The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-01-10

TO enable them TO have Intercourse as two Hwouid
be TO cad half library TO verify BY tsisfeheeS whs'
YOUR own recollections Of these studies Will, ] sm
sure, confirm.
the learning of honorable Senators who defend It's
transaction TO point out one solitary passage, IN
vie approved writer, on public law, IN when such
transaction is cal ed, with appreciation and by inc
writer himself treaty. can find no such passage
and doubt its existence"
Again the gentleman said
"There occurs TO my mind transaction some
what resembling this, from which We may borrow u,
lustration. 10 1900 The independent Parliament Oh
ireland was abolished and she under the imPe-
rial legislature, before she had owned the imPeIs'
crown Her people and the people OF England Dc
came, for many purposes, one. Whatever si sopa,
rate and independent national existence she had h-u
before exlinguished at once. what was 'hi'
transaction called A treaty? No sir but by ihehu
and foe, an act Of anion. So universally, 10 all
tho legislation, the language OF the ministry
throughout the debates II Is called by every BODY
Nay, Mr. Grattan distinguishes II by this very appel
alon from the proceeding OF 1882 by that, by inc
passage OF certain laws of the Irish Parliament ana
the passage repeal of certain Others by he British
Parliament Ireland had been left IN 1852 ilh ioea
legislation, and degree and a form Of independent
national existence. Abiding to that time and scene
so glorious and memorable IN the history OF his own
life 10 contrast with that Of 1900, MIR. Gratlan says
while opposing the humiliation Of Irish national en-
stence
"' That treaty left Ireland independent Of England,
and subjected both the contracting nations to the law
Of nations which is above them both this union an-
initiates our Independence, and imposes on US The
municipal law OF one imperial legislature And
again The treaty of 1852 was founded on the
sense of Parliament and people this union, II ever
taking place, will be IN opposition TO both To thai
treaty there in this House only two dIssentenl
voices 10 this union there one hundred and
twenty
"His antithesis happily and justly sezeS and en-
bodies the general distinction OF meaning on which
have insisted"
Now, Mr. Chairman, (sad Mr. b. think may
fairly Offset the argument of the representative from
Massachusetts in this House, Mr.. Wlnthrop,) by
that of The representative Of the same place IN ano-
Their department Of the Government. But IN doing
3d. cannot help king, that this Texas trsnsac
ton met with rather singular treatment from these
Massachusetts gentlemen. When 1t Is proposed TO
annex II by treaty one Of them argues that the
transaction is a treaty and il cannot be done in
that way. He insists that act of conf.der tion
rs the only mode. Well, under the influence Of
this argument, In part, perhaps the treaty Is
rejected. This is followed up by a joint reso-
luton suggested by this argument; and il Is sooner
done than a representative from the same State
the power To negotiate which is exclusively vested in
the President and Senate.
Now it will be seen, from the clauses of the con-
stiuton which have quoted, that there are FIVE dis
tlnct modes OF making international contracts recog-
nised by 1t. LIST, by treaty; 3D. by an alliance 3D.
by a confederation; 4th, by agreement; and 5th,
compact, and although il is true the language of
the four judges already referred to, that all the
powers which relate to our foreign relations con-
hded TO the general government" 1t will also be
that the power OF negotiating but OF these wiz
treaty. IS conhded to the President and Senate and
as they are Inhibited to the States the three first abb
solutey, and the two last unless with the consent Of
Congress, 1t follows that if they not vested in
Congress, they have no existence in our system and
that this nation alone, of all the nations OF the earth
cannot, in any of It's departments make an alliance
or confederation, nor make any agreement or com
pact, except through the STATES with the consent of
Congress. And here let me remind gentlemen who
contend that Congress cannot enter into a complct
or greemeht with foreign nation, into what absurdi-
y they lead themselves. 1t has been seen that the
States can be empowered do either by the consent
of Congress; and yet these gentle hen maintain
that what Congress can empower others TO do, it
not do itself Ii is not true that we may empowe r
Others 10 doeserything which We authorized to do
But 1t IL true generally both in national and ncipa
law, tina, person may not do himself what he may
authorize others To do.
Mr. Chairman, | therefore maintain that, indie
pendent of the authority TO admit Texas into the
Union, derived from The war power and the power
to admit new STATES, she may be admitted by virtue
OF the power in Congress not to make treaties for
has no such power; but contract aa nces enter
into considerations, and make agreements and com
pacts-each of which powers I have shown Con.
gress to possess. This certainly so, if the ra,ifica-
ton by Texas ofthe proposition under
after II has been adopted by u.s. would constitute
an alliance, eonderation agreement or compact
And surely ii would be doing no violence even to
technical language to call it either
II 1t were necessary to interfere by precedent, what
seems so PLAIN, that Congress may make sgre.men
and comPacts with foreign nations, it could be done
from every part OF our commercial code We have
been constantly saying in legislation since the
formation of the government, TO foreign nations if
you will do particular things, we will do Others Ex-
amples may be found of this in the law regulating our
intercourse with the British West Indies and in our
embargo aid non int recourse laws