The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-02-21


interfere in the matter II Congress could act and
/ chose 10 act, without them.
| The powerio regulate foreign commerce, for en-
ample, was given by the Constitution 10 Congress -
Would any gentleman say 10 the teeth OF Tins, that
The regulation Of foreign commerce belonged TO the
treaty power alonei lie would try to lay down the
line which settled the question when II DID and when
Il did not belong To the treaty power When We had
commerce with a foreign nation which possessed no
Legislature, then our arrangements with that nation
for regulating that commerce was proper subject
for the treaty power. But II the nation did possess
Legislature, and was willing 10 arrange the COM
nefee BY legislation could not We do the sanei The
Zoll Verein treay was now no seeret-tbe report on
Il had been published 10 the world, and might there
fore without improperly be spoken Of IN this debate
Why, he asked, had not that treaty been conhrmedl
l Because II related 10 matters which could be done
by legislation II the Zoll-Verein had made the
rsngemont by legislation, We could do the same and
the treaty would not be needed. How was II as TO
the colonial trade with England slso' That was
branch OF foreign commerce; and n e. Britain would
not regulate IL by law then resort must be had the
trrsly power. But she had made law or ordinance
that subject so the whole colonial trade our part
was regulated by law. The gentleman might as we'll
say that the colonial regulations Of the United States
and Great Britain null and void tins resolu
ton, because in the form Of treaty. Congress
were acting as much under an express grant 10
passing this resolution in regulating the colonial
trade.
Ii would thus be seen that the treaty making power
applied In a like thus, OF express grant 10 Con
gress, only In aid OF Congress, and when Congress
could not would MOI, complete It's action without
a treaty. But, as II may here, that power does not
apply nor does II apply when country Is conquer
ed, after declaration Of war by Congress, and lis
Government and people without any treaty Of peace
arc merged and governed by an act Of Congress !
nor when another country Is discovered, and our
laws, by act Of Congress, without any treaty,
tended over Il nor when country is ceded W US
; by another by deed Of cessIon, as has been done
again aud again or BY gill; like the Smithsonian
fund.
lie would forbear to pursue this course of illustra-
lion further
Mr.. w. having thus gone through with the consti-
tutionsl argument this point, passed on 10 notice
some Of the other circumstances which bore 90 the
proprlety OF tho passage OF this resolution II had
been said that the preeedent set 10 1893 and in 1919
were all against hs measure, because Louisiana and
Florida had both been acquired by treaty. So they
had been; but could not gentlemen perceive the
broad distinction between hUse and this casel
In 1903 We were not admitting new States we were
purchasing territory, aud territory alone. The M
lhsbllants Of Louisiana not then considered nu
merous enough aud entirely h for admission clti-
Of the United States they had not been trained
to habits and our principles, and required some
probation. We admitted the territory because there
was foreign Legislature having jurisdiction In the
n case We got louisiana from France France then
had no efficient Legislature. We got FLORIDA from
Spain SPAN had then no such Legislature. Both
OF them must have been obtained by treaty. or not al
all. But because could get territory by treaty,
did IL therefore follow that could not admit States
by legislation, and thus get IL IT. Indeed we had adj
milted louisiana and Florida States, and done
il by the treaty power, then there would have been
conflict between that power and this clause but We
did not, and therefore the gentleman's precedent,
getting a territory by treaty, availed nothing TO
show that State could not be admitted by the lie
glslalure.
| The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Morehead)
dwelt much, and laid great STRESS Mr.. Jefersons
argument, but did he not perceive that that argument
was as strong and stronger against himself than
against the friends of the resolution1 What was
Mr. Jeffersons argument IL was against the'acqui-
sion Of LOUISIANA by treaty. All that the honora-
BILE Senator from kentucky (Mr. Morehead) had
shown from NJ Z. Jefferson went against their own
construction. They held that territory must be
quired by treaty. But that was not the proposition
now before Congress. MIR. Jefferson never had that
question before HIM he never had been asked 10 re-
ceive State by the action Of Congress. Mr.. w.
had no doubt that Mr.. Jefferson had altered his
views but whether he had or not did not touch this
question. MIR. Madison had certainly thought that
Louisiana, when formed into State, could be admit
ted by Congress lawfully, Tor he signed The bill for
her admission in 1912.
| MIR. MoREHEAD here inerposed and said that the
honorable Senator appeared TO have mistaken his
whole aim. Mr.. Nicholas had written a letter to Mr..
Jefferson, stating II as his opinion that Congress had
power TO receive Louisiana under the clause for the
admission of States. There was no other sub
ject mentioned in this correspondence. Mr.. Jefier
son held that Congress could not, and there no
proof that he ever had changed his opinion that
subject
| Mr.. W. resumed The ject under consideration
at that time by Mr. Jefferson was the admission Of
Louisiana by treaty, and not by law. This the
record, and let not gentlemen travel out Of it, Mr..
Jefersonss objections against receiving her by
treaty, and he thought that this clause would JUS
tfy 1t. So, on another point, his authority was
against them. HIS first view had been that the trea-
ly.power was confined its action to express grants
made to Congress in the Constitution But, whatev-
his views may have been eventually both points,
Mr.. W. maintained that this was not Il parallel case
to that in 1893 The the admission of terri
tory, the other was the admission of State. The
one proposed action by the Treaty power, the other
proposed action by the Legislature, and under dis
| tnct clause in the Constitution.
1t had been said, however, that there transac
tons which had transpired IN the Convention called
tor the formation Of the Constitution, which
put favorable construction Il is clause respecting
the admission of new States, besides its language
naked and plain. That whole subject, however, had
been fully met and considered by the honorable SEN
ator from Pennsy vania, (Mr. Buchanan) Mr.. w.
would not, therefore, detan the Senate by adding
any Thing on that subject except fact, hch
certain and undenIableit had been propose ed in Con-
yention 10 limit the clause to States formed out of ter
rtory then uihia The United States, and that nI,a
ton had been stricken out These fixed facts,
and could not be got rid Of But he would pass from
I that subject.
Agan, 1t was maintained that this was not the ex-
ercse of legislative power, and therefore, it could
not be done by Congres in this resolution but on
that point he would ask, did the Legislature get its
power in the Constitution because power was le-
gislatve, and did tho Executive get power in the
I c. institution because the power was executive And
2 did The Judiciary get power in the Constitution,
. because the power judicial Os did each of
these several Departments derive their power from
e express grants to them severay made, however the
powers might be regarded IN The abstract4 For
3 illustration The trial of impeachments express
Iy oon6ded to the Senate by the Constitution Was
e that legislative act Was it not judicial act D.
Yet il did not belong to the judiciary; it belonged to
{ the Senate. And why : Because the Constitution