Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-03-14
CONGRESSIONAL.
SPEECH OF Mr.. WOODBURY.,
Or New HAMrsHIRE,

SPEECH OF Mr.. WOODBURY.,
Or New HAMrsHIRE,
on TIE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
Deferred in the Senate Of Tie Z. S. Ft6 IL, 1915.
Concluded
Il had been said, that The precedents sci in 1903
and in 1918 were all against this measure, be-
cause Louisiana and Florida had both been ac-
ouired BY treaty. So they had been; but could
moi gentlemen perceive the broad distinction be-
tween those cases and his2 In 1903 we were
not admitting new States: we were purchasing
territory, and territory alone. The inhabitants
of Louisiana were not then considered numerous
enough and entirely fit for admission as citizens
of the United States; they had not been trained
to our habits and our principles, and required
some probation. We admitted the territory BY
treaty because there was no foreign Legislature
having jurisdiction in the case. We got Loui-
siana from France France then had no efficient
Legislature We COL Florida from Spain; Spain
had then no such Legislature. Both OF them must
have been obtained by treaty, or not al all. But
because we could get territory by treaty, did II
therefore follow that we could not admit States
by legislation, and thus get it II, indeed, We
had admitted Louisiana and Florida as new
States, and done it by the treaty power, then there
would have been conflict between tina, power
and This clause; but we did moi, and therefore the
gentleman's precedent-gelting territory by
trea,y-availed nothing 10 show that State could
no, be admitted by the Legislature.
The application for transfer 10 MS not coming
from the people in those cases. but the acquisition
OF the mere territory being our object, for nation
al security, the treaty making power was proper
ly exercised; and, although the first OF these pre-
cedenls occurred in 1903, il was not till 1917 nine
wears afterwards, that portion of the territory
ACQUIRED was admitted into the Union and then
l., h,,C ourapnllv IN e a
ed power in the Constitution. A long interval
was allowed for such foreigners as chose to re-
main on the territory TO become Americanized,
10 learn the principles and operations of our in
stitutions, that they might unite with our own
population setting there inc due time, for applying
for admission into the Union.
The Senator from Kentucky Mr.. MoreheadJ
dwelt much, and laid great stress on Mr.. Jeier-
sons argument; but did he not perceive that mat
argument was as strong and stronger against NM
self than against the friends of the resolullon!-
What was Mr. JefferSon's argument! II was
against the acquisition of Louisiana By Hcafy.-
All that the honorable Senator from Kentucky
MR. Morehcad] had shown from MIR. Jefferson
went against their own construction. They held
that territory must be acquired by treaty. Mr..
Jefferson held at first that il could not be ac-
0uired by treaty But that was not The PROPOSE
lion now before Congress. MIR. Jefferson never
had that question before him; ne never had been
asked 10 receive State by the action oil Con-
gress Mr.. w. had no doubt that Mr.. Jefferson
altered his views but whether he had, or not, did
not touch The question. Mr. Madson-the truly
great expounder of The Constitution-had certain
IL thought that Louisiana, when formed into
State, could be admitted by Congress lawfully,
Tor he signed the bill for her admission in 1872.
[Mr Morehead here inlerposed and said that
the honorable Senator appeared to have mlsta-
ken his whole aim. Mr.. Nicholas had written
let,er 10 Mr. Jefferson, stating il as his opinion
that Congress had power 10 receive Louisiana
under the clause for the admission oil new States.
There was no other sub ect mentioned in this cor
respondence. Mr.. Jefferson held that Congress
could not as well as that the treaty making pow
er could not without an amendment o! the Con-
sltulion; and there was no proof that he ever had
changed his opinion on that subject
Mr. W. resumed. The subject under con-
sideration at that time BY Mr.. Jefferson, was The
admission Of Louisiana by Treaty, and not by a
law That was the record, and let not gentlemen
travel out of it, Mr.. Jeiiersons objections were
against receiving her by Treat, and he thought
that this clause would not Justify il. So, on an
other point, his authority was against them. His
first view had been, thai the Treaty-power was
confined in its action TO express grants made 10
the PreSiden, and Senate in the Constitution Mr.
Jefferson was not, like Mr.. Nicholas or Mr.. Ma
Olson, member of the Convention, and, there
fore, not so we'll acquainted with The grounds OF
argument which had prevailed init. But, what
ever his views may have been eventually on both
points, Mr. W. maintained that this was not n
parallel case 10 that in 1893. The one was the
admission Of territory, the other was the adms-
sion Of a State. The one proposed action BY the
Treaty-power, the other proposed action by the
Legislature, and under distinct clause in the
Constitution
Next, with regard to the arguments urged on
the other si.!e that the Convention never intended
10 give the power of admitting new States formed
our OF foreign territory did not The history given
the other day by the Senator from Pennsylvania,
prove that The snbec; was Very deliberately de-
bate! in Convention; and that, although the first
draft and subsequent amendments of The fourth
article of the Constitution had restrictions in
view, all such restrictions were finally left out,
and the general power was given 10 Congress OF
admitting new States? Mr.. w. would not,
therefore, detain the Senate by adding any thing
on that subject, except two facts which were GER
tain and undeniab!e; it had been proposed in Con-
vention 10 limit the clause to States formed oul OF
territory then irittin the United States and that
Limitation had been stricken out. These were fixed
facts, and could not be got rid Of They were nei-
Their guessing nor special pleading. Again-it
was maintained that this was not the exercise oil
legislative power, ard thercf're, it could mol be
done BY Congress in this resolution; but on that
pon, he wouldask, didhe Legislature gel lis power
in the Constitution, because power was legs-
]ative, and did the executive get power in the
constitution because the power was executive; and
did the Judiciary get power in the constitution,
because the power was judicial? Or did each Of
these several departments derive their power from
express grants 10 them scveraly made, however
their character might be regarded in the ABSTRACT
For illustration: the trial of impeachmenis was x
pressy confded TO the Senate by the constitution.
Was that Legislative act? Was it not Judi
cial acll Yet it did not belong to the Judiciary:
il belonged 10 the Senate, and why Because the
constitution gave il 10 the Senate. The power TO
confirm nominations was given by the constitu-
tion TO two thirds Of the Senate. Was that le-
gislatre act? The suggestion o! amendments 70 the
constitution was given TO Congress. Was that le-
gisatve act? All these were powers not legsla-
tive in their nature hut conided the legislature
for convenience sake. So with this power 10 adj
nit new States II was convenient that Congress
should exercise such power. IL was not ncces-
sary 10 have convention whenever new STATE
was admitted; that would have been highly in
convenient. The nature Of the case did no, call
for it any more than when new member of a
political corporation such as town or county,
was admitted. But when an alteration was 10
I've made in the rights, guarantees, and powers OF
the nation, something more than the action Of
Congress was required. and convention could
be called
But there was more still in this argument. The
power which brought two States together, being
an organic power rather than legislative, it was
more suited in its nature 10 the whole Con-
gress, than to the treaty-making power. Congress
was favorite body, was the superior body, and
was most likely to be trusted with an organic or
fundamental question. All that was said in Vat
tel was aside from the matter, because ii related
10 European Governments, where there was for
merly no legislature, and no written Constitution.
Blu. in England, where there was both, when the
union was to be formed with Scotland and Ire
land it wa. not formed by treaty, but by legs-
latiye act or compact, called the TACT of Union"
The party with whom it is my happiness now
10 act entertained in common with myself, like
ideas near twenty years ago in the case Of the
Panama mission while our opponents then went