The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-03-28

Texas into the Union. Now, these terms and Incl
dental regulations, take effect on Texas, out Of
the Union even though she should sanction them
They have no operation or force except IN cOuse-
quence of the direct act OF annex alton. They are
imperative until the foreign relation has ceased nor
do they cause the foreign relation 10 cease. That
relation by the direct act Of unloo, performed
by Texas herself Nothing, therefore, results from
any joint act OF the Two parties, Texas and Con-
gress
Moreover, these terms OF consent, the part of
Congress, when III, have ia consequence OF union
taken effect, operate as municipal law upon the ppo-
Pile and property OF Texas, and consequently derive
their obligation, not from good faith, bat paramount
legislative authority.
But further; they will be cognzabe as internal
law 10 all the judicial tribunals OF the country and
enforced by marshals, shertfs and balfs under IN,
usual pains and penalties Of the law-not by war.
and u there be any provisions incapable Of such ad
Judcstion and enforcement 1t will result from some
internal feature Of our institutions. The uroys,or
for instance, that Texas shall have two repregeDl
lives in Congress, could not be orced bur the c,s
is the same with the present States in this partcu
lar We have an arbitrary power a Hou,e of Re-
representatives., for the abuse of which there Is no IA
medy but the ballot box.
think, therefore, have shown what engagsJ 81,
show i'll the Constitution had simply provided Gr
the admission Of new States without stating nv VIII,
authority IT should be done, the power would have
lodged itself precisely where the Constit,,ii - b.,
placed tin the Congress the treat -makng no,y,
being IN all respects utterly incompetent 10 Iay hand
| upon the matter.
| Mr.. Chairman. there is one objection To the "A.
instability Of Texas into this Union the ap.ysr :,
which have drought proper to reserve until cot
through with the general argument II We %
vanced by the gentleman from MARYLAND. mir Kso-
Dedy) and produced great sensation amongs, b,s No
litica friends and may with pTopriety be STYLED ~,
argument Of the opposition Ii is as follows tho, g.,
admit ioreign state would be inconsistent with that
af sI.I
tor TO have been citizen Of the United States nin
years before his eection-wherefore the frsmsrs ar
the Constitution could not have intended that FOREIGN
States should be admitted.
! IL has been said in reply you cannot make
prohibition to State, destroy aa express grant
TO CoDgress-and that If possible both proyi
sons should be construed SO as to stand Tbi. an.
swer Will not serve. Ii lays down the correct rule r
judicial construction where there are admitted rsru
Dancies in the law or Constitution. But the rant.s
man from Maryland does not admit any repugn,nce
Indeed, that is just what he denie, The argur,eot
is; that the nine years of cit zenshp Of a Senator
incompatible with the admission Of a foTeiyD S5te
and therefore, the iIamer of the Constitution cuuj
never have intended that foreign State should be ad
mitied. Let US examine this objection.
| Now, The argument rests upon no other foundation
than the improbabty that the framers of the C,psrI
tuition should have inserted in the instrument any
provision not compatible with every other PROVISION
there And the degree Of this improbabty must
measure The strength of the argument.
i These two provisions are IN widely separated mari.
oil The Constitution, and relate TO subjects not at aft
hkely TO be drawn into comparison by any anal w
between them. The possible coations and corppsI,.
sons OF different clauses and passages, would amount
TO thousands and tens Of thousands. Different mem
oefs OF the convention were intent upon different
iavore ideas and topics. II scarcely happened tha,
any one mind covered, effectuay the whole Instfu-
meDl--devoted Itself with interest and effect IN eve
~ minute part, and TO the numerous proportions that
were debated but not adopted. Now nutwthsand.
ing the Constitution has been in opera ion some Gfv-
SIX years and been systematically commented on by
many able writers, and innumerable iudct al officer.
and Notwithstanding the ali-abso bling and alI-acita-
ting question OF the annexation of Louis ana uut TN.
Identical view OF the gentleman, ia direct dem nd II
did not present itself to the mind Of a SINGLE man.
The Texas question has agtated the country for near
Two years, and called forth, IN public and private IN
speech and In wnting,--atgumen ut and discussion I'M
exampled in amount and ability; and vet up 10 TIN,
day, this view OF the Constitution has escaped every
mind save that Of the gentleman from Mafyland
Now ask, egaln, wha, is the degree of probability
that any mind IN The Convention, in the short period
of IT'S sitting should have ni,ey and exactly cola
ted every separate provision wi every other seoar,e
distinct idea with very other siinc
idea as to have detected the discrepancy Indicated by
the gentleman and that, too, by iheort teal
speculative inquiry, with no high practical issue such
as that of Louisiana Texas TO set his mind uron
search for the very thing. Sir the probability is as
one TO million As shadow TO substalcel Bu,
sir, word more.
The Constitution provided for its going into opera
ZION by the ratlhcaton of nine States; and the con-
venon must have toreseen that some State M pb re-
fuse to ratity for longer shorter period OF time
and thus be thrown absolutely out of the Uni.n
NOW as the provision in regard to nine years of ci-
zenship would have been inconsistent wi the subye-
quent admission of such State into the Union aDdss
II cannot be supposed that the trainers of ,bsst
n my a,,ch H.
out, then We know, Of certainty, they never did
make that particular collation. of the Constitution up-
on which the gentlemans objection is founded. And
'hey never brought the two provisions in Compare
son, we cannot, from the one draw any concIusinn a.
to wha, they intended by the other.
But, SIR, have another way of meeting this obiec
ton.
The requirement of nine years of CITIZENSHIP Of y.
Senator Is species of naturalization law All main
is,1a'ioh Jaws suppose foreign allegiance incompat
ible with an allegiance here; and their object il 10
dissolve that allegiance rather TO apply reasopabi,
tests OF the intention of the foreigner TO abandon II
before citizenship is conferred upon him here And
tune IS made one Of these When the foreigner
SEEKS on .ne privileges OF citizenship, five years are
required 10 be representative in CONGRESS aoven
additional years; and as to the Senatorial trust Mir
Hamilton remarks, cit ough, to be exercised by
none who are not thoroughly weansd from the
Prepossesslons and habits incident 10 forecn
or'h ana education. The Term of nine years
appears TO be prudent mediocrity between Total
exclusion Of adopted Citizens whose me,t and
talents may claim share in the public confidence,
and an 'ndlscriminate and has'y admission of them,
which might create channel for foreign influence
On inc national councils" We see, then, that
longer or shorter period Of probation il reou,red NJ
one born abroad, according TO the importance of the
privileges conferred upon him. But The time reouir
ed IS not matter of substance, but of evidence Ey-
dence OF WHAT OF settled purpose to give nm md
abandon another country and sovereign But sup
pose ue l1re'gn sovereignty, the very object Of the
foreign allegiance, himself comes bringing oil his
domain with him what Them There IS no Ion. err
any foreign allegiance TO be dissolved That aIegi.
ance has itself been na,uralized II is no longer your
purpose TO destroy it, but on The contrary your so
lemh duty 10 protect and defend it And IL The new
citizen is not required 10 abandon his aInn,an -