Newspaper Page Text
THE TIMES,
Is pnblishod every W odnesday morning-,
MBS mill! <cn.Hc,
Corner of Oglethorpe end Randolph streets, by
Jl. FORSYTH, & w. L. JfiTEK,
Wm T- PROPRIETORS.
K’
™ATERMS—Three Dollars per annum. payab l c
i*o tritiWy in advance.(or nev^gulisorqmons
No paper will be riieicotUinudd while any arrearages
• is due, unices at the option of the proprietor, and
***** HOLLARS will in all cases he, exacted where
payment is not made before the expiration of the
subscription vear.
-v AUYfc IKTIJSK.iIEN l\S cOßspieuously inserted at
•Os% Djllvr per meb md oil worth?,for the first
insertion,and FiFTf'c&trs fer every subsequent
conliuumice.
All Aof'eiitiskhknts, sent to lis without specify
ing the number of insertions desired, will be con
tinued until ordered out, and charged accordingly.
Lkgil AnvKuriaKMRNTS publish -d ,at t lie usual
rates, and with strict attention to the requisitions
of the laW.
Sheriff's Sales under regular executions, must
be advertised for thirty lays; under mortgage
ti fas, sixty days before the day of sale.
Salks of Land and Negroes, by Executors, Ad
ministrators or Guaidians, for sixty days before
the day of sale.
S ilks of personaTpropcrty (except negroes) forty
days.
C* tatiovs by Clerks of Courts of Ordinary, upon
application for letters of administration are to be
published for thirty days.
CtTAUONS upon application for dismission, by
Executors, Administrators or Guardians, month
ly tor six months.
L Orders of Courts of Ordinary, (accompanied with
Ia copy of tho bond, or Agreement)'-to make title
L to land, must he published TitRKK months.
I Notices hv Executorsor Administrators or Guard-
I iaijs, of application to the Court of Ordinary for
l leave to sell the Land or Negroes of au estate,
I four Months.
I Notices by Executors or admuust rntors, to the
■ Debtors and Creditors of an estate,fur six wkk.ks
I QJ* Letters to the proprietors on business, must
1 bo fust paid, to entitle them to attention.
I LAW NOTICES.
Robert R. tester
I ATTORNEY AT LAW,
I • Tazbwell Marion County Ga.
WILT. the ad£>intn cuamn-s. All
busiiH-^fsubm ilte Ifi ins ca ts will receive
I preinpl alten|F>n.
i~ March n ~- u '-
I William Misecll,
I ATTORNEY AT LAW;
I Tazewell, Marion Count/, Ga.
I March 5, 1345, M —ly
I LAW NOTICE.
IvtaTINQ flSH'jcia’ed ourselves logrthei in the
fltl practice of the LAW under the name ol
■ ST El NK K. ft RIOHAKD.s,
Hwe will a'-t-n l the several Oo'irts in t in Counties of
Bjimnbers, Russell, Macon, Tallapoosa & Ranuo'ph,
the Supreme Court of ilie S ate.
■ofi-e real d>or to the Port O fico. LaPavette Ala.
■ JOHN J. STEINER,
BVAN G. RICH VRIJ3.
■ Feb. 86 1845. 9 ~ 3m - .
[ James IU. Mitchell,
■ attorney AT LA W,
it; Residence— Lumpkin. Georgia.
ILL devote his attention hereafter, exclusive
ly to hid profession, and will attend punctu-
to all’ business -ntruited to his care, in any ctulii
■M in the Chattahoochee or South-Western Circuits.
IKeb i, 1815 6-l.v
! J. S- Mitchell,
ATTORNEY AT LAW.
S'I'ARKsVILLE, Lee Cos. Ga.
William fi. Martin,
SOLICITOR AND ATTORNEY AT
LA W.
Office, in Girard, Alabama.
RE SP £G IVULLY temhrs his professional
services to the puhlit generally ; he- takes tins
’ lneuio 1 of atiprisin > his patrons, taut he makes no
collection* for less than ten par cent, on any smn
■ii it exc -riling uno l tons and tl tllars, his reasons for
this puhli atiun.is it e vo general n ‘tier to those who
have already intrusted him with their busines -, wiii
out special eotiifHct; tlmt they muv wthlruiv th ■
same if they prefer, anti nil fu'ure patrons it any, may
exited to ho governed by this no'ice.
