The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-01-25

thAn BY treaty. The evidences Oh Inc popular wiz
SO overwhelmingly strong in favor Of tho abstract
proposition Of annexation, that its opponents are
driven 10 the constitutional question ,hs last hope
Of srrsstns and preventing il eonsumnstioa II
Congress cannot snnsx Texas constitutionsliy, 1t
probable that can be snnsI sd BY treaty, be-
cause the assent Of thirds Of the u. g. ScnsS rs
required for its ratification In this situation OF tho
question, We propose To submit few plain PROPOSE
lions, on which we build our views of tho power Of
Congress to admit Texas into the Union
II is conceded ut that there Is no express pro-
vision in the constitution giving To Congress the pow
or TO acquire new territory-nor Is there any such
power gwen to the President and Senate by treaty.
There u.s. however, general power given to the Ex-
scuti,e with the assent Of tho Senate to make ea-
ties but necessarily this power must be confined in
its legitimate exercise to those subjects and objects
ling within the purposes ofthe general government,
as marked out in the constitution Hence, the pow
err to acquire territory by treaty Is deducble by i'm
pIcation as power necessary and proper for the
fulhment Of the grea, objects of the gosernment.-
That such power does exist falling within the ea
y making clause Of the constitution, hardly deba'
| table and yet it exists only an implication ne
cesssry effect the grand aims Of the constitution.
In like manner, the constitution in general terms
gives Congress tho power to admit new States into
the Union, but does not limit the power to tho adj
mission Of States composed Of territory then owned
by the general government. The question at once
arises Was this power intended to embrace the ad-
Mission only Of States 10 be composed Of territory
then owned by the United Ststesl To answer this
in the sti native, TO deny that territory ac-
CURED by treaty can be erected into States Indeed,
1t is to deny that new territory be acquired by
treaty for if new territory cannot be ada,itted as
States, surely never was intended that Il might be
acquired to be held forever territory We feel
fully warranted then, in concluding that It was not
the intention OF the constitution to limit the admis
sion of States to those composed OF territory
then acquired The true meaning Of the clause,
therefore, is that Congress shall have power to ad-
init new States whsocver there is territory, mat
ter when acquired.
How, then, was il anticipated that territory
would or could be acquired The anti.Te1as party
lay by treaty and by treaty only. Let if this
is no, absurd. There are a, least three ways kno~n
to the law Of nations Of acquiring eritory-fra, by
discovery second by conquest, and tard by purchase
How could territory be acquired by discovery and
still by treaty Or how could lsrntory be acquired
by conquest and still by treatyl The absurdity of
such acquisitions by treaty are palpable IL appears
then, that when the constitution made there
three known modes by the law Of nations Of acquir
ing territory, and according to the ani-TsIas argu-
ment, that the constitution has restricted the govern
msnt in its acquisition To a mode which necessarily
excludes from acquiring territory in but one way
If the U nited States discover a country we be-
come its ownep-yet cannot be its owners because
we make treaty. IL we go to war and over
run Mexico and acquire by conquest, yet We get no
title until we make treaty
The constitution was framed with an eye to the
law Of nations il then stood. IL clearly de-
signed tina, Congress should admi, States out of
territory either .hen owned which might be there
after acquired by purchase, by discovery or by
qusst and necessarily the power to acquire the terri
tory, whether by treaty by act of Congress, is i'm
piled in the power to admit States.
Let US test the question; Congress passes an act
admitting Texas into the Union territory or a
State. The people Of Texas independent, and
they make no objection to the law of Congress
u
Congress power to admit new States, and that power
to acquire new territory. II Texas we're without
population and were just now discovered by the Uni
ted States the &C, of discovery would make by
the Law Of nations. Would an act or resolution of
Congress declaring it ours and extending oar juns-
dc'ion over it be constitutional None would doub,
it. But because Texas is not just now discovered,
but is peopled, We cannot acquire it by act of Cou
gress with the consent of the people and owners of
the soil To such absurdes do The doctrines of the
anti-TeIas party lead.
Our conclusion, therefore, is, that Congress may
constutonally acquire Texas by act resolution
extending our Jurisdiction over the territory, and
that there is necessity for the idea Of declaring
it State in order to effect its admission under the
constitution.