The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-22

When the question came up in Congress
Joseph II. Nicholson, a leading Republican,
maintained that the United States had
constitutional right TO acquire territory.
He reminded his auditors that, under the
Constitution. Congress had the right to de-
clare war, while the right to make treaties
belonged to the President and the Senate.
He pointed out that there we're but two
ways by which n nation could acquire
territory: by successful war or treaty;
and these two ways are provided for
in the Constitution 1t is worth noting
that the position outlined by Nicholson
was the one eventually taken by the United
States Supreme Court when. at a later
period the question came before it for
decision. The ruling Of the highest Federal
tribunal was that "the Constitution con-
fers absolutely on the Government Of the
Union the power of making war and OF
making treaties; consequently, that Gov
eminent possessed the power Of acquiring
territory either by conquest or treaty"
Roger Griswold OF Connecticut comedies
that under the Constitution the United
States might acquire territory, but he
contended that there were other clauses
in the treaty Of purchase, especially the
one that gave TO the people OF the purchased
territory the rights of citizenship, which
were unconstitutional There was heated
debate upon this question. II the Con-
stitution was a compact between the orig
NAL States. how could foreigners be adj
fnitted TO equal privilege? Senator Pick
ering OF Massachusetts said: II IL de-
clared In the third article OF the treaty that
the inhabitants Of the coded territory shall
be Incorporated in the Union Of the United
States. But neither the President and
Senate. nor the President and Congress are
competent 70 such an act Of Incorporation
He believed the assent Of each individual
State 70 be necessary 20 the admission Of
n foreign territory as an associate in the
Union. Senator Tracy Of Connecticut said:
I'VE can hold territory, but to admit the
inhabitants thereof into the Union, 10 make
citizens Of them and States by treaty
is something We cannot constitutionally
do and no subsequent act of legislation. or
even ordinary amendment TO our Constitu-
ton, can legalize such a proceeding. II
done at all the act must be done by uni
versal consent of all the States or partners
TO our political associations. Griswold
snd others claimed that the Louisiana
country never could become a state.
The question then came up again in Con-
eress some years later, when the Territory
OF Orleans applied for admission to the
Union under the name Of the State Of
Louisiana The principal objections to
the bill granting the request came from
Josiah Quincy Of Massachusetts. He be-
lieyed, he said, that the passage Of this bill
would be a virtual dissolution Of the Union.
1T would be the right Of all and the duty
OF some definitely to prepare for a separa-
| ton, amicably, II they can, violently If they
must The bill seemed to him unoonstitu-
tlonal, because the makers Of the Consti-
tuition did not contemplate the inclusion OF
| additional territory. To make this new
associate into the partnership Of States
would mean, he pointed out, decrease in
the relative power Of each OF the original
! partners, and there wss nothing in the Con-
stitution which permitted this giving away
I Of the power 10 strangers. He declared
! that the three branches Of the Federal
! Government had no right 10 weaken the
! Influence assured by the Constitution 10
each State by introducing new partners
from beyond the old limits Of the United