the office of foreign minister be derived from the appointment of the President and senate, concurred in by this House; or must be traced to a higher origin, and considered as completely existing before the appointment takes place; in the same manner as the office of secretary of the treasury, or of state, which completely existed as soon as the law passed establishing those departments, and before any officer was appointed. We contend for the latter doctrine, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the former. If he be right, it follows, that the appointment is incomplete until this House gives its sanction; for we well know that the President and senate cannot of themselves create an office. If we be right, it follows, that as soon as an appointment is made to fill this office, this House is legally bound to supply an adequate salary, in the same manner as for any other office created by law.

There are two modes, Mr. Chairman, by which an office may exist, either by law or by the constitution; and from one or the other of these sources, the office of foreign minister must be derived. It is not derived from the constitution, like the office of President, vicepresident, or speaker of the House; for the constitution speaks of it as already in existence. The con

stitution does not say there shall be foreign ministers, and then go on to direct how they shall be appointed, as in the case of President; but considering the office as already existing, it merely directs how it shall be filled. "The President," it says, "by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint foreign ministers and consuls." Unless, then, gentlemen are disposed to deny that there were foreign ministers previous to the constitution, they cannot contend that the office of foreign minister is derived from the constitution. It must, therefore, be derived from the law.

But from what law? Not from any act of Congress; for we know that there is no such act. Congress has never done any thing more than to fix salaries for foreign ministers, and vote money to pay them: and besides, the constitution, which is previous to all acts of Congress, recognizes the office of foreign minister as already existing, and directs in what manner the appointments to fill it shall be made. From what law, then, is this office derived? Mr. Chairman, it is derived from the law of nations.

In every civilized state there are two sorts of law, derived from two distinct sources; the municipal law, and the law of nations. The law of nations, deriving its origin and its force from the consent of nations themselves, mutually given to each other, is independent of their municipal laws, which have relation to their own internal affairs, and depend upon the acts of their respective governments. The municipal laws of the United States consist in our acts of Congress, and are derived from the authority given by the constitution. The law of nations, as it respects us, has a higher origin, and became binding on us from the moment when we erected ourselves into an independent state, and entered into the pale of civilized nations. We then gave our consent to that law, when we began to send and receive ambassadors, and to form treaties with other powers. This law then became binding on us, by our own consent and our own acts; and this law

establishes the office, regulates the duties, and defines the privileges of foreign ministers. That office, consequently, was established among us, as soon as we submitted ourselves to the law of nations. Accordingly, we had foreign ministers before we had a President, before we had a Congress, and before we had a constitution. Even before the first articles of confederation were entered into, we considered this office as existing; for those articles do not establish the office, but merely declare how it shall be filled, by whom foreign ministers shall be sent, by whom they shall be appointed.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, indeed, has told us, that the office of foreign minister originated in the appointment of the President and senate. But where did that gentleman learn, that the President and senate can create or originate offices? He has said, that the office becomes complete, when sanctioned by an appropriation in this House. But all offices, not existing by the constitution, must be created by law: and where did he learn that this House could concur in a law, by any other means than having a bill before them, and passing it with the usual forms? Where did he learn that this House could, in this indirect way, by voting a sum of money, legalize an act not otherwise legal, and give the force of a law to what otherwise would not be a law? The gentleman has neither learned this in the constitution, nor in the proceedings of the House; but though we know not where he learned it, we are well apprized of the purposes for which he introduced it here. That purpose I have already explained.

It being manifest, then, Mr. Chairman, that the office of foreign minister is established by the law of nations, it only remains to inquire whether that law is complete and binding. Can there be a doubt that it is so, within its proper sphere? Do not our courts of justice acknowledge its existence, and yield to its authority on all objects on which it is calculated to act?

Is any aid required from acts of Congress, or other municipal laws, in order to give it efficacy? Certainly not. These two kinds of laws, the law of nations and the municipal law, are each supreme in their respective spheres. They operate, indeed, upon different objects, and are executed in different modes; but each is complete in its operation. From hence it results, that an office existing by the law of nations has an existence as completely legal, as one which exists by act of Congress: that the office of foreign minister is as much a legal office, exists as much by the laws of this country, as the office of chief justice, or secretary of state: and that, when one of these offices is filled by the appointment of the President and senate, the House is under as complete a legal obligation to provide an adequate salary for it, as for the other. This House can no more say, this, that, or the other minister plenipotentiary is unnecessary, and we will not provide for him, than it can say, a chief justice or a secretary of state is unnecessary, and we will not provide for him. It would as much be guilty of a violation of law in one case, as in the other.

But, Mr. Chairman, if these conclusions, and the premises on which they are founded, should be erroneous, if the doctrines of the gentleman from Pennsylvania should be correct, still this amendment cannot be supported. It is in direct contradiction with the principles on which its supporters rely, and is refuted by the very arguments adduced to defend it.

What is the doctrine of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? That the office of foreign minister originates with the appointment of the President, and becomes completely established when this House has sanctioned it by an appropriation. I state this to be his doctrine, though he did not lay it down in these express words. This is the substance; for otherwise he must admit, in direct contradiction to his whole argument, that the office not only originates as he says, but also becomes complete, by the appointment of the

President and senate: in other words, that the President and senate can create offices. When the gentleman from Pennsylvania, therefore, told us, that although the office of foreign minister originates with the appointment of the President and senate, yet the House is not bound to appropriate a proper salary, as he admits it to be bound in case of an office erected by law; the office of chief justice; for instance, he told us in substance that this office, though originating with the appointment of the President and senate, remained inchoate, did not become a complete and legal office, till sanctioned by an appropriation in this House. This, Mr. Chairman, is the true doctrine of the gentleman from Pennsylvania; and it is precisely analogous to his doctrine of inchoate treaties, about which we heard so much on a former occasion. His doctrine about treaties was this; that a treaty, though made by the President and senate, is but an inchoate act, till completed by the assent and sanction of this House. The House, he said, was in nowise bound to give this assent; but when it should be given, the treaty would then become complete. Accordingly, after this House had assented to the British treaty, by passing an appropriation for carrying it into effect, that gentleman told us that the treaty was complete, and had become as much the act of this House as of the President and senate. This position he has repeated more than once; and in the debates on the President's speech, during the summer session, he laid it down in the most emphatic manner. I presume, Mr. Chairman, that an inchoate office is like an inchoate treaty, and may become perfect in the same manner. gentleman admits, nay, contends, that what he calls an inchoate treaty becomes perfect and binding, to all intents and purposes, on this House and every body else, as soon as the House gives its sanction by an appropriation. Hence it irresistibly follows, that this inchoate office of foreign minister, this office originating, according to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, in the ap

The