Newspaper Page Text
,«|W*U*aSI
>N
" ftfttPAA
RsffMffiSaBI
TUWEiTT,
Mm*! ’
' VMS (Ut.
MIW Mr
tir^yiiiidiM Mrtrt !•»■» of (ho ditto,
ttninsrif tM «»*»* *• »M ia ooooooo it MlntoMory
V' 0L. XXXVI-
^Votnll!iiMntiiiii kNni[Vn In the flint-
V*J*’ e, ,h* .fiwouoo, ot A* Court h»u»o, io the
i _,„rll ill* l*«4ll •iiuotod. Notio* oflkOUMlM
^l»«M» »”“ bliu SIXTY DAYS (miriuuo to
f */?£(; ROES moot ho ot o pnhlle diction,oa the (rut
a -. .Itht*n»:^h»iw«eii (bo uoool hmuooOaln.ottlie
I' ll), ulult the oouuty ttboto th* lottero toouoMti
li.oiiiftrolion or Oouritlonohlp.nmy boo* boot sum
s' SIXTY BAYS notice lhereof, iu out of til*
Outlet *1 Ohio Stole. »*<l «l the door of tbe Court-
Chore ouch •»!*• ere t* be held.
; w J” .he tele "I Peroootl Property.imtst be (tire* m
•«or POIITY (lore |it*riou« to the.lev of eel*.
8-ei the Uebtoro did Orsdilorsof an Kolete- uiucl be
j FORTY diivft*
Mnliouiion will 1»« made to tho Coorf nfOrdiim-
!J,»o te *ell LANK, uioet be publithed for FOUR
Vh’r leeret" NEGROES, inuot be ptibliahed for
*lt»N l’H3, before coy order abtoluto slmllbs made
ff!?Mo«Jfl»r hd”** ef AdminiiUrpiien. moot bo puMieho.l
SitaM-lor diuntisdoa from admiiiietrinion, manUlfuc
SJL-for dioiuleeluo trei* Guerdieii.lil|.,yirtrdaj,.
Cu for the loeec'oeure uf Morlgdt* lllltel be piibliellril
*®5taf«r f»«r'»•«**»—roreetobliehtag loat paper*,.fer Ike
fULtetUree «•»*«•— 1 lor compelling title* frma Exocu-
HSibelaletralor*, where a Bond hae bee* giveu by the
Ml space“/three
,1 Heaiieii* will alwaye be continued according to theae,
lTl.nl reauireinente, ouleae elherwiae ordered.
.iiLadneii* ef iliia klndcenlinuee to receive prompt auen-
fftfSloSao «f the GEORGIA JOURNAL.
IrtlTTANClCS BY MAlt.—“ A poetma.ner may en-
j5...o««v in alettor to thepiiblleher of* newei.npeT,t« pay
T*8.wnnlion of a third pereon, and frank the letter if wnl-
a;;"gif."-^« k*»*m,p. m. a.
MILLEDGEVI1 XE, TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1845.
NO-27-
nfJECH '
OF JOHN MACPIIERSON BERRIEN.
OF GEOBGIA.
«. (jjg Joint Resolutions to annex Texas to the Uni
lei Stales; delivered in the Senate ef the United
States, February, 1845.
At the close of the remarks of Mr. Allen, ol
nhio Mr. Berrion addressed the Senate', and said : j mo™ especially to the Republic o f Texas ilself.
w J,' ; Writers on public law, tell us, tlmt. nations as well
l am'unw.liing to interfere with .he wish ol 1 «tne.., «re
wo aid base obeyed them. Georgia, sir, la my
hoi .tie,aali waa ihut of hint, from whom 1 derive
nV f being—ns it U, mid will be the home of my
oh .ildren. Humanly spooking, it is tile boundary
my hopes, and of my wishes—and whether for
w eal, or for wo, I am content to share the lot oi her
p«oplo. As a Senator o r the Stoto of Georgia,
i Iterofore, on a question of expediency, tho wishes
■Jl her people, ore my wishes—when rnado known
to me, they are the rule of my conduct. But ihie
is not a question of expediency. In my best and
most deliberate judgment, If Is a solemn question of
FEALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION, to that
recorded expression of the People’s will, which
■wo are all bound to obey—which I have sworn to
support. I nm hero to-dny, sir, to keep, not to
break, that plighted faith—to redeem, not to forfeit
the pledge of a Christian man—to fulfil, not to viol
ate the duty, which I owe to God, and the country
which gave me birth.
On such a question, sir, the duties, and the re
sponsibilities of each individual man, give the rule
of his conduct. It is lu he found in communion
with God, and his own conscience.
1 desiro to make a preliminary remark on this res-
elution. I am persuaded, sir, tho course of this
debate constrains me to believe, that this most
• remarkable specimen of legislation, has not pre-
I senled itself to tho minds of Senators, : m one
point of view, in which it presses itself -upon mine,
i The questions of power, and of experlieivcy, have
| engrossed and diverted their attention , from a con.
siderntion of the extraordinary attitude in which it
exhibits us to the other nations of '.he world, but
the Government, would not bo renewed to a
department. Now, at the very moment ol
tutingthis inquiry, you are met by a plain at
nillcunt clause of the Constitution, giving po
the President, nnd Senate, “to make treaties
by the unqualified admission of our opponent
litis power extunds to the acquisition of fore!
itory. They do not deny that the power to
very same thing, which they propose to acco
by this resolution, is vested by the Conati
in another department of the Government,
aro estopped from denying it, for they asae
totis viribus, in u dvocating the treaty with '.
