New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-03-30

Letter written By their Minister 70 our sseretary o: S',ts d.
should be done in as it,le debate possible, and parcu
lay lar RESPECTS the constitutional difficulty am
OF III icc of the ooseIvations Jou make on ne power
given by ie Constitution Congress- admit states
iaro ths Caor without rest ANN: the subject 10 the territory
tn limits Inc United States clsey liked by The treaty
1888, ina; the Constitution expressly declares itse 10 o-
made for ta- T. States Cannot fe!2 eeii-ynr 1s inston
which Should De Orin. OF the srftory Tor WHICH ana E-
d=s whose authority alone they were then 90 NOT De
Iisys meant that they might England Ireland,
Holland &t. which would Dc the case on our conTuc-
;ion When Instrument admits Constructions the one
preier III Al hc safe and precise. had rather ask
argemeut Of power tie nation where IS found nsces'
sary than uy coast uCtlon, which would make
b0undes Our peculiar security IS III the pos
session Of written Cos,I:usG Lei US not MAKE 1t oia
thc no consider The grant OF The treaty making cwsT as
boandi-S nItis then we have no Constitution II II mas
The operations reunited 10 The Federal ove1umtnt
all the powers Necessary carry execution Whit
OF hsse enumerated objects proper fora law ongress
m asy H., and s" 10 - he Tea
~ whatever 20 De done by Judicial sentence he Judges
NAY pass The sentence
1t is perfectly clear therefore that Mr. Jetier-
son, whose views on constitutional questions
have been always enforced upon the country as
law, fully believed that the acquisition Of Louis
lana was unconstitutional.
But it is said, and this is the only argument for
the admission of Texas, is sufficient that Lou
siana and afterward Florida were acquired
That settles all constitutional difficulties and
questions. II it was not constitutional before, 1t
is now 1edeed gentlemen of the South, most
ingenious casusts and abstractionistS, did that
settle the Tariff qucstion-dd that settle the Bank
question Do you, you John Tyler and John c..
Calhoun, set up precedent as an answer to a con-
stitutiona objection If you do, all that can be
said about it is, it makes vast difference with
some men whose OK it was that gored the neigh
boris bull.
Before closing this communication, | cannot
help referring to MIR. Webstcrs late letter on the
subject of the Annexation Of Texas. That letter
has not been satisfactory to Mr.. Webster's admit
rers AS al! have felt, he has not shown that IN
superable obstacle to the annexation which was
expected from him and which natural instinct,
almost, assures us exists. By referring to the
clause in the Constitution respecting the admis-
sion Of States, and not showing that it applies
only to territory then possessed and not subse-
quently acquired, he has merely introduced an
element Of doubt into the discussion. Respect
ing the annexation Of Texas the question is not
has Congress power to admit new States, but has
il power to acquire new territory No such pow
er is given in the Constitutlon-and Congress has
no powers except what are given. Not having
the power to acquire territory, the power given in
the Constitution to admit new States could only
be exercised about the territory then possessed BY
the Union. So the trainers of the Constitution
undoubtedly understood it-and so Mr.. Jefferson
understood it; for he declares that he violated
the Constitution by the purchase of louisiana anC
that Congress must also violate it by sanctionlng
t'le purchase.
What is the difficulty about Congress legsIa
ting for Liberia, or extending its protection over
that colony? Is it not that the constitution doe:
not sanction our possessing or egislating for ter
ritory beyond our limits that we can have NJ
colonies ARATUs.