The Arkansas banner., 1845-03-12

liberty 10 become incorporated with Us, aht
 enter into our measures for selI-pFotectiol
 and self-defence: Our fathers settled, iii tn
 old Congress, the great question. after loH! z debate that our people flor the general defence
 might cross the Alleghanies, and that they might co 10 the Mississippi, aud should ht
 free to navigate that river, and be free 10 ha- yiuate the great outlet That people we are
 bound to protect. Ne are bound, aso. 10 carry out inc very first object in our consti-
 tntian--the protection of domestic tranquility. We are bound to protect the ihsata'i3as ,, 9t
 our country, and the properly oi our ieiioN citizens and whether ett-.pT7Pfefe fe orr IT, 7fe
 plains of Savannah, or the Pfafies ei the " esl' while the constitution lasts we are bound to
 protect them; and gentlemen, when they as , sail proposition which tends to carry ont
 that object of the constitution, assaH the coh- sfitution itselE and not msrely the proPosl- ton. Do we not know, also, that we are bound to protect the frontier i'll every difee- iinn from the lomahawk and the torch oi the savage. and that inc policy of this govern ment had driven the Indians upon that re- mote frontier. Was il not our duty to pro- tect the settler from their ataeks, and see that he k not hutchered Ill his cabin A9d yet gentlemen say there are no grounds oi eXpe- deney ill this measure He passed by all
 these arguments. however. The great o3Iect, l he appfehended. in this discussion, and that which was most important, was the f9estloa whether the constitution would admit ol the accomplishment of this proposition Ill the mode contemplated. IL was said that Il might be in better form, because II asked the assent of Texas He had no doubt that t might be better in different form; bnt let ] him tell gentlemen that, if Texas was to be admitted upon an equal footing with other Safes, was II not as proper 10 ask her ceti- sent IS that the constitution should h2Ne2s ed the consent ol Virginia, New orks and other States And when you bfthg II Ill as government, mol as territory. does she not come in upon an equality with the original Saess And let him say, also, eXas never would refuse her consent to d1Hide her leftl= tory upon general constitutional law to" was il the great States had neHeffeased lhelI consent to divide? Where was the want oi consent from the Old Domlalon to the dtfi- sion of Kentucky of North Carolina to the division of her territory into new States of Massachusetts 10 the division oi Name: I ou lei New ork, lhe Empire Sate-let her people (tor he admitted that thls WAS a government of people, as well as el States rise and say that they should be divided Tor the interests of the people, and New ofk' as a State, assonted to the proposltIon ere they not, like Texas, consulted upon thls di- vision This proposition to consult Texas upon the division of Ter territory he alluded 1 fg,I ;t tt,o fNtb9 Ot Congress with decided majority. It Was said, IS another objection 10 this blll, that the lands and Indians cannot be managed as well by Texas as by the general government. He granted il. He would prefer, in that re- speet, the proposition of the honorable seha- tor from Arkansas M. .AsuLEYs4 bat he dtd maintain that the proposition now under coh- sideration gets rid of one great objection te this annexation; and that is, that we do not assume the debts of Texas. They are now left to be paid by Texas hefsei.-- They must be left so, because otherwise | would involve insurmountable objections throughout whole country. is Ii stands now, t gets rid of all that. Can we do jus tiee to Texas in that way It Is said, truly, we take away her custom houses but Il her
  ample means to extiAguish her debt to tine dollar; and, of course, these lands increase in value upon being united to ours. Is there any impropriety to the creditor ln this Is there any improprey in making canvenl- enee of her custom-houses when enough Is left behind to secure them He would pass by all that with single word as to it's re- spectfuness. If we had never had any com mnnication with Texas upon this matteG,there might be something disrespecttul in it. But in what position do we stand? Have NC not been negotiated with, have we not understood each other from the beginning? Is 1t disre- spectul that coordinate branch of the goY- ernment should act uponit? The greatques- ten then is, is t, or is 1t not, constitutional to annex Texas, CT rather consent to her ad- mission, in the manner proposed in this reso- lution? Now, if he understood the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the speeches of the two gentlemen who had addressed the Senate within few days past, fMessrs. Morehead and Rives,4 the first ob iectien urged was, that Congress cannot ad- init new States into the Union which are not territory already belonging to the Union.- That was one branch of the opposition. An- other branch of the opposition was. that we cannot admit States into the Union by an act of Congress, although before territory within the United States, because 1t was not within the Union in l7S9.
 Mir. Archer said. from his seat, that the gentleman was perfectly right in regard 10 the first objection, but not in regard to the second.
 Well, sir, what do we say on this side ?- That you may admit new States, by an act of Congress. into this Union, whether they were territory i'll this bnion Of not previous to the passage of this act, and whether ii was in the Union or not in l7s9. That was the difference between LIS. But il was not enough 10 state the difference, hutupon what grounds they say on the other side that we cannot admit States into the Union, unless they were an existing part of the territory of the Union They say that the trealy-making power k the