That measure was based on this identical i
President and Semite. It tnuy, however, b
mined proprio vigore, ami independently of I
mission of the advocates of this resolution. I
going to detain you by an argument on this s
I did that when the treaty was under discust
stated tbfjj, and now repeat, that litis powo
pressly granted—that it is a necessary incic
sovereignty, unless expressly restrained
Constitution—that a sovereign State investt
the power to declare offensive, and charge
the duty of maintaining defensive war, an
the consequent power to terminate hostili
treaty, musthavo the right if its interests, i
pociallyif its safety required it, to stipulate
retention of the fruits of its victories ; of
ries which its arms had conquered. I prew
you then, the decision of thu Supreme Coui
firmar.ee of this power, which has been of
ferred to in this discussion, and I say now, t
power being thus clearly shown to exist, th- /
sions for itsexeroiso. must he determined ur
ty prevails in their rights and obligations—llml
power and weakness produce tie difference in this
respect—that a dwarf is a man -ns w ell as a giant—
and that a small republic is do' loss a sovereign,
titan the most powerful kingdom. Vnttol, Pre. §
18. Now, sir, Texas is a sovereign Slate. She
has achieved her independence V,y tho sword, and
r,icid it to gentler tonea'lltan those by which it . we have acknowledged it. We have iroated wi.i,
kai'baeu recently greeted. I have ..cither the in- i her as a sovereign, tndependf: nt Slate, _and have
•» gentleman, wito desires to occupy the floor,
and will choerfuily yield it; but if there bo no one
is disposed to engage in the debntc at this mo-1
swnl,l will proceed, as well as my strength will per- ;
■It, to discharge my own duly on this momentous j
occ’isiou. if 1 should ho so fortunate as to gain |
ear of the Senate, they must do ntc the favor'
taeboeu recently greeted, i "“-"V™ |" 0 'T f n „ w or verv recently had,'a mi nister resident at her
Kt ,, lhe r i.ono l Iable C Se.Stof who has preceded j capital. Sire is then, by our own acknowledgment
No, »ir. I would speak to you the words of m the languagetrf our owtcciarat.on.ofmdepen-
imi luniruimv. nr c.nldlv. or dence. 'free to do all acts at ,d things, which in da-
Itulli and soberness, not languidly, or coldly, or
without emotion, {f or wbu can be unmoved on at. t
occasion like this 1) but in the spirit, and with the
feeling which may become an American Senator,,
ppenling to tbe intelligence, and to tho patriotism
of his associates.
lain always reluctant to trespass upon tlte time
of the Semite, and tlie habitual indulgence of this
feeling has only served to increase it. I appeal on
ly to you to bear witness, that 1 have habitually in
dulged if l have not mingled in your daily debates,
anti still less in the strifes of party, in quest or po
pular applause. 1 have contented myself with the
brief and simple discharge of ike duties which It
has been your pleasure to assign to mo. If l over
come that feeling now, it is under a deep sense of
,1116 obligation which my position imposes upon me;
mid the trespass ohnil be as brief as may consist
with the discharge of the duty which imposes it.
Mr. President tile argument of tho Senator from
Ohio, (Mr. Allen,) to which we have been just now
listening, may be met and answered, and, so far as
it concerns nte to consider it, dismissed in a word.
The Itouoiabk Seuator forbears to discuss the
question of constitutional power. He assumes
that. Sir,it is always convenient to assume, what
it is difficult to prove; and the Senator from Ohio,
has profited b.y tlte observance of the maxim. It
'was wise to commit to the oft-refuted arguments
of those who had preceded him, which lie could not
hope to fortify, a proposition, wlticli is alike unprov.
ed, and incapable of proof. Ho addresses himself,
therefore, exclusively to the question ofeipediency,
end the expediency of incorporating a foreign State
into this Union, is maintained on the ground, tlmt
this incorporation is necessary to enable us suc
cessfully to compete with England, for the com
merccof the world. Brokeu as it was into frag
ments, in tho progress of tho Senator’s remarks,
this is tlte head and front, the sum and substance,
cspul, prineipium, -el finis, of the argument which
be has uddressed to the Senate. Now, sir, without
nother
T insti-
id sig.
wer to
and
s, that
gn ter.
do tlte
tnplish
tution,
They
rtod it
Texas-
iglit of
o sos-
he ad-
am not
ubjcct.
ion. I
r is ex
tent to
by the
•d with
d witlt
d with
ties by
and es-
for tlte
tcrriio-
mted to
t in of.
'Bin re.
itat the
■> occa.
der the
pondunl Slates may of rip hi do.’ Site lias her
own Congress, her own 1 Executive, her own Judi.
ciary, acting under the st motion of her own peo
ple, in whom her sover eignty resides, and who
have power, at least so jr as wo aro concerned, to
remodel their iuslitutioi js when and as they please.
It is to such a State, ot to having those powers nnd
attributes, that this leg islative missive of ours is to
he sent, by which, we., the Congress of the United
Stales of America—the representatives of a peo-
pie entirely foreign to Texas—without the sem
blance of power, authority, or right, to intermeddle
in their concerns, \ re declare our consent—yes, sir,
that is the word, our consent—that tho territory,
wlticlt rightfully belongs not to us, but to them, may
be erected into a i lew State. W a prescribe the name
to he given to it- —we designate the form of Gov
ernment it shall receive—we specify in detail the
mode of its erec iion, all wlticlt acts aro to bo per
formed by tlte people of Texas—and wo require
that the evide'jce of this shall be transmitted to the
President of the United States, within a lime which
is limited by its, for our final action. Cun tlte Con
stitution of the United Stales have given us a pow
er to do this 1‘ thus insolently to trample upon the
rights, the ddgnity, the self-respect, of a sister re
public 1 S'tr, I do not profess to know the charac
ter of the people of Texas. I have been taught
to believe them brave—men attaching a high value
to tlte iud.ependonce which they bavo achieved—
personally sensitive to their rights as freemen—
alive to wlmlever concerns their honor and dignity
as a nation. And it is to such a people, and in tlte
face of tho civilized world, that we arc to send this
insolent missive—to declare our gracious consent,
that they may manage their own affairs in their own
way 1 No, sir ; no, sir; that would bo too great
an indulgence—not in their own way, but in the
precise mode, and with the specified conditions which
we prescribe.
