Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1845-01-16
DERAT

kss fs Nssisssi fsssiiissseer.
- ~ Asss<siss u Ts<ss, in Gs House o,
kePressn6sfiuss.
TousAs. yssssry =. ie<s.
nsss tssss In connissss Of the whole on IN,
OasA - ksvtsg ssdsr consideration the oin'
e. ssssss.sss c'f.s.s . - U.isss s.ss.-
It, 8TETBOf having Obtained us hoor, said he thank.
dosCAslrns VI de Commitsss for giving 10 % him. He
egrssd viii uany gentlemen who had preceded him, that
evs<y iargs portion Of one Of Tho great political parties OF
shs esanuy, essussiy desirsd the annexation Of Texas to
d. U. ssss~ Whenever IL could b accomplished on pro:
- trms. end In . constitutional manner. They believed
tkss ~ union would BE- mutually advantageous to the intc-
rssh dbsdA salons lie believed, however, that no men,
sss - sA. eoo. could frame . plan Of annexation tina,
vesad tssiuds de ssms and accomplish the motives Of all
bos wbo wsrs favorable 10 the general proposition; and
bsw nssv there were that coneurrcd in any set Of terms or
ysssA BE- eoeld not say. For himself, he desired the an
nsxstoa of Texas jast 10 soon q Il could be constitution
lily accomplished on terms acceptable to = majority Of
his cosssissene, bat even f the mode wero constitutional
IN form, he could not vote fos q resolution or bill expressed
- 100 ttnes. "1ssss sssenfias, 70 hereby snnered 20 the
UssfsS Nsses !" fos that would assume as practicable what
he believed 10 b inpneticable and improper, viz; the an
posttoa and condition u the two countries, made Il very
dssinbls that terms should be specified whenever Texas
IVES ANNEXED. He believed this measure would be accom-.
plhsbsd, with forms he hoped In which the great body OF
ths natoa could unite. But he had not sought the floor
- dscuss the merits Of this Texas question as to terms.
bat 10 stsss 70 the committee as well as he could, an em.
nU3<n WINCH NJ encountered IN uCunK q N any pan
snsexing Texas - territory BY act or resolution II Con-
erss, % In making any contract with her by act
or resolution a. to the terms Of admission, anterior
tos proposition from her TO be admitted rs a State. But,
before attsmping TO argue this question, he would say
shat the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Douglsss) had taken
one view Of the subject OF annexation which. IL right, would
make . great difference with himself rs to terms. Ii the
gentleman from Illinois was night, he did not know but it
was our duty TO annex Texas, regardless OF all terms or
conditions; for. according To that gentieman's opinion rs
well - language, the United States are dishonored and dis
xrnccd IL we do not admit Texas on the obligations of nu-
tional faith pledged In the treaty OF 1903, which he consid.
en- n edcctasl now as when the obligation as contracted.
He admitted, he said, the binding force OF treaties, and that
we should regard them a. the supreme law Of the land.-
He admitted, TOO, that that treaty contained n provision that
the inhabitants Of the coded territory should be incorpsrs-
ted into this Union, and admitted as soon as possible &C
eording to the principles OF the Federal Constitution 10 the
enjoyment Of all the rights, advantages, and immunities Of
eitizens OF the United States, and in the mean time should
be protected IN the free enjoyment Of their liberty,
property, and the religion they professed; and he could not
zee, II the present territory Of Texas was part Of the ces-
sion, that the treaty with Spain OF 1873. exchanging Texas
foe Florida, was not nj the time q violation OF that stipula-
non, especially IL any inhabitants then residing in Texas
protested against the latter treaty, and demanded the per-
Torrance OF the former. But time and circumstances could
WORK. and had worked. q great change. Texas had become
. sovereign Power, and as such claimed and exercised an
independent, equal, sovereign position among the nations
OF the earth, which he freely accorded to her.
SO tar Is the proposition for annexation now before us
u concerned, Texas stood upon that sovereign organiza.
non; and. instead Of demanding OF desiring the perform.
nnce Of that stipulation, had only reluctantly yielded to
AS ~ VI ohh ahO " u AiItdl % lmtu1CG
addressed to her by the United States. lie alluded to the
letter Of the late Mr.. Upshur, Secretary Of State, 10 Mr..
Murphy, Charge Of the United States in Texas, dated 10Th
vi January, 1874, and marked No. IA in the printed cor
dependence communicated by the President, to the Sen.
ate. The hrst paragraph contains the following:
you are probably no, aware that a proposition has been
made TO the Texan Government for the annexation vi that
country TO the United States. This, l learn from the Tex.
an Charge, has been for the present declined"
Further along we find the folio wing:
"But this is not all. If Texas should refuse to come in.