WM. fcf. MARTIN.
.January 5, !S4a . _ . ... r — lv
LAW NOTICE.
William fi. Pryor
HAS settled him-rlf in the Town of LaGringe,
Troup county, Georgia, and will pmr.tice
Iqw in tlte counties of Troup, Meriwether, Cmvcia,
(3*in;*jbU, Carroll and Heard, of the Coweta Client
•ftaml Muscogee and Talbot of the Chatta
hoochee Circuit.
Dec 18, 1844 51 —ly
Taylor <fc Goucke,
ATTORNEY’S AT LAW;
Cuthbert, (Randolph County ) Ga.
Inn HE -mdereigned having nesocia ed thcmsofVos
TjL in the pracuca of ihvLaw, will give their at-
t'any business confided to them in the cotin
fi'es of Randolph, Early,* Baker, Lee, Sumter, Dooly
ind Decatur in the Southwestern, and Stewart of the
XJhattahoochee circtfD.’ Thev will aso attend the
courts iu Barbour and Henry comities in Alabama.
WILLIAM TAYLOR.
. LEWIS A.GONO.KE.
November 13 : f844. 46—ly.
Ciuii'lcsS. Reese,
k ATTORNEY At LAW;
Crawford Ala.
Es
f \ XL 11. Platt,
I Attorney at law,
I Albany, Baker County, Ga.
I >nL 18 ‘ l-’f
I .tollii jflL fi/thuuc,
I AT ‘I OR N EWA T LAW;
Columrus, Ga.
■ Oilieo in Hooper’s biultlings, on the V\ est
Hi'Je of Bioad cilryt, opposite the Market-House.
He wiil practice in fine Chattahoochee
■hreint. _ /Feb 21. 184\ H-if
■ Burks & Stephenson,
■ AT TOR N-K Y S AT LAW;
§ TALBOTTON, GA.
I JAMES M, BUHKS, )
HJIME.I L, STEPHENSON (
■ Keb tS. 1844 \ 9—ls
- ----- ■- —■
K > COLaUITT & COOK,
B|AT VO-RNE Y',S AT LAW;
BA GRANGE, GEORGIA.
|H| practice in of Tronp, Meriwether,
T. CoftfeitT, Columbus, Ga.
D. Cook, La Grange.
, 34- ■
Bfe, lISSOLUIO\.
BgLutw firm of tVKItSUN, FORSYTH
“ t.jrrf, is tlissniv. ‘l by lit’ r■ ‘ ir,11,*:,l (•}
■ ffla
&, FORSYTH.
removu-i ,r * ,| ’ ‘* !1 • 1 ‘ 1 i’• -
•; ‘.SR jifetfoot, n ar i!i- ALit Im-’. UIU- r
r Store.
Bh?iiASSiCAL
■ SrtiBWLTIOAI. SOHMI..
-"■ I ‘ “ |(lioWrespectfully informs the public
!§■ ff*f4 (Sill rosnmc Iffs labors ori Monday the
be/Vf t D h'mso w'nch tie nc'-ai|>l- ,J durrnp
I mi /tjjblntng ’ MMt. Ttfcknor.
|ir-pa-e l thr any colfege which cither
HBP *,,[ (JiiardiWiiiiy designate. Tho prtee
Will vary according to the branches which
BTte wildcat “ hirm-.ui to siujy, from $6 to sli 50
oof eleven weeks; W. B. LKA tt V.
Kthc. 25 . 5i- ,r
iss -
FORSYTH & JETER, editor*.]
HARDWARE, &c.
C* Tons Lon
OU 15 Tons Castings.
lulO Pair Traces.
3000 Weeding Hoes.
50 D z Collins Axo s,
300 Casks Nails*
Together with an extensive assortment of
For sale lower than ever offered in this ma ket by
HALL 4’ MOSES.
East si lo broad street, nbive the market.
January, 1 1945, l —din
NEW GOODS ! NEW GOODS!!
fTETJHE subscriber is now receiving at the old store
p former y occupied by M -ssrs. Stewart &
Fo intiine, and more recently by Messrs Hi!!, Ihw
sou & Cos, an entire new and desirable assortment of
mww w&w&s*
FAMILY GROCERIES fitO &C.
which lie ofi'-rs ta the public at prices to suit the
times. H. Mi KAY.