Can we place ourselves in any attitude more ex
traordinary than this, before tlte nations of the
intending to scan the statistical facts which he has . —yj—„ more direct and wanton insult be
presented to us or W examine in detail, he cone u- , ho Government and people of Texas ?
stuns to winch they have conducted him, 1 desire ° t t,.j to
S,7i7 i'hV|,,opo«ul had come fromuna o, P o»d»
fancy fa .W, h. I,c. in.
I dulged, m relation to tho cotnmerc.nl rivalry ok ^ slia cou |j no t accept wtthou. dishonor.
Great Br.tain, which did not extst or might no. , !£"“ olBr of thi , measure by applying it
Whites liUlu license, .tave boon imagined i x , yourso i VC8 . Would you consent to receive such
taliAD th*irenin f„r ,l.« Htmexai.ton of Texas was , ^y e8sage fr0iT , anyi ,he most powerful nation tin-
der Heaven 1 If all Europe were combined in one
vast monarchy, with the giant intellect, and mar-
lial prowess of a Napoleon at its head, would you
brook such arrogance I the gracious consent of a for
eign nation, that you should remodel your own domestic
institutions, in a mode prescribed by them, and to be
submitted to their final action I Suclt a proposal ad
dressed to you, would bo folly, madness ; would it
not also be insolence 1 would you bear it ? I re*
mind Senators that nations are equal, tho smallest
with tlte greatest—that a dwarf, Itis diminutive stu.
lure notwithstanding, may have tlte feelings, as he
has the rights of tlte giant.
Shall 1 be mid that these preliminaries are ne-
cessury to call into exercise the power which you
claim for Congress, the power to admit new States?
Be it so ; and what more decisive evidence do you
require, that a power which leads to such absurd?
ties, could never have been conferred by the Con
stitution ? It is with the precise purpose of pro
pounding this inquiry, that l have presented the re
when the treaty for the antiexuliion of Texas was ,
1 under discussion, as at the present moment. A
few short months have passed away, since thnt
treaty was rejected by an unprecedented majority
j of the Amercun Senate, not for want of power, but
because it was inexpedient to ratify it, and tho Sena,
tor from Ohio concurred in that rejection. All
the considerations wlticlt lie has urged to day in sup
port of this joint resolution, existed then, and had
uo doubt been subjected to Ids intelligent scrutiny,
yet they failed to convince him of tho expediency
of a measure, of which ho is now so zealous an
edvocute. 1 prefer the first “sober thought” of
the honorable Senator, to that wlticlt lias grown up
•fter an exciting canvnss, even enforced as tho lat
ter is, by the thunder of Itis eloquence.
But, sir, I abandon the question of expediency, to
those who feel themselves at liberty to discuss it. t
That is not my privilege. It isnol expcdicnlfor me.to
do, what in my judgment, the Constitution forbids. I
may not thuiefore exercise my imagination in pic
turing to myself, or in representing to tho Senate,
the brilliant advantages, or tlte alorming evils which
‘“o Brilliant advantages, or me alarming evu. w.t.o,. r - - • - j deduce from it a strin gent
may result from the consummation of this measure., against the existence of suclt a power,
^^V h ®?. adV . an, 1 0 « 0 A *'}‘“stv ' because of the absurdities to which it. leads. Sir,
end most sanguine hope* of its advocates. Say
that the 'evils which are anticipated, are but plian. j
I turns of the imagination. Concede that Texas is
this will bo no answer to tlte people of lexns
They will point to the ircnty.mnkitig power, and
tell you, they are ready to negotiate with you as
t *J ..rn It tar i 11 h(t
mdeed #terrestrial paradise, where we of.he “stm- .1 -Ul be
nySouth, might repose insecurity—in the undts- ; wi n hn intrusted to the
; * iul) | e 0 fl- lce , which will bo intrusted to the
... ®ojoyment of our peculiar instilulions-re- n ‘ J |nf) l0 ,| ial people, if they are
[ veiling amid the luxuries, which a genial climate, j If the snirit which animated
turbed
I prolific .oil comliino io prodo.o. M far,) J|7J5 d fa'“ jIucMio’ fail!. failing pl«»
I hie bout, tempting as it would he, is denied to me
I 1 may not onter the portals of this paradise. 7/tej
I ('tnuUluUon forbids it. f hear the warning voice j'
I of WASHING TON, admonishing me to beware, J
| Ini in the indulgence of sectional feeling, I mnv
I vontributo to break asunder, llic bonds of our com-
|*to« Union. I hoar and obey, prohibitory mandate
|nf the guardian Genius of my country, ‘Stund back!
1 Bis mil lawful to enter here.’
I 1 would, however, say n word, mid hut a word,
|en this question of expediency—not to discuss it.
lost to explain my personal relation to it. My own
I’isws on this subject, liuve boon lierelofmo cx-
Irmssed in this chunker. They nro not only un
changed. hut have been strengthenr-d by the sound
|*'id practical urgumeut of tho Senator from Louis-
l** n *i(Mr. Barrow.) Yet I would cheerfully yield
T ll * n ' to tho wisltes of my constituent*. If there-
Ifure among the legion of projects, which have been
jjt'escntod here, und elsewltero, ihoro lind been
•> which in my judgment, boro tho aemblunce ol
"funnily to the authority given us by tlte Cutisli-
pitinn, l should rather say. wlticlt seemed to mo to
"nform to that authority, I would imvo takon core
’"■certain tliose wishes, aud having ascortuined,
their bosoms, Itis Slav among them will be short
they will repel Itis proposal, us insolent, and in
suiting. If that spirit bus departed—if they cat
tamely submit to no indignity like this, are they fit
to be ussocialos of a ftee people ? I do not unlicl-
pule such submission from the people of lexus
Friends mny indeed take liberties with each other
but litis seems to me too gross for tolerance. Sir
the Setiutor front Missouri has seen, nnd has avoid
ed this error, in the hill which ho lias proposed.
