Mr. Barbour was born in 1775 and educated for the bar.  He served in the Virginia legislature, was twice governor of the State, and twice elected to represent it in the United States Senate.  He was Secretary of War in 1825 under John Quincy Adams, who sent him as minister to England—­a post from which he was recalled by President Jackson.  He presided over the national convention which nominated William Henry Harrison for the presidency, dying in 1842.

TREATIES AS SUPREME LAWS

Mr. President, as it seems to be the wish of the Senate to pass upon this subject without debate, it adds to the reluctance I always feel when compelled, even by a sense of duty, to intrude 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