Page:Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1st ed, 1833, vol III).djvu/379

and with closed doors. The senate may wholly reject the treaty, or advise and consent to a ratification of part of the articles, rejecting others, or recommend additional or explanatory articles. In the event of a partial ratification, the treaty does not become the law of the land, until the president and the foreign sovereign have each assented to the modifications proposed by the senate.^[1] But, although the president may ask the advice and consent of the senate to a treaty, he is not absolutely bound by it; for he may, after it is given,

---

1. Rawle on Const. ch. 7, p. 63, 64.—Before the ratification of treaties, it is common for the senate to require, and for the president to lay before them, all the official documents respecting the negotiations, to assist their judgment. But the house of representatives have no constitutional right to insist on the production of them; and it is matter of discretion with the president, whether to comply, or not, with the demand of the house, which is but in the nature of a request. In the case of the British Treaty of 1794, President Washington refused to lay the papers before the house of representatives, when requested by them so to do. See his Message, 24th of March, 1796; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 334; 5 Marshall's Life of Washington, ch. 8, p. 654; 4 Jefferson's Corresp. 464, 465; Rawle on Const. ch. 16, p. 171.
   In the early part of President Washington's administration, he occasionally met the senate in person, to confer with them on the executive business confided to them by the constitution. But this practice was found very inconvenient, and was soon abandoned. In June, 1813, the senate appointed a committee to hold a conference with President Madison, respecting his nomination of a minister to Sweden, then before them for ratification. But he declined it, considering, that it was incompatible with the due relations between the executive, and other departments of the government.^{[a 1]} It is believed, that the practice has been ever since abandoned.
   Mr. Jefferson and the cabinet, (with the exception of Mr. Hamilton,) in President Washington's administration, seem to have been of opinion, that neither branch of the legislature had a right to call upon the heads of departments, except through calls on the president for information or papers. (4 Jefferson's Corresp. 463, 464, 465.) The practice has, however, of late years, settled down in favour of making direct calls on the heads of the departments. Rawle on Const. ch. 16, p. 171, 172.

1. Sergeant on Const. ch. 31, (2d edition,) p. 371; 5 Niles's Register, 213, 290; id. 276, 340; 2 Executive Journal, 354, 381, 382. See also 2 Executive Journal, 353, 354, 388, 389.