| turn to the consideration of the question ot tho
constitutional power. The resolution before us ir
familiar to Senators. I need not recite it. It pro
noses substantially that Texas should by our con
set do certain tilings «■ preliminary to her ndmis.
s i,m by legislative ucl, us one of the Stales ol the
U "in considering it, my first inquiry is,- doc. the
Constitution give power to any depar.me.U of he
Government, other than Congress, to extond the Urn-
& of this Union 1 If that question be off.r.na-
U vasty answered, it will go far to settle.... cottlro.
ve".v because we may be very sure that e gran, o
power like tM#, once made to one department ol
checks and responsibilities, which the Con stitution
provides and imposes. I add, that this ex 1 arciso of
the trenly-mnking power, is sustained by the unin.
terrupted usage of the Government, and has been
affirmed by euclt and every department, I legislative
Executive, nnd Judicial. I call tho at tention of
the Senate to these facts now, for tho ' purpose of
presenting this proposition and propou nding these
inquiries. Tho right to acquire foroi gn territory
tins been sltown, and is admitted to b elong to tho
treaty-making power, lu the exercis 1 aoflhatpow.
er, two thirds of the representatives of ’ the Stales of
this Union, musk concur. Is it then probable, that
the convention would have confer) .ed upon n bare
majority of Congress, this same po' ,ver, which they
had previously granted ? Is it n- ot yet more im
probable, that tlte still higher pov ;er of acquiring
States not territories; and not mot ely of acquiring
them, to be governed as tereilor’es, but of incorpora
ting them es instanti into the Union would have been
conferred on such majority 1,1 Congress, in ono
branch of which, tho represen l a tives of less than
one fourth of the Stales, would control tho remain
ing three fourths ?
Philosophers tell us, that Nature delights in few
causes. When, in considering any one of her op.
eralions, you ettn distinctly trace it to nn adequate
cause, the mind reposes in |ho certainly which It
has attained, arid does not go in search of others,
to which it might have been ccnjecturally ascribed.
Tlte analogy holds in examining a constitution of
Government. When a given power is fouud to
have been vested in one class of functionaries, you
do not torture the instrument, to discover whether
unother set of public agents, may not put forth a
claim to participate in its exerciso. Now, you find
the right to acquire foreign territory vested in tho
President, and two-thirds of tho Slutes. You find
this investment of power uffirmed by every depait-
ment of our Government—by the concurring testi.
inony of our statesmen—nay, by the actual admis
sion of our opponents in the present discussion.—
Is not tlte presumption a fair otto, that it is exclu
sively vested there 7 If tlte treaty making power
be adequate to this object, why look for it elsewhre ?
Gentlemen have been pressed by this arment. I
do not now advert to tlte generalities of tlte Sena,
ator from South Carolina, (Mr. McDuffie.) These
may be safely left to an enlightened public judg
ment. Other gentlemen however, have sought »o
avoid it by a distinction betwen domain, and empire
-between a territory nnd a State. Tlte distinguishe i
Senators from Pennsylvania and New Hampshire,
(Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Woodbury) par nobile
fralrum, in the zeal, und ability, which they have
exhibited in this discussion, have both contended
for litis distinction. Let us see if it be tenable.
The proposition is, that while the President and
two-thirds of tlte Senate, can acquire foreign terri
tory, Congress alone can acquire a foreign Stale,
nd admit it into tho Union, nnd can do this by a
bare majority. Now, sir, I pray you to remark,
that in each of these enses, both territory and inhab
itants are necessarily obtained. If you acquire the
territory, you get the men, who occupy it. If you
acquire the men, tlte Slate, you get the territory
wlticlt they occupy. Look at this proposition.—
Here is a question between tho treaty-making pow
er, which requires the assent of two-thirds of the
Stales, and the ordinary legislative power, exercised
by a bare majority of Congress, Tho proposition
of our opponents is, that two thirds of the States,
in the exertion of this higher power, may acquire
foreign territory—-foreign acres—but that tho infin
itely more important acquisition to this Union, of a
foreign Slate, including the lands, its inhabitants,
and Us sovereignty. con only be made by the small-
er power, that which is intrusted to a majority of
Congress. The nssent of two-thirds of the Stales,
is necessary to ucquire the land—hut less than one-
fourth of them in tlte House of Representatives,
and a bare majority uf voices in the Senate, may
acquire the land, its inhabitants, aud its sovereignty.
