The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-01-14

SPEECH OF MR.. WEN
OF INDIANA
Ia TIE House Of Representatives.,
WEDNESDAY,, Jan. (, 1915.
90 INDIANA

sllots 10 debate Ia this House, compelled To 30
ect from among the various topics OF any important
| subject Leaving, then, the details Of the several
plans of annexation 10 be discussed by their authors
shall say but word on the constitutional argument,
| already ably touched on, an argument, however,
which cannot DO fully aud with precision made, until
she'll be able To distinguish in what particular form
annexation 10 like 10 be contaminated
We have talked Of a treaty Of annexation" until
| these have become familiar words. Is II certain,
| that such an act can be properly consummaled by a
| treaty at allS treaty Is compact between two
sovereign nations Now, at what moment could
what we have called q treaty Of annexation have
| been such compact Not certainly before II was
| ratified. Until then, IL was Of no force whatever
an escrow, inohoate, as lawyers say. But would II
have been treaty offer Its ratification The instant
the last name on the Senate roll was called and the
last ratifying vote given, would the instrument even
at that first moment OF final action upon IT, at that
very hrst moment Of its legal existence then have
been treaty. treaty between whom com
| pact between what two sovereign powers Between
US and Texas That last vote would have stricken
| Texas from the independent soyereigntlos Of the
esrih. And there would have remained nothing, bot
what is familiar enough to us-what Congress has Of
| ten consummaed, and will consummate again and
again, a. a matter Of cour,e-a compact between the
| federal government and a portion OF own terri.
tory; a compact coming within the province Of Con-
gress not OF the treaty making power.
There would be stpulatlons still TO be fulfilled, but
not what could be properly called treaty stpulstions,
for there would be no foreign sovereign power then
existing with whom could fulfil them.
| My argument Is not that act of annexation is
| nothing than a compact between the general
government and Of her Territories | but say,
that II resembles that quite much II resembles
treaty. But In truth, IL Is neither the the
| other. IL is act sta Reneris Talk OF precedents
| TO justify II You might well seek in his ances
tors, the fame Of Napoleon Buonapsrte. He was
himself an ancesorl There never was, in the his
tory OF the world before, so far my reading ex-
tends, offer made by one of the independent na
tons OF the earth to merge her sovereignty in that Of
another. 1t is contingency wholly new. The &C
| ton upon II must be Our action in this
will become precedent.
| That we have the right in some form, to extend
our territory by accepting such proposition, no sen
Sble man, think, can very seriously doubt sove-
reign power oithota the power Of receiving
sou Of domain would be an anomaly in Jurisprudence
If not contradiction 10 terms. To deny to a nation
such power Of Increase is sort of shaker doctrine
in politics, which We may expect 10 received in
theory, and acted out In practice in this world, when
the doctrines OF Mother Ann Lee professed and
practsed by manknd-not till then.
Our decision TO the most appropriate form 10
which TO set 80 great precedent ought in my iudg-
ment, to be chiefly determined by the consideration
that II Is desirable II should receive the most com;
plete national assent that be gwen TO it, under
our Institutions. And surely it the best mode
OF ehecting such object, to exclude from all part-
cpatlon in that assent this the popular aud most
| numerous branch Of the government
With these brief hints, | leave the constitutional
point to Others older and Of more experience in e
gislstion than myself and pass to review of the sub
Ject IN Its foreign aspect. purpose 10 speak Of the
justice and eIpedency Of this great measure in
necron with the public sentiment Of this county aud
with the laws Of the civilized world.
In all matters Of controversy, however important,
there are commonly certain main principles which
once established the whole subject dispute set
tied. And II we desire to obtain clear views of
things, we do we'll to fix eyes steadily on tlese
nor suffer our attention to be withdrawn by incden-
tai propositions, MT relevant Or at least, not essen
tial.
| If this be true in the general the remark applies
| with especial force to the subject before u.s. II
would be difficult to find matter where the decisive
points at issue are so few and simple yet that
has been so smothered up by load Of extraneous
| matter, as this Texas annexation. The right or
wrong Of the case Is question Of public jusce of
international law it hangs not on the tone of de-
spach or the wording Of accompanying docu-
ment. The expedeDcy of the measure involves con-
slderotons national in the widest sense Of the te,
| CO extensive with the Union reaching TO after ages
let 1t not be dwaried down to party wIangle, or
Northern and Southern dispute; QUARREL that has
no higher aim, than to give Office to a man, or sus-
taining aid to a temporary institution
| The public press il loaded down with comment,
| on tue diplomatic encounters of the past year. be-
| tween us and Mexico. These paper weapons may
decide our opinion OF men they ought TO intu-
ence our judgment of measures. Let those who ind
cause OF offence in their language and spirit suffer
me 10 remind them, that, when they have settled
that point they nearer the true issue than be-
fore. We may not like the terms in which claim
is urged yet, if we just, shall still look to
the substance OF the claim, not to the of pre-
ierring it.
| 1t easy and invdious to find fault especially
| ,ha,,
come apparent. Yet trust shall not give offence
nor be held failing in respect to the parties concern
ed, If express regret that the question of the right
or the wrong Of the Itrin revolution has been suf-
Tered to mngle, even incidentally, with the true
issues, in our diplomatic correspondence with Mexi
CO. The Texans, indeed, have most ample just-
hcation of their revolution The war which glor
ously ended at New Orleans thirty years ago this
very day, was not more just than by which Texas
became independent. One half the provocation
Texas has received would have discovered our Union
long ago. There is not State of the twenty-six 80
poor OF SPIRIT that her citizens would not have risen
as man, against such usurpaton. But however UNI
questionable the right IT is not one in my judgment
which called upon or which we should
have permitted ourselves, to argue with Mexico
With Texas, not with us, was the question of past
grievances against Mexican authority open if open at
all. But in truth it closed; closed long since,
! by that stern arbter, the sword.
| Nor does 1t seem to me, that il was our place as
negoators, even to allude to former rights under by
gone treaties. Do we claim Texas under the treaty
of 10 81 Not at all. Sgnor Rejon so construes it
but that Is only one of the men of ne sets up,
for the convenient pleasure of comfortably demolis
| ing him again.
AS between us and Texas, the argument from
that treaty in its moral bearing, is strong one and
as such | have, on previous occasion, alluded to it,
Our solemn promise publicly made in 1903 we VIC
lated In lSl9; and though we may not take advan-
tage of our own wrong still to claim Texa, against
our formal cessioD, yet neither released from
our obligation TO receive her. circumstances
lawfully and honorably permit, and she herself de-
( sires re-anne Iation. ...
III any thing can strengthen our moral obligation
TO repair great wrong, committed for the sake Of
acquiring the Floridas it is the fact not generally
known, that the Texans, numbering in 1919, over
ten thousand free white inhabitants, formally pro-
tested Just four months after the signature Of The Florida
treaty, against this abandoning Of their persons and