Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-02-13

measure than that of national sood-nol 'ha'
which is too often the objec. OF many writers,
the interest of party. II you think u worthy,
should be pleased 10 see it appear IN your CO
lumns. Yours respectfully
1Frou, the Courier dcs EtGts Unts
The last news from Washington IS uniavora-
BILE enough TO the future condition oil Inc iexas
annexation bill in The Senate. 1t is no longer
concerning The question OF money, mat the Sena-
tors show themselves hostile 10 the bill; II IS con-
corning the question of form. They agree &C.
nerally in recognizing the incorporation OF Tex,
as in the Union, as one OF Inc iacis DECIDED
by the great national WISH wnich, SO 10
speak, elected Texas IN elecllnS WI. r"ik'
We claim, then, that the wing parry ouSht ~
finish by yielding TO the public opinion on .lls
NAV be renewed under the form OF an inerna-
tional treaty. and not under the form OF simple
law, which violates the preroSatiVes yielded eX-
clusively TO the Senate by the CONSTITUTION.
you wish 10 trample in the dust the rights Of
Mexico and those Of honor, (say now the enc
mics Of annexation, } content yourselves win thal
violation Of the right of the people, ana ada nol
TO it the holy altar Qarche salnte) Oh your own
laws.
We have made known the arguments OF tiiose
who sustain the doctrine, that the Constitution
powers the legislation of treaties, and TO Inc
Senate their ratification or their sovereign reec-
ton, Congress cannot touch again the incorpora-
lion Of Texas already negotiated by Mr.. Tyler,
and rejected by the Senate, and conclude That
question by a simple legislative vote, without
intruding on the prerogalve of the Executive and
the Senate. and without confounding Tue attri-
butes divided by The Constitution between inc
divers members OF the governmental body. That
objection appears rational, simple logical at ilrst
glance. However, The response when IS maze
10 it by the partisans OF the contrary OPINION, ana
the point of view in which these last place them
selves, are not, perhaps less logical IN teay' a.
though less simple and less evident al tirst APP
pcarance. But this want OF vulgar evidence
at first sight depends, perhaps much upon the
elevation even of its reasoning, of its elevated
Justice, to which all minds and all eyes have moi
attained.
The arguments CT the adversaries OF annexa-
tion bear generally on TWO points, They sustain
al first, that the Constitution does not authorize
any addition of territory or new States TO The u
MON, a species of contract OF association passed
between delerminate number Of parties, and OF
which they cannot modify The conditions without
virtually breaking it. They maintain, in The
second place that the question of the annexation
of Texas. if annexation there ought TO be- cannot
be concluded but by the body which the Consti-
tuition has invested with the right TO make lrea-
ties One cannot deny, that there is an evident
contradiction in these two terms. In fact, II the
Constitution is opposed 10 all annexation oil ter
ri,ory 10 the Union, il is not rational 10 pretend
afterwards, that the Senate has alonethe right 10
do tina, which is illegal for all That which re-
suits from this contradiction, which is simple and
actual TRUTH is that the Constitution says nothing
on this question of annexing territory-that lis
decision is reserved expressly to no body-and
that by consequence, it comes within the sphere
Of logic and Of common right. At first fact, or
rather facts exist, of which We must keep &C.
count, for they form irrevocable precedents.-
Some new additions of territory have been made
10 the Union by the acquisition Of Louisiana and
Florida. But say the defenders Of Senatorial
prerogative, these acquisitions have been made I'M
der the form ottrea,es negotiated by the Executive
power, and ratified By the Senate. This is true,
and here are precedents in favor ofthe Executive
and Senatorial privilege They prove, that annexa-
ton could be made but do they prove that ii can
not be made otherwise2 We believe not Iii had
happened, for example, that Congress had declared
war against Texas, as it has the right 10 do, &C
cordins to the Constitution one OF the conse-
Quences of that war might have been perhaps the
conquest oil the country-That conquest would be
confined to the law of nations, and this proves
that the Constitution could not prohibit the in
crease OF territory of the Union; for, otherwise, it
would have disarmed it, despoed it of natural,
universal right. Well, enlargement OF the Union,
by means of conquest can then be decreed e2-
pressly BY Congress II is not true, then, 10 say
that any addition Of Territory cannot take place
bu, by The Senate. Moreover, an enlargement OF
Territory, BY mutual consent, between two ma
tons, Of which one confounds itself in the other is
il but a Treaty belonging exclusively To The Exc
cutive power and the Senate? We think not
We think it is another thing than Treaty; more
than Treaty. In fact, the property OF this last
is to be limited and revocable. There are then
two intrinsic conditions characteristic of this
kind of contract. An rrevocabe Treaty cannot
take this name; it is an abdication, remuneration
of exisience-it constitutes fact, which comes
on both sides in the highest exercise of the
national will, and has need, by consequence OF
the expression, the most general the most entire Of
this wish The three branches of the Govern
mental power have an equal right 10 concur in
that expression, OF which they are in their three
selves but the complete organs.
Itappears 10 us, then, that Congress has se-
nuine right in bringing before It's tribunal, under
form OF Joint resolution oil the three members OF
the governmental body, the question of the an
nexalion OF Texas. 1t seems 10 us even, that
annexation would be more logically consecraied
under tina; FORM than under that OF simple trea-
ty. The step taken by the House OF Represen-
taliyes has, however, for itself the excuse OF ne
cessily, at the same time as that of reason, and
the Senate has little enough right 10 exclaim al
the violation of its privileges, after having been
convinced itself OF having violated the national
WILL by rejecting treaty which had for its sane
ton the popular wish, (voeu.) II ought to be,
besides, more easy 10 its seli-love TO admit mea-
sure which has need but Of simple majority TO
receive its sanction, than TO be constrained TO
adopt new treaty, which would require majo-
rity of two-thrds. The recantation is less glar-
ing, (eclatant) and therefore less shameful in
case than in the other
For THE ENQUIRER.