Do you say, that in this latter mode, you have ncit
the fee in the land ? No, sir—you have not—but
neither hnye you tlte fee in tlte land, which I ind*i-
vidmlly possess. You liuve itowever, dominion
over it—you can lax it—and if T' xas were admit-
ted ns a State to-morrow, jou would have exactly
the same dominion over the lands of Texas, as you
have over mine, and those of every citizen of the
United States. Now, consider tho difference of
these two modes of acquisition. If you lake for
eign territory under the treaty-making power, with
the consent uf two.thirds of the States, it remains
as territory, subject to your dominion, until Con
gress in its discretion, after the requisite probation,
shall olevate it to the condition of a State. In this
case, the combined action of the treaty.making
power, nnd of Congress, is necessary to incorpo
rate a fureign people into our Union—and this,on
ly after a period of territorial probation. See in
this mode how many safeguards aro provided. But
look at the other. If you lake it under a resolution
of a hare majority of Congress, it is immediately
incorporated into our Union—with litis only differ-
ence, that the foe of the land is in tho newly admit-
ted States, instead of the U. Stntes. Then it wa»
these vile foreign acres, that our fathers were afraid
of, when they required tho assent of iwo.third* ot
the Slates, to bring them without our limits—but
foreign men, wore so perfecl’y harmless, that they
might ut once he incorporated into our Union, made
politically bone of our hone, and flesh of our flesh,
bv a bare majority of Congress. If we wanted,
and Great Britain was willing to cede to us, an is
land in any of the waters which flow between our
shores, the President and twu-lhirds of the repre
sentatives of the States, must consent to the acqui
sition—but if all Canada, including these very is
lands, should assert and establish their indepen
dence, or Great Britain should yield it, ilia Prosi {
ident, and a mere majority of Congre* might, tb
once, make them part, and parcel, of ourConfed
erucy, on an cquul fooling with the other States
of the Union. Sir, the respect which I feel for
these distinguished Senators, shnll be extended to
their argument. I will not subject it to further com
munt, but leuve it, with this brief exposition, to tho
enlightened judgment of the Senate.
Mr. President, there are those who hesila'.o to
allow to tlte treaty-making power, the exclusive
right to acquire foreign territory, because they snv
it may also be acquired by discovery, without the
intervention ol that power, and by conquest. A lit.
tl* reflection will I think remove this difficulty.—
Tho treaty-making power applies to territory,
which has bean appropriated, und is possessed by tt
foreign nation, not to territory, which is uninhabitea
or without an owner, competent to assert a claim to it,
Tho distinction is as plain, as the reason for it, is
obvious. Tho one, is tho subject of contract—
ilia other, is tlte object of discovery, or subject to
the laws of war. Tho rights of the national oc-
cupunt, must be acquired iu the one case. In tho
others, there is no occupant to contest the right,
which discovery, nnd subsequent occupation, or the
rights of war impart. In the first case, you con
tract with tliose who arc iu possession, for tite trans
fer of their rights, and can only be done by treaty.
In tlte otitor cases, those of discovery, followed by
occupnncy, or of conquest, prosecuted to entire
subjection, it is the law of nations, which vests
the title, und subject the territory to your domin
ion. Tlte one is acquired by contract—the other is
incident to your slate, and condition as a nation.
Take an example. You acquired Louisiana by
treuty. It was the property of Franco, and her
rights wero to bo obtained. Mr. Jbfferaon, who
doubted the existence of any power to acquire it,
but felt thu stringent necessity of assuming it, seems
never to have dreamed that it could be done by an
act of Congress. There was a contract to be en
tered into with France. That contract would bo a
treaty: 'The power to make treaties, was given by
tlte Constitution, to the President and Senate, and
therefore lie negotiated it, and submitted it to the
Senate ; doubting indeed Itis power to acquire it in
thul mode, but never dreaming that he could oh.
tain it in any other.
Take now the case of Oregon. A portion of the
western part of this continent, was vacant and un
appropriated by civilized man. We acquired u title
to it by discovery, and occupancy, nnd ipso facto, it
became subject to ourdominton. Tbero watt no Iron-
ty, becauso there was none to treat with. We have
resorted to treaty with Spain, however, to fortify
our title, and with Great Britain, to adjust our
boundary—and in tite latter case.havo embarrass,
cd our claim, by stiipixiations applicable to the whole
territory.
•So in the enso o f territory acquired by aonqnesl,
without treaty. That can only bo done where kite
occupying nation is reduced to absolute subjection
—degraded from t!he rank of Stntes. In tlmt case,
ns in the caso of discovery, there is no person to
to treat with, and tbe conqueror, lilto the discover
er, retains Itis pussossio.it because tltere is none io
contest it. The position is still untouched, that
tlte territory of an iodespendenl State, can only be
acquired by contract with that Stale, and tlmt tlte
power to make su-cli contract, is by our Constitution
vested in tlte President und two-thirds of the Sen
ate.
Thus then, tho fact uhnt territory may he acquir
ed by discovery, o:r by conquest, nnd without tlte in
tervention of tho tre sty.making power, does not
affect tlte exclusio-enei is of tlmt power, ns applied to
territory, which, like, that of Texas, lias been ap
propriated, and must he bargained for, before it is
obtained, for thnt cam only be done by treuty.
1 come now to consider tlmt which tlte Senator
from Pennsylvania says is tho great quoslion in this
caso. in all tho Protean variety, in which
this subject has bee n exhibited, the very multitude
of which, affords p,resumptive evidence of tlte in
aptitude of any one, of them, the selfsame question
is still forced upon. us. Cun Congress incorporate
a foreign Stale into this Union 1 Can tho mem
bers of that body, representing the Peoplo of twen
ty-six •coafederixted sovereignties, by a bare major
ity of a quorum, in each branch, compel the Slates
'.hey represent, to take a foreign State to their bo
soms- —can they impart to that State, the privileges
of tin ir constituents—wed them to its fortunes—
load them with its responsibilities?
T te powers granted to Congress aro legislative
pow-ers. Its words are, “All legislative powers
here in granted,” &c. Sir, this is not a question uf
logit lation. It is not a question that shnll bo law
in ti te country, but what the country shall be, which
is su bject to our laws—not what shall he tite legis
late n of the United Stales, but what the United
States themselves shall be. It concerns our po
litic! tl being, the mode of our existence ns a nation
—net simply the rules by which we shall be governed,
or the Jaws which we shall obey, but our existence it
self. Emphatically, the question is “to be, or not
not to be”—to be, as by the blessing of God, on
tho valor nnd patriotism of our ancestors, we are, a
free, and an indigenous, anti a poculinr peoplo—
baptized in their blood, by the cherished name they
bostowijd upon us, or a mongrel race, mixed up wiih
nations of every clime, aliens alike to out feelings,
and to our institutions. Does the Constitution give
to a majority of Congress, without stint or limit,
tite power to do this—the power to chango our na
ture—to alter the mode of our existence—to des-
troy our national individuality ? That is the ques-
tio n to be examined.
