The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-02-24

la forming this constitution we intended 70 limit the
operatioDs Of this government and when they are
so limited, we must keep them within those limits, or
mSke an act beyond those limits null and void
II there is a concurrence OF every Poiupn VI uo
sovereign authorities OF this government that they
possess no power but what they derive IRON TINS
instrument then Texas SO far as It was included 10
the treaty Of 1909 belongs 10 US anu ne reJec'ea
the idea that, IL Il once belonged TO US, We eouia
tart with il He denied that our acquescenee hau
anything TO do with H. We had no right wha't'e,
10 dispose Of its people and property. we miBh'
acquiesce for a hundred years; but we must recur
back TO again and inquire what was the authority
and If We find that II was not gwen To u.s. VIC are
bound to observe our relations 10 u as u we hau
never done that act To whom did we eede TINS Ter
ritoyi Not TO Mexico, which now claims H. we
coded il to Spain. And has she inlerposed any
claim since this question was first ag'tsted MO-
Mexico was the only claimant. And how did she
make claim BY rebellion-by forming herself INTO
a distinct government But did she even maintain
her Independence la Texas at that time3 Never
lie claimed, then, that this territory was legtmatey
and properly ours now and steered clear OF all the
objections that be had heard upon all sides upon TINS
subject He would not DEAN the Senate by refer
ring 10 them.
This was the view Of the people who inhabited
that portion Of the country. We had evidence OF II
in the convention that met al Nackatok, IN 1919 -
They there forward and Indignantly remonslra-
il no other name-on the part Of the government oil
the United States, IN cedng them and giving them
away 10 Spain, IN the way that II did.
Let him refer TO another point. How did we get
rid Of the obligation Of the treaty Of 1893! lie adj
mitied il was not binding upon US that new States
should be admitted by The force Of the treaty, unless
with the sanction Of Congress And whyi Because
Congress alone, in the terms Of the constitution, had
the power to admit States into this Union aud
although the treaty undertook 10 obge US to do That
act, yet the treaty did not bind Congress- but
Congress ratified 1t, and made appropriation Of
fifteen millions Of dollars to purcha'e that territory
Therefore 1t was 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 would refer to one other fact in relation to this
subject. The State Of Arkansas. unlike most OF the
members of this American coniederacy, came here
with no humble petition for leave to be admitted
State into the Union. No; they claimed to come
into II as a matter Of right. They did not ask leave
They demanded II as a matter Of right. They called
convention, and demanded admission under the
guaranty Of the treaty Of l5O3-not as matter OF
favor, but Of right. Congress admitted the demand
and did 10 more than right. 1t was under the pIoy-
sons of the treaty of 1903 that the first idea present.
ed itself 10 them Of forming constitution, and pre-
senling themselves for admission. He passed over
that subject and referred back again TO the subject
of the treaty. What is a treaty. He was good
gentleman from Virginia, Mr.. Riyes,l and highly
gratihed with the discourse which he had delivered
10 the Senate but he not quite satisfied with his
definition of treaty That a treaty is a contract,
all agree but what kind of a contracti He would
refer to what he believed was as good definition as
could be found
"A treaty is an agreement league, or contract be-
tween two or more nations soyereigns, signed by
commissioners properly authorized by the supreme
power Of the State"
Now, the very terms of this definition show that
il is contract that is entered into through the agen
cy OF commissioners.
MIR DAYTON n'erposed to inquire from what au-
thority the honorable senator quoted II
Mr. A. resumed From the dictionary Ii was
definition which accorded with his Judgment and he
believed il 10 be correct and proper one. But the
distinctive feature between this and any other con-
tract, was, that it was made though the agency Of
commissioners. II was perfectly immaterial what
name you give to 1t.
Now, there was another portion Of this matter that
he could not understand. The gentlemen from Vir-
gina, Mr.. Rives in the whole course of his argu.
ment, had seemed 10 that there were separate
and distinct grants OF power given to the treaty-m
king department OF our government He Mr.. Ash.
ley) did not find that the treaty making department
had shadow OF power at all Under the constitution,
or was anything more than kind Of organ-a sort of
handmad, Tor performing the duties of this govern
ment. here was express grant Of power given
to 1t IN the constitution He had locked INTO that in
strument, and his common sense had fsiled to point
out to him any such express grant. To be sure, he
had heard half dozen speeches upon the subject,
yet he could lind no grant of power and if he ap-
piled the argument that he had heard made use Of by
half dozen gentlemen on the subject, to look back
to the old law and there find the evils and remedy,
how would IT apply to the treaty making power now
What was the old law 1t was, that the treaty
king power should rest with the legislature. What
,pna thp ayil5 Thavr al
security and proper despatch. What was the RENE
dy' They appointed necessary agents TO do what
they could not do themselves. Was this then
special grant Of power2 No. There was no special
grant OF power given to the treaty-making depart
ment Of the government. 1t was merely selected ms
az ut, TO do the business for another department
of the government Qui Jacit per ali,sn tacii pc,
Sc"
There was another point Gentlemen claimed that
the only mode by which we could acquire this foreign
territory, was by treaty. and his honorable friend
Mr.. Huntngton) who had given him instruction in
the provisions of law contended for the same exclu.
sive power 10 acquire it by treaty. Now let him ask
gentlemen was II not the strangest POSITION ever adj
vanced, that we could do that indirectly which we
could not do direcly2 If she can first be admitted
by the treaty-making power, and them by the action
of Congress, admitted state what is It but doing
indirectly wha. we can do dlrectlyl WHY not 40
forward at once and admit her directly instead of in
drec'ly' The treaty Of the last session had been re-
fered to. lie (Mr. A. could not pretend TO say
what were the sentiments of'he Texan minister when
ne entered into this treaty with our government But
he could say in tie language of Mr. Webster that
were he the iunctionary of the Texan government
when our minister was proceeding there with such
proposition 50 insulting, he should see that his feet
should not rest upon the soil. What was the propo-
srIon proposition bearing ndignily on the very
face OF IT, Anu YET gentlemen are claiming that we
were treating with Texas an equal. Treating her
as an equal by asking her to come and depend nron
our to restore her the rights of fee
mem The very proposition of asking them TO trea,
with US, was such an indgnity, that, SO help him
Heaven u ne was the President Of the Texas, he
would regard it as the greatest insult that o,ulJ be
perpe'ra!ed upon his country. Turn the tables and
see how 1t would apply. Regarding utle State as
equal to me largest and most powerful empire, i'll
Texas were 10 come to the United States and saw she