" several different opinions on who should have domineering power in the situation arose. The Idea of the President and Senate having somewhat of equal power in foreign relations had already been brought up when the debate began. It was too Eldridge Gerry's observation that a majority of the senate would actually only represent about one-fifth of the people, so a vote of two thirds present was all the more needed. Virginia disagreed to a certain extent, they believed that a two-thirds majority of the whole number of the Senate was needed not just of those in attendance, to ratify commercial treaties, and they wanted a three-fourths majority of all the members of both Houses for making treaties that involved issues of territorial or navigational rights. John Jay and his colleges enthusiastically approved of the joint responsibility vested by the constitution in the President and the Senate having a hand in foreign affairs. Jay believed that the members of the lower house of Congress held office too temporarily and was too large to serve effectively in treaty making. The senators and President were "best qualified" to make foreign policy decisions and use the power to the good of the public. Since the senators had a six year term in office they would have "sufficient time to become perfectly acquainted with our national concerns, and to form and introduce a system for the management of them." In a nutshell he expected the Senate to make foreign policy but thought it would me more suitable for the president to conduct that policy. "The negotiation of treaties sometimes require secrecy and dispatch." explained Jay. He summarized the matter by adding "the constitution provides that our negotiations for treaties shall have every advantage which can be derived from talents, information, integrity, and deliberate investigations on the one hand (the senate), and from secrecy and dispatch on the other (the president).