Tlte advocates of this legislative power, say that
it is broadly inscribed on tlte page of the Conslitu
tion—plainly registered there—in terms wlticlt enn-
not bo misunderstood—that it is a power wlticlt is
not bounded by our own territory, but one which is
equally applicable to the territory of tite Union
and tbe Universe. Sir, if tlte position for which
Itonorablo Senators contend bo true, it is indeed
unlimited and illimitable. A majority of Congress
may incorporate into this Union, Canada and Tex
us—Nova Scotia and Mexico—New Brunswick
and Central America. They may sweep (bis west
ern continent, nnd, passing tho bounds of ucenn,
ntuy traverse the globe iu its exercise. Tito Sena
tor from Pennsylvania, tells ntc (lie power will nev
I er be thus abused. That sir, is not wills mo tlte
question. 1 do not inquire whether Congress will,
thus use, or thus abuse it. I deny that they pos
sess it. 1 deny it with tbe ournesluess wlticlt n
free-born limn may feel wlien contending fur Itis
political existence. Truly sir, lilts is a contest for
political cxislcnco. The quostiun whether Texas
shall become a part of litis Union, considered sim
ply in itself, or even with ull tlte evils, which politi
cal jealousy ascribes Io it,or tliose still more aktrtti-
ing results, which u damning fmaticisin bus con
jured up, to .turtle us from our propriety, sinks in
to insignificunce in comparison witlt the meuns
wlticlt arc to be used for its accomplishment—the
power which, in my judgment, is to bo usurped to
effect it. Sir, I cannot compare tlte vuluo of Tex
as, with that of the Constitution of my country.—
They are not relative quantities. Its genial cli-
mate—its prolific soil—the advantages of itsposi
tion—tlte security it may (will ii ?) impart to the
domestic institutions of the South—multiply each
of these elemonts into the other, and how will the
aggregate product compare with our own glorious
Union ? How will they compensate fur a violated
Constitution 1 Or soy that tlte Constitution gives
tbls tremendous power—tlmt wo enjoy out'political
existence—our national individuulity-nparfecl un-
nion among ourselves, nnd acpuruliou from tlte rest
of tlte world—al iho will of a majority of Con.
gross—that we hold the right, the inestimable priv.
ilege, of preserving this Union as it is, by such a
tenure, then truly sir, we aro aliens in the home of
our fathers. This is not the domestic altar, at
which they worshipped. Wo have no longer a
country, which is worth the struggle by which its
freedom was achieved. Emphatically, Sir,
“ A home and a country remain not to us."
I will not pursue these reflections. I will repress
tho feeling which they excite. The Constitution
is still invioiute. It may yet he preserved. Wo
nreon tbe brink of a precipice, but the gull which
yawns beneath us is open to our view. Let us sur
vey it steudily, and without dismay—with tlte in
telligence, and with the calmness too, which become
us, remembering tho conservative character of the
Senate of the United Stales.
What is it which we ure required to do? We
aro here the reprMentutives already, of twenty six
confederated sovereignties, joined together iu tlmt
“more perfect union,” which it was the primary
object of the Constitution to establish and to perpet.
unto. Our numbers have been, nod may yet bo,
enlarged, iu the mode which tlte Constitution pre
scribes, until tho waters of the Pucific, as well as of
tlte Atlantic, shall wash our shores. Thnt process
is too slow to satisfy our lust of dominion. Tito
forms of the Constitution impede our progress to
empire, and wo must overlcup its bounds. Roving
in scattered numbers, amid extended forests, yet
unsubdued by our industry, we still pant for more ;
nnd will, if this measure bo consummated in tho
form wlticlt is prodosed, have prostrated tite pullu.
tlium of our liberty, in our eagerness for tho acquis,
ilion of territory.
Mr. President, I am imperatively called to resist
what seems to mo to be a manifest usurpation of
power. I do not mean to detain you by an elabo
rate argument on this subject. At this stage of
the debate, I have only to glean, where others bavo
reaped. Gentlemen tell us, that the resolution
proposes nothing which the Constitution does not
expressly authorize—that it provides for the admis.
sion of u new Stale, and that the power to do so, is
given by the Constitution, lolidem verbis. They go
by tlte book. Here aro tho words : “New Slates
maybe admitted by Congress, into ibis Union.”—
Tito Senator from Ponsylvtmia, triumphantly tells
us, hero is the power expressively given, given by
the verv letter of tho Constitution, and given with,
out stint. If wc would limit i), we are required to
show the limitation, and our authority for imposing
it. Sir, Senators who have preceded me liuve met
this requisition. 1 do not propose to retrace their
steps. They have subjected llto cause of the Con- j
stitution to a critical unulysis. They have exposed
its origin, traced its history in the Convention,
shown you how, and under wltat circumstances it
was modified, and how and with what motive, it
was adopted. They have confirmed their inter
pretation by the concurring testimony of American
statesmen, and by tbe uninterrupted usage of our
Government. Yes, sir, the position, so confidently
announced in I ho opening argument of tho Sonalor
lias been ulready refuted. The power lias beon
nailed to the counter, as spuriuus coin, not issuing
from the constitutional mint.
Still we bear of the letter oi the Constitution, as
if Senators, unable to sustain tbe propositon, by the
plain, obvious,constitutional import of the terms, or
by reference to tlte context—or to tlte subject-mat
ter—or to tbe effects and consequence—or to tbe
reason nnd spirit of the rule, or by any of the en
larged views of statesmen,could find oil othershcl-
ter for it but in the letter of the very instrument it
would violate ; couched there like a worm in the
bark, but surely destroying the slutely troe of the
forest, wlticlt gives it shelter.
