The President, notwithstanding his beneficent power to pardon, under the Constitution, will be powerless to remedy this evil.

But it is otherwise in the United States, where, according to the Constitution, the war-making power is expressly lodged in Congress, while the treaty-making power is expressly lodged in the President, acting with the advice of two thirds…

We are left to argument and inference, in order to ascertain whether this great attribute belongs with the war-making power to Congress, or with the treaty-making power to the President and Senate.

To me there are three considerations, each of which seems to be decisive, while the three combined compel us irresistibly to the true conclusion.

In the absence of any express words in the Constitution, the power to abrogate treaties should not be attributed to any mere fraction of the Government, as to the President, or to the President and Senate, nor to any branches short of the…

The Constitution has expressly lodged the war-making power in Congress, and, in doing so, seems by implication to have placed the treaty-abrogating power in the same body; for the latter seems to be an incident of the former.

The abrogation of a treaty may be the prelude of war; indeed, it may practically amount to a declaration of war.

Now, for the first time in our history, an opposite practice is adopted, contrary to precedents, and also, as it seems to me, contrary to reason.

The question in the present case is of importance in two aspects: first, as it involves the determination of a question of political power under our Constitution; and, secondly, as it may affect the interest of private individuals.

Are you aware, Sir, of the extent to which the abrogation of this treaty may affect private interests, and therefore directly raise for the judgment of the courts the question of the validity of your proceeding?

These things will at least make you hesitate before you assert a power which is without precedent, and which at a former day was disowned in this very case.

Congress may, therefore, at any moment, authorize the President to terminate this convention.” Mark, Sir, he did not say the Senate, but Congress.

Since then treaties have been abrogated by Act of Congress, and this may be considered the established rule.

Freedom and Slavery were at a death-grapple in the Territory.

On the one side there was a persistent effort to subject the Territory to Slavery; on the other side an equally persistent effort to save it to Freedom.

In the report of the majority the true issue is smothered; in that of the minority the true issue stands forth as a pillar of fire to guide the country.

I have no desire to precipitate the debate on this important question, under which the country already shakes from side to side, and which threatens to scatter from its folds civil war.

But I cannot allow the subject to pass away, even for this hour, without repelling at once, distinctly and unequivocally, the assault which has been made upon the Emigrant Aid Company of Massachusetts.

The outrages in Kansas are vindicated or extenuated by the alleged misconduct of the Emigrant Aid Company.

Kansas must be saved from a tyrannical usurpation, under which Slavery has been forcibly established on Free Soil.

This is the special object of labor to which we are summoned by every consideration of regard for that distant Territory, and also by every sentiment of love for our common country.

But this can be done only by her immediate welcome into the Union, under her present Constitution, as a Free State,--of course without recognition of the usurping Tyranny.

The Slave Oligarchy has staked its power in the National Government upon the support of this usurpation.

In the madness of its despotism, it has selected a position the least tenable of all its assumptions.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.