The Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1834-184?, 1844-06-06
svILLE, INDIANA. THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1914

"hO h0tAO tAl0 SloiAu We u " IN
stand that whenever the United States has a
contest for boundary with a neighbor, and
that boundary, after debate, is solemnly set
lied by Treaty, the treaty may be sci aside
at pleasure, if ii has settled the question in
dispute by the accomplishment of any original
pretenslon. In short, that this nation can
never abate, forego, or abandon a practice of
any claim it may set up, no matter how ex-
travagant, how much or how reasonably con-
tested: that we may take all equivalents CIV
en- in a treaty, and resume, when convent
en:, all that we have parted with. The adj
~vocates of the Remuneration say that a Re-
public like ours has no power to part with
territory, and that as we once claimed Tex
as, the treaty which ~relinquished the claim
is void. In the next breath they tell US that
the Republic OF Texas, which is modelled
after ours, may not only part with a portion
of IFS territory, but may cede the whole, and
even e%xtinguish its own existence. With
such wretched sophistry as this, is the honor
ofthe American people brought into question
the good repute of our country furnished in
the eye of mankind
Our Constitutional power to admit foreign
nations into this Union seems to be taken
for granted. This is, to say the least of it,
an obvious departure fromthe doctrine ofthe
Jeffersonian school. The sage Of Monticel-
10 did not think so. lie thought it clear that
the Constitution forbade the purchase ofLou-
%isiana, and he therefore recommended an "a
mendment, 10 ratify that act. The opinions
Of Jefferson, however, are of small authority
in his own school when they stand in the
way of a party purpose. | am no strict con-
structionist, as that phrase is understood, yet
| cannot but marvel at the easy consciences
of gentlemen of that sect who are so much
given to talk of "the compromise ofthe Con-
lstitutlon," when | find them so clear upon
the question of this power, and so willing 10
4disturhthat "balance" which they have rep
fTesented 10 be,-in their own language,-
"sacred'' in the adjustment of the weight of
the free and slave States. Is it uncharlta6ie
to believe that they are reconciled 10 this
invasion of the compromises of the Consti-
Tuition, in the present instance, because they
fancy it will bring the beams down on their
own side of the balance? Where does this
power to annex foreign States end? With
Texas? What ofCuba, st. Domingo,C Canada ?
| Can itreach Ireland? Or isit confined, as we
might infer from some of the defamation on
1.-The subject, TO the enemies only ofihe Anglo
Saxon? Ii has a broad field on that basis
These are significant questions.
| do not doubt that two whole nations may
become one, whenever it may suit their
tastes and tempers TO enter into such we'd
lock. But they will not do this by virtue of
the powers conferred upon their respective
governments for separate administration. 1t
Twill not be done under existing constitutions.
Nh. Walker holds that this right ofself-ex-
~tinction is a right reserved TO every Govern
ment, unless expressly forbidden by IFS con-
stitution. Certainly, this is a very odd spe-
cimen- of strict construction. The existing
administration may destroy the government
by giving the whole territory away in a trea-
tv,-unless the law forbid it. That, he af-
firms, will be the basis of our title TO Texas,
If we can confirm the treaty. These are new
views of government. | can see but one
way 10 accomplish this object. When the
general wish ofthe PEoPLE-not the Govern
ment-ofthe United States and of Texas is
to form a new confederacy, they will be obi
ged 10 alter their organic law to suit The case;
they will then have occasion 10 make a new
Constitution, or amend the old one. The
new Union must provide constitution and law
for itself.
[ think [ discern, from some manifesto
tions | have seen, at the bottom of this
scheme. in the minds and wishes of some of
its contrivers, an ultimate purpose to form a
new ~confederacy, of which it shall be a pro-
minent feature that no Free States shall
come into the League. 1t has grown into
fashion of late, 10 talk about slavery as sa
blessinp.' which is affirmed to be essential
to a prosperous democracy. The c~orollary
from this is, in a few mems minds,-happi-
ly but few-that visible advantage would
flow from a confederacy founded on this es-
sential blessing as a fundamental clement
[ trust there are not many States in this I'm
ion which will acquiesce in this logic, or
place their title 10 democratic government
upon such a concession. | can speak very
confidently for Maryland, that she will not be
one. The State that - ishes such a tho't
will assuredly come 10 an sill starred and I'M
blest catastrophe" | forbear TO expatiate on
so revolving a theme, and fervently pray that
no such treason may be meditated.
What is it that the proposition proposes 10
annex? What is Texas? Is il the Terrific
ry bounded by the Colorado,-by the Nuc-
ces,-by the Rio Bravo,-or by any still
more Southern limit? Is it the whole inten-
dency of San Luis Potosi? Does it reach
to the Pacific? Does it comprehend Cali
fornia, or Sonova?-who can answer? 1t is
all indefinite: there is a great question of
boundary left. If the annexation be made.
then there will arise more discourse about
other Observation-Disclosures, Yucatan,
Panama: where will it end? This little ma