Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1850-05-16

portion of the State of California. | know
OF no such law OF nature none whatever :;
but do know the contrary, that if Califor-
MIA had been organized with Territorial
form of government only, and for which. at
the last two sessions Of Congress, she has
obtained the entire Southern vote, the peo-
pie of the Southern States would have rome
there freely, and have taken their slaves
there in great numbers They would have
done so because the value of the labor of
that class would have been augmented to
them many hundred fold. Why, in the de-
bates which took place i'll the Convention
in California, which formed the Consttu-
ton, and which any Senator can row read
for himself, after the provision excluding
Slavery was agreed upon, it was proposed
to prohibit the African race altogether, free
as well as bond. A debate arose upon it !;
and the ground was distinctly taken. as
shown IN those debates, that If the entire
African race was not excluded, their labor
would be found SO valuable that the owners
of slaves would bring them there, even
though Slavery were prohibited, under Il
contract to manumIt them IN two or three
years. And it required very little reason
ing, on the part OF those opposed to this
class OF population, to show that the pro-
ductiyeness of their labor would be such as
to cause that result. An estimate was gone
into with reference to the value of the labor
OF this class OF people, showing that It would
be increased to such an extent IN the mines
OF California, that they could not be kept
out 1t was agreed that the labor of slave
IN any one OF the States from which they
would be taken, was not worth more than
one bundled or one hundred aud nifty dol
lars year, and that IN California II would
he worth from four To slx thousand dollars.
hey would work themselves free IN one or
two years, aud thus the country would be
filled by cas- of free blacks, and their
former owners have an excellent baroain in
TAX ,ng them there"
But | hold the Texan resolutions TO have
been utterly void ; and proceed to I'VE tbe
reasons for my opinion.
begin By quoting Mr.. Webster aea;us,
himself. In an ADDRESS to the people Of
the United States, from tie Mass. Anti
Texas State Convention, Jan. 29,h, ls45,
the subjoned passage, which Is understood,
or rather, | may say, Is now well known, to
have been dictated by Mr. Webster himself
may be lound =
- But we desire not to be misunderstood
According to our convictions, there Is no
power in any branch Of the Government. o.
all It's branches, to annex foreign territory
to this Union. We have made the fore.o-
ing remarks only to show, that, ii any far
construction could show such Il power to
exist anywhere, or to be exercised In any
form, yet ;he manner OF lis exercise now
proposed Is destitute Of att deceat semjlance
IF constitutional propricfy."
Thus cancellng the authority of Mr.
Webster IN 1870 by the authority of Mr..
Webster in loI5, l proceed with the argu-
lnent.
Though the annexation of Texas was in
pursuance OF a yoId stipulation, yet 1t Is
clear principle of law that waen d contract
VOID between the parties, has been c1ecufcd
by them, 1t cannot then be appy virtue of
ecu'ed 1t 4ec69Grii 6y virtue of the execution.
| bow to this legal principle, aud would full T.
til 1t. But any independent stipulation which
remains unexecuIed, remains invalid Such
Is that part Of the annexation resolutions
q
OF Texan States. The resolutions them
selves say III express terms, that the new
States are to be admitted - under the pro-
visions of the Federal Constitution - and
the Constitution says, " New States may be
admitted By the Congress into tins Union" .
BY what Congress! Plainly, by the Con-
gress III session, al the time when applIca-
ton for admission Is made and by no 9TH .
err The fourth Texan State may not be
ready for admission for fifty years 10 come;
aud could the Congress OF 1915, bind the
Congress Of 1909! The Congress OF 1900, !
and all future Congresses, viii derive their /
authority from the Constitution OF the Uni /
ted States, and NOT tro.u any preceding Con /
gress. Put the case III negative form
Could the Congress OF ISIS bind ali future
not to admit new States, and thus pro tan
to, annul the Constitution Positive or
negative, the result Is the same No pre-
vlous Congress, on such 4 subject, can en-
large or limit the power Of subsequent
one. Whenever, therefore, the question OF
new Texan State comes Up for consider /
alton, the Congress then in being must de-
eide 1t on It's own merits, untrammelled by
anything their predecessors have done; es- |
peclally free from a law which, while SIM
lar in spirit, is thousand times more od- /.
Gus in principle than statutes Of morlmain
Admitting that a future Congress on
such subject, might be bound by a treaty, |
| answer that here was no treaty; while /
the fact that treaty clause was introduced |
into the resolutions, In the Senate for the /
sake of obtaining certain votes that would
never otherwise have been given in their
favor, and under the express pledge from
the Executive that the method by treaty
should be adopted, which was forthwith IN
iqultousy broken, leaves no element of
baseness and fraud by which this proceed
mo was not contaminated. In the name
of the constitution. then, and of Justice let
every honest man denounce those resolu-
tons as void, alike IN the forum OF law and
in the forum Of conscience; and, admitting
Texas herself to be III the Union, vet, when
application is made for any new State from
that territory, let the question be decided
upon the merits ii may then possess.
There is another objection to any future