Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1854-09-15
Is there any Constitutional or Moral 0bligR
ton upon the part of Congress, to admit
into the Union one or moro Slave States
from the now Existing State of Texas!

! County whilst the 5th Resolution of that
! Convention was under consideration. The
kenosha Democrat in reviewing that discus
sion, refers to one Of the positions taken by
myself in advocating the negative Of the
! above question, viz That Texas having
| been surrcptitiously struggled into the Union
by joint resolution of Congress, and not by
the treaty making power, the contract if any
to admit more Slave States formed out of
her, was not binding upon us that no Con
grcss could bind the legislation of future
Congress" SAYS my position was singular
ly uniortune and fallacious," because "the
laws of the U. S are of equal force with tres-
ties. The Constitution itself, in express
terms and in the same paragraph, classes to-
gethcr rs of supreme force, itself, the laws,
and treaties" because " the treaty making.
power has not the power TO admit states"
because Texas tras admitted by treaty. or
what is equivalent, by contract with a fors
eign power"
Now it so happens that the laws Of the u
S which are of equal force with treaties, ars'
laws only which are made Gin pursuance with
the Constitution" and the treaties that arc
binding, are such only rs are made under
the authority of the L. S." viz. by the trea-
~ making power; consequently treaties and
laws that are not so made are not of equal
force with the Constitution, nor are thew tho
supreme law of the land. On this principle,
Justice Smith of our Supreme Court, deci-
ded the Fugitive Slave Law ,raS not La,c, be-
cause not made by the rightful power.
The Constitution gives the treaty making
power no express provision to acquire terri.
tory, vet the treaty making power acquired
Louisiana aud Florida, and the same power
rejected Texas. Two thirds of the Senate
could not be obtained to sanction the deed
Texas not being able to get into the Union
through the proper channel, resort was then
made to q simple resolution of admission, by
the majority power Of Congress; but Of sacIl
doubtful constitutionalitv was this course,
that leading statesmen could not be induced
TO 90 for it, until an alternate clause was in
serted, contemplating negotiation aud treaty,
and the assurance of the incoming Admin
istration that the latter course should DO
pursued President Tyler stole the march
of the incoming power, and frandulcntIy
took Texas into the Union upon the simple
resolution of Congress. Now whether this
was equivalent TO being admitted by treaty,
as asserted by the Democrat, leave for Tho
candid to judge. Impartial history will ever
record the fact that Texas was Struggled
into the Union by the Slave Power, aided
by Northern sycophants and Northern COM
mcrcc.
If this is true, certainly there is no grcar
obligation upon the free North to yield to
Texas more than is nominated in the
bond" Now what is that bond of 9 cod faith
and contract that should Brighten us out os
onr propricty in this matter? Here it is:
" New States of convenient size, not cx-
cccding four i'll number, in addition to said
state of Texas, and having sufficient popuL
lation, may hereafter, by the consent of tie
said state, he formed ont of the territory
bHNItOIy WHICH SIllil DC clltltltu 10 ADMISSION
under the provisions of the Federal Consti-
tuition. And such states as may be formed
ont Of that portion ofsaidtcwitory living south
Of 3G deg. 80 min. north latitude commonly
known us the Missouri Compromise line.
shall he admitted into the Union with or
without Slavery, as the people of each state
asking admission may desire and in such
state or states rs shall be formed out of saicS
territory north of said Missouri Compromise
line, slavery or involuntary servitude Except
for crimc) shall be prohibited"
Such state or states north Of tic Missouri
Compromise line, as shall be formed on %
said territory, were to be free. The slave
power has obltcratcd that line, and thereby
destroyed the guarantee for one or more ffce
states to be formed out of Texas. Shall wa
gratuitously give them three, or as Daniel
Webster said in his 9TH of March speech,
I0"r, to be formed ont of Texas, after they
have thus wantonly broke faith with u.s.
Such yielding condescension would more be-
come spanicls than frocmen!
Whatever may he the opinionoftfc world
upon our duty, to adhere to and abide by n
SO far as it has been executed, there can be
no question about our right and duty to re-
fuse TO carry out the unexccutcd part of A.
void or wicked agreement The admission
Of any slave states from the present bounda-
rics Of Texas is in the fuearc. Shall We
commit tho wrong simply because past
Congress tried to bind tho consciences OF a
future one to the same unholy deed that thcf
were committing! God forbid! They had
no power 10 covenant for their successors ia
Office The Constitution says, "New states
may be admitted by the Congress into this
Union" that is the present, not the past.
But there is another provision nominated in
the bond that clearly puts it in the power
of a future Congress to reject any sla We state
from Texas The new states from Texas
must be certified TO admission under the
provisions of the Federal Constitution
What are those provisions? One Of them
is as follows No new state shall be form
ed within the jurisdiction Of any other state,
nor any state be formed by the junction Of
two or more states parts of states, without
the consent Of the states us well as Of Con
gress." Now | oicmnly protest against the
present or any future Congress ever consen-
ting to admit another slave state from Texa.
or otherwise. But am, exceeding the linn
It's Of your Daily, and MIST stop
j. B. JitsrS
TENDER SoLIcITUDE.-( Being an ex-
tract from fashionable young lady's
farewell agonizing letter. "Oh! Charles
dear, they tell me you arc ordered of to