The Arkansas banner., 1844-07-24

'-12 .s:s.2.sss ss-le- what was once different kingdoms so ol Spain; so of Great Britain5 so of Germany
 Indeed, Englendnotonly re-annexed Waies-
 the faVorite and just term now--bat.admiHcd
 Scotland as well as Ireland into union with 1 her, including government and the whole ter
 ritory. Fhaword re-mgtc1ed, as now ap-
 piled, is as old as Blackstone, who says -
 < 7He te5rtfory Qf Haies being then entireh
 rc-aaaered (by kind of feudal resumption,)
 10 the domion of the crown of Engiand.' .''-- i Vol. l, 94 p.)
 Bntin conlederacies, Switzerland has added and rejected various separate cantonments,
 with their wliol6 government and territory SO of Holland or the Netherlands; and so of
 the Mexican coniederacy itself, now incldd- Fing one State formerly attached 10 Guatemala; so Of Colombia; so of Buenos Ayres, some
 times adding new States, both territory and government, and sometimes amcably or yio-
 lcndy separating. Indeed, several of the old thirteen colonies, now States, were originally
 obtained by England by treaties of cession.
 In the Mexican consultation, (See 2 Ken tnedy, 427,) the power of their Congress is tIO BlDdNGE tldtt OtiN - 1t is tO ah4llLI l4NNF
 States to tie federal union or territories, in- cooperating them in the nations and under 1t
 one has been admitted, which never before belonged in any sense to Mexico.
 Hence, whether we look 10 the words of
 the constitution, or the practice under it, or
 10 tle analogies of other governments, wheth- CT American or European, the constitutional riUht tO annex is undOubted
 All which the Constitution requires 10 admit
 States, is the assent of Congress. Whether
 treaty is also necessary to annex a territory
 seems questionable, unless t is regarded as
 done by a contract with a foreign power,
 which is 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 he- cessary by our Constitution to admit new State 1t is proper 10 be given aitera a territory is bought by treaty, 10 the payments 10 be made under it, and to the organization of its new government and relations; and, if so given without treaty, may answer every object of reason and principle involved
 But the idea that, in these cases under our Constitution il is necessary to have the assent ol each Siate in the Union as a separate State, or the people of each, (and indeed, as Mr. Adams supposed in 1901, of conventions in each S.ate,-1 Etliott's Debates, except as hoth are represented in Congress, and then only a majority of thcir representatives in each branch 10 3 law, or of tWo-thirds Of the Senate toa treaty is not justified either by any language or precedent. No different assent than this last was asked in IS02, CT 1911, or 1919, or any other occasion whatever And the only analogy in support of it seems 10 be q practice in Holland 10 require the assent of the States separately 10 the admission of new in truth the practice there ori- ginated in an express clanse in the confede- ration 10 that effect 6See it in 2d Davies History of Holland, 76 page
 So another express clause in the old con federation required the assent of nine States of thirteen in certain cases. When anneXa- iion was declined ill l837, ii was on other grounds; and tlis point is explicitly stated by Mir. Van Buren, who was then President, 10 be no objoetion. Ina constitutional point of view, the opposition '.of considerable aad respectable portion of the com0sanity,7 as others argue, cannot rightfully defeat an- neXation, fl there be majority of Congress ID laHor oi the measure; though such an op- position, and their reasons, would be entitled 10 respectful consideration, as in all other oontroyorted cases admit, that the wishes 1 3f the people should possess much influence, lRd 1t k desirable to know them before ac- ion on important measures; but they are not, i " the Constitution, required to be first con- ulted before Congress or tie treatY-making | 'owcr can negotiate for territory Il was lever dreamed of in the purchase of Louisiana nd Florida. nor in the former attempts to purchase Texas in 1925, 1899, and 1885,
 But, if 1t were otherwise, the senator from Missouri admits that ten or twelve millions 'ut of fifteen of ourlrce population are in favor Enumeration. Am2iority ofmore than two- hirds here, and of all the voters in Texas !. )ut 93, as stated by theit commissioners, would then seem quite enough of lhe people themselves in both countries 10 satisfy the most fasldious.
 How much some gentlemen are likely to obtain by the advice of the people before they ,et-howeyeritis wished-can beascertaincd rom the extraordinary resolution, to throw 10,000 copies of the treaty and eorrespon- lence before the public, because .L4s ariH of he people og9h lobe consultea oR Hem , nd yet refusing 10 wait a reasonable time to earn that will; and proceeding very ext day, before single copy was printed or the people--to discuss and decide on the leasufe.
 On motion by Mr Walker, to amend the proposed by Mir. Crittenden, bv dding at the end thereof, the following: and tat q reasonable lime should Dc gicca 10 hear rom tte people gtler His publication, 5sforc be .fnal decision Qf tRe Senate upon Inc really
 t Was determined in the negatve-yeas 5, nays B. ;
 Having endeavored to show our constitu- onal right to purchase the territory ofTexas, , nd to unite its people in our government, I nd having thus tried to remove the great ! bstacle to the Ratification, which blocks up he threshhold of our inquiries, shall con lder the next point, which is the right of l s+a .i-, Fl,y