The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-03-28

privilege 10 INC DINER hud what do gentlemen no "
PROPOSED To restore 10 us equal privileges under
the Constitution No, sir. But to use tins Govern
ment which they seem 10 forget is as much Us
theis To Impose restraints and new disabilities
| upon us Whence the right Of one section Of
this Union TO make such demands upon the otheri Is
| not this our own Gosernment' Why should ii en-
ihral and siigmatize usl And shall lie supinciy
and receive mark by which, II found north of Ger
tain latitude, fall under the denuncat OF law,
and INTO the hands Of police All ask say gen.
| tlemen, Is fair compromise Fair compounds -
Sir, your notion Of compromise would find apt IL
iustraton IN the conduct Of individual who should
make The following proposal To his neighbor: "My
friend, desire TO live OF good neighborhood
and cordial Intercourse with you, and to participate
with you IN free and generous hospitality that is,
10 your own house IL must be we'll understood,
however you are not TO presume 10 cross my thresh-
old -
But, Mr.. Chairman, hasten TO the question Of
constitutional authority admit Texas into this Fe-
dera Union. And IN prosecuting this argument, two
principal inquiries arise
First Can people, external 10 the orig nal limits
oil The national territory, be admitted into the Union
at al, by any authority in the Government; and
Secondly; II such people may, IN what depart
ment or branch Of our Government resides the power
applicable To the measure.
IL is sefevident that every State that is not in the
Union, out Of ii and is, therefore, foreign To it, in
a social and political sense All must agree then that
can. But this is not the question. The question is,
do States, geographically foreign TO the national do
main, properly come under the description of new
States" IN the Constitution.
The first inquiry, then, relates to the Just import
OF The phrase new States /" subject To such contem-
poraneous exposition the example Of eminent
statesmen and Jurists has made authoritative The
passage In the Constitution is as follows al New
States may be admitted by the Congress iuto this
union, &c. shall not repeat the views that have
been urged with so much ability this point, but
content myself with adding thereto, that have
occurred to myself, and will not, trust be deemed
unmportant.
The term "new States is general term, opposed
TO the term primitive States )" and, in Its natural
construction, Is comprehensive Of all States moi priu-
Hire IL suggests TO the mind third class OF aes
as being neither neo nor pymihps IL includes in It's
expression no description OF a community inhablting
internal territory, contradistnct from community
inhablung external territory; but applies with dent-
cal proprety TO both. 4 he only suggestion II con-
yeys to the mind, when referred to external com
munites, the probability that the trainers OF the
Constitution did not suppose that the neighborlng
provinces would ever be admitted, without contract
ing their areas, readjusng boundaries, and dividing
one original people into two or more new States
he neghboing provinces likely TO apply for admis-
sion were large. And all knox that, although, I'M
der the confederation, objection made 10 the
size of any State, and Canada large as she is was
made adm ssibe without division OF erritory yet at
the formation of the new Constitution the relative
size of the States excited very deep interest and no
proposition could have received less favor with the
Convention than one to admit CaLada, (Great Br-
tain conserving, of course with her immense donna in
one Slate Nothing can be more certain than that
the old province would have been required to erect
| herself into five or six States. Nor would she
now be received IT at all, on different terms,-sup
posing her competent to dispose Of herself These
reflections, however give still greater Proprey to the
word new" as alike applicable to all States that
might In future be admitted into the Union. IT,
10 king around upon the neighboing provinces, and
regarding them they are, great masses, capable,
each Of beng erected into many States, as large as
the largest of the Unon the federal convention en-
tertaned the purpose of providing for their becoming
part of this Union, how would they have expressed
he power1 The neighboring provinces NAV be
admitted into the Union 2" or" new States may be
admitted into the Unionl" Unless you suppose they
| am icipated the admission of each province as one
| mammoth Stale contend the former language would
have been positively incorrect If was the concep-
| ton of the trainers Of the Constitution that Canada
and our wild domains should alike be subdivlded with
view to the formation Of States then the same term
should have been used for both and could have
been better chosen than that Of 9 new States" II Is
van therefore TO attempt TO evade the force of these
| words. They must inevitably convey to Congress
perfect discretion in the matter unless proofs from
collateral should oe ate to impair their fore
And the burden of such proofs rest not upon my
| shoulders, bur yours But will take it on myself
10 move The only objection that could he fairly ex-
| trac,ed from the proceedings of the conve ntion.
Ii may be argued that as Canada and other colo
MES named in the articles of confederation TO
! omit tn me nt,on them in the Constitution was
calculated to produce impression, they were not
intended to be covered by the power in question and
If the convention meant not to convey such an i'm
preston, why did they not connect with the words,
States, some language suitable to prevent it Z
ia lar W. nv
ston. Canada being named in the articles, the ma
| tural expectation was, she would be provided for
| in the Constitution; and if the convention meant
| otherwise, 1t was an unaccountable oversight,
not to say so in express terms. But am free to ad-
nit, that upon close and thorough examination Of
| the proceedings in convention, there appears some
| evidence of disposition to let the matter of new
States pass, without employing defnitive Ian
guage. And should not venture to intimate there
o slight SAVIOR of non-committal in the conven-
ton, if il were not in my power to find, not only an
explanation, but perfect Justification in their wis
dom and patriotism.
None but British colonies included in the ar
tcles of confederation We were at war with Great
Britain. But at the adoption of the new Constitu-
| ton peace had been ratified between her and the
United States Now, suppose the language" of the
Constitution had been, new States, formed of our
own territory, and of the neighborng colonies of
France Spain, and Great Britain may be admitted
into this Union" Suppose Canada, Nova Scotia,
| and New Brunswick, belonging to friendly power
had been called by name' What would the world
have thought Would not so direct an invitation
| and inducement to revolt and fly to the United
States for aid held out to neighborng colonies by
name, in pointed and procamatory language, have
amounted to violation of the laws of nations and to
Just cause of war; Such provision in the Const-
tuition as have described connected with that other
provision which requires of the United States a
guarantee of republican form of government to
each State, would have placed our Union before the
world in the light of political propaganda, whose
| object was, not merely to enlarge our own possess
| sons and domain, but also to uproot and overthrow
all that deemed sacred and legitimate in the old
| orld In consequence of the loss of the thirteen
Great Britain suffering great soliclude for her
remaining colonies, as also was Spain for hers; and
subsequent events have shown that SPANS were no
idle fears Was it likely that the United States
we're willing, so soon, to hazard second war D.