Dec. 4, I?4L 4i>—'f
FALL ASD WESTER
<D & % ts 111®.
s. B. HAMILTON,
(Next door to James Kivlin.)
HAS commenced receiving a large stock of Fall
and Waiter Clothing, which will be sold cheap
for cash. ,
Cloaks and Overcoats.
Heaver, Pilot and Flushing Over coats and F:tv*.k
H ue, Black, Olive, Green and Brown, Frock and
DressCtais. Cass Twede and Sattinett Sack ami
Frock Con's, Kentucky Jeans Frock, Dress and
Sack Coats,
Pantaloons.
Black and Blue Clout and Cass P-n’s,
I)i igonal, Plaid and fancy Cass do.
Satinet, Tweede find Jeans do „
Vests.
Plain black and figured tiatin Vests,
Black silk velvet do*
Fig. “ “ “
Woolen “
Cloth, Cn*s and Caliimere “
Gent’s Dressing Gounds.
Hats and Caps.
Merino, Lambs and Flannel shirts and drawers,
White and colored Linen and Muslin
Suspenders, Slocks, Collars, Cravats and Gloves
Cotton,-Silk and Merino halfhose,
Si k and Cotton Umbrellas &o.
October 23 1844. 43—ts.
MOODY DU HR,
ARE receiving a largo and well assorted stock
of GROCERIES, and
ttiiia
which have been purclia-ril in New York a ntl New
Orleans for CASH, and will be seld at prices to amt
the limes.
Also, a heavy supply < f
Bagging, Rope and Twine,
of good q t:ititles, which will b". sold lower than ever
offered in ihta market befire. (lall. examine and buy,
while it is cheap. • Keb. 2ti. It'4s B—II
THE nona r• n Hi e ijhoiii’re exist in.- led ween
D. COLDS ffcxN * JOHN R. BiCEIkS
mieer the firm of
TSe GroVry Ritsintss
Will bo continued b ijlftobsctibor, who is duthoris
ed to s ttlc all u.e old/is*B|(Xof the firm.
/ rfcd.N R. BEERS
.Tan.fi. 1845-__
MILLERS ! AMLERS !!
BTTTCH BOLTING CLOTHS, a'l ‘lw difler
ent Numbers, .indCOr iil'illltl,
Ju*t received and lur sale, by
L. J. DAVIES.
Nov 6, 1544 45—if
CillA, GLASS,
TO COL STiaTl ORCIIA NS W.
THE the Ist July next,
to make a concern, are aiixioits
indispose of liieir stock, which tiiev
will sell at R EDUCEIyiATES.
Their g-iod.- havingrfealuiport'-d direct from Eu
rope, enables them lijjpfierlcountry Merchants, and
others, any of the aipve at"prices as low as
thev can be pnrchdSed at. irwkither of the cities of
New York, BnsJn or Philad^bliia.
Merchants vh/luig will find itloiheir
advantage, to dm, ana may be *sured no rea
sonable cflbrl/will lie spaied to jfc;. sin is faction.
/ GKO S. CAlli i N, *S- Cos.
81 street, Charleston,Xoutli Carolina.
J.in Bg/545. ... ML 4—2 m
I'AITTS D3JLS, GIL ASS &c.
PAUL ROSSIGNOL
{AI the Blue Drm: Store )
IS constantly rcfcaiyitifr and has on hand supplies
of extra ad No. 1, iVhite l.ead in Kg“B ol* 50
and 25 His of warrant il - Pure I.inseed
Sperm, and Tanner’s Oil, Spirits of Turpentine,
Vamislies of all kinds, red lead, Vermillion. Venetian
red, .Spanish brown, Lump black, Chrome yellow,
Yellow ochre, Litharge, Chrome green, Verdigris,
terra de sienna, gold leaf, G ue, Chalk, black lead,
Sand paper, pu nice and r-Mn sto j**, paint trashes,
window, coac) and picture Glass of b t-isses and
choice qualities, logeiher with every article,usually
kept m Drug Siofes, of ihe best q’mluy, and at very
low p- ic* s,
jCjr Purchasers will do well to call.
promptly at< n ( ed 10.
March H 1845. 11—ts.
FOII THE LADEIS.
PERFraKiUKS 15RUSHES &;.
(At the Blue Drug Store.)
