The Arkansas banner., 1845-02-05
Feb. 3, 1915.
For he Banner.


 For the Banner.
 The Banner of the 22d January contains an editorial comment on a letter of the Hon'l. Chester Ashley, on the subject of the annex ation of Texas as territory of the United States, i'll which the Editor says@'.We have hastily noted what we consider the mere outline of the Democratic, and only tenable ground upon the question involYed.o The .ground9 here noted and set forth, is the fol- lowing:
 ..The Constitution is the bond ; and we contend for its execution, whether on the side of power or against 1t. The .acquisi- ton ot terrltory,' and the admission of new States,2 are, ln our opinion, very dissimilar, as we'll in reference to the nature of the act itself, as to the authority to perform 1t. The former is an act, and one of the highest acts of sovereign power The latter is the act of an Agent, whose authority, specific and lim- tied, IS delegated in his power of Attorney the Constitution of the United States The former may be done alone by any one of the States; because the power to do 1t Is not by the Constitution, otherwise conferred; nor Is 1 1t prohibited to the States. The latter may be done alone by the Congress because the the power to do 1t is, by the Constitution, l expressly conferred alone upon the Congress- In view of what we consider these impFegna- 1 bic positions, we have never believed the ac- quisition of the LoGisiaua Territory to be constitutional exercise of power, by our Fed eral Government; although t was one of the great measures of Mr. .Jefferson2s admnistra- ton, and sanctioned by the Republican party YNecesslty-imperatiTe and indispensable, is the only plea upon which that act ever has been, or ever can be truly justified. As a State, organized under Republican form of government, Louisiana, however extensive her territorial limits, might, in strict conform lty with our Constitution, have been admit ted into the Union by Congress,-so may Texas now, but not as Territory.
 That the dissimilarty we have thus ndi- eated IS not a mere distinction withouta diff terence but expresses the true Republican discrimination between sovereign and dele gated power, we appeal 10 every candid mind, who has studied the genius of our system of government. ltis rendered the more striking ly manifest, and the reason of 1t the more readily apprecable, by the consideration that the Federal government, either by treaty or by act Of Congress, could acquire unorganized territory, 1t might, in short time, build up for itself fabric of power, dangerous direct ly to the rights of the States, and indirectly 10 the liberty of the people; whereas, by re- i serving the acquisition of territory to the States individually, and limiting the power of the Federal Government to the admission oi sovereign States, the .federatire, which is one of the two great conSerUatiUe principles oi our system of government, is preserved and strengthened by every instance of its. ex- ercise.
 ''We have hastily noted what we consider the mere outline of the Democratc and only tenable ground upon the question inyoved''
 l have ever Pfided myself upon the tenaci- ty with which have held to what deemed the approved and orthodox tenets of Democ- faey5 and strict construction of the Consti- lulion to common misunderstanding it as l would statute of the land which regulated the rights of property between men. The lramers of that sacred instrument intended it 10 be construed by the ordinary rules of con stFnclon, so as to give effect to all its prnvi- slons, without adding thereto or subtraeting from it.
 The ancient teehnicality of law and con- stFuctlon, which was well characterized bv Shakespeare in his satire in his play of the "Merchant of Venice,3 where he introduces ehyloek with his .'bond,n y claiming his ..pound ot iiesh,o has ceased ander the more liberal institutions of the nineteenth century. And equally lar have ever been fFem the lalitu- dnaran mode Of construing the constitution that prevatls with a numerous class of polifi- ;. eians oi the present day. And hence I nun unable lo glse mY assent ie all doctrines "aeieds ia the foregoing exlsncl. aul shall h'ieiiy stale Il few of my views on the sub !eel ei tie acquisition ei territory by the United Safes.
 h ihe first place, lhe power of thn general government is deaieaas ID tha araui itian of territory a@ such mud an authnriie seems ta te teuhd Eay implication, s6pposr.7 tFat foreign ietilarN uavhe aeqsiseA "alsas Ag aH7 aae ei faf >fsfesh ! take the position tliA tlie government If ihe United Smtes is eie5lat4 @isA constitutional aHthnfty but n isE nSEEEEsaEa HItE saa##i 5HFze5a8iaTIH f57 7== galre a7g filsgese ef laseisa territory. u hssls- ss tAe =s#e he uFzmlsrH ar snnnfeaasfa.t 's without leaf ilss ..i. sss. As h sA,sls si..,s HasEH 5H snF ttses. faHEle ii PaVes afases- asls directly ~ she asHss ef IEie sasss. an.l sntssfstls ie thf hii=Etez at Ehs ..s,.g.l.. -