The New York herald., 1845-02-27

continue nation of one people, or nation OF
mongreis OF all the admxures of all the nations OF
the earth. Mr. B. like Mr.. Rives, adverted to the
fundamental law, referring to an illustration given
by Mr.. Rives, and furnishing several new
ones For example, the question was once
referred to literary amateur, whether the
He set to work in the enquiry like a man
OF business, turning over the musty volumes
and historic records OF the past. He found
ne answer at length IN h the narrative Of st.
tarred three days IN Syracuse, from whence we
fetched compass This settled the question by
the literal Interpretation of the text, for, how
could they fetch compass from Syracuse, unless
the instrument was known and in use. Hence the
conclusion, that the compass was known to the an
clients. Again, one Of the commandments of the
decalogue declares "Thou shalt not kill" Where
would the application OF this generic INJUNCTION
cease if we should give IT a literal application as
il is proposed to give to the clause for admitting
new States into the Union. Mr.. B. continued his
argument in the analysis of the adjective "new,"
as applied to "new States," and ingeniousy rea.
soned that Texas was not within the contemplated
category, because, il admitted, it would not be for
the admission OF new State, but of an old one,
NC. Mr.. Berrien concluded by solemn exhorta-
tion in behalf OF the supremacy OF the constitu.
tion, having occupied altogether, about two and
halt hours In his remarks.
Mr.. WALKER next succeeded, in reply to the ar
guments of Mr.. Berrien and his compeers The
lateness OF the hour, and the fact that the ground
travelled over by Mr.. Walker, is sufficiently under
stood by all concerned, precludes US from the de.
tion and illustrations of the clause for admitting
new States into the Union, as belonging quite as
properly to Congress, as to the treaty power of the
Government. He quoted largely from Madison
and Jefferson IN support OF the acquisition of the
territories adjacent to the United States, in reply
to Mr.. Rlves to the conHary-he cited numerous
laws of Congress relating to foreign mails, foreign
commercial regulations, &C., contracts IN their
very nature, or treaties in subsance-as proof that
contrac. or treaty with foreign nation was COM
petent TO Congress, or the law-making power. Con-
sequently, this proposed compact, contract or trea-
of the law-making power In answer to Mr..
Choate's assertion that the assumption of this
power,. in behalf of Congress, OF admitting new
States from foreign territory, was not thought Of
broached this authority four months before the
signing Of The Tyler treaty. (referring, doubtless.
to his mastery letter published in the Ne,o York
Herald,) In letter which he had published to the
world and produced anterior authority to tha.le let
ter In support OF the doctrine that Congress may adj
nit new States, from foreign adjacent territory, by
a legislative act. Following up his citations Of
10 time, under the authority Of Congress, Mr. Wal
ker referred to some old compact between Yer
mont and Canada.
Mr.. PHELPS asked the gentleman to define the
case.
Mr. WALKER referred to some judicial arrange
ment as the compact referred to.
Mr.. PHELPS said there was no compact ever en-
tered into between Vermont and Canada.
Mr. WALKER said there was, and that the Su-
preme Court had pronounced it null and void. M.
PHELPS persisted 10 The contrary, and Mr.. WALKER
brought in Justice Taney to his support. But Mr..
w. contended that this resolution was not trea-
ty-and before any high legal tribunal would not
be considered treaty. Mr.. w maintained, too,
that did not acquire one solitary square inch OF
territory by any proprietary right whatsoever in
acquiring Texas. She was to cede to us her forti-
fcations, &C.; but we did not acquire one single
solitary square inch Of territory by the admission
Of Texas into thesUnion. One word in regard to
the rejection of Texas, and he wished it to be
corded that it might be known that at least
one warning voice had been raised against
this rejection, in view of the disastrous con-
sequences that would follow to this Union
Mr.. w. then defined these disasters as covered in
the commercial treaty that would be entered into,
in case Of our rejection of Texas, between Texas
and Great Britain, the advantages to both parties
being the Inducements TO such treaty. BY this
treaty, Texas would monopolize the export cotton
trade, for with an advantage of twenty-five per
cent against us, she must entirely monopolize it.
The cotton culture had not prospered in BraZll-it
had tailed in the East Indies, for the American
overseers had returned home, and the only place
of successful competition was Texas, &c NC
Mr.. MILLER secured the floor, and at 10 O'Clock,
P. M, the Senate adjourned. Mr.. Miller has the
floor.