LU BIN’S Kxiracis. Pei Aline Turk, Knit de La
vairde, French and urerman Colgne, Orange
blower Water, Train’s parent Wash Bills, Fancy
Soaps ol all fciiidrf and choice qualities; Ivory, Buf
falo and Bo’*e Handle Tooth Brushes, Hair Brushes,
Nail Brushes Pmnaiuni Ux Marrow, Genuine 51a-
Oil, Bear’s Oil Antique Oil. Faririe do Nois
ett and Pate D’Aiuatftffc for softening and whitening
the hands. Also a general assortment of Toilet and
Fancy bottles, Pungeul’s, Preston Salts,
PAUL KOSSIGNOL.
Inarch 12 1845. il -ts.
LOST 011 MISLAID.
A \ NOTE of hand given to thc undersigned hy
j3L Henry L. Ellison Administrator of K. M, Kir
uey deceased, for l.> dollars and 18 cents, duo ihe
Bth day of J nary 1841. Notice is hereby given
‘to the said Efhfe'in, not to make payment of the suuie
lo any one but myself, and Jail persons are likewise
cautioned against truding for said note.
JAMES S. LUNSFOUD.
Sumter county, March 12, 1845. 11 —3* f .
NOTICE.
CJTR.AYED from ihe Subscriber a shrrtl iff are
V3 Mule, wiih a lila/.e in her lace. Informal ion
concerning tho above will be thankfully received.
HOB Ell T TANNER.
Feb. 26 1845. 9-nf.
ii. T r aifwe n.
BOOK-BINDER.
Comjihbus Ga.
THREE doorabulow tho Post Olficu, on Ogle
thorpe strcol.
Jan. 12 j 45. 7—l v.
AGE N C Y
Os the New-York Contrilmlionship Fire In
surance Company, at Columbus.
IMtHTtS Institution i, prepared to Insure JJwel-
JL ling House,, Ware-linuses and building.* l'h’
general —Als >, Merchandise and Household Fur
niiore, in Gotumbus and vicinity, against loss or
damage by Fire, nt its Agency in this city.
The Oontribunoinhip Fire Iti.urtce Company,
Its, a capital of #400,000, surf l* one of the oldest
best mslitutio is of the kind in the city of Netv
York. ROBERT B. MURDOCK, Arm,
; April ffk, 164* lTt—lf
THE UNION OF TIIE STATES, AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES.
COLUMBUS, GA. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, IS 15.
(’ \ GREhSIO X A I. •
SPEECH OF MR. COLQUirf
OF GEORGIA.
In the Senate es the United States, Thursday.
L'\ bruary 2J, 1345 Upon the Joint Reso
lutions from the House of Representatives ,
admitting Texas as a Slate into the Union.
Mr. President: lit the early part of the
session 1 gave this subject some reflection,
lor me purpose ol submitting my views to the
Senate. Cut the delay of its consideration
until our labors were drawing to a close, with
the hiimvledge that many of the Senators
desired to bo heard in the debate, had induc
ed me to change my determination, and de
cline altogether doing any thing more than
cast my vole, i have, however, from the
solicitations of friends, consented la. make a
speech, enabling them to make fuller prepar.
a inti lur i;s discussion.
I aui not presumptuous enough tosupp se
that, after ail that has beeu said and written
upon this question, the opinions 1 enterlain,
and (lie sentiments to which I propose to give
utterance, can materially add toilio weighty
considerations winch ha ve already been pre
sented. I shall discharge a simple duty to
myself and to the ttie people who have hon
ored me with tlieir confidence. Parly spirit,
ambition, local interests, and sectional preju
dices, have done much to embarrass itie
judgement, and prevent Ihe impartial deci
sion ol a question, upon which eminently the
peace, safety, and happiness of the country
depend. It is an easy mailer fur an honest
man lo ciieri>li prejudices, which will give an
improper bias to Ins judgement ; mid still
more easy for him to frame arguments to
cover up tbeir deformity. I cannot premise
that 1 am wholly free from that class of feel
ings, that binds me with a partial and sacred
tie lothe peopie ol Georgia, and to the citi
zens of the South.
Rum and raised among them, thev have
the lull strength i f ii, y young and early at
tachments. Encouraged, fostered, and hon
ored by them, they have my heart’s warmest
glow of respect, gratilude and love. But so
tar as I shall be enabled to control the up
risings of indignant feelings, which spring up
from the abuse heaped upon the South and
her institutions, I will examine this subject—
not merely as a Georgian, and a Southern
man, but in the more expand and character and
liberal spirit of an American citizen. Not
withstanding the wanton and reckless assaults
made upon the character and interests of the
Southern portion of the confederacy, I sti I
desire to cherish the sentiment, that our land
is a patrimony ol b-oihers.
