The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-08-09
(Continued.)

And here permit me- to observe that there Is one
defect in the treaty which ought to be amended if
we did not all know that it is destined TO be rejected
The treaty itself ought to determine how many free
and how many slave State should be uade out of
this terrtory il augbt, in express terms 10 leave
the question Of slavery 10 be decided by those States
IN their con ttutons. as they severaIIy apply for
admission into the Unon There sho1Id be some
fixed and fundamental rule established on this sub
jet by the treaty or act Of annexation Should
this not be done, we may have another Missouri
question 10 shake the Union to Its centre upon the
successive application OF each of these States Tor ad-
mission. As wise statesmen, we ought to provide
against this danger, by settling the question in ad-
vance, at the time of annexation
c. me now to examine the objections which have
been urged against this treaty. And first, IL has
been strenuousIy commended that the acquisition of
Texas would be violation Of the constitution of the
United Stats; and that no new State can be admit.
ted into The Union, unless 1t formed part of our
territory in 1889, when that constitution was adopt-
ed. On this point shall be very brief Mr. Van
Buren, in his Texas letter. has demonstrated this OBJ
lection to be wholly uniounded. The language OF
the constitution Is broad and general embracing in
It's terms all new States, whether these be composed
oil foreign territory or not IL declares that new
States may be admitted by the Congress into the
Union" What human power can limit the general
ty of this expression to such new States alone as
might be composed OF territory then belonging to the
U nited States How csn the plain construction OF
ton The ramers Of the constitution were too wise
and too far-sighied to place any such limitation on
the power OF Congress for all future time. In the
course OF human events, in the history Of great ma
lion, they oresaw that II might become necessary 10
acquire new territory by purchase or by conquest
they therefore eit the discretion Of Congress unlimited
IN the admission Of new States. The letter of DR.
Johnson, one oil the delegates from Come TO the
federal convention, furnished by Mr.. Pitkin which
was read by the senator from that State [Mr. Hun
unglonI presents remarkable instance OF tie frall-
~ OF human memory. II was written after the sd-
mission OF Louisiana into the Union, which took
place In 1912, and consequently more than twenty
years alter The occurrences which relates. Besides
at the date Of the letter, which was about the tic
oil oui declaration OF war against Great Britain pa
y excitement ran very high in this country, and Dr.
Johnson belonged to the party hostile to the acquis
ZION Of Louisiana, and to the declaration of war
doubt not he was worthy and respectable man. and
deserved the Communications bestowed upon him by
The senator from Connecticut but yet shall prove
concusiveIy that he must have been entirely mista.
ken IN regard TO The facts which he asserts He saws
that be put the very case to his colleagues (cssrs
Ellsworth and Sherman) whilst the convention was
yet IN sessIon-suppose we should conquer Nova SEQ
TIA from Great Britain could we, under the consti n,
lion, admit II as State into the Uboni--and they
were clearly Of opinion that Congress would possess
no such power, but that Nova Scotia must remain a
territory forever. DR. Johnson suggested thai an ex
press provision should be made 10 prevent States
composed Of foreign territory from being admitted
but bs colleagues both agreed that such State. were
already so obviously excluded by fair
OF the constitution that II would be waste of time
TO offer such an amendment. lie also says that be
conversed with many other members Of the coDyen.
ton, and never found one who med a doub,
upon the subject and he concludes by stating that
had the question been submitted TO the convent,
whether under the constitution, new State, com.
posed OF foreign territory be admit d into the
Union, there would have been an unanimous vote in
the negative.
Now, sir, wonderful as Il may seem, after such Q
statement The records of the convention pr,ye tha
the very question raised before that body wIeth-
er suoh limitation shouid be imposed on the power
Of Congress to admit new States and was erp
decided in the negative The first basis of cop.,i-
tuition proposed by Edmund Randolph, confined the
power of admitting new STATES to those lawfully
arising within the limits of the United States -
This restriction was, at one time, adopted by the
convention, but afier mature consideration. wa,
stricken OUT and the clause, without any such re-
.tricusn, as il nov stands IN he constitution, thai