Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1845-02-28
SKETCH OF SENATOR RlVES' SPEECH
ON ANNEXATION

1t is according to Vattel that where part of
territory is to be transferred, the people must be
consulted, and by SO much the greater necessity,
where foreign power transfers the whole of its
territory.
treaty is a bargain with foreign power, and
the sovereign power resides in the people. There
are two kinds of treaties according to Vattel--a
treaty for Protection and treaty for surrender of
Territory. This is precisely the kind of treaty
contemplated by the United States and Texas.-
Vattcl page 93) expressly calls this kind of bar
gain treaty.
Mr.. Rives then went into history of the differ
ent States that have been annexed to Others But
it was useless to appeal to these instances. lie
had the authority before him - he had the Consti.
tuition Of the country before him, providing for the
operation Of the treaty making power-a power
which could not be assumed by another without the
destruction of that power. This movement to ad-
init new foreign power is more than an amend
ment to the Constitutional is assuming all Ar
chimedean power which shall raze from their foun.
dation our State. institutions.
The Constitution is plain, and | shall give you
some rules for Interpretation. Mr.. Jelerson's let
ter to Judge Johnson says you must not attempt to
"squeeze" new meaning out of the Constitution.
Judge Story, in giving the opinion of the Supreme
Court in the case Of Prlggs, or rather Maryland a.
gainst the State OF Pennsylvania, says we must be
governed by contemporary history. Now, the Con-
stitution, when it says new States may be admitted
does not mean that States may be admitted out OF
Foreign territory but out Of territory belonging
to the United States. ! do not mean 10 say that il
was to be out OF territory belonging to the United
States at the time of the adoption of the Consttu.
ton, but out of territory that was then or was there
after to be territory before it was admitted.
Mr.. X, then pointed out the history of new States
admitted into the Union. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania had quoted from a number of the
Federast.' That very number throws flood O
light upon that subject In speaking of the DOW
ers in the old articles of Confederation to admit
Canada, which a Foreign State as Texas i,
now, Mr. Madison said there was no power to ad
nit New States clearly showing that the tern
new States, in the Constitution, must refer to State
formed out of our own territories
The member from Pennsylvania asks is not Tex
as State? reply no-not in the sense of tn
Constitution. If you insist upon literal constructio
YOU will act as the authorities did, who tried ply
stefan for bleeding man, taken with a fit of ape
plexy because the statutes forbade the spilling {
blood in the streets He then gave different eX
ampes Of this kind Of construction that threw MI
Buchanan's construction into ridicue.
But the gentleman from Pennsylvania has brougl
Mr.. Jefferson to the stool of repentance. Bl
though Mr. Jefferson, may, from necessity, hav
changed his mind, relative to the power to acquiI
New Territory by treaty, yet he never gave it Q
his opinion that majority of Congress could az
NIT foreign Empire as State
Here Mr.. Rlves went into long and very int
estng history Of the adoption Of this clause in til
Constitution about the admission of new States il
TO the Union Upon this part he excited the MOI
lively interest. This he followed by a reply to tn
precedents quoted, about the admission of Vernon