Toe convictions of my judgement |are de
cidedly favorable to the importance of an i al -
ly consummation of this great measure; and
esteem .it intimately connected with the
prosperity and permenance ol our present
luimof Government. Hav.ng those opinions
I shall not despa r ofi'3 success ; nor shall I
he toutid fishing for f/vre pretexts lo justify it*
defeat.
If then? be a want of constitutional power
in Congress to pass a law winch may open
the door lor the co-operation and admission o!
Texas, our present b gislaliotl should cease.
But if the Cunsl iiTilion presents no barrier,
ilie country and its interests demand imme
diate aciiuii. The Committee on Foreign
lfeaiions base their entire argument o.
what they supports proved by their rep rl —
teat Ihe irealy-nmking power is limited in
Us functions to those acts which are beyond
the teach of any oilier const,tutional action
upon the part ol Ihe Government, and assert
tual a treaty is the only mode of making a
contract, and that therefore a act
for that purpose is unconstitutional. With
due deference to the committee, I leg.leavoto
dissent from the premises they lay down, and
insist that their conclusion is not a sequence
from tlieir premises. In what manner dees
the committee seek to establish tbeir first
proposition ! First, by concurring with Mr.
Jefferson, that the treaty-making power must
have some limit, and then by asserting that
limit to be ttie “ex-ecution of au object of
another power.” lam unahlc to appreciate
the force or propriety of this reasoning. 1
will read from the report, that the views ol
the committee may not'be misinterpreted—
speaking of the treaty-making power, the
committee say :!
“It was the just remark of Mr. Jeffcr.-on,
that if ilie power had this extent el ranee,”
[viz. “no limit by expression in the Cetisli
luluni,”] “then we had no Conslilut on ; that
there was, indeed, a paper, but a blank one.
Tlte committee yield entire assent to this
opinion, of Mr. Jefferson, and Ins further
doctrine, and that of his school, that, if the
power lias limits, they must be constituted by
the objects ol the powets named in the l on
stitution. If this be so,—the doctrine su mi,
—then the Peaty making power can never
have capacity ol exert lot', unless in the cases
in which its aid is invoked, by soma one of
tho expressed powers, to carry out the pur
pose which, being of exterior relation, tlie
powers of domestic sphere ol operation would
bejunahle for that reason to reach, without the
aui of this power of exterior nperatioh. The
treaty-tnakiiig power, under litis construction
can never be any other than subsidiary—is
never a power independent in its vocation,
however it is so in its name and its structure.
It is the handmaid—waits on ’the occasions
ol'oiher powers; and though in no posture to
receive orders from them, it never yet moves
to its exertion save in stabordination to their
desires.” That the treaty-making power has
limits, ail'd safe limits, ldo not doubt. That
it is limited like ail other granted powers in
the Constitution, there can be no question.—
But by what process of reasoninng tliecmn
unttee have come to the conclusion that it is
subordinate to oilier granted powers, and
that this subordination is its limit, I am una
be to couceive. There is no such intima
tion in the Cnnstituli m ; the power to make
treaties derives its existence ifuin the grants
of the Constitution, and its power is extended
or limited by those grants. Tne powers
which may be exercise'! by Congress are de
rived from tho same source, and subject to
the same restrictions. Every law passed by
Congress must be limited by these grants,
and the only admissible exercise ol power
not specially delegated, is to make .those ne
cessary laws which carry out the granted
powers. That incidental legislation, which
may be exercised for the purpose of giving
effect to some granted power, cannot be made
to supersede grant itself, hut must be subser
vient to il. The treaty-making powor which
is derived from the CnrisiiluLon, created aid
cxiStiiig hy a specific grant, jmay render it
necessary for Congress lb pass laws to carry
the objects of the mant into fu![ effec.t f but
the idea is fincifuTthftt this power is lo be
made a handmaid of some other granted pow
er, and to be exercised un'y by its will, it is
an original substantial power, discharging its
Inactions under tho authority of its grant; to
find out what some granted powor deciles to
do, amt cannot do, because it is domestic, and
when necessary to call in this exterior pow'ei
to accomplish its designs, would require a!
