The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-06-25
now States. wsr. originally obtained by England by

now States were of'Bsnhiiy oo'1s"ed " H"b'a"N -
treaties Of eession.
In the Mexican eonstitu ion, (see Kennedy,
4s7 the power Of heir Congress Is no broader than
IL is TO admit new States TO the federal union
territories, Incorporating them IN he nation I'd
under IL has been admitted, which never before
belonged in any sense to Mexico.
Hence, whether we look 10 the words OF the con
stituton the practice under IT, TO the anaosles
of other governments, whei her American or Europe
an, the constitutional right TO annex is undoubted
All which the Constitution requires TO admit
States, is the assent OF Congress Whether treaty
is also necessary TO annex territory seems ques-
tIonable, unless it is regarded done by CONTRACT
with foreign power which IL usually commenced
IN the form Of treaty, and the terms thus settled
with more convenience in the first instance But
there can be little doubt that, while the assent OF
Congress is alone sufficient and is alone necessary
by our Constitution 10 admit new State II is proper
TO be given after territory IS bought by treaty 10
the payments TO be made under it, and TO the organl-
cation OF It's new government and relations and II
so given without treaty, may answer every object
OF reason and principle involved
But the idea that, these under Consitu-
ton II is necessary TO have the assent OF each State
in the Union as a separate State or the people Of
each, (and indeed, as Mr.. Adams supposed in 1904,
of conventions in each State,-4 Eiou's Debates, }
except as both represented in Congress, and then
only majority of their representatives in each
branch to law, Of twothirds Of The Senate to a
treaty is not justified either by any language pre-
cedent No different assent than this last was ask
ed IN 1903, 1871, or 1919, any other occasion
WHATEVER. And the only analogy III support of IT
seems to be practice in Holland 10 require the
sent of the States separately to the admission OF new
States-when in truth the practice there originated
express clause in the confederation to that ei-
feet (See il in I'd Davies History of Holland, rs
page)
So another express clause in the old confederation
required the assent Of nine States out of thirteen in
certain When annexation was declined 10
1887, il was on other grounds; and this point is ex
plicitly stated by Mr.. Van Buren,, who was then
President, to be objection. In a constitutional
point Of view the opposition "of considerable and
spectacle portion Of the community" others argue
cannot rigbtfuy defeat annexation, il there be a
majority OF Congress in favor of the measure
though such an opposition, and their reasons, would
be entitled to respectful consideration, in all other
controyerted | admit, that the wishes of the
people should possess much influence, and it is desi-
rable to know them before action on important meas
ures; but they are mol, by the Constitution, required
to tie first consulted before Congress or the treaty
making power can negotiate for territory. 1t was
never dreamed of in the purchase of Louisiana aud
Florida, in the former attempts to purchase
Texas in 1925, 1929, and 1885,
But, if it were otherwise the senator from Mis-
souri, admits that ten twelve millions out OF hf
teen OF our free population are IN favor OF annex
alton majority Of more than two-thrds here,
and of all the in Texas but SO, stated by
their commissioners would then seem quite enough
of the peope themselves in both countries to satisfy
the most ia.iid GUS.
How much some gentlemen likely to obtain
by the advice Of the people before they acthon ever
il is wished-c be ascertaDed from the extraord-
nary resolution 10 throw 20 600 copies of the treaty
and correspondence before the public, because 'Me
,rH Of Tie people ought 10 be consult on them; and yet
re iasIng to ait reasonable time to learn that WILL
and proceedlng-the very next day, before SINCE
copy was printed for the people-to discuss and de-
eide on the measure.
On motion by MIR. WALKER, to amend the amend
uent proposed by Mr. CRTTENDEN, by adding at the
end thereof the following and that reasonable
iims should be giuen to hear from the people qer this
publ alton, before he final decision Of the Senate upon
the treaty
1t was determined in the negative--yeas Is, nays
%
Having endeavored to show our constitutional
right to purchase the territory ofTexas, and unite
It's people in our Government, and having thus tried
TO the great obstacle 10 the ratification which
blocks up the Threshold Of cur inquiries, shall
consider the next point, which is tie right Of Texas
to make the oesson, and enter into the Union. The
objection 10 the form Of doing this business both
sides will examine hereafter; as | am at present
looking merely TO the great principles involved IN
the authority TO take and TO cede.
II is commended, by several who oppose the treaty,
that Texas is not in competent condition TO make
this cession without the assent of Mexico Stain;
some former master or tyranncal s'epmOther Spain,
believed, pretty well slIenCeo inns point
the great lapse OF time since she has made any war
on the territory Of Texas, and any claim TO govern
ner; she is senced by her recognition Of the IN
dependence Of all her American provinces. But
how is 1t with Mexico On what rest her claims to
be consulted boivt, ;ss cesslon, so far regards
the power and capacity Of Texas
In the first place the right Of Mexico TO Texas,
having been integral portion Of her lie III
tory, and much less portion # II since the ndepen-
dence Of Mexico herself was acknowledged by Spain,
Is very questionable
According 10 the opinions Of such iurisis and d.
plomatists as jefferson, Madison, and Monroe Of
LNng,ton Clay, and Adams, (n lSl6,) Texas was
within the limits Of Louisiana when bought by us
in 1903, clearly as the Island Of New Orleans. "
shall not fatigue the Senate with details this
But 1 exas had been di, covered and settled by the
French in 1885, five years previous to any Spanish
settle ment ( Marbuis' Hist Of Louisiana, lOf) 1t
had bean viewed as " the cradle of Louisiona - 4
JEFF Life, co. II was in the grant by Louis to Crozat
m mr. Laws, 439 After ceded 10 Spain, in
l76l its boundaries became unimportant; but when
retroceded 10, and occupied by France in 1900, she
claimed as formerly and delivered IT by her Off
GERS m lsO4, as extending wet to the Rio del Nore
Ii Wa bOasted by Don Onis, the Span sh minA, e r.
who negotiated the treaty Il 1919, after hi, Teiu n
that 10y his ability and IL had been procured frm
". Mr.. FuTsyth to Adams, July 30 1920, says tina,
Don Oh. endeayors TO show that the treaty Of c,
zion Of Florida ought 10 be considered az treaty OF
exchange of FLORIDA for Texas a country more er.
tensNe, fertile, and valuable. The Spanish govern
ment itself seems TO have instructed their minister
that we might retain 1t " no better terms could be
procurej.-See EUings Erpose.) And Mr. Gala.
tho, aher aborous research before $40 became con-
vinced the territory was ouis and our posts had
therefore, as early 1906 been extended beyond the
Sabine to Nacogdoches, Of the rcmotcst settle.
ments of much size--(l Laws, 1877 Add Galveston
sei was temp rally occupied by in lsl7-(i State
Papers 291 See more fully on this, Marbois' Hi.,o.
" Of 10 lsanl. Stale psper. 4 JET. Life 60
Foors History Of Texas 397, 376; I Do. I9i. 2
Kennedy, ii5 Clny's Speeches 80 AID %
Under What prelenoe, then, can Mexico claim il
In 1919 we oed d II to SPAN, not MEXICO and A.
as some incorrectly MAINTAIN, Mexico then rcv,-
luton zed, she of course got nothing Ivy this subse
qucnt eession TO Spain rather than herself But f.
as was the truth, Mexico never became inJepende nj
Of Spain even by declaration, till February "a 1921