The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-02-26

Constitution 50 TO prohibit the admission OF new
States into the Union without the consent OF two
thirds of both Houses OF Congress. Uses storys
Com, sec 4 ,252, IN p. 1907
| What they sought TO attain by amendment was The
same that was stricken out OF the reported article IL
| In the Federal Convention, but which the honorable
Committee on Foreign Relations, and others concur
ring still contend is virtually in the Constitution
vet as if il had been stricken out, II II had
been restored BY smSsiment as proposed BY The
| Hartford Convention.
| In flrtheraDee Of the argument in behalf OF this
principle OF the treaty power now press
ed upon u.s. Il Is commended that this conservative Pur-
pose was specially Looked 10 in framing the Constlu
ton particularly IN the important matter Of aequIr-
| ing foreign territory. Without again repeating as
| an ans~ or 10 this, that admitting Stais into
union is moi acquiring territory in the usual sense Of
the public law writers, let test this argument in an
other form And, hrst It is perfectly clear there Is
NO express authority IN the Constitution TO acquire To-
| reign territory 10 any way. Is Storys Com, sec
1880 1881, 1922 And yet II is well established We
have the power, incident 10 other powers, OF a.
necessarily resulting from national sovereignty. As
a treaty power, II has been sanctioned IN the pur-
chase Of Louisiana and Florida. And here let me
remark, had louisiana and Florida been independent
States instead of provinces Of foreign sovs-
| relgnties, there Is 10 my mind no doubt but they
would have been ultimately admitted States into
this Union, If they like Texas, had prepared them
selves and desired II. But territories not subject
rsign sovereignties they could only, on peacesble
terms be acquired 10 territory, and by treaty
But beside the right 10 purchase by treaty We have
the undoubted right as incident To the war power to
acquire territory by conquest (See the opinion OF the
| Supreme Court Of the United States by Chief Jus
tee Marshall, Peters Rep 542; also the opinion
Of Justice Johnson, dem page BID
| The honorable committee have supposed that the
acquisition by conquest Is at lest contaminated by
treaty Of peace But though this may be- II is not ne
- ~. - k.lla
subduing the State province, the eonqueror die
| tates his terms Of submission, and establishes biz
peace by military fiat Such was the subjugaton Of
Poland by Russia and in such case treaty inter
yenes. IT, then instead Of our friendly relations with
Texas we had been compelled TO secure our from
tier from her hostile border ncursons to reduce her
by conquest 10 unconditional submission, Texas would
have been thus lawfully acquired 10 Us as a territory
l0th0ui treaty Now, in such case II is apparent
this conservative notion Of the treaty power Is dis
pensed with. (See | Peterss Rep. 542i story's
Conn., sec. 1882; Vsttel, book 3, PIP. 3S6, 3S7, sec.
1877, 1875, 1893, 300 20l)
But there Is yet third mode Of acquiring terrific.
~, which essentially springs out Of the nations
reignty-l mean discovery The Oregon Territory
the nrst we acquired since our national existence
was chiefly acquired by discovery. And here again
this imaginary conservative principle has failed to
operate. Out Of three modes by which this nation
may unquestonobly acquire territory, but one Of
them necessarily inVokes the treaty power. Now,
what becomes Of this conservative intention Of the
Constitution this subject which has been coined
up on this occasoni
most exaggerated estimate has been INDUCED in
by honorable Senators Of the simple power which,
by this resolution, we propose to exercise. They
present as equivalent 10 asserting the right TO bring
any foreign nation into the UDun whether France, or
Patagonia, or the Chinese empire. But, Mr.. PresI-
dent, what, to PLAN, practical mind not too much
excited 10 things double. is the meaning Of admit
ting new State INTO the Uni0nl State includes
both territory and people, and union implies proxmi
ty, IeonJuneiion-nol severance not disintegration
The States, then, which 10 be admitted into the
Union must be adjacent coterminous. They ia
be included, both territory and people, by extending
J the outer boundary Of the Federatiye Union. And
uness the State can be brought within geograph-
cal circle, It Is no more within the Union than
inside OF this Capitol when outside Of II. The
ture Of the case, and the term used necessarily i'm
ply this Such territorial union may rivers and
; channels OF the sea, while yet cotermInous but
States, which cannot be included in the circle but by
crossing foreign States and sovereign to reach them
1 cannot be brought within our Union. We may make
alliances with nations however distant, but union
only with those adjacent.
The Constitution Of the United States requires as
qualifications for Senator, that he shall have beer
nine years a citizen of the United States and of
Representatives in Congress years a citizen OF
the United States, and each shall be an nhab,ant Of
the STATE at the time of his election This, it ha,
been said shows that the admission of Texas al once
as State into the Union is violatve of the Const
tuition, because her people, on the instant Of adms
into the Union, cannot be qualified by the citizen
ship of seven and nine years, to represent her as
State in the Congress.
This objection is urged as il the Constitution con
templat,d that the Senator and should
have been not only citizens of the United States bu
of the State they represented, for these periods Of
seven and nine years so prescribed. So far from h
view being in any degree correct, nothing but inab
tane of the Stale to be represented al the time of rep
resentaon is required. And in the Convention the
various propositions 10 prescribe any period Of nhab
fancy, for a year, stricken out-six States
10 four. Mr. Madison suggested as an objection tc
c such requirements OF previous inhabitancy, thai
the 'new States IN the West could have perhaps nc
representation on that plan."-(3 Madison Papers
pp 1858, 1859 1861
!, Having disposed of this question of constitutional
power, which is made the principal one in this de
bate, Iproceed to notice other objection. to the
: civil right and expediency of the measure.
And first, as to the position Of Texas and its rela
tons with Mexico.
If some General of our army, other public
functionarv, were to commence military revolution
upon our Federative Government, breaking up its
civil administration in this District and dispensing its
officials, and following up his success carried his re
vouton into the several States successfully till near
ly all had yielded to the despot's power suppose
: when the Union had been thus violently broken up
the States of Maine and Massachusetts chose ratbeI
IMAM submsslon 10 assume the separate independence
thus forced upon them and resisted the revolutionary
. tyrant-woud they have the right to do soi And
secondly, would the successful revoutonist who had
subjuyated twenty three of the States to his will and
power have thereby acquired right-a presumptive
right to subugate the remaining States of the broken
CoDtederacy' Suppose, in this aspect of the est
Maine and Massachusetts chose to ally themselves
. or to make any compact of union with England
would England, by such union alliance have VIC.
, lated any principle of comfy law known to civil.
: lied natIonsH
speak not here, Mr. President OF what nation
, from mere considerations Of prudence, may think
proper to do, or from prudence forbear but of the
rights which by the laws of nations, intervene in such
" case to permit or consran action with the parties
The case stated is substantially the relation which