UNITED STATES, March 15, 1796. Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives: By the ninth section of the act entitled "An act to provide a naval armament" it is enacted "that if a peace shall take place between the United States and the Regency of Algiers, that no further proceedings be had under this act." The peace which is here contemplated having taken place, it is incumbent upon the Executive to suspend all orders respecting the building of the frigates, procuring materials for them, or preparing materials already obtained, which may be done without intrenching upon contracts or agreements made and entered into before this event. But inasmuch as the loss which the public would incur might be considerable from dissipation of workmen, from certain works or operations being suddenly dropped or left unfinished, and from the derangement in the whole system consequent upon an immediate suspension of all proceedings under it, I have therefore thought advisable, before taking such a step, to submit the subject to the Senate and House of Representatives, that such measures may be adopted in the premises as may best comport with the public interest. GO WASHINGTON. UNITED STATES, March 25, 1796. Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives: I send herewith, for your information, the translation of a letter from the minister plenipotentiary of the French Republic to the Secretary of State, announcing the peace made by the Republic with the Kings of Prussia and Spain, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, and that the republican constitution decreed by the National Convention had been accepted by the people of France and was in operation. I also send you a copy of the answer given by my direction to this communication from the French minister. My sentiments therein expressed I am persuaded will harmonize with yours and with those of all my fellow-citizens. GO WASHINGTON. UNITED STATES, March 29, 1796. Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: I send herewith a copy of the treaty of friendship, limits, and navigation, concluded on the 27th of October last, between the United States and His Catholic Majesty. This treaty has been ratified by me agreeably to the Constitution, and the ratification has been dispatched for Spain, where it will doubtless be immediately ratified by His Catholic Majesty. This early communication of the treaty with Spain has become necessary because it is stipulated in the third article that commissioners for running the boundary line between the territory of the United States and the Spanish colonies of East and West Florida shall meet at the Natchez before the expiration of six months from the ratification; and as that period will undoubtedly arrive before the next meeting of Congress, the House will see the necessity of making provision in their present session for the object here mentioned. It will also be necessary to provide for the expense to be incurred in executing the twenty-first article of the treaty, to enable our fellow-citizens to obtain with as little delay as possible compensation for the losses they have sustained by the capture of their vessels and cargoes by the subjects of His Catholic Majesty during the late war between France and Spain. Estimates of the moneys necessary to be provided for the purposes of this and several other treaties with foreign nations and the Indian tribes will be laid before you by the proper Department. GO WASHINGTON. UNITED STATES, March 30, 1796. To the House of Representatives of the United States: 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 negotia tions, 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. thue Having been a member of the General Convention, and knowing the ba 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 opinionthat 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 treaties the consent of two-thirds of the whole number of the members of the Senate instead of two-thirds of the Senators present, and because in treaties respecting territorial and certain other rights and claims the concurrence of three-fourths of the whole number of the members of both Houses, respectively, was not made necessary. It is a fact declared by the General Convention and universally understood that the Constitution of the United States was the result of a spirit of amity and mutual concession; and it' is well known that under this influence the smaller States were admitted to an equal representation in the Senate with the larger States, and that this branch of the Government was invested with great powers, for on the equal participation of those powers the sovereignty and political safety of the smaller States were deemed essentially to depend. If other proofs than these and the plain letter of the Constitution itself be necessary to ascertain the point under consideration, they may be found in the journals of the General Convention, which I have deposited in the office of the Department of State. In those journals it will appear that a proposition was made "that no treaty should be binding on the United States which was not ratified by a law," and that the proposition was explicitly rejected. As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding that the assent of the House of Representatives is not necessary to the validity of a treaty; as the treaty with Great Britain exhibits in itself all the objects requiring legislative provision, and on these the papers called for can throw no light, and as it is essential to the due administration of the Government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution between the different departments should be preserved, a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbids a compliance with your request. GO WASHINGTON. Gentlemen of the Senate: UNITED STATES, March 31, 1796. The treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation between the United States and Great Britain requiring that commissioners should be appointed to fix certain boundaries between the territories of the contracting parties, and to ascertain the losses and damages represented to have been sustained by their respective citizens and subjects, as set forth in the fifth, sixth, and seventh articles of the treaty, in order to carry those articles into execution I nominate as commissioners on the part of the United States: For the purpose mentioned in the fifth article, Henry Knox, of Massachusetts; For the purpose mentioned in the sixth article, Thomas Fitzsimons, of Pennsylvania, and James Innes, of Virginia; and For the purposes mentioned in the seventh article, Christopher Gore, of Massachusetts, and William Pinckney, of Maryland. GO WASHINGTON. UNITED STATES, April 8, 1796. Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives: By an act of Congress passed on the 26th of May, 1790, it was declared that the inhabitants of the territory of the United States south of the river Ohio should enjoy all the privileges, benefits, and advantages set forth in the ordinance of Congress for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, and that the government of the said territory south of the Ohio should be similar to that which was then exercised in the territory northwest of the Ohio, except so far as was otherwise provided in the conditions expressed in an act of Congress passed the 2d of April, 1790, entitled "An act to accept a cession of the claims of the State of North Carolina to a certain district of western territory." Among the privileges, benefits, and advantages thus secured to the inhabitants of the territory south of the river Ohio appear to be the right of forming a permanent constitution and State government, and of admission as a State, by its Delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, when it should have therein 60,000 free inhabitants; provided the constitution and government so to be formed should be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in the articles of the said ordinance. As proofs of the several requisites to entitle the territory south of the river Ohio to be admitted as a State into the Union, Governor Blount has transmitted a return of the enumeration of its inhabitants and a printed copy of the constitution and form of government on which they have agreed, which, with his letters accompanying the same, are herewith laid before Congress. GO WASHINGTON. UNITED STATES, April 28, 1796. Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives: Herewith I lay before you a letter from the Attorney-General of the United States, relative to compensation to the attorneys of the United States in the several districts, which is recommended to your consideration. Gentlemen of the Senate: GO WASHINGTON. UNITED STATES, May 2, 1796. Some time last year Jeremiah Wadsworth was authorized to hold a treaty with the Cohnawaga Indians, styling themselves the Seven Nations of Canada, to enable the State of New York to extinguish, by purchase, a claim which the said Indians had set up to a parcel of land lying within that State. The negotiation having issued without effecting its object, |