Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-05-03
IIUH. vi. IN DUEEN,
Lindenwald, New York.


LSDESwALp, April 90, 1914.
My Detr Sir: Your letter OF the 9th Of March last
was duly received
Acting IS unpedged delegate to The Baltimore
Convention you ask my opinion in regard 10 the con-
sttu,lonaliy and expectancy of an Immediate anne1a-
ton OF Texas to The uniled States the
assent o Texas may be had to such annexation. Up
on the receipt Of your letter, caused You TO be forth
with informed, that your request should be complied
with in full season Tor the Convention This promise
snail now perform. But, lest my motives III making
public avowa OF my opinions, whilst negotiation ls
supposed % be pending, should be misconstrued, shall
send this TO friend, who will delay ITS delivery as long
as that can be done consistently with faithful com
plance with the requirements CT your letter, and the
general Objects for which 1t was written.
You by means overrate the importance OF The sub
Iect upon which you have been pleased to address me-
1t is not ony question Of intense interest TO every
part oil the country, but s unhappy also one IN regad
TO which may not promise ourselves that uBaniinlty
in opinions. which is so important when great national
questions like this 10 be decided. That those which
AN about TO express will, in at least one important
partic MAR, differ from that of many friends, political
and personll, whose judgments and purity OF views
hold in high and habuil respect, can well imagine;
and il qule evident from the tenor Of your letter. that
they will noin all respects correspond with your own
IT. however, such of my fellow citizens are neither
Influenced by prelutcps warped by self-nterest,
concede to my opinpns the merit OF having been form
ed under views directed to the preservation and ad
vancement OF the honor and best nieress OF our com
country. whole, and expressed with sInceri
v which has overlooked, far feeble natures
will permi, TO do, all personal considerations, my
most favorable anlicip.tions will bs realized
II has already been made my duty to act officially on
at least two several OCCASIONS but in different forms
upon the subeot-maler 10 which your questions have
reference.
Having charge Of The Department of State in 1920,
prepared by direction of the President, instructions
to our Minister at Mexico, by which ne directed
to OPEN without delay, negotiation with the Mexican
Government for the purchase OF the greater part OF the
then province Of Texas and by which he was Likewise
authorised to insert in the treaty provision similar to
that in the Louisiana and Florida treaties for the in
corporation of the inhabitants OF Texas into the Union
as soon It could be done consistently with the Prin-
ciplcs of the Federal Constitution. The reasons in
favor OF this measure, stated al large in that docu.
ment.
In taking this step, the administration Of President
Jackson renewed (but, as was supposed under more
favorable circumstances) attempt TO accomplish the
same object which had been made by lis immediate
PREDECESSOR Instructions similar in their general oh
ect had, in the second year of the latter admnlstra
ton bee n sent from the Department OF State TO the
same American Minister at Mexico. am not aware
that there we're any material differences between them,
other than that those OF 1927 proposed an acquisition
of territory as far West the RIO del Nortebeing
believe. the extreme Western boundary Of Texas
yhI he
tended only az far West The centre OF the Desert or
Grand Prairie, which lies East Of the river Nueces J;
and that for The former, the payment OF one million OF
dollars authorized whilst, by the administration oil
President Jackson, the American Minister was permit
ted to IN MS high as four and, II indispensable live NIL
lions Both authorized agreements for smaller portions
of territory and the payments were modified accord
nqly In respect TO the proposed stipulation Tor the
Ultimate incorporation Of tue inhabitants into the Unon
both instructions were identical
In Aunust, 1897, n proposition was received at the
Department Of State, from the Texan Minister ut
Washington. proposing negotiation Tor the annexa.
linn or Texas to the United States This Wos the first
limo the onestion of the annexation Of foreign nde
pepdcn, State Ind been presented TO this Govern
mont In deciding upon the disposition that ought 10
he made of it, did not find 1t necessary to consider
tho ouesnn of constitutional power nor the manner
in which The object should be accomplished, II oeemeo
eYned,ent and proper Both these points were there
fare in terms passed over in the reply oil the Secretary
of State 10 the Texan Minister, subjects the cons
de,,,on of whch had not been entered upon by the
Executive.
The first Of these, viz constitutional power-is now
n,.sened by your inquiries; not however. in precisely
The same form Then the application wns for The I'M
medine admission of Texas into the Union as an nde-
n ,dent Sate YOUR question looks only to its anne1a-
ton as part of the territory OF the United States
There is no express power given 10 any department oil
N. Government to purchase territory except Tor The
&c but the power has, several very important &C.
oaslons, been regarded embraced in the treaty
making power; and territories have been SO annexed
with view and under engagements for their ultimate
admission into The Union States If there be nothing
in the situation or condition of the Territory OF Texas,
which would render lis admission hereafter into the
Union as q new Stale improper, | cannot perceive
any objection, on constitutional grounds, to It's an
ne cation as territory. In speaking OF The right TO
admit new States, must, of course, be understood as
referring 10 The power of Congress. The Executive
and SENATE may, as have already observed, by the
exercise of the treaty making power, acquire ter
rtory; but States only be admitted by Con-
press and the sole authority The subject, which IS
given to by the Constitution is contained IN the '"i-
lowing provision, viz ''new St1tes may be admitted
by the Congress into this Union The only restr'c-
tons imposed upon this general power are, ISL That
no new States shall be formed or erected within Inc
jurisdiction of any other State; nor, indy Amy Stale
formed by The junction two or more States, or parts
Of States without the of the Legislatures con-
cerned, as well Us OF Congress'-restr'ctons which
have no bearing upon the present question The mat
ter therefore, stands as it would do the Consttu-
ton said "new States may be admitted by the Con-
gress into this Union, without addition or restriction
That these words, taken by themselves, are broad
enough TO authorize the admission OF The Territory OF
Texas, cannot, think, be we'll doubted nor do per-