learned council of {political doctors. These
granted powers have no wishes or desires,
bui are intended to give ability to the agents
ol Government to carry out the public will ;
and the withholding the people’s representa
tives from the exercise of powers not dele
gated, was to protect the reserved r.ghls of
ihe Slates, and to limit the action of an inter
ested majority in Congress. As incompre
hensible and inconclusive as is the reasoning
adopted by the committee to establish their
premises, the conclusion they draw from their
postulate is stiff more so- They say :
•‘Let the proposition bo considered as con.
ceded, that the treaty-making power is never
to exert its office but in subservience or exe
cution of an object of another power. Then
the related proposition follows, that there
must boa purpose or object of another power
to antecede exterior, and therefore which it
cannot attain except by an auxiliary function
oi the treaty-making power.”
Again they say:
“If the affair tc he accomplished he exteri
or, and require the intervention of compact
to accotnp isli it, here with tlie treaty-making
power is the office, and the solo office, to ac
complish it. No oilier power has privilege
to touch. The questions are presented. Is
the afftir exterior ! Does it require the ex
ercise of the function of compt cl for its ar
rangement ! Then here is the province, not
more undisputed than it is exclusive, to act.
The power to which all exterior affairs, de
manding arrangement hy compact, which can
only be effected through arrangement, com
pact, by bargain—these implying all of them
terms, stipulations, conditions—the power to
which these things are confided by the Con
stitution, how can it be intruded upon lawful
ly, invaded iu its p-ovince, divested of its ju
risdiction !”
If the premises were true, it does not fol
low that none but the treaty-making power
could make a contract Solar from it, that
tl.-e establishment of the undoubted fact, that
Congress can and lias made numerous con
tracts, would preclude the use of this “hand
maid” altogether. Wiiat reason has been
assign’ and to show that we cannot, by an act
of Congress, make a contract, every way as
bindoig, as though made bj treaty ! It is as
serted that by the Constitution, the treaty
making power can make contract, and that,
therefore, the legist ttive branch of the Gov
ernment is denied the power. I insist that
this conclusion is neither sustained by any
just reasoning, nor is it justified by the prac
tice of the Government. I admit to the full
est extent, that the B’.xecutive Department ol
the Government, the President and tho Sen
ate, can make contracts by treaty ; but 1 de
ny that it follows that this grant of power in
any wise destroys those grants delegated to
Congress ; anil insist that contracts, equally
b.tiding, may be made hy legislation. There
were many objections urged hy the Slates,
at the adoption ol the Constitution, to yield
ing the power to make treaties to the Presi
dent and Senate, without consultation with
the popular branch ol tin; General Assembly.
But as it oiton happened, that there would
necessarily lie some diplonacy in consum
mating a favorable bargain, and that secresy
and despatch might he highly important, the
objections were overruled, and ihe Constitu
tion, with that grant embraced, was adopted 1
The only result from lius is, that llio Consti
tution empowers the President and S onne,
whenever they may deem it necessary, to
make contracts ; which, when made, shall
be recognised and binding as laws. But
whenever it can be done without the inter
vention of negotiators, the ordinary mode of
passing laws, by which the popular branch of
the legislature is consulted, is the least ob
jectionable, and most in conformity with the
genius of our government. There is no con
flict between ihe exercise of these powers.
The one is an extraordinary mode of making
a law, winch shall he binding on the nation ;
the other is the ordinary and mure popular
method; both of which areirecogniscd by our
Constitution- Whenever intricate negoiia
tions, set resy and despatch are necessary to
the making a contract, important to the na
tion, our Constitution has wisely prepared
such means fur it's consummation. But in
all other cases, ordinary legislation is suffi
cient. A treaty is a compact between two
or more powers, who are able to coutract ;
but, so far as this Government is concerned
such compact, when made by treaty, mus be
made by the President and Senate; but when
made otherwise than hy treaty, is neverthe
less a compact, liul not a treaty. 11l our
Constitution, treaty has a technical meaning,
and can only be made by I lie Executive De
partment of the Government, hut contract
or compact has not a technical meaning, and
can be made by Congiess, so tna', by our
Constitution, all treaties made hy the Gov
ernment are contracts, but all contracts in the
meaning of the Constitution, are not trea
ties.
The honorable Senator from Virginia (Mr.
