The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-03-27

HON. X. BARNWELL RHETr,
OF TEXAS TO THE U, b.
Delivered In tie Hsss Of Rsws.ns~iess, Js'. g. lS45

Delivered IN ne Hosse Of Representatives, JsH 81 lS45
Ma CnAIxnAs +: Ii is told Of the battle Of San ia
cno that the Mexicans either fired Their guns before
they ny within effective distance, OF aimed gene
rally at the Texan line consequently but little exc
cutoa vas done. The Texans on the contrary
stood their ground and in obcdisnco 10 the orders
of their commander he passed along tho line shoot
low, boys low-ssch taking particular aim, gave
with their niles one and bot one deadly fire. The
victory was won. Sir, ! would TAIN, In this second
battle Of San JacInto, now wagcd upon Tins moor,
initiate the Texas heroes and in the little have To
say speak directly to The vital points Of the great
me sure before you.
| And in the first place ! shall say nothing sboa.
Texas debts. This il smoke Mexican smoke, 81
which shall not ann propose to leave Texas hss
debts with her lands-an arrangement which she, al
| east vii no, oppose Nor shall | deal With war
and the horrors Of war This, too, is Mexican smoke
L at which | shall not aim. The proposition which
intend TO debate is that brought forward BY the gen
tleman ION Tennessee, (Mr. Bro~n) IL admit.
Texas a. State into the Dionlcaves her her debts
and her lands-adopls the Missouri compromise As
the boundary between the free and the slave States,
and provides for the partition Of the territory oil Tex
as into fur five States This 10 the only PROPOSE
lion which can pass ths House; and the only one,
therefore, worth debating And permit ms, SIR, here
10 pause ant return TO he gentleman from Tennes
see my sincere hanks for the fair and honorable
manner in which Ge has brought forward his patriotic
proposition IL is the brightest occurrence for The
South which has here taksp place, for the nine years
thai have been this floor; iof TENDS 10 bring hef
people together, and to restore 10 us our old pos-
lion Of influence and power which OF yote, no bet
ter days was ours. Our union Is as necessary ior
our protection for the stability and safely OF
our system Of government and Will nsel be 2ofr
Gus victory whenever IL shall occur though all else be
lost.
Mr.. Chairman, admit in the outset Of my re-
marks, the principle laid down by the gentleman
from Massachusetts MIR w inthrop) that ttose who
maintain the eoastuuonahiy Of admitting Texas into
the Union, bound TO show IL This Government,
Is government Of special grants and therefore OF
limited po~er; aud all presumPuons should De
against any important power claimed 10 belong TO IL
We, who profess 10 De State-rights men, and main
tain the Affirmative must show II, either by The au-
ihority Of PLAN grant IN the Constitution, or as
proper and necessary means to carry out power
plainly granted. In such Government ours, iAs
potoer is always the FIRST consideration, IN all great
me asures OF legislation. Expedency may aid, but
can be the primary consideration; Tor It Is as
often a plea for tyranny for freedom. What says
the Constitulion-not what ought It To SAYS the
first great inquiry. shall therefore hrst consider
the power OF annexng Texas TO the Union, before
turn to any Arguments OF eXpediency.
If | have correctly understood the objections
urged in this debate, they may all be analysed into
| two.
| First. That to annex new State 10 the Union, is
either treaty, such foreign matter, IN the pur-
chase of territory, can alone be effected through
| the treaty making power.
! Second. That foreign State cannot be admitted
into the Union, by any power IN the Constitution.
| These the two propositions we are to over
throw.
| To meet the question Of power, we first lay our
hands on the PLAN grant of the Consttuton-"Con-
gress may admit new States into the UnIonn Here
IS warrant, full and penary, stripped of all con-
structon incidents. | maintain, therefore, that
have the vantage ground, /" as Lord Bacon calls
il, in the commencement Of the argument; and that
those who affirm, that the grant Is limited or quail
| fed are bound to show 1t. Let see, in their
first objection how their alleged qualification will
stand.
The objection takes it for granted, that the treaty
making power, either directly by the purchase OF
| territory, may add States to the Union. This
concession is made suppose under the authority Of
the presidents in the louisiana and Florida treaties,
and the decso5 Of the Supreme Court of the United
States upon Them affirming them to be constitutional
To those who maintain that the Supreme Court is
ultimate arbiter all constitutional questions, the
concession a matter Of course. 10 dispute it
shows in them, al least either desperate state Of
the argument or a desperate intent on revolution.
Accordingly, it has been almost unanimously con.
ceded although few, who never before quoted the
Constitution but to break it, still talk of its limitations
and Mr.. Jefferson In 1893
Now sir, ask, by what authority is it claimed for
the treaty making power, 10 admit new States into
the Union or to purchase foreign territory, out OF
which new States are to be made' There IS no ex-
press grant given TO the treaty making power to pur
chase territory or TO act in any way the sub
jec The authority to purchase territory, to open
the way for the admission of States If it exis,
all must be incidental to some other power. What
power is ihati 1t is found, and found only, in the
clause, Congress may admit new States into the
| Union" So then, because Congress "may admit
new States into the Union," it is affirmed and con-
coded that the treaty making power, consisting OF
the President and the Senate, may, Unnecessary
and proper means to carry out this express grant,
purchase foreign territory and thus bring States
into the Union. Now, | put it to gentlemen, is
not this power claimed for the treay-making power,
far less inferential, than If it conceded to Con-
gress and does II not necessarily include the power
| in Congress' Congress "may admit States into
the Union"-thereiore, Congress might purchase ter
| ritory, or legisate in any other way to form new
States--would be the first direct inference and when
you leap this direct inference, and deduce
| more remete--that because Congress may admit
new States into the Unon," the treaty -mnkiog powe
may therefore acquire the territory out OF which
they shall be erected-do you not concedc the
and closer deduction of power-that Congress shall
do the same thing
But let us descend nio the reasons for which this
power was given to Congress, and see how they vii
bear out the position, that the treaty making power
exclusively omnipotent in this matter.
1t appeals to me, sir, that in committing to Congress
| the subject of admitting new States into the Union
the trainers of the Constitution were only carrying
out the analoges of the Constitution in its orgina
formation. In the admission of the original Sta,e
into the Union, which was done in the framing ant
adoption Of the Constitution two forms of
requred-frs the assent of the States, through the
Governments of the Sta,es and, secondly the assent
of the people of the States. In the which
framed the Constitution, the States, through Their
State Governments, only we're represented. The de-
legates sent by the State Legislatures the Sc
majors now sent in the other wing of the Capitol
In the convention they voted by States, standing
gether coequal sovereigns; and when the conven-
ton first, and the Congress of the Old Confederation
| ted, afterwards unanimously recommended the adop-
ton of the Constitution, the States, States, had
| hausted their power Of assent. But this not
enough. Another element of approval was required
i ihn in