The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-02-20

quarter those prices would be sustained and would
raise enough to provide for her public debt mo-
injustice therefore, would be done to the creditors oil
Texas il enough Of her public property was lett De
hind TO pay them. All gentlemen acquainted with
the law knew the soundness Of this principle IN Pri
waite transactions, and il applied with equal orco 70
public debt
But IL was said also that joint resolution OF this
kind was not respectful to Texas, and, If this were
the first communication proposed To be made 10 her
by this Government, there might possibly he some
thing in the objection but had we not been negoua
ting with her tor years. Did her people know moth
ing about this matter, and had they done nothing
about III As 10 another objection that II would not
be respectful to the House of Representatives, he
could not conceive how that would apply, inasmuch
as the Joint resolution their own measure.
But the great question TO be decide was, whether
the act proposed constitutional in its character
Now, if Mr.. w. understood the grounds taken by
gentlemen on the other SIDE the hIst was that Con
gress cannot admit new States formed out OF terrific
~ not before within the Union. And another branch
OF the objection still more serious was, that Con
gress could not admit State unless II was iorm-
ed out Of territory which had been ia the Union IN
1888.
Mr.. Archer here interposed and said that the gen.
ilemah was correct ia his statement as 10 the hrs
bra nch Of the objection, but TO the second
No such position be found in the report OF the
Committee on Foreign Affair.".
MIR. Woodbury. replied that he should show present
that the opponents of the measure held both doc
lrnes. The friends Of the resolution maintained that
Congress could admit States whether the territory
Of which they formed ever had previously been
in the Union or not. On what grounds did gentlemen
the other side rey1 Their doctrine was, that the
treaty making power only could acquire foreign terri
tory. The friends Of the bill said that Congress could
organize States IN what had been foreign territory
either by the treaty making power OF oy egslaton.-
They denied that a treaty was indispensable. Again,
as In Of he
Of the resolution relied entirely construction and
implication, and on nothing else. Its friends relied
the simple letter Of the Constitution plain, and In
accordance with IT'S spirit, without any implication or
that States may be admitted by the Congress into the
Union. And what We're States1 Did not SIaie
CONSIST Of lands and people The clause then meant
that new lands and people may be admitted into the
Union Gentlemen denied this, and iDssted that be-
fore could admit a State must inerpoate a re-
quirement to go to foreign Government by means of
the treaty power and by the territory out OF which
il TO be formed. How must these conflicting
views strike the countryl The friends OF the measure
on his side OF the House stood now just where they
had always stood. They supported the Constitution
IN It's express grants OF power while gentlemen on
the other side relied upon construction and imPlca-
ton for destroying one OF these express grants Mr..
w. had often heard of the Constitution being con-
strued for the purpose of charging the boundaries Of
power which il granted but this the first tilae in
all his life that he had witnessed resort to the pow
Of construction TO batter down express grants by
the force OF grants coDjursd into existence by mpl.
Gallon. lie and his associates had stood up for
the rights of The people and the rights of the States
against the claims of Executive usurpaon founded
on constructions Of the Constitution while those on
the other side of the House had ever been noted
for their attachment to Executive power, and their
adrones and deIterty In constituting the letter of the
Constitution. The real contest here was between
the power Of Congress and the power of the PresI-
dent. But the gentleman from Virginia Mr.. Rives)
had represented 1t as contest between the Senate
and the House of Representatives. To listen TO the
language OF gentlemen, one would think that the
power TO make treaty was in the Senate This was
not So. The Senate originated no treaty; it was in
the President with the advice however, and the
currence of the Senate Look at the appointing pow
er-who made the appointments under this Govern
menti The Senate? Not at ALL The appointments
were made by the President, though the Senate was
required 10 approve them their concurrence being
sorted TO only TOR greater security All these were
Executive powers, and the real contest here was
whether The arm of Executive power should by mere
construction be suffered 10 defeat the power of the
Legislative department.
Mr.. w. said he should treat the arguments of gen.
temen on the other side with fairness he would
meet them in the teeth and not dodge or finch from
any position They insisted that the Constitution had
conhded the treaty making power 10 the President Of
the United States wththe advice and consent Of two
thirds of the Senate Very weIl had this ever been
deniedi Gentlemen were fighting with windmills
Mr.. w. and his friends had never denied it, He had
before him the famous resolutions of Mr.. Madison in
1896. These had been the guide of the party to
which he belonged, and they were now. He would
take the liberty of reading part
Resolved, That it being declared by the second
section of The second article of the Constitution that
the President shall have power, by and with the nd
vice and consent of The Senate, TO make treaties pro-
led twa hrus nj he senfc he
House Of Representatives does not claim any agency
in making treaties" &c.
Gentlemen said that the House Of Representatives
could not ralily treaty, and who denied thaiS The
friends of annexation left the ratification rejection
TO the Senate. But then, gentlemen insisted that the
treaty which the Senate had refused to ratfy was
now sent to the House. Mr.. w. would remind them
Of important difference between the treaty as SUBJ
United to the Senate and the joint resolution now
proposed for adoption II was then by tho treaty pro-
posed to annex Texas as ferriory-now il was pro-
p sed 10 adm Texas as a State Ii never had been
proposed to admit State by the treaty power. The
treaty was to obaia 1t as territory; and then il was
held that, if got the territory first, still the State
must be admitted by Congress, and Cjngress alone.
They did not now undertake TO ratify a treaty the
treaty had been repudiated, and its subject matter
the getting Of Texas merely as territory. The SEN
ae was now asked to act with the House under ano-
Their and substantive power in the Constitution
Last session they had been invoked under the ire
tymaking power alone and its incidents. This was the
broad distinction. The gentleman from Virginia,
therefore, took nothing by saying that the House Of
Representatives could not ratify treaty. The DO wer
now to be exercs different in essence as well as
in form But why did he tell us what topics the trea-
ypower was expressed in the Constitution to act on
lie would ask this question: Could the treaty max
ing power, by mere implication, take away from
Congress an express grant made TO Congress alone
IN the Constitution. He would appeal to the gentle
man from Virginia, (Mr ArcherD what express
grant the Constitution contained to the treaty making
power, either to buy territory or admit States The
gentleman could show none, while we could show
such one to buy He and his friends (Mr Archery
objected to the clause TO admit States because OF
its breyity It was expressed in so very few words
Mr. w. would ask him what was the length of that
section IN the Constitution which conferred the trea
y-making p.wer on the President? After exsmip-
the Gnnstitniinn Me- w said "a LIZ.