The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-01-10

| territory within tho original limits of the Un'tsd
| States, was distinctly before the convention, once
adopted by it, aud finally rejected in favor Of clause
| making The power in this respect general"
But IL is unnecessary 10 dwell further this point
Mr. Clay, who mbodies in himself, according to
| their own admission, the opinions OF the wing
/ party, admits no such faneiful limitation. The
| President elect Of the democratic party scouts IT.
Mr. Van Buren's argument against II makes clear
elucidatoo of It's absurdity impossible. And the
repeated action Of every department OF the govern
ment, the most solemn form, settles the question
forever
IL is insisted however, that the power is TO admit
new States" and that 1t does not authorize Con
gress 10 acquire territory. That IL is said can only
be done by national compact, which treaty, The
| power To make which is confded exclusively 10 the
| President and the Senate.
The first answer 10 this argument is, that authority
for the admission Of States carries with II every
Thing which Is necessary and proper TO accomplish III
| and Congress may take such intatoy steps as may
| be necessary, preparatory TO the admission oil The
State into the Union upon equal footing with the
| rest. There Is nothing IN the constitution "hich
shows that the trainers OF II supposed that was IN
dspensable that the State should spring into the
| Union full armed, like Minerva from the brain OF
Joye. If they had, they would have found no anal
ogy for such proceeding except in heather mythol'
ogy They certainly would not in the natural world,
| where everything progresses gradually from infancy
| to age. II We bring Texas under our jurisdiction as
territory by the passage Of bill, IN which pro-
vision shall be made for future admission into The
Union state, what hereafter shall be done, each
step IN The proceeding will be part and parcel Of the
| same transaction and constitute but act. Those
| who agree that we may admit a foreign State into
| the Union as State, but deny that may bring II
IN as territory, involve themselves in the absurdity
| OF maintaining that the Lesser power Ii not studied
| IN the greater and that, although we may exercise
| the last we cannot the first
| III II be true that under the power to admit new
| States you may not first, IN the OF a foreign
State, bring State under the jurisdiction of
laws territory, then the whole clause authorz
Congress 10 admit them IN practice would be nuga-
tory. The constitution of any foreign State suited
| Tor ITS government Independent power, would,
for that very reason be unsulted for It's government
as member Of this eoniederacyi and with 1t I'M
| changed such State could not be admitted into this
| Union. And II Is exceedingly improbable that an
independent State would consent-as il is very GER
tain Texas VIII MOTTO break up her form OF govern
ment and adopt constitution not suited for her gov
eminent as independent State, upon the tain
~ which ways attends all future legislation of her
| admission into the Union.
| But 1t may be said admitting this argument to be
sound, yet II only proves that The foreign State must
OF necessity be brought under our jurisdiction as
territory preparatory TO its admission into the Union
but It does not prove that this may be done by joint
resolution On the contrary, il is insisted by the
| gentleman from Massachusetts Mr.. Winthrop that
this can only be effected if at ALL by an international
arrangement, which is treaty the power to make
which exclusively vested in the President and Sc
| nate.
Tins argument is founded upon the assumption that
| an agreement or arrangement can only be made be-
tween nations by treaty. II this shall out be
untrue, and We shall find that compacts and agree
mens are constantly made by legislation, the whole
argument falls to the ground.
The idea of the gentleman from Massachusetts,
that every agreement between nations is technically
| "A ID ,ab tkab -. ,,,l,
| IN our case, by the constitution itself
! The SUBJECT OF International compacts is referred
TO IN three distinct clauses of the constitution In the
FIRST clause of The 10Th section of article lst il j. de-
clared that " no State shall enter into any treaty al
lance, or confederation - In the last clause of the
same section IT is also declared that 20 State SHALL
without the consent Of Congress- enter into any agree
menu or compact with another State, or with foreign
power" In the second clause of second section of
second article, the President is empowered "by and
with the advice snd consent of the Senate to make
hsais', provided twothrds Of the Senators present
| concur"
| IL must always be borne in mind, in constituting the
constitution, that is almost remarkable for the
literary execution as for the profound political states
manship displayed in it, The meaning of every ord
| seems to have been deliberately weighed every
word therefore, must have its due weight and appro
pirate meaning, and not be rejected as SD
pernuous. In the language of the Chief Justice Of
the United States, in the of Holmes Is, Jenn-
son ct al l4h Peters ST. concurred in by Messrs
Justices Wayne, Mclean, and Story-the last two Of
whom, presume, the gentleman from Massachusetts
| INT winthrop will admit as authority
! No word IN the instrument (the constitution can
DC rejected as superluous or unnecessary; and
TINS principle Of construction applies with pecu-
'ar iorce TO the two clauses of the tenth section of
the brst article, of which we are now speaking, be-
cause the whole Of this short section is directed to
the same subject that is say it is employed alto
n anu prnti fha -,
States and this is done with much clearness and
breyity, that we cannot for moment believe that
single superfuous word used, or words which
meant merely the same thing. When, therefore, the
second clause declares that State shall enter into
any agreement or compact with foreign power
without the assent of Congress, the words agree
ment and compact cannot be construed as synopy
nous with one another and still less can either of
them be held to mean the same thing with the word
treaty, IN the preceding clause, into which the
States are positively and Internationally forbidden TO
enter and which even The consent of Congress could
not authorize"
From this it seems that the gentleman from Mao
sachusetts Mr.. WINrHRopl is mistaken in sunno,,nr
that all supulaons and agreements between nations
are necessarily treaties. On the contrary another
distinguished gentleman from the same State [Mr
CHoATE, of the Senate was much nearer right
"heh ne INSISTED mat such transact on as is con
| templated between Texas and the United States
could not, with any propriey, be called treaty
On the occasion alluded to- he said
~ 1t must appear to be "a treaty. The Presi-
dent, by and with the advice and consent of the SEN
ate, may make freaties What are reati,s, in Tho
sense Of this provision of the constitution
| submit, sir, that they are such compacts "a Then
when the constitution framed were in the usual
current, general, common language of public law, of
history, and politics, denominated treaties. The
word does not include every possible compact, ar
rahgemeht, or transaction which by fgurave capri
cious, or unusual employment of speech, NAV opce
or twice, in the whole range of the literature of in
ernational law, be found 10 be called treaty: bu,
1t includes what are ordinarily and generally called
such. The constitution is the language of the peo.
PIE. II spoken TO the people 1t is the record of
| their will Its words, then are used in their noo,
lar sense Even its professional technical, and legal