The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-06-26
EXECU TIVE SESSION.
SPEECH OF MR.. WOODBURY.
or NEW HAMPSHIRE,

or NEW HAMPSHIRE.
In Senate June 4, lS44-In secret session on the
treaty for the annexation of Texas to the United
States.
[coNTIsurp
The old Congress Of 1856, "a Secret Journal,
page 1907 held that the United States .sessed no
power by treaty, TO convey part parts # the
territory Of The United States west Of the AlIegha
MES; and Vattel, book I, chapter 81, section 2GO
holds, that only the nation, its representatives and
not the prince, treaty-m king power can cede
territory. And II seems veil settled in England
that part Of the realm be dismemb, red or
alienated without the consent OF Par lament a. well
as of the King Book lie, chapter g sec. lO)-
Mr.. Shefsy, in debate, National Ineligencer Jan
usry 5, 1911 pronounced the oppos te view as to a
part OF a State, ga doctrine spurned at by alln
Mr. Clay maintained, in 1870 that II could not be
done without the assent Of Congress but the bette
opinion is that the territory State ceded must con-
sent and not Congress alone.
The cession, then Of both Jurisdiction and soil in
Texas, in 1919 without the previous consent of its
actual inhabitants or territorial government was ir
regular and imperfect Whatever subseqrlent acts
might be regarded as technical scquiesceoce in the
cesson, II was still in point Of law erroneous and
must be departure from treaty stipuaions uni, IS
we now, when requested, admit them TO all the
privileges originally promised. There can be no
doubt, II these positions are well supported that
they are fully competent TO ask our assent TO the
retrocession and reunion and thus, without regard
their part to perfect the measure But while contend
ing for this in their behalf on great principles of
moral and political obligation, | would not do IN
justice TO any other powerwith whom we inadyert-
emily made new and incompatible epgagements-
Though those engagements are according TO Vatiel
imperative the first treaty being va over subse
quent one which conflicts with IT, yet any injury done
by annullng the subsequent cess,on ought to be re
Enumerated 10 the party suffering.
But that party, whether Spain or Mexico have
now no cause OF compliant, and suffer no loss by this
construction; because, since that ccssion in 1919 and
while remained de facio in force, Spaln in Decem.
ber in 1886, renquished all her claims over Nex,oo
il not Texas and the latter has been independent of
Spain for more than twenty years, and ,or more than
ten years has resisted the usurpations OF Mexico over
her rights as separate and sovereign State. and for
eight years has declared and maintained her indie
dence to the whole world
There will be then great moral fitness and beau
y IN The disposition OF human affairs II now after
the lapse OF whole generation, we should be .be.
by the remuneration OF Texas TO meet the wishes OF
her people IN being admitted to the blessnes Of our
Unlon and should, at the sane time fulfil our own
previous treaty supulations in their favor and with
out injury TO any rights of Others should regain a
territory 80 vital to so many interests Of all sections
and so long and so devouty sought for by such sue
cesslon Of statesmen and patriots
The solemniiy or ipvo'sbity Of the treaty of sO3
is quite great that of 1sl9 or 1923 or anv Other
since aud its obligations this subject are both pri
and paramount
But, suppo-ng that both these view. ar. un,s,.-
bic and, Tor the sake OF argument induIgipo mo-
ment in the idea that Texas was not .mbr.ced Nh.
the limits OF Louisiana, or, So was legally ceded
10 Spa'n and afterwards became an integral mart az
the Mexican empire had she not, when the 4. :. n
her eoofederacy with that government became wan.
tony violated, her citizens Imprisoned and hsr ~,
''sss' oufsgsd-nso s"e not right to asasrt sod