Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-01-18

dred thousand; SO that theislpresent consumption
of goods i probably not create than that Of Rhode
Island or Delaware, and not nariy equal 70 tna' OF
either Of the cities Of Philadelphia or New York.
But let their population grew as rapidly as you
please still il viii have to be psopled from our soil
cb;eav 90 that after all, the main difference to the
manufacturer viii be that Of sing to men in Texas
what he now sells to them in Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, &c.
Such are the main aspects Of the questions, as
thus far presented5Sn the view Of evidently
fell 10 be the nlaia one--the most convincing, be-
cause the most seductive all other arguments in sup
port Of thu fxpediency Of annexation being indeed
substantially given up.
On the around Of right, the reasoning is equally
cogent and consistent First theyhave argued that
Texas is independent; which, if we understand the
word, means that she has no need pf any body to
fight her battles, maintain her rishts, or pay her
debts. Being Independent aay thty) she is soyer-
eign but we, it appears, ca Wy 5jont resolution,
lne xiingse lSss. aienate what's
nalienable, defeat what is indefeasble, prescribe
what is imprescrptble, and turn her into depeu-
dency, territory. Nay, it appears that she is but
territory of ours, after all, though in 1904 we ex-
pressly decided for ourselves, by law, under the Ad
ministraton making the acquisition of Louisiana,
that she was no part of it; though all our subse-
quent acts, up to 1916, avowed the fact again and
again; though we never set up any but diplomatic
claim, soemnly abandoned at the close OF the ne
gotiaton with Spain, for an equivalent, now in our
possession though ever since 1924 we have, by re-
peated offers to purchase it merely, recognised all
the rights of others and the absence of any on our
part; though we confirmed to Mexico, in 1892, our
original abandonment of it: though in 1897 we ac-
knowledged its independence though we have now
legation there and though we say we are at
peace with Mexico, while she is making war upon
our territory of Texas.
But all this argument Of annexation has, at least,
most honorable source great tenderness for the
national honor-an invincible attachment TO the faith
and sanctity of treates-no, we beg pardon, OF
single treaty. The gentlemen select for all this
jealous fidelity, the utter uncertainty las 1t is at
BEST of the treaty Of 1903 with France, for Louisi
ana and, upon revived claim under that, though
so often cancelled by our solemn, voluntary, and
certain acts, they erect for obligation towards
the people Of Texas to admit them into our Union.
Thus, for single most ambiguous engagement to-
wards people not then in existence and who have only
gotto Texas by entering into opposite engagements to
another Power, we are to break, through extreme
good faith all other treaties, however direct, how
ever explicit however repeated.
Such are the chief grounds taken, under plea of
national law. Those of constitutional law are
equally remarkable. In this part of the business
is of course, the strict constructionsts, the liter
alists, the JeHersonan abstractionists, who figure
the most notably.
At certain hours, through all the Mahomedan
countries, the yotaries of the Prophet, no matter
where they are or how they may be employed, are
bound to face as well as they cam towards his tomb
THE Kaaba) drop on their knees, and put up pray
er. But, as few but astronomers tell the exact
direction, and the men of science are the least par
ticular about the place where the Prophet lies it
happens that no two Moslemites look the same way
to send their VOWS to the sepuchre, and that many
turn their backs precisely upon it. Such nearly, is
what has happened throughout this search of the
faithful for the constitutional authority to annex
Texas. Many of them turn at once to the provi-
sion of the Constitution allowing the admission of
new States but there, unluckiy, they are met at
once by the decisive authority of their prophet him
self, who AYERS, unequivocally, in his letter to Mr.
Breckenridge that there is in the Constitution all-
thority whatever for incorporating foreign terrific
ry. The disciple who claims to overthrow his mas
ter is, Of course, ill-advised. Others, therefore,
stunning that direct struggle, appeal to precedent
but forget when they do SO, that there are more pre-
cedents for Bank of the United States, or for in
ternal improvement or for protection of manufac-
lures, or for many other things which they dispute,
than for annexation. Others declare that the power
of acquiring territory is inherent faculty of all
sovereignty forgetting that they themselves have
often maintained or their doctors for them that the
Federal Government is only an agent of sovereign
ties and that at best is sovereignty limited to
express powers. Another sort refer the constitu-
tional power to that of making war for (say they)
territory may be acquired by conquest; and, as this
Government can make war, it has, of course, the
right to acquire territory A very curious way,
this, of passing by the principal, from the exercise
Of which alone the incidental can flow, and making
the latter substantive, independent and original. But
this is strict construction. Yet another sort deduce
the power from supposed analogy to the power
I" to borrow money - How, we leave all adopts
and philosophers who have not heard the method,
to imagine the solution.
Whilst by