Thus protected us lie supposes, by tho lotter of
tho Constitution, the voice of the Senator from
Pennsylvania is beard promulging another rule ; I
"It is not allowed to interpret what has no need of
interpretation.” Sir, that rule is quaintly, yet
strongly expressed, and,as tho author applies it, is
undeniable ; hut its application to this controversy,
does as much injustice to Vattei, as wltat is called
the literal interpretation of this clause, does to tbe
frumers of the Constitution. Did it escape llto Sen
ator, that the ruio was applied by Vattei to tbe in
terpretation of treaties, and not of Constitutions of
Government, and that it rests upon u principle,
which renders it totally inapplicable to llto latter?
Tlte reason of tbe rule, as it is stuted by Vane', is
this : "If he who could nnd ought to have expressed
himself clearly, nnd fully, has not done it, it is
worse for him. Ho cannot be allowed to introduce
subsequent restrictions which Itu lias not express
ed.” Now, in relniion to a treaty, wlticlt is an in-
Irument executed between parlies, whoso interests
are distinct from, nnd antagonists to each other,
tins rule is obviously just; but it has, tito Senator
from Pennsylvania being himself tlte judge, not tbe
slightest application to a Constitution of Govern-
which is i
definition of tb« word Stats, which is givea VyVsU
UrntgUmm fcM AM ftMayfania,
and l deny that ft pace eerily eoaveys the meaning
" to it. A Statei* a tody politic—
UB'Wd MMMiun ben
i multiple of ibis. It is a gr
Ire era nssy species. Th.
I* dcspqtie Mill simply mol.
efi'.atid
eric term,
ate imperial, aud
archtMl, af
They ar«
domestic.
dsmoaraiic.-
foreign ant «
w Iho Const!
^ ^ ^ ___ __
tution, include all these? No one will aflnii that—
but if not ull, which does it inaltido ? Sticking to the
letter, wlticlt t* equally applicable Io all, how can it
be applied to oae, rather than the other T It im-
ports, os we have seen, bodies of men politically
associated; but unless some qualifying term he ad
ded, it meant nothing more. The advocate* of this
resolution, sty States means foreign States, and
therefore they aid to the letter oixha Constitution,
the qualifying term foreign. They interpolate, not
we. Why may we not say, it means domestic, and
add that qualifying term f Why should either of
these bo added in preference to any other of tho
qualifying terms, ae republican, dependent, inde
pendent ? The point or the argument ie, that the
letter of the Constitution is indeterminate—that it
can only be rendered certain, by having some qual
ification prefixed to it—that the word States, in itself.
aoe* not convey the idea of any particular kind of
States, foreign or domestic, nor necessarily embrace
all kinds. That it does not per u, manifest the
intention of tbe Convention—and therefara that
this intention, which is not espressed in the letter of
tite clause, mult be sought elsewhere. We reed
in iho decalogue, “Thou shalt not kill”—and the
penalty of disobedience was death; lor it is add
ed, "Tito land cannot be cleansed of the blood that
is sited therein, but by the blood of him that shed
it.” Now, tbe word kill, like the word States, is a
generic term. Itmay, with proper qualifying terms
prefixed to it, be applied to every species of homi
cide, justifiable, excusable, end felonious. As used
in the decalogue, was it intended to embraco all
these ? The act of Phinehas, in killing the Midian-
ilish woman and her paramour, received the direct
approbation of God himself. Homicide ie com.
manded, and therefore justified—it excusable, and
therefore lightly visited—is deliberate, malicious,
and therefore punished with death. Did the decal
ogue confound these distinctions? In the spirit of
that bloody code which punished equally, idleness
nnd murder, because the first deaerveed death, and
for l lie second, no greater punishment could be de
vised, did the decalogue denounce the punishment
of death, against every man who killed another ?—
We know it did not; but the intention of the Di
vine Lawgiver, is sought elsewhere than in the let.
ter of that Constitution.
Mr. President, 1 think then, I am authorized to
say that the letter of this clause, in so far as it de
pends upon the word States, is itself uncertain, and
does not forbid the application of the rules of legiti
mate interpretation—that it does not fall within
the rule, which, argumenti gratia, I have yielded
to the Senator from Pennsylvania—on the contrary,
that it is a word of indeterminate import, that it
needs interpretation, and therefore may be interpre
ted. Tlte power to admit foreign Slates, by legis
lative resolution, is not then givenby the feder of
tbe Constitution. It may have been intended, but
it is not so expressed. Whether it was intended or
not, is tlte precise object of inquiry. That is the
field to be explored, and it il alike open to us, who
deny, as to those who assort it. Thoy stand upon
no vantage ground, from having the letter of the
Constitution with them.
In considering.lhe clause with this view, we have
u right to examine the immediate context, and every
portion uf the instrument; the circumstances in
which it hud its origin ; our antecedent, cotempo.
raucous,and subsequent history ; the usdgo of our
Govcrnment, and the opinions of American stales-
mun. I had prepared myself to do this, end at an
earlier stage of this debate, would have submitted
tlte result to the Senate. It has, however, been
done, und belter done, by those who have preceded
me. They have proved, in my judgment unans
werably, that all these considerations concur to
limit this power of admission to domestic Stales.—
I will not repeal that argument. I should do injus
tice to my own firm conviction of its intrinsic, irre
sistible force, if I were to attempt to fortify it
agninst tlte assaults which have been made upon it.