10 our Union. measures will instantly be taken to fill her
territory with emigrants frum Europe"
Again:
81 think il almost certain that the peace Of the civilized
world, the stability OF long. established institutions. mud the
des,inies Of millions both IN Europe and America, hang on
the deeision which Texas shall now pronounce. What
has abe To hope in this conflict with stronger Powersl She
will lind herself between the upper and the neither mill
stones, ground TO powder in their revolutions"
Sir, (said Mr.. 81 language sucn rs this-puttine the
question of annexation on the highest, interests of public po-
hey, and Of nniions-languoge startling as to the future
security of Texas herself, in respect TO the possible course
OF the United States towards her, had to be used 10 obtain
the consent now 10 treat on the subject of annexation. |
do not refer TO this correspondence for the purpose Of taking
exception to II here, but merely To shew that IL Is not Tex.
as that Is urging the treaty obligation against us, but we
Tor her. j agree fully with the gentleman from Alabama,
(Mr.Belser,) one of the warmest and mos devoted friends OF
annexation in this House, or out Of IL, that, under nil the
circumstances, the stipulation in the treaty of 1903 does
not now bind the United States with the force Of treaty oh.
legation. l shall not, therefore, when we get the prelimi
nary questions cut Of the way, and come to the merits, feel,
treaty il any obstacle 10 such terms as one might
propose if it had never been made.
Mr. >. said, unlike the gentena an from Massachusetts It's
tMr. Winihrop.l he did not feel any embarrassment on the
question Of the power of this Government 20 admit new
States into this Union from territory without the ancient
limits OF the confedoracy. and thus extend The area of free.
dom. Ii was true, Mr.. Jefferson Of first doubted the pow
or OF the United States TO acquire the territory Of Louisi.
ana. saying that The Constitution has made no provi-
sion for our holding foreign territory, still less for income.
rating foreign nations into our Union. "-Jeferson's Cor.
JeFeRdeRee, pf. 3, p. 5l2.
Again: In his reply TO Wilson Cary Nicholas:
"When i consider that the limits Of the United State,
are precisely liked By the treaty Of 1888, that the Consti-
tuition expressly declares itself TO be made for the United
States, lcsnnot help believing the intention was not to per
INIT Congress TO admit into the Union new States which
should not be formed out Of the territory for which, and
under whose authority alone, they were then acting"
But il Is believed that he subsequently changed his OBI
mon. We lind in the Constitution the provision that .ne "
States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union
without any Limitation as against foreign territory unless,
ne Mr.. Jefferson suggests, the provision in The Constitution
declaring itself 10 be made for the United States IL n limit
anon To what was then the United States.
Its shown that in the Convention that framed the Con.
stiintion u provision restricting the formation OF new State.
10 the territory then within the limits OF the United State,
was rejected which is very satisfactory evidence that th,
provision OF the Constitution declaring itself TO be made
for the United States was not intended to limit the powel
10 admit new States 10 the territory within the boundarie.
described in the treaty OF 1888.
Under the articles OF confederation also express provi.
sion was made " that Canada, accecding 10 the coniedera-
fiou, and joining in the measures of the United states
should be admitted into and entitled to all the advantage.
Of the Union but no Other colony could be admitted I'M
less such admission was agreed to by nine Of the thireer
States.
Mr.. s. said he yielded 10 these arguments, sanctions,
ssihey had been by The repeated practice OF the Govern
nenf.
But aid Mr.. 81 here the question arises which he in
tended 10 nrgue-whst is the proper constitutional form o
proceeding 10 acquire the Territory IN this instance7 To d,
fhath became very important to understand. as clearly a
we could, the full meaning and nature Of the arrangement
that 10 here proposed to be made with Texas.
The first proposition introduced Ia the rciee,ed ,,aa,v IL
self, copied in 30 many words. The next is the ~sIb,itui.
proposed by the honorable gentlemen from Ohio. TMr
Weler.] and the other that offered by the gentleman
from Illinois. lMr. Douglassl The two latter, like III,
Treaty, have in view the same general Object-a bargain
with Texas for herself on terms and stipulahons expr,s.
I'D in each, and 10 become biading when Texas shall CIV,
her assent. To me each resolution seems Y constitute
treaty IN lis highest sense. Each seeks ~ pledge the laitl
Of this nation TO smother sovereign nation, thai If that 9th
or will drop lie sovereign character and merge and ama!ga
mate her people with us. our nation shall and will protee
them and perform the other terms aGd stipulanons of III,
eoarse; end this pledge Of faith is made with Texas a
h'ofeign nation, and IN that capacity the supreme author
lies of that nation are to assent to the bargain. It's ven
eiesf that " the rejected treaty reported by the Commine,