The Woodstock age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1844-1845, 1845-03-20

dian affairs of Texas could not be as wei
managed by the State as by government
Of the United States; and | am ready tC
assent that it would be more convenient
in the hands of the latter. But the plar
had a great countervaiIing benefit, which
gentlemen ought not to forget. This
resolution got entirely rid of the Difficult
ty Of the assumption of the Texas debt
This, it would be remembered, had beer
one fruitful source of objection to the
treaty formerly submitted. With tina,
feature the measure never could have re.
ceived the assent of the other House, or,
even if it had, it probably never could
have met the appreciation of the commu-
nifty. 1t was next objected, that the res
olutlon proposed to take away from Texas
her Custom-houses-one means of paying
her debts. 1t did so propose, and, as
think, very properly; but it left her pub.
lie lands; and if even fourth part OF
them remained unsold, they alone would
be sufficient, and more than sufficient, to
pay all her obligations. AS soon as the
union should be effected the price Of
these lands would Immediately rise; and
as the tide Of emigration poured into that
quarter those prices would be sustained,
and would soon raise enough to provide
for her public debt, No injustice, there
fore, would be done to the creditors of
Texas if enough of her public property
was left behind to pay them. All gentle
ment acquainted with the law knew the
soundness Of this principle in private
transactions, and it applied with equal
force to public debt.
But it was said also that joint resolu-
ton of this kind was not respectful to
Texas. Ifthis were the first communi-
cation proposed to be made to her by this
government there might possibly be some
thing In the objection; but had we not
been negotiating with her for years? Did
her people know nothing about this mat
ter, and had they done nothing about it,
when they voted, at the very adoption Of
their constitution, for union with us?-
To adopt the resolution would, therefore,
seem to be perfectly respectful to Texas,
and much more 50, than different course
would be TO our own House of Represen-
taiyes, who had sanctioned this so strong
ly.
But the great question to be decided
was, whether the act proposed was con-
stitutional in its character. Now, if |
understand the positions taken by gen.
temen on the other side, the first was
that Congress cannot admit new States
formed out Of territory not before within
the Union. And another branch of the
objection still more serious was that Con-
gress could not admit new State
unless it was formed ont oftcrritory which
had been in the Union IN 1889.
Mr. ARCHER here incrposed and said
that the gentleman was correct in his state
ment as to the first branch Of the objec-
ton, but not so as to the second. No
such report was 20 be found in the report
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
| will show presently that the opponents
Of the measure hold both doctrines. The
friends Of the resolution maintained that
Congress could admit new States, whether
the territory out Of which they were formed
ever had been in the Union or not. On
what reasons did gentlemen or the other
side reIyl Their doctrine was, th't the
trcaty-making power only could acquire
foreign territory, whether acquired by the
treaty-making power or by legislation
They denied that treaty was indspensi- |
bic. again, as to the grounds of these po-
sitions, The opponents of the resolution
relied entirely on construction and impIl- |
cation, and on nothing else. It's friends re-
lied on the simple letter Of the constitution,
plain, and in accordance with its spirit,
without any implication or forced construc-
ton in the matter. The constitution said
that new States may be admitted by Con-
gress into the Union. And what were
States! Did not State consist of lands
and people? The clause then meant that
ae'v Hnds and people may be admitted into
the Union. Gentlemen denied this, and
insisted that before we could admit State
we must interpolate requirement to 90
to foreign government by means of the
treaty power, and thus buy the territory out
OF which it was to be formed. Now mus,
these conflicting views strike the country
in respect to principle? The friends of
the measure on his side Of the House stood
now just where they had always stood
They supported the constitution in its en-
press grants of power; while the gentlemen
On the other side relied upon the construc-
ion and implication for destroying one of
hese express grants. We 60 for the plain
common-sense meaning Of words, while
you resort to refnemcnts and subtelties.-
MIR w. had often heard ofthe constitution
being construed for the purpose of enlarg-
ng the boundaries Of power which it grant
I'd; but this was the first time in his life
hat he had witnessed resort to the power
If construction TO batter down express
grants by the force Of authority conured
nto existence by implication. He and his
had ever stood up for the rights
If the people and the rights of the States,
against the claims of executive usurpa-
ion founded mn mere constructions of the
constitution; while those on the other side
If the House had been more noted for their