Rives) exhibited a good deal of ability in
proving, wh it no one has ever denied, that
“the power to make trealies belongs exclu
sivelv to the Executive Department of the
Government.” He then established very
satisfactorily to tne that every treaty is a con
tract ; hut, I beg leave to say, failed wholly
iu proving that every contract between inde
pendent powers was a treaty. Since the
Senator, during the last session, made a
speech in favor of Texas, and then voted a
gainst the ireaty, I have toine hope that hav
ing spoken against the resolutions, we may
gel his vote in tlieir favor. I will call his
attention to the latter'part of the tenth sec
tion of the first article of Ihe Constitution,
which reads : “No State shall, without the
consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage,
keep troops or ships of war in time oi peace,
enter into any agreement or compact, with
another Sta'o, or with a foreign power,” fc c.
Dons not the Senator perceive that by an
express grant in the Constitution, a contract
can be made wi ll a foreign power, without a
treaty ! He has based his entire constitu
tional argument upon tho denial of this power
and has insisted that, the treaty-making pow
or was a conservative power, because it re
quired the concurrence of two-thirds of the
Henators. Yet the framers of the Constitu
tion, never doubting but Congress could make
contracts, have, by the clause I have just
read, enabled a State to make contracts with
foreign powers, by the consent of, Congress.
Adi the gentleman’s fine spun tiVgfHficnt lints
crurcbles lo pieces; and as he is really anx
ious to annex Texas in a constitutional way,
may I not hope for his assistance, and’ thus
verify a couplet in Tlmlibras :
“Thus rhoir, adieus art? contrary,
Ju*l as voles and .qiuvchcs vary.”
I apprehend that in consequence (if its be
ing the usual operation of laws passed by
CongresH ti) take effect immediately, without
the-consent of, consultation with, second
nr tnird parties’ that wo are roluctant to ad;
wit the power to make contracts in enacting
.laws. It it be conceded that Congress can
pass a law, which requires the concurrence
of some other party iu order to make that
iawbinding.it seems to me to settle the
whole question of power involved in the mea
sure under discussion. Our statute book a
bouuds with laws, recognising tins power
upon the part of Congress, to the luilest ex
tent, without any voice having been raised, of
any party, to challenge its constitutionality.
How many laws have been passed, by which
public lands have been sold, and conveyed to
purchasers * Dues this not recognise the
principle of making contr. cts by legislation ?
You pass a law putting tip laud at public
auction, and declare that the highest bidder,
above a minimum price, which you fix by
complying with certain conditions, shall have
the title. What effect lias the law, if no
person is found to comply with iis conditions!
Does it force compliance! Can it he made
operative! Such law presupposes the con
sent of another parly! that consent when
given, constitutes a binding contract, between
this Government upon tbo one part, and some
second party upon the other. How long Inis
it been since Congres passed laws proposing
to borrow money f Did you not fix the rate
of interest you were xviiliug to pay, and the
time ol payment! Did not tlies laws pre
suppose the consent and concurrence of same
other pariy, to give them effect? By agree
ment upon the part of another to the terns
proposed, did it not become a contract, con
stitutional legal, anti binding upon both par
ties ! Ay! sir, suppose Texas hat^possess
eu the ability to have made the proposed
loan, and lud have complied with the stipti
lotions ot the 1 t\v of Congress; would there
nui lave been a con'ract, constitutional, legal,
and binding between the two Governments!
Congress has the power to borrow money
and can make a contract for that purpnse.—
Congress has the power to admit new States
in the Union, and can fix the terms under
the Constitution for that purpose. The laws
in both cases, make propositions, not compul
sory, nor binding, until the terms are accept
ed ; but wlie accepted become, an obligato
ry contract upon the parties concerned. How
many laws now stand upon your statute
book, by which compacts have been made
between the General Government and some
one of the Slates ? Lands have been pur
chased, privileges bought, ami rights secured
to the General Government, by s.mple acts
of legislation, upon the part of tiio two Gov
ernments. Who can doubt, that tbe princi
ple is idem cal m those cases and the one be
ore the Senate, though L e circumstances
differ. Propositions have been made by the
State Governments, and have been accepted
by this; they have been made by commission
ers appointed ny each, and ratified by both;
thus showing that a compact inay be made
by Congress in these various ways with in
dividuals and with Governments. Wo
are scaling no new principle by the present
action of Congress; but merely applying an
old and well settled principle, to anew case,
which has fur the first time occurred under
the Const tution.
