would but ill deserve what I have heretofore thought a just tribute to their meritorious services.  If they really designed to produce the effect contended for, instead of so declaring by a positive provision, they have used a language which, to my mind, operates conclusively against it.  Under what clause of the constitution is the right to exercise this power set up?  The reply is, the third clause of eighth section, first article—­Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, etc.  I immediately inquire to what extent does the authority of Congress, in relation to commercial treaties, reach?  Is the aid of the legislature necessary in all cases whatsoever, to give effect to a commercial treaty?  It is readily admitted that it is not.  That a treaty, whose influence is extra territorial, becomes obligatory the instant of its ratification.  That, as the aid of the legislature is not necessary to its execution, the legislature has no right to interpose.  It is then admitted that while a general power on the subject of commerce is given to Congress, that yet important commercial regulations may be adopted by treaty, without the co-operation of the legislature, notwithstanding the generality of the grant of power on commercial subjects to Congress.  If it be true that the President and Senate have, in their treaty-making power, an exclusive control over part and not over the whole, I demand to know at what point that exclusive control censes?  In the clause relied upon, there is no limitation.  The fact is, sir, none exists.  The treaty-making power over commerce is supreme.  No legislative sanction is necessary, if the treaty be capable of self-execution, and when a legislative sanction is necessary, as I shall more at large hereafter show, such sanction, when given, adds nothing to the validity of the treaty, but enables the proper authority to execute it; and when the legislature do act in this regard, it in under such obligation as the necessity of fulfilling a moral contract imposes.

If it be inquired of me what I understand by the clause in question, in answer I refer to the principle with which I set out:  that this was a grant of power to the general government of which Congress was in the first instance merely the depository, which power, had not a portion thereof been transferred to another branch of the government, would have been exclusively exercised by Congress, but that a distribution of this power has been made by the constitution; as a portion thereof has been given to the treaty-making power, and that which is not transferred is left in the possession of Congress.  Hence, to Congress it is competent to act in this grant in its proper character by establishing municipal regulations.  The President and the Senate, on the other hand, have the same power within their sphere, that is, by a treaty or convention with a foreign nation, to establish such regulations in regard to commerce,