American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1844-12-23
MIR. GALLATIN ON ANNEXATION.

The following opinion of the venerable Al
bert Gallatin on the Constitutionality of An
nexing Texas to this Country by Joint Reso-
luton of Congress-, as proposed by Messrs.
McDuffie and G. j. Ingersoll, can hardly fail
to command respectful attention. We copy
from the New York Tribune:
New York, Dec It'll, 1914.
DEAR SIR-l have received your note Of yes
terday, asking my opinion respecting the CON
stitutional character of the resolution for an
nexing Texas by a legislative act, now before
Congress. Had not that resolution been pro-
posed, should not have thought that there
could be difference of opinion on that sub
ject
A doubt has been suggested whether the
General Government has the right by its sole
authority, to add foreign independent State to
the Union; and have ever been of opinion that
conditions might occur in a treaty ratified by
the President and Senate, such as any binding
the United States to pay sum ofmoney, which
would require the free assent of Congress before
such conditions could be carried into effect
But it is unnecessary on this occasion to discuss
those questions That now at issue is simply
this: In whom is the power of naking treaties
vested by the Constitution? The United States
have recognized the independence of Texas; and
every compact between independent nations is
treaty.
The Constitution of the United States de-
clares that "the President shall have power, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate
to make treaties, provided two-thirds of'the Sen
ators concur" This power is not given to
Congress by any clause of the Constitution.
ha into nj inf ol,,l,o tI,,t
tho treaty of Annexation between the United
States of America and the Republic of Texas,
signed on the 18th of April, 1914, (Which trea-
ty Is rected verbatim in the resolutIon) shall,
by the Senate and House of Representatives in
Congress assembled, be declared 10 be the fun
damental law of union between the United
States, SO soon as the supreme authority of the
said Republic of Texas shall agree to the same.
The Senate had refused to give its consent
to the said treaty, and the resolution declares
that it shall nevertheless be made by Congress
fundamental law binding the United States.
1t transfers to majority Of both Houses Cor
gress, with the appreciation of the President,
and to two thirds of both Houses without his
appreciation, the power Of making treaties,
which, by the Constitution, was expressly and
exclusively vested in the President with the
consent of two-thrds ofthe Senate. 1t substi-
tutes for written Constitution, which distrl-
butes and defines powers the supremacy, or as
it is called, the omnipotence Of a British Par
lament. The resolution is evidently direct
and in itsp present shape, an undsguised usurpa-
ton of power and violation of the Constitu-
ton.
1t would not be difficult to show that it is
not less at war with the spirit than with the
letter of that sacred instrument: and that the
provision which requires two-thirds of the Sem
ate, was intended as a guarantee Of the States
Rights, and to protect the weaker against the
abuse of the treaty making power, if vested in
bare majority But the case appears tome
so clear that would fear to obscure that which
is self-evident, by adding any argument by the
simple recital of the constitutional provision
and of the proposed resolution.
I have the honor to be, with high consdera-
ton and personal regard, dear sir your most
obedient servant
ALBERT GALLATIN.
DAVID DUDLEY FIELD, ESQ.,, New York.