Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1845-02-28

pardcnod SOl criminals from murder down, during
his term of ofice) On Friday was run against in a
crowd, in Philadelphia, by gentleman, who prompt
Iy said, beg your pardon, sir" cit cannot be
granted, SIR" quickly responded Mr.. Porter, al am
no longer Governor"-.1n. Republican,
SPEECH OF MR.. J. COLLAMER, OF VT,
ON THE ANSExtTiON OF TEXAS.
Delivered in The House Of Representatives., in Com
mitee Of The Whole, Jan. % 1915.
(Concluded)
But it is said. the result of the late Presidential
election slows ihlt a majority of the people are in
favor Of the annexation Of Texas, and that is inn
peratiye upon us. Sir, entirely deny that the re-
suit of that election shows a majority in favor of
tins measure. Some gentlemen may know that it
was put in issue in their districts aud others as well
know it was not 50 in theirs. Again, there were
many other points also in issue, and it is utterly
impossible to say on what point it turned. Indeed
it is perfectly certain it turned on no one point and
therefore settled none. But the members from the
different States can best tel what are the views of
their different States. Clear il is, that New York.
without whose vo'e the election could not have
been made, IS by its vote, opposed to this measure
however cannot dismiss this point without the re-
mark, that protest against this mode of dsposinr
Of this subject 1t seems to be insisted, that what.
ever is done, or whoever does it, if is in accord
ancc with the wish of a majority of the people, it
is right; and If the people, for any reason, elect
man, they approve whatever he has said or done,
and all Is sanctifed II this be so, right and wrong
have no existence in legislation, and the constitu-
ton is no check the will of the majority, and is
useless incumbrance,
1t seems to be allowed, even by southern gentle
men, that the people in the free States have a sort
OF instructive shrewdness at bargain, and there
fore they have proposed that we take Texas and
divide 1t into free aud slave territory. And what
Is the line OF division they propose Why the
line of thirty six degrees and thirty minutes north
latitude, and that all south of that line shall be
slave territory Is it possible that any representa-
tive from free State can be imposed upon with
such an offer? Or can he crafty his southern
friends with his vote for it with the expectation
that he cajole and deceive his constituents with
such bargain. Let him return to his constituents
and say 81 did o vote for Texas to be admitted
slave territory. | would not vote for it until fair
division made, and freedom was guaranteed
north of the division linc" Let one, then, ask
him to hold up this map Of Texas and point out
this miserable modicum among tie Rocky Noun
tains, and then to add that he agreed to the bar
gain with the condition that the South should both
mark the line, and then take her own choice of her
part This is, indeed, the old case of the white
mans proposition to the Indian for dividing their
game: 81 will take the turkey and you the buzz
yards, or you take the buzzard, and will the tur-
key" They don't talk turkey to us, any.
! Dnl even II we SnOulu DelleNe that this acQulSl-
tlon, on Sdese conditions, Would advance our pros.
perlty, still, | think it cannot constutionally be
| done by Congress by an act of legislation. II is
now proposed TO make Texas part of this nation
Texas consenting thereto. Some of the plans be.
fore propose, byiegiSlGon TO introduce into this
Government Texas by its consent as a territory
That cannot constitutionaly be done, because it is
the exercise of an act Of power alone to be done
by treaty. Other plans propose by an act of lie.
glslaion, to constitute it State ofthis Union, Tex
as thereto consuming This, | think, is equally in.
admissible, because it does the double act of bring
ing in territory before mentioned, which is erecn-
tue and at the same time making it State in the
Union which is Legislative act, exercised over ter
ritory not within its jurisdiction.
| The first project seems to have few advo-
Gates in this com nittee, it being so obviously
unconstitutional bit still it is necessary to exam
inc when and in what the objection consists, in or
der to see whether the other is not equally obiec-
tlonable In order TO the proper understanding OF
this subject, 1t Is necessary that certain terms,
which we use, should be defined, and certain gen
era principles be stated. shall begin, them with
asking what Is meant by the term acquisition OF
territory or extension of territory. This as | un.
derstand and use it, in conneXon with this subject,
does not mean purchase or procuring title to land,
so as to become an 0iUner Of SOIL 1t is used in a
civil and national sense; that is, the obtaining of
jurisdiction Pennsylvania, Kentucky, are within
the territory; that Is, they are within the jurisc-
lion of the United States. When Florida was OBJ
tanned by treaty, 1t was annexed to territory or
brought within the jurisdiction ofthe United States.
This would have been equally true whether at the
time of the treaty, acquired title TO ungranted
land therein or not; that is, it makes no difference
whether there is any title to land acquired by the
treaty, or whether the land had long be ore been all
: granted to and occupied by individuals Acquisi-
ton of territory, then, is the bringing country or
region, which has heretofore been in the jursdc
ton Of another natlon INTO our jurisdiction. Now
to what department Of our Government does this
power belong? Let this be decided by the Consti-
tuition by It's practical application, and by the de-
; csions and usages of the Government.
Il The distribution of powers to the different de
partnentS of this Government is perfect and excu
slye. The same power can never be exercised
constltutiOnally, by two departments at the same
o time; il would involve utter conflict and confusion
t 1t is equally true and equally obvious that what is
Il delegated as substantive power to one department
J. must never be exercised by another, as conitAgen
or incidental to some other power, granted TO tht
latter. Congress has power to raise and supper
~ an army, and an army would be of little use with
out officers, and therefore 1t might be insisted tina
J. Congress has the incidental power to appoint Off
GERS to the army This, however, cannot be- be
n cause the appointment of all officers is directly
o granted tn the President The direct and substan
e tive grant OF power must not be superseded by any
l. constructive or incidental power; otherwise th'
G WctotHdt powers OF congress would soon engulpl
and destroy all the departments of the Government
!, 1t Is not unrequeny necessary that the exercise
it OF the power of two departments of this Govern
ment Is required to accomplish a measure. Con
gress has power TO regulate commerce with foreign
nations. This, however, does not authorize Con
gress to enter into commercial treaty or compact
= That can only be done by the treaty making power
q and then it would still require Congress, by legis
aton to enact laws to levy duties agreeably to The
treaty, in order to perfect the measure But in sucl
If cases, neither can alone usurp and perform tina
,. which belongs to the other
!. Let us now inquire to what department of ou
Government does the acquisition OF foreign terrific
ry, or the bringing it within our jurisdiction, belong
The obtaining of territory Of foreign nation
except by conquest, must be by compact and mutu
10 al consent. The consent and compact OF any tw'