Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1845-01-23
CONGRESS.


on the SUBJECT Of The Annexation Of Itras-
Mr.. OWEN said In the brief time which our rule
alots to debate in this House, compelled to
iect from among the various topics Of any important
subject Leaving, then, the details of the several
plans of annexation be discussed by their authors
shall say but word on the constitutional argument
already ably touched on, argument, however, which
cannot be fully and with precision made until we
shall be able to distinguish in what particular form
annexation is like to be consummated.
4, We have talked of 'streaty of annexation" I'M
I'll these have become familiar words. Is ii certain
that such an act can be properly eonsummated by q
treaty at all +? treaty Is compact between two
sovereign nations. Now, at what moment could what
we have called treaty of annexation have been such
compact Not certainly before it was ratified. I'm
til then, 1t was of force whatever; escrow,
choate, as lawyers say. But would it have been
treaty after its ratification The instant the last
name on the Senate roll cllled and the last rati-
flying vote given, would the instrument at that
rSt moment OF final action upon it, at that very first
moment of its legal existence then have been
y! A treaty between whom! A compact between
what two sovereign powers Between us and Tex
IS: That last vote would have stricken Texas from
the independent sovereigntes of the earth And there
would have remained nothing, but what is familiar
enough to us-what Congress has often consummated,
and VIII consummate again and again, as q matter of
course compact between the federal government
and portion of our territory; compact COM
ing within the province of Congress- of the
ty-makng power.
There would be spulations still to be fulfilled but
not what could be properly called treaty stpulations
for there would be foreign sovereign power then
existing with whom could fulfil Them
My argument is not that act of annexation is
nothing than compact between the general
government and of her Territories. | but say
that II resembles that quite much it resembles
treaty But, in TRUTH it is neither the one nor the
other. 1t is act sui generis. Talk of precedents
to justify 1t +! You might well seek in his ances4
tors, the fame of Napoleon Buonaparte. He was him.
self an ancestorl There never was in the history of
the world before, far my reading extends, an
offer made BY one of the independent nations of the
earth to merge her sovereignty in that of another 1t
is contingency wholly new. The action upon it
must be new. Our action in this case will become
precedent
That we have the right, in some form, to extend
our territory by accepting such proposition,
sble man, think, very seriously doubt. A soTe-
reign power oittouI the power of receiving an acces
son of domain would be anomaly In jurisprudence
If not contradiction in terms To deny to a nation
such power of increase, of Shaker doctrine
in politics. which we may expect to see received in
theory, and acted out In practice, in this world, when
the doctrines of Mother Ann Lee are professed and
practsed by mankind-not till then.
Our decision to the most appropriate FORM in
which to set so great precedent, ought in my udg-
ment to be chiefly determined by the consideration,
that IS desirable 1t should receive the most complete
national assent that be given it, under
stitutlons And surely it is not the best mode Of ef
fecting such object to exclude from all particpa-
ton IN that assent, this the popular and most
Gus branch of the Government.
With these brief hints, leave the constitutional
point others, older of more experience in legs-
atIon than myself, and pass to review of the sub
lect In Its foreign aspect purpose speak of the
justice and expedency of this great measure in
necion with the public sentnent of this country and
with the laws of the civilized world.
In all matters of controversy, however important
there are commonly certain main principles, which
once established, the whole subject IN dispute is set
tied. And if desire obtain clear views of things
we do well to fix our eyes steadily these nor suer
our attention to be withdrawn by incidental PROPOSE.
tons, not relevant, or, at least, not essential.
Ii this be true in the general, the remark applies
with especial force to the subject before US 1t woulC
be difficult to find matter, where the decisive points
at issue are so few and smpe yet one that has beer
so smothered up by load of extraneous matter, as
this Texas annexation The right or wrong of the
case is question of public JUSTICE of nternationa
law 1t hangs not on the tone of despatch or the
wording OF an accompanying document. The expe
diency OF the measure involves considerations nation
al In the widest of the term co-extensive witt
the Union, reaching after ages let not be dwarf
ed down to party wrangle, or Northern and South
crn dIspate; quarrel that has higher aim, thar
to give Office to man, sustaining aid to tempo
rary institution.
The public press is loaded down with comments Oh
the diplomatic encounters of the past year, between
our opinion of men they ought not to influence GU
judgment OF measures. Let those who find cause O
offence in their language and spirit suffer me to re
mind them, that, wnen they have settled that point
they are no nearer the true issue than before. w
may not like the terms N which claim is urged
yet, If just, shall still look to the substanc
of the claim not to the manner of preferring it.
Ii Is easy and invdlous to find fault, especial
when transaction is passed and its results have be
come apparent. Yet trust | shall not give offence
nor be held falling in respect to the parties concerned
II express regret that the question of the right
the wrong o. the Ieriaa reroiution has been suficre
to mInge, even incidentally, with the true issues, i
diplomatic correspondence with Mexico. Til
Texans indeed, have most ample justification IF the
revolution. The war which gloriousy ended at Ne
Orleans thirty years ago this very day. was not MOI
just than that by which Texas became independen
One half the prosocation Texas has received woul
have discovered our Union long ago. There is not
State Of the tweny-slx poor Of spirit that her eli
izens would not have risen, man, against sue
usurpation But however unguestionable the right
is not one, in my Judgment which we were called vi
on, which should have permitted ourselves
argue with Mexico. With Texas, not with u.s. WI
the question of past grievances against Mexican Al
thor.ty open If open at ALL But in truth it was clio
ed; closed, long since by that stern arbiter, Il
sword.
Nor does it seem to me, that it was our place,
negotators even to alude to former rights under b
gone treaties. Do We claim Texas under the trea
Of 1903! Not at all. Signor Rejon so construes il
but that Is only Of the men Of straw be se;s q
for The convenient pleasure of comfortably demolis
ing him again.
As between Us and Texas, the argument from tn