The Woodstock age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1844-1845, 1845-03-27

On The annexation of TEXAS, dslirer,
in the Senate Of the United States Fc
ruary II, l845.
CONCLUDED.
| 1t had been said that the precedents Sc
in 1903 and in 1918 were all against thi
measure, because Louisiana and Florid
had both been acquired by treaty. S
they had been; but could not gentlemen
perceive the broad distinction between
those cases and this? In 1903 we were
not admitting new States; we were pur
chasing territory, and territory alone
The inhabitants of Louisiana were no
then considered numerous enough ant
entirely fit for admission as citizens o
the United States; they had not beer
trained to our habits and our principles
and required some probation. We ad
milted the territory by treaty because
there was no foreign legislature having
jurisdiction in the case. We got Louis
lana from France; France then had nc
efficient legislature. We got Florida
from Spain; Spain had then no such leg
islature. Both of them must have been
obtained by treaty, or not at all. But
because we could get territory by treaty
did it therefore follow that we could not
admit States by legislation, and thus get
it? If, indeed, we had admitted Louis
lana and Florida us new States, and done
it by the treaty power, then there would
have been conflict between that power
and this clause; but we did not, and there
fore the gentIeman's precedent-getting
a territory by treaty-avaIled nothing to
show that State could not be admitted
by the legislature.
The application for transfer to US not
coming from the people in those cases,
but the acquisition OF the mere territory
being our object, for national security,
the treaty-making power was properly
exercised; and, although the first ofthese
presidents occurred in 1903, it was not
till 1879, nine years afterwards, that
portion Of the territory acquired was adj
mtted into the Union; and then it was
done by Congress, agreeably to its ex-
pressed power in the constitution. A
long interval was allowed for such for
as chose to remain on the terri
tory to'become AmericanizeG, to learn the
princi pies and operations of our nstitu-
tons, that they might unite with our own
population settling there, in due time, for
applying for admission into the Union.
The senator from Kentucky Mr.
MoREuEAD] dwelt much, and laid great
stress on Mr. Jeflersons argument; but
lid he not perceive that that argument
vas as strong and stronger against him
'elfthan against the friends of the resolu-
ion? What was Mr. Jeifersons argu-
nent! 1t was against the acquisition of
Louisiana By treaty. All that the honora-
'le senator from Kentucky Mr. MORE
HEAD had shown from Mr. Jefferson went
against their own construction. They
leld that territory must be acquired by
reaty. Mr. Jefferson held at first that it
could not be acquired by treaty. But
hat was not the proposition now before
Congress. Mr. Jefferson never had that
question before him; he never had been
sked to receive State by the action of
Congress- Mr. w. had no doubt that Mr.
ef1erson altered his views; but whether
lie had, or not, did not touch the question.
1r Madison-the truly great expounder
f the constitution-had certainly thought
hat Louisiana, when formed into a State
ould be admitted by Congress lawfully,
Or he signed the bill for her admission
n 1879.
Mr. MoREHEAD here interposed and
ald that the honorable senator appeared
0 have mistaken his whole aim. Mr.
Nicholas had written letter to Mr. JEFF
erson, stating it as his opinion that Con-
ress had power to receive Louisiana I'M
er the clause for the admission of new
'tates. There was no other subject
Mentioned in this correspondence. MIR
eferson held that Congress could not,
S we'll as that the treaty-maliing power
ould not, without an amendment of the
institution; and there was no proof that
e ever had changed his opinion on that
ubject.
Mr. w resumed. The subject under
at that time by Mr. Jeffer-
on was the admission of Louisiana by
reaty, and not by law. That was the
ecord, and let not gentlemen travel out
MIR Jelferson's objections were a.
ainst receiving her by treaty, and he
bought that this clause would not justify
. So, on another point, his authority
'as against them. His first view had
cen that the treaty.power was confined
l its action to express grants made TO
lie President and Senate in the consti-
ition. Mr. Jefferson was not, like MIR
Iicholas or Mr. Madison, a member of {
he convention, and therefore not so well
cquainted with the grounds of argument
hich had prevailed in it. But, whatever
is views may have been eventually on
9th points, Mr. w. maintained that this t
as not parallel case TO that in l8O3.- !
he one was the admission of territory, I
lie other was the admission of State I
he one proposed action by the treaty.
over, the other proposed action by the i
gislature, and under a distinct clause {
the constitution.