Can it be said that all the cases cited are
within the limits and jurisdiction of the Unit
ed Buttes, and that therefore the principles
involved are changed and subverted, when
applied to cases beyond our jurisdiction! 1
think not. The Constitution does not in
terms make any difference; and the practi
c 1 operation'of our Government only illus
trates am! proves thedoctrines I have already
advanced. Instead of passing acts, hy which
contracts are made with States, why do we
not make treaties ! The rights which are
reserved by the Slates are as sacred, and as
much beyond the reach of the jurisdiction of
the General Gaveriinient, as if held bytforetgn
States.
No difficulty could arise from the grant of
power in making treaties, but arhes solely
Iroin the structure o! the Government. The
Slates themselves being the parties to the
General Government, the very definition of
treaty, which can only be made inter alias,
would make a negotiation, nothing more
than a contract or compact between them
But these compacts establish the existence
of power, in Congress lo contract; and (that
power, by tbe Constitul.on, is not limited
to our internal regulations. The grant to
make contracts is applicable to both our in
ternal and external relations. ‘J'be treaty
making power, being equally broad, is not re
strained by it* grant, but from the struciure
of tho Government,
When this proposition of annexing Texas
by an act of Congress was made, at l tie open
ing of the session, I flattered myself we should
have had the hearty co operation of the hon
orable Senator trom Virginia, (Mr. Archer,)
who has lavoted us with this report. If lam
not mistaken, he lots reversed his position
since the eighth day of last June. We were
then considering a ireaty, which had been in
negotiation between this Government and
Texas; when the honorable Senator denied
that “ihe treaty-mult.tig power, the I’resident
a id Senate,” could acquire Texas by treaty
hut admitted that'‘Congress, tho*wo Houses
of legislation,” had tho competency lo admit
it as a Stale. Tbe Ireaty was rejected, and
now, by tho report which he has submitted
to tHe Senate, when Congress is acting on
th s suggestion, lie declares that Congress
has no ech ‘.constitutional power, but that
the treaty malting pmvor alone is the “hand
maid” by which it can be accomplished.
[Mr Archer desired to say that, upon a
former occasion. He had, be‘ore lie bid tlio
r mirhly examined tbe subject, said that Cou
gressicould admit Texas ns a State.
Mr. C. resumed: Sir, I regret this change.
The high character that the honorable Sen
ator had won for himself,during n long life
of public service,would have justified the be
lief, that wbeolie made his Ispeecli on the
eighth day oflast June, he was acquainted
with the organization of this Government,
and liis speech exhibits tho conviciions of
a mind thoroughly made up. 1 will tend n
part of the Senator’s speech made on this
subject. Me says: “He admitted then a
power in our Government to -acquire a for
eign territory, whether original or induced,
it did not matter to inquire. The power,
as it had been most beneficially exerted,
admitted oftesoit again, if exigency should
demand, as in case ot Louisiana, or advan
tage persuaded, as in that of the two Fieri
dns. He went still further. He recognised
tho authority to admit forVtgu States ill the
Confederacy. lie know’ the ground on
which this proposrtisn had been denied, de
nounced. and made the subject of appre
hension. ‘This did not hinder his recogni
ti.m of it. The phrase in the Constitution
was of the largest character: ‘ Congress
shall have power toadmit new Slates into the
Union.’ Where shall ths sanction be found
lor litoiiatibn oh the operation of language
of thik generality and comprehensiveness?”
After tfornpleting his argument to estab
lish hispbsi'ion, be says : “Our Govern- 1
ment was then endued with capacity to
acqbire a foreign territory, or admit a for
eign State. Oil what ground, then, it
would he asked, could ho (Mr. A.) deny,
as he did, the capacity to take Texas un
der the present ireaty! The difficulty, ap
parent only, was suiceptible of an easy ex-
[VOL. V—NO 12.
| plication. The treaty-making power in
otir Government—the I’resideni and Senate
had authority to acquire territory; but Tex
as was not a meie territory; we had ac
knowledged tier as a State —a political,
as distinguished-from a mere mirnercial,
community, which a territory was. Nor
had her Government, by which she was
represented, in the formation ot ths treaty,
shown me only authority which could lie
admitted, by the principles of her Govern
ment and ours, as valid, to prove the fact
that she stood tesolved, Iroin the rouduion
