Litchfield enquirer., 1846-03-19

ment When she herself refused IN
come in upon the terms and on the con.
her? *e'
Now. sir, with this slave-hofding feature
in her constitution, It is easy to see WIN
the motion made by my honorable friend
from Massachusetts, (Mr Rockwell.y fg
recommit the bill, with instructions fd
strike out that provision allowing slavery
was so adroitly evaded. That motiont
sir; would have brought the elastic con-
sciences of northern men TO a test. II
would have compelled gentlemen 10 have
recorded their votes directly npon the isl
sue Of admitting Texas as free or slave
State: And subservient as politicians
had shown themselves, apprehend that
gentle men shrunk back from standing
upon the record ais voting in favor of per,
pefual slavery in Texas. Hence it was,
that the previous Question was clothed
with more than its Wonted odium and op-,
preston. And when the honorable
Speaker, in conformity with parliamen-
tary usage and the decisions of this House
decided that the motion of the gentleman
| from Massachusetts was not cut off bY
the previous question, an appeal was ta-
ken, and slavery, sir, was strong enough
on this floor to reverse the decision of the
Chair and overturn the precedents of this
House. was not so much astonshed at
II, knowing. as I did, that extraordinary
cases require extraordinary treatment.-
1t was 10 have been expected of slavery.
And the House will bear me witness how
much Of confusion and trouble that de-
cision has occasioned us since.
But, Mr.. Chairmans humbly insist,
that had Texas complied with all the con-
ditions imposed. her annexation and SUBJ
sequent admission would still have been
unconstitutional. deny the power Of
these confederated States 10 annex for
eign ma ton TO this Union. 1t is conceded
that the power is not expressly granted IN
the Constitution, and we have the high
est authority for saying il is there by im4
plicGtiOn. Some forty years ago, Mr.. JEFF
elusive with the gentleman over the way.
stitution has made no provision for oar hold
ing foreign territory, still less for incorpora-t
ting foreign nations into our Union."-Jeff<
Cor. Vol. 3, p. 5l2. ......
4 Again, in his letter to Wilson Carey
Nicholas, he says: When consider
that the limits of the United States are
precisely fixed by the treaty of 1883, that
the Constitution expressly declares itself
made for the United States, cannot help
believing the intention was, not to per-
NIT Congress to admit into the Union
new States, which should not be formed
out of the territory for which, and under
whose authority alone, they were then
acting" Here Mr.. Jefferson denies the
right to us of holding. much less ofincor-
pOrating, Texas or any foreign nation
into tho Union. True, he was speaking
of the acquisition Of Louisiana. But the
case Of Louisiana was much stronger for
the advocates of annexation than that Of
Texas. There the parties were all agreed
no conflicting claims interposed., The
people of this territory desired to be in
corporated. The old States were all anx-
ious for the Union. And France, the ack-
nowledged owner, was willing to trans
fer her right to the soil. And yet, with
all these adventurous circumstances, Mr..
jefferson denied to US the constitutional
right to make the acquisition. 1t Is we'll
known that he considered an amendment
Of the Constitution as necessary before
this end could be attained. But, in the
case of Texas, all these circumstances.
or nearly all, are wanting. More than
one-third Of the original States were OPP
posed to annexation. They opposed 1t
as States in their sovereign capacity
Mexico, too, interposed as the original,
and rightiul claimant, and majority of
the people of the Union were opposed to
it. How. then, can the pretended disci-
pies of Jefferson maintain for moment
its constitutionality And mark still fur
Their, sir, the difference in the two cases:
1t was then being proposed to acquire
Louisiana by tredty--not by the then I'M
known and unheard Of method of joint
resolution. No other than the treaty.
making power was dreamed Of by our
Government; and yet. under all these
favorable circumstances; Mr.. Jefferson
could not deem the Constitution suffi.'
cicntly elastic to admit foreign territory.
True, Louisiana ,oas purchased but Oh
ly from the necessity Of the ca ,e, for our
commercial safety. But, he contended
that there should be an er post frclo. Co
mendment of the Constitution, which. by
its retroactive effect, might legalize the
acquisition.
But again. sir, maintain, that if for
eign nations can be annexed to us, it
must be by treaty, and not by joint reso-'
buttons of Congress. No one will deny
that these joint resolutions, and the aoS
ceptance OF their conditions by Texas
were in the nature of a contract indeed,
they constitute the only agreement or
treaty In the case. By these we s,ipulates
10 annex Texas and ON complying with
these, Texas agreed to be annexed. Call
them what you will, they are nothing
short of contract between nations, Of
10 other words, q treaty. Who then, I
ask, can make such a contract ortreatyg
Is Il Congress, or is it the treaty making
power Sir. will adduce an authority
here that South Carolina cnunot gainsay.
Mr.. Calhoun. in his great speech in the
House, in 1916. ON the commercial treaty
with Great Britain, an extract Of which
I have before me, took the ground that
%Congrsss cannot make a contract ,oiih Gto~
reign na.ioM," that ait belonged only to
the treaty .making power" Tshall not
stop to produce other authorities, that
I nivht do. 10 establish this nhsition. n