The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-02-18

!. bsy ia The orssnic Law Of great people, laying
The deem foundations OF a Government "hieh was
endure for ages They framed WIN all tha' eais
and anxiety aud deIiberation when was .ne''
They were men of the hghest reach OF Intellect aho
of mole devoted patriotism than had belonged 70 men
who had since, or that might again piess inc NO
public A.. consi,n-
And what was the rule laid down Tor inc eohs'u-
ing OF such public instruments 'Auei say''
"Ths first general ma Kim of Interpretation Is mat
Il Is not alonabis 10 interpret phat has no nero "'
yrsiaiion When a deed Is worded Ia clear aJu "a
else tetms--when ito msaning is evident, snc l1au'
10 no absurd conclusionthere can DO no IeAson io
refusing to admit the meaning which such oosa
rally presents To 70 elsewhere In search OF oonJse
lures in order toIoslrict or extend w. ou' an 49,.
To elude il. II this dangerous method DC o"co
there will be deed which u VIII not fehaei 1850
However luminous each clause may pe--ho~ose'
clear and precise the terms in which the deed u eoucn
ed--all this will DO of avail fl be allowed 70 ~
In quest of extraneous arguments, to prove 'hai
not 10 be understood ia the sense which IL hutu'y
presents"
Was there ever quotation more siricly aPP'opn'
ate z Toe worthy Senator from heniueny haa souo
Al. the w.y 70 Patagonia for the sake OF eonslruing
away the plain language Of the Constitution nc
had invoked the aid Of the small-ooied ie "
China nay he had gone To the land oil lhe an
thropophsgi men whose heads do grow oenea.i
their shoulders" Yes he had brought eannipa =
into the Senate TO deyour honorable Senators ana all
10 avoid the plain reading of plain clause IN the Con
stitulion. When men OF his capacity and ingenuity
resorlcd TO such erpedien,s, 1t showed very plainly
how sorely they were pressed by the ofce VI uu'''
The honorable Senator in this part OF nus hRumsn'
Iesembled the strong man 10 the midst OF ihs oe'vo
man bog-lhe more he struggled, be plunged bu VIC
deeper in the mfe. What had The Supreme Court oil
the United States said on this subject Chiei JUS
| tice fancy says:
"In eipounding the Constitution of the United
States every word must have It's due force and Appo
pirate meaning for il is evident from the whole IN
suumeni that word was unnecessarily used or
needlessly added. The many discuss ons which have
laken place ON the construction Of The Constitution
have proved the correctness Of this poposition and
shown the high talent, the caution and the oresgn,
Of the lllustTous men who framed H. Every woru
appears TO have been weighed with the utmost delbe-
ration and lis force and eject 10 have been fully I'M
defstood.'
New States may be received; yet his ingenious
friends interpoated the additional words, "srisng
within the existing territory Of the United States
But what would be thought OF this argument when u
was found that the very Convention which framed
the clause as we found il in the Constitution had
had before them the express question whether Il
should be thus limited not, and had had these very
words or words Of a similar import, under conside-
ration for weeks together, and had deliberately re-
| ected theml The records OF the Convention es-
tablisbed that fact beyond dispute or question. Mr.
b. had made some references TO the Journal OF their
| proceedings, and had noted down a lew extracts
which he would now read.
| On the 29th May, 1887, Mr.. Edmund Randolph
offered his famous resolutions to the Convention
The tenth of these resolutions was in the following
| words
| "R,solped, That provision ought to be made for
the admission of States, atctiiy ariing toithin the
limits Of The United States, whether from voluntary
| 10. and arrttn nj rxIsp
with the consent Of number Of voices oil the Ma
tional Legislature less than the whole"
1t will be perceived that the point thus distinct
| y presented to the Convention whether the power Of
Congress to admit States should be restricted to
those "arising within the limits Of the United States
| What was their decisionI
| On the 10Th June, 1877, the Committee Of the
Whole reported this resolution to the Convention in
the words of Mr.. Randolph, containing the restrc
| ton.
| The committee on detail afterwards reported the
resolution il originally stood.
On the 9Th August 1887, the committee which re-
ported the drsught of Constitution retained the
restriction limiting the power of Congress to new
States arising within the limits Of the United States
The following is copy of their report:
"New States, lawfully constituted or established
within the limits Of the United States, may be ad-
mtted by the Legislature into this Government; but
to such admission the consent of two thirds Of the
members present in each House shall be necessary
If State shall arise within the limits of any
the present States the consent Of the Legislatures Of
such States shall be also necessary to its admission
If the admission be consented to- the States shall
be admitted the terms with the original States
But the Legislature may make conditions with the
new States, concerning the public debt which shall
be then subsisting"
On the 29th August, 1887, it was moved and Sc
conded to agree to the following proposition as sub
stute for the article to which have just referred:
"New States may be admitted by the Legislator,
into the Union but no new States shall be erectec
within the limits OF any OF the present States with
out the consent Of the Legislature of such State, Al
well as of the general Legislature"
The restriction was thus abandoned, and the pow
er left unlimited to admit new States whether within
the limits of the United States or composed of 70
reign territory; and the article in the Constitution
was finally adopted as it now appears IN the nstru
ment.
Thus it appeared that from the 29th May, until thu
18th August 1887 the Convention had adhered to thu
proposition of putting limitation the admission
clause but had finally rejected this illiberal PROPOSE
ton and stricken il out Of their draught And the,
had acted wisely for no human foresight could then
or now, tell what was to be the destiny Of the new
born Republic whose Constitution they were en-
trusted to prepare and 10 have limited II in the man
ner supposed by gentlemen on the other side, wout
have accorded neither with the wisdom nor the pro
found craftsmanship Of those eminent men.
But to go further. What was the contemporane
Gus construction Of the Instrument MIR. B. wa
sorry his friend from Kentucky had not got far il
his quotations from the Federalis as to the AID mum
ber where this subj sct was expressly treated on.
the gentleman had but proceeded as far that h
would have found the astonishing fact that the oil
Confederation had no power to adopt any other tina
foreign State Their power of admission was con
, fined within this limit The only clause in the art
ces Of confederation referring to the admission @
new States was this
"Canada, according to the confederation, and join
ing in the Of the United States, shall be I'D
mitted into and entitled to all the advantages of tn
union but other colony shall be admitted into tn
same, unless such admission be agreed to by min
States"
MIR. Madison said that by "colony" in this articl
was meant British colony; and that it was for tn
very that the clause LETT in as broad an