He supported Mr.Gallatin's view of the congressional power as cooeperative with the treaty power.

A construction which made the treaty power omnipotent he thought utterly inadmissible in a constitution marked throughout with limitations and checks.
Mr.Gallatin again claimed the attention of the House, as the original question of a call for papers had resolved itself into a discussion on the treaty-making power.

In the treaty of peace of 1783 there were three articles which might be supposed to interfere with the legislative powers of the several States: 1st, that which related to the payment of debts; 2d, the provision for no future confiscations; 3d, the restitution of estates already confiscated.

The first could not be denied.

"Those," he said, "might be branded with the epithet of disorganizers, who threatened a dissolution of the Union in case the measures they dictated were not obeyed; and he knew, although he did not ascribe it to any member of the House, that men high in office and reputation had industriously spread an alarm that the Union would be dissolved if the present motion was carried." He took the ground that a treaty is not valid, and does not bind the nation as such, till it has received the sanction of the House of Representatives.