The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-02-25

the sdop,oa ofthe Federal Constitution, the State Of
Rhode Island was admitted INTO the Union, u WIS
not an acquisition Of territory. The Constitution
shows this distinction explicitly "CoDgress shall
make all needfu rule. and regulations respecting the
territory &C. of the United States" Now, II the Sd-
mission OF a new State INFO the Union the scqul.
si,ion Of territory 10 the United States then this pow
er TO make all nsedul Taes end regulations would sp
ply 10 such territory. But n9re will contend Tor 50
absurd an application Of lhisP power OF Congress.
The Texas treaty Of last session proposed the ac-
QUESTION Of Texas Territory, and, excepting the
private property Of her citizens tho territory was
become The property Of this nation. Now, with the
different rights, incidents, and powers which have
shown TO attach In the admission OF new State
the Union, fiom those attaching TO the dependant
condition Of an acquired territory, shall we be agaIa
told that they Une and the same thing Nor Is
the principle OF the two propositions any the more ~
anonymous, that by the rejected treaty, Il was also
contemplated tina, Texas should be qtterieads admit
ted rs State. Instances may arise, IN the Weiss.
tudes Of the future, whereby this Government SHAH
acquire territory that, from sound policy II will not
admit with its citizens, into the Union, but hold sub
ject To military or territorial government We have
yet State vi the Indian race; and the time ma,
come when, subJugatng neighboring state, We
may find our security IN establishing permanent ter
rltorial government over people with whom We
would not fraternize in union.
The acquisition OF territory, il is thus seen reach.,
Co very different extent than the adm ssiOn of neN
5 ate into the Union. This Government may sd,
pose "" lis territory, but cannot Of course dispose Of
a stale.
1t Is said, however, this being foreign STATE, en-,
ates the difficulty, both because II is tortig and be.
cause II has not come up through the discipline Of
territorial pupiage under this Government To thu,
latter objection IL is deemed quite sufficient 10 >,
that several Of the new States first admitted a, Yer
mont, Maine, Kentucky, and Tennessee were sub.
jecIed To no such territorial pupisge. But Texa, ,
foreign State. Now, though the word t0rsigu !, ,-
terpossd with an emphasis, If il expressed or i'm
piled some cogent reason against the power TO be a.
serted BY this resolution, yet when the reasoning OH
this objection Is offered, il perpetuay results IN The
argument that the act about 10 peIpetuate
compact with terms aud conditions and is therefor, n
treaty. And, because a treaty, the treaty powef
should make the contract To the objection IN Tn,
form, we answer, If this act Of admitting new Stale
into the Union is IN effect treaty, and nirnges the
treaty making power, does all aels Of Congres, adj
hitting States into the Union with specified cor
ditions incur this same objection. Yet the Consttu
ton has so conferred the power. But this adjunct Of
It's being foreign State still recurs and therefore
the reason, say the objectors, which it Is admitted
would not apply II 1t was domestic new State.
The question has been argued # treaty function,
only interviewed between full sosereignties and ON
matters Of public import And so regarding the be.
stowment OF treaty power In the Constitution, and
that this power exclusive follows they saw that
as this question addresses lsefto foreign sovereign
W anu II VI tuis PupIc lnat II therefore n
within the exclusive jurisdiction Of the treaty power
The Constitution provides the President shall have
power, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to make treaties, &c. This does not sueciN
with whom treaties may be made, bot of course IN
plies, with all political bodi,s authorized 10 treat
This, then, does not either Independent so,e-
Regimes or Foreign soSeregnes vny, bul any people
foreign or domestic, and hoaeyeI qualified the sose-
relgny, If they have the power 10 contract Now We
have many more treaties with our domestic Indian
tribes than with foreign powers and hence Il thu
eretustrs potency of the treaty power within itself
and tor itself then II Is equally potent with domes.
TIC as a foreign Power. grant that il IL 30 and
then ask II this was a proposition To admit
as new State the Chuctaw nation (now living I'M
der republican firm Of goVernment) would any
one contend We could only do by first acquif-
ing them as territory BY treaty 1t Is quite
iiest the objection would not be heard in such case
And yet no ingenuity show why the jurisdicr ion
OF Congress would be oused IN that does not
prove the same result in tie other. And our answer
to each case alike is that if the matter be executed
is OF treaty hsns lion, commended for, still the ereI-
else of the function IN this is gipen 10 Congress
and, therefore, any reasoning OF the subject show
ought by right TO belong TO the treaty power, is not
within the question before u.s.
To be continued I