The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-12-04
From DC JouTaai " Cosssss
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. Z

That there is sneh aqusstion, IL beyond doubt
The Constitution provides that "new States
may be admitted by the Congress into this
or may not consist Of territory acquired by ces-
SION or purchase. The probability 10 that the
trainers Of the Constitution, in adopting the see
ton, had in view territory then belonging 10 the
United States, and not foreign territory. Bot,
on The other hand, il l. TO be noted that there IS
no provision in the Constitution prohibiting
the acquisition Of foreign territory, or The for
nation Of States oal OF it, when acquired. In
point of fact, both have been done on large
scale AS to the acquisition Of foreign territory,
we have only 10 mention Louisiana and Floridi,
neither Of which territories was in posses
sion Of the United States at the time the Con
s,turion was adopted. And as to the admission
Of new States into the Union, formed out Of
| territory so acquired, we may Instance the
States of Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri
Parts Of Mississippi and Alabam, also consist
of territory which was included in the Louisiana
purchase. In like manner, Florida will soon
seek admission into the Union; and no one, so
4 far as we know, has ever raised an objection to
such admission, on the ground that he territory
out of which The new State is 10 be formed was
acquired by cession, since the date Of the Con
slitu,iop. il is true that when the question car
rying into effect the Louisiana treaty was
brought before Congress, objections were raised
on the ground aforementioned. Mr. jefferson
himself expressed an opinion adverse TO the
constitutionality of the admission. The cession
OF Louisiana was made by France on the 30lh
cf April, 1903 Ia August Of the same year, in
a letter to Mr. Breckenridge, after stating that
the treaty must be laid before Congress, who he
presumed would ralify il, aud pay for the terri
tory therein acquired, he adds; -" But suppose
| they must then appeal TO the nation for an add,-
| tional article TO the Constitution, approving and
confirming an &C, which the nation had not pre-
viousy authorized. The Constitution has made
no provision for our holding fIregn ter
ritory, still less foI. incorporating foreign ma
tons into our Union.'' The Treaty in ques-
lion expressly stipulated that "the inhabitants
of the ceded territory should be incorporated into
ths Union Of the United States and be admit
ted, as soon as possible, according 10 the princi-
pies Of the Federal Con sltuion 10 all the rights
advantages, and immuniies of citizens of the
United States" The Treaty therefore involved
not merely the question Of the right Of Con-
gress to acquire foreign territory, but Of their
right to organize new States GU, Of The territory
so acquired. Nothing less than this can be
meant by the stipulation that the inhabitants of
the ceded territory should be admitted to al the
| rjuhts al e
of the United States. 1t was so understood by
the House of Representatives when the Treaty
was submitted TO them Tor the purpose of being
carried into effect, and the question was warmly
debated On this very ground. The friends of
the Treaty however prevailed, and Mr.. Jefler-
sor l:I ,,vs ats..p.s~ L:o veto This shows
either that his opinion against the constitutions
aliy of admitting States into the'Union COM
posed Of territory no, belonging TO the United
States at the date oil The Constitution, was not
very decided, or that he did not deem his obiec-
tons Of such nature as to require him TO in
terposc his veto. The Constitution provides
that every bill, before it becomes law, shall be
submitted 10 the President; tina, III be approve,
he shall sign IL but il not. lie shall return il.
with his objections" As Mr.. Jefferson did not
return The bid TO carry into effect the Louisiana
Treaty, but signed il, the necessary inference is,
that be on The whole approved" Of il. The
stress, therefore, which is laid upon Jelierson's
constitutional objections, By The opponents of
the annexation Of Texas, appears TO admit of
some abatement. The vote of the House pro-
vidipg for carrying the Treaty into effect, was
of he, a 4
in favor Of the constitutional of forming
States out of territory originally foreign and a
still more direct and un,quivocal opinion was
expressed by the Congress Of 1912, when they
admitted the State OF louisiana into the Union.
In the House. the vote on the question of adj
mission was 70 20 %. similar opinion was
expressed by the Congress Of 1919, when Mis-.
sour was admitted into the Union. and by that
Of 1885, when Arkansas was admitted.
We have, then, four distinct precedents, by
as macy different Congresses, in favor of The
constilulionsltY Of admitting States into the
Union composed of territory which was foreign
at the date OF the Constitution and two direc,
preceden,s in favor of the consttutionaliiy of
acquiring such territory, VIZ. the Congress Of
1903, when Louisiana was c. ded to the United
State, and that Of 1921, when Florida was
ceded for il must be taken for granted thai a
Congress of the United States would not inten-
IlonaIV vIoIse the DonstrtuuUu
A distinction may perhaps be attempted to be
drawn between the case Of Louisiana and Flor
da on the one part, and that Of Texas on the
other, grounded upon the fact that the two first
named territories were not of themselves inde-
pendent, but dependencies Of france and Spsin.
while Texas IS to all inients aud purposes an
independent nation. We admit ,ha, there /,
difference, but We do not perceive that il has