The Arkansas banner., 1845-02-12

l Ill regard to ther domestic institutions Una
 they denled to them the right to interfer
 with She could have no other object i
 wanting thls great aseendency of poliica
 power, except for the purpose of wrongin
 and expressing the South, and destroying tn power oi that part of the Union. No: h,
 wanted this kind of declaration of the cen I tleman from Vermont to be understood u
 the South; and lie wanted the South to an
 sWer through her representative here, anC
 their organs al home, whether, in their mac
 devotion to party discipline, they were ore.
 pared to sacrifice all that was dear 10 then
 and their posterty, for the purpose of becom
 ing closely identified with the fedcraljsts. in, abolltlonlsts, and inc fanatics of the North
 They were told that they had no copstitu.
 tional power to annex Texas. That ouestior
 llad already been argued so ably, he would
 not enter in minute examination of inc sul.
 lect. lie recollected, however, when 1t hac
 been proposed to reannex Texas by treaty
 they had heard il thundered from the capitol
 and from every State in the Union. that i
 was gross assumption of power on the par
 ol an accidental, irresponsible. ambitions President, to promote his own ends: and
 that It would be declaration of war with
 -deXlco; that Congress only had the power
 to annex Texas, because Congress only could
 declare war. He really had been simple
 enough to suppose that they were honest in
 that declaration. But, now, when they pro- posed to re-anneX Texas, not by treaty, but
 10 admit her by act or resolution of Congress as an entire State into this Union, they heard II thundered from the same party that Con- gress had not the power to admit Texas as State because 1t belonged to the treaty-ma- klng power orto Congress, where, he asked, was the power? There were but three de- Parlments-the executive, and the legislative, and the judiciary. He had heard no one say that 1t belonged to the judiciary This was great attribute of sovereignty, that could not be lost. If they proved that it did not belong to the general, he would prove to them that It belonged to the State governments, and then they were charging our fathers who framed the constitutional with folly, ay, with the madness of having omitted in it's compo- sltlon an essential attribute of sovereignitv
 1 his attribute oi sovereignty could not be an initiated; 1t was not gone. It belonged, then, to the general, and not to the State govern ments; and he read from the Federalst the views ot Mr. Madison respecting the powers oi the general and the State governments con- ffmatory of this position.
 But they were met here with the laws of nations and they were told that this thing could not be done, because a State could not merge its sovereignty This doctrine had not it's origin in these halls; it originated in the British Parliament; its origin was with that subtle, cunning power, which had at all times It's eye upon the question; which had been looking on Texas as her own undsput- cd cline. There it was declared 10 be aques- ton which merited the serious attention of the British government. Let them inquire of that selfish, interruptions power, where were the independent powers of Ireland, Wales and Scotland That they were once free, was atlested both by history and by song 2; but they had lost their freedom The classic highlands of Scotland might reverberate i'll the hurried accents of despair, 'sWhere is my freedom :" and echo answers tsWhere" They had been swallowed up by that power which now, when her interests required it, preached to other nations that nation could not merge its sovereignty
 They had another example which had bearing upon this subject, viz the thirteen original States. They were sovereign and free as Texas or as England2 Where was their sovereignty? Where was the soye- reignty of Massachusetts It might be said, md truly, that Massachusetts was still sov- 7relgn and independent, and had only dele gated portion of her power for specific pur- poses to the general government This was oreclsely y what they intended Texas should lo; that in becoming a member of this Union, she would surrender only the sove- relgnty that Massachusetts had surrendered when the Union was formed.
 But they were met here with the objection that Texas could not come into this Union with the consent of all the partners, on the old law maxim that a new member could not pc admitted into copartnershp without the consent of all the members of that copart- nership. This might suit the capacities of county court lawyer, but 1t never could have any weight with statesmen. They had the if they desired of every partner in the original firm, without asking for 1t now In the formation of the articles of copartner- shlp, that consent had been given uncondi- Llonally; yes, 1t was declared in the consti- tutlon expressly that new States might be ad- mltted into the Union, and that by the Con- gress of the United States. In support of his views on this point, Mr. c. read from the Federalist. If there were any doubt on this point, he might refer also to the journal of the convention the articles of the coniedera- lion by which it was agreed that Canada might be admitted into this Union) to the re- lection of every proposition to restrict this power, and the adoption of it in the unlimit- ed form in which it now stood into the con stitution of the United States.
 There were various other small objections which deserved passing notice. In the first place, it was objected that we will have toI assume the debts of Texas if we annex her 10 the Union. Now (said Mir. C. we dol not propose to assume her debts. The mea- sure which he advocated was one which pro posed to admit Texas as State, to allow her 10 keep her own lands, and 10 pay her own lebts But suppose (said Mr. C. that we do