That body came together under the impression of the agitation and excitement which had been going on all through the summer.  There was a little wrangling at the opening over the terms to be employed in the answer to the President’s message, and then the House relapsed into quiet, awaiting the formal announcement of the treaty.  At last the treaty arrived with the addition of the suspending article, and the President proclaimed it to be the law of the land, and sent a copy to the House.  Livingston, of New York, at once moved a resolution, asking the President to send in all the papers relating to the negotiation, and boldly placed the motion on the ground that the House was vested with a discretionary power as to carrying the treaty into execution.  On this principle the debate went on for three weeks, and then the resolution passed by 62 to 37.  A great constitutional question was thus raised, for there was no pretense that the papers were really needed, inasmuch as committees had seen them all, and they contained practically nothing which was not already known.

Washington took the request into consideration, and asked his cabinet whether the House had the right, as set forth in the resolutions, to call for the papers, and if not, whether it was expedient to furnish them.  Both questions were unanimously answered in the negative.  The inquiry was largely formal, and Washington had no real doubts on the point involved.  He wrote to Hamilton:  “I had from the first moment, and from the fullest conviction in my own mind, resolved to resist the principle, which was evidently intended to be established by the call of the House of Representatives; and only deliberated on the manner in which this could be done with the least bad consequences.”  His only question was as to the method of resistance, and he finally decided to refuse absolutely, and did so in a message setting forth his reasons.  He said that the intention of the constitutional convention was known to him, and that they had intended to vest the treaty-making power exclusively in the Executive and Senate.  On that principle he had acted, and in that belief foreign nations had negotiated, and the House had hitherto acquiesced.  He declared further that the assent of the House was not necessary to the validity of treaties; that they had all necessary information; and “as it is essential to the due administration of the government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution should be preserved, a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your request.”  The question was a difficult one, but there could be no doubt as to Washington’s opinion, and the weight of authority has sustained his view.  From the practical and political side there can be little question that his position was extremely sound.  In a letter to Carrington he gave the reasons for his action, and no better statement of the argument in a general way has ever been made.  He wrote:—­