Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1803-11-25

satisfying, SO Tar AS was IN MS i1OWefS tn
doubts ofthe gentleman from New-York
(Mr. Grisw old.) He had listened viii
great pleasure to the candid exposition
which the gentleman had given Of bis ob
jections, and from the temper which h.
had manifested, Mr.. r. relied on beinr
able to satisfy some Of his seruples OF
this subject. The objections which have
been urged to the motion before the com
mittee, resolved themselves into argu
nnents against the eonstitut ionality, and
arguments against the expedieney Of ths
treaty proposed to be carried into effect
As It wouldbe needless to repel object.
ons of this last kind, unless those Of che
first description couldbe satisfactorily IN.
swered, he should FIRST reply to the Oh.
,jee ions which had been made son ths
constitutional doctrine. =
He understood the gentleman from
New-York as denying that there existed
in the United States, as such, a capacity
to acquire territory that by the eonsti-
tuition they were restricted to the IL
mits which existed at the time of its a.
doption. fthis position be correct, |,
undoubtedly follows that those limits
must have been accurately defined and
generally known, at the time when the
government took effect. Either they
have been particularly described in the
constitutional compact, or are referred
to as settled beyond dispute, and univer-
sally acknowledged. But this was not
the fact, in either case. The constitution
not only did not describe any particular
boundary, beyond which the United
States could not extend ). but our boun-
dairy was unsettled on cur north eastern,
southern and north western frontier, at
the time of its adoption. But perhaps
we shall be told, that, although ourii-
mits were in dispute with our English and
Spanish neighbours, still there were GER
tain boundaries, specified in the treaty
ofParis, of 1898, which were the ac-
tual boundaries of the United States. 1t
was, however, well attested fact, one
of which we possessed official informant.
on from the executive, that the limits as
signed us, by that treaty were inca
pable of being established. A line run.
ming west from the lake ofthe woods no,
touching the Mississippi at all it fol-
lowed that the United States were with
out limits, beyond the source of the Mis-
sissippi. 1t win not be denied that among
the powers which the government pos
sesses under the constitution, there ex-
lists that Of settling disputes concerning
our limits with the neighbouring nations,
This power was not only necessary in
relation to the disputed boundaries on
the side of Canada and Florida, but wa:
indispensable to a government over .
country Of inde6nitive extent. The ex
istence Of this power will not be denied
it has been exercised in ascertaining oul
north eastern and southern frontier, ane
it involves in it the power of extending
the limits Of the confederacy. =
Let us suppose that the commiss ion
ers under the treaty Of London, had de
termined the river st. John, or St. Lau-
renee, to be the true St. Croix. Would
not that part Of the province of New
Brunswick, or Quebec which lies or
this side of those rivers, at this tim.
have been part Of the United States
Suppose the northern boundary Of Flori
da had been fixed, under the treaty O
San Lofenzo, 70 extend from the At
lantic ocean to the Gulf, would not al
the country north of this line and east o
the Mississippi, (part Of the very eoun
try conveyed BY the treaty lately negoei
ated land which gentlemen conceive W.
could not constitutionally hold j woulc
not that country at this time yzcompose .
part of the United States ! ~That ths
constitution should tie US down to; parti.
cular limits, without expressing those
hmits-that we should be restrained e
the then boundaries Of the U!<States
when it Is in proof to the committee tina
no such bounds existed, or do not ex'
list, was altogether ineomprehensible ant
inadmissihle. For if the constitution
meant .ha 80 ct;,al liu,st~ IF thu TIn;tAd