The Arkansas banner., 1845-03-19

act; and although it might be said that here we are resumlng what we have already dis posed oi, the answer is perfectly plain. in forming this constitution, we intended to limit the operations of this government; and when they are so limited, we must keep them within those limits, or make an act beyond those limits null and void.
 II there IS a concurrence of every portion ot the sovereign authorities of this govern meht that they possess no power but what they derlve from this instrument. then Texas. so far as 1t was included in the treaty of 1903, belongs to us; and he rejected the idea that, II It once belonged to US, we could part with It. lie denied that our acquiescence had any thing to do with it. We had no right what ever to dispose of it's people and property. we might acquicsce for a hundred years :; but we must recur back to it again, and in- quIre what was the authority? and if we find that IL Was not given to us, we are bound to observe our relations to 1t as if we had never done that act To whom did we cede this territory? Motto Mexico, which now claims It. We ceded it to Spain And has she in- terposed any claim since this question was first agitated? No Mexico was the only claimant. And how did she make claim i? By rebellon-by forming herself into dis tnct government But did she even main tam her independence in Texas at that time : Never. He claimed, then, that this territory was legitimately and properly ours how, and steered clear of all the objections that he had heard upon all sides upon this subject. He would not detan the Senate by referring to them
 This is the view of the people who n- habited that portion of the country. We had evidence of 1t in the convention that met at Mackatol, in 1919. They there came for ward and indignantly remonstrated against this act of usurpaton-for he should give 1t no other name-on the part of the govern ment of the United States, in ceding them and giving them away to Spain, in the way that 1t did.
 Let him refer to another point How did we get rid of the obligation of the treaty of 1903 : He admitted 1t was not binding up- on us that new States should be admitted by the force of the treaty, unless with the sane ton of Congress. And why Because Con- gross alone, in the terms of the constitution, had the power to admit new States into this Union; and although the treaty undertook to oblige Us to do that act, yet the treaty did not bind Congress but Congress ratified 1t, and made an appropriation of fifteen millions ol dollars to purchase that territory. There fore 1t was all act of all the powers of the sovereign authorities of this government.- How did we get rid of those obligations ?- We never got rid of them.
 He wouldzrefer to one other fact in relation to this subject The State of Arkansas, un- like most of the members of this American came here with no humble peti-s tion for leave to be admitted as State into the Union. No; they claimed to come into 1t as a matter of right. They did not ask leave. ThGy demanded 1t as matter of right. They called a convention, and demanded ad mission under the guaranty of the treaty of l603-not as a matter of favor, but of right. Congress admitted the demand, and did 10 more than right. It was under the provisions of the treaty of 1903 that the first idea pre- sented itself to them of forming a constitution and presenting themselves for admissIon.- He passed over that subject, and referred back again to the subject of the treaty. What Is q treaty? He was good deal in structed and edifed by the argument of the of the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. R1yns, and highly gratified with the discourse which he had delivered 10 the Senate; but he was not quite satisfied with his definition of treaty. That treaty is a contract, all agree; but what kind of contract3 He would re- fer to what he believe was as good defini- ton as could be found
 "A treaty Is an agreement, league, or con tract. between two or more, nations, or so- veregns, signed by commissioners properly authorized by the supreme power of the statesn
 Now, the very terms of this definition show that 1t is a contract that is entered into through the agency of commissioners.
 Mr. Dayton interposed to inquire from what authority the honorable senator quo ted
 MT. A. resumed. From the dictionary It was a definition which accorded with his judgment, and he believed 1t to be a correct and proper one. But the distinctive feature between this and any other contract, was, made through the agency of commissioners. It was perfectly immateral what name you give to it.
 Now there was another portion of this matter that he"rcould not understand. The gentleman from Virginia, Mir. Rvies, in the whole course of his argument, had seemed to assume that there were separate and distinct grants of power given to the treaty-malling department of our government. He Mir. Ashley) did not find that the treaty-making department had a shadow of power at all un- der the constitution, or was anything more than a kind of organ-a sort of handmade, for performing the duties of this government
 There was no express grant ol power given to it in the constitution. He had look ed into that instrument, and his common sense had failed to point out to him any such express grant To be sure, he had heard half a dozen speeches upon the subject, yet he could find no grant of power; and fine appll- ed the argument that he had heard made use of by half dozen gentlemen on the subject, 10 look back to the old law, and there find