Sir, llto proposition for which they have contended,
siunds unmoved, immoveable, retting on its own
firm foundation, like some giant rock, against which
the waves of ocean break in their fury, only to be
thrown back in their impotence. I will not, thete*
fore, “walk in the footsteps of my illustrious prede*
cessors. As I have said before, the harvest was
theirs. They have reaped it nobly, end I thank
ilium for it. There are yet I think , some glean,
tngs, which mny be gathered (or our instruction.
Sir, I inquire first, for whose benefit did the
people of the United Slates join together in this
bund of union ? The Constitution of the United
Stales, was formed for the free and and independ.
ent people of the United Staten, and for them alone.
It is so doclared in the preamble. Southern men
will do well to stand by this principle. Its legisla
tion was designed to operate within the limits defin
ed by the treaty of peace, and such as should there-
ifter be legitimately acquired ts territory. Such,
without the power of acquiring even territory, by
treaty, was the distinctive opinion of Mr- Jefferson,
usque ad mortem. He died in that faith. Such
also, without this limitation, have hitherto been the
ment, which is an expnssim^oflhc public will, | concurring opinion, of ull other Amerioan states-
> nf ll,n -on-ha I .. i, - I....., i D®"- 1 ItB TeSOlullOn '
made by the agents of the people. In its legiti
mute operation, it is a penally imposed upon a par
ty, for neglecting to do, whnt he ought to have t
done. If applied, us it is attempted to apply it here,
the penalty would be imposed upon tlte people, for
i lie negligence of their agents. Is ibis Democracy?
Do our opponents thus manifest their love for the
people 1 .
I yield however, to tho Senator from Pennsylva
nia, argumenli grantia, tbe benefit of tho ruin. I
deny Ihut tbe power is lobe found in tbe letter,
while I maintain that it is repelled by the spirit of
the Constitution. Addressing myself to the legal
mind ofihu Senate, I remind goniiemen of the le
gal maxim, qui haeret in lilera, liacret in corlice ;
and of oilier, scire leges, non hoc est verba carum
tencrc, sed vim ac polestatem ; and of the rule, us
it is well iuid down, hy nil eminent jurist uf our own:
"The reason nnd intention of the lawgiver, will con
trol the strict letter of tho Inw, when the Inner
would lend io palpable injustice, contradiction, nnd
absurdity.” Instances strongly illustrative ol the
propriety of this rule, were given hy iho Sonutor
from Virgiiiiu, (Mr. Rives.) With these, our car.
tier rending has rendered most of us familiar. I |
have met wilii one, however, which is not in the :
books, but which rests in tradition, and to which
Senators mny not therefore have bad access. Ii
was the decision of a learned antiquary, whose
uice was formerly beard in the bulls uf Congress,
on the question, whether llie mariner's compass was
known to the ancients. In giving his opinion, lie
described a number uf instruments which weie in
use in ancient times, between which, und tho mari
ner’s compass, it required antiquarian upticts to
discern the slightest resemblance, and concluded by
u reference which might lie considered us authori
tatively settling the question to therery letter, h
wus found in tito narrative of the voyage of S'.
Paul und his companions, in which thu writer speaks
of their lurrying three days in Syracuse, and then
adds, “and from thence wc fetched a compass, and
came In Jlhegium.” TuU wus conclusive. The
decision in tnui ease, wus founded uu (lie letter of
the text. The cninpuss must have been in Syra
cuse. or it cuuld nut have been fetched from thence.
Bill it had sornelhing more lliun letter lo sustain il.
It was tt nautical instrument, and the parlies wero
journeying on the sea,
But mure gruvely, sir. I deny thul tlte power is
given by the Icller of (itu Constitution. I taka the
we are considering for the
first lime in the history of our legislation, overleaps
those bounds. It not only overleaps them, but has
no operation at all, until it gets beyond our own-
imits. As it passes from your hands, and while it
remains within theUniled States, it is caput mortu.
am. Lifo, vitality, can only be imparled to it by
iho Government and people of Texas, acting
within tito limits of Texas. If that people
witlt a just senso of this aggression upon their nn*
iio11a 1 dignity us u sovereign and independent Stale,
vour equal in their claim upon the courtesy of na-
i ions, shall repel it with scorn, the poor bantling is
lest i nett never to sec the light of day, although it
•v i i I have boon very much exposed toil. If, from
whatever cause,they tamely submit to your mand
ate, uttd du your bidding, they are the accoucheurs
who will uslicr it into being. As it passes from
your hands, it will bo stillborn and lifeless. It is
lie child of many fathers, but they alone can im
part viiulity lo it. It must be born again, and iu a
oreigit laud.
We are next to look at tho context. Tho clause
which authorizes Congress to admit new Slates in
to tlte Union, is immediately followed hy two dis
tinct previsions, which limit the exercise of the pow
er, und which hy their very terms, are confined lu
thu United Slutes. This is not denied. Now, I
address myself to the Senators from Pensylvania
(Mr. Buchanan) and from New Hampshire (Mr.
WuoDBuar). They have urgued this question on
legal grounds. It is as lawyers 1 appeal to them,
to say if in construing any instrument granting an
authority, tho power, and the limitation of that pow
er, are nut held to have relation lo the same sub-
j»ct. Do they contest this proposition? I appre
hend not. Well, here is the grant of a power to
admit new States, and llt&t is followed by a limita
tion. wlticlt prescribes tbe mode in whiclt that pow
er shall be exercised, and prescribes it with the
must scrupulous care. But the limitation, as all
admit, is wholly confined to Stales arising within the
limits of the United Slates. It is not natural to con
elude iltut ii was intended to confine the grant io
like manner ?—the power to foreign, tbe limitation
to domestic State 1 Apart from thia natural, ne
cessary relation between a power, and the limita
tion of the same power, is not the inference irresis
tible, that the same subject teas in the minds of tne
framers of the Constitution, in granting the power,
a* in pretoribing its limitation.
