Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

,«|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.