either of those assemblies? If the nations of Europe should, by treaties provide for a congress to devise the means of abolishing the slave trade, of resisting the extortions of the Barbary powers, or of suppressing the piracies of the West Indian seas, could the President, the United States not being parties to those treaties, of his own mere will, make us members of that congress, by sending deputies to represent us there? The question is proposed in this form, because our ministers would, of necessity, if received at all, be members, and not ambassadors, since such a congress is neither competent to send or to receive an embassy.
Why, then, in the creation of this office of deputy or minister to the congress of Panama, was not the constitutional organ, the treaty-making power, resorted to? What would have been the result of such a course is obvious, I think, in the recorded votes of the Senate, on the preliminary questions which have arisen. The object could not have been effected. Two thirds of the Senate could not have been obtained. The office would not have had existence; or the Senate, in the exercise of their legitimate powers, would have so modified the treaty, as to have limited the functions of the ministers to those objects of which they would have approved.
Mr. ROBBINS. The theory of our Constitution charges the executive with the care of our foreign relations, and of the public interest connected therewith: it supposes him intimately acquainted with all those interests, and therefore possessed of the means of forming a correct opinion of the measures conducive to their advancement. This opinion, though not binding as authority, is yet, I think, entitled to much weight, as well as to much respect, in our deliberations. We have the executive opinion in this case, under circumstances that entitle it to peculiar consideration. The credit of the government, in the estimation of all those nations, is in a degree connected with the adoption of this measure; and that estimation ought not, in my opinion, lightly to be forfeited, nor unnecessarily impaired.
On Slavery, [Panama Mission.]
Senate, March, 1826.
Mr. HAYNE. The question of slavery is one, in all its bearings, of extreme delicacy ; and concerning which I know of but a single wise and safe rule, either for the states in which it exists or for the Union. It must be considered and treated entirely as a domestic question. With respect to foreign nations, the language of the United States ought to be, that it concerns the peace of our own political family, and therefore we cannot permit it to be touched ; and in respect to the slave-holding states, the only safe and constitutional ground on which they can stand, is, that they will not permit it to be brought into question, either by their sister states or by the federal government. It is a matter for ourselves. To touch it at all, is to violate our most sacred rights—to put in jeopardy our dearest interests—the peace of our country—the safety of our families, our altars, and our firesides. Sir, on the question of our slave institutions, so often incidentally mentioned, I will take this opportunity, once for all, to declare, in a few words, my own feelings and opinions. It is a subject to which I always advert with extreme reluctance, and never except when it is forced upon me. On the present occasion, the subject has been forced upon our consideration; and when called upon to give my sanction to the discussion, by our ministers, (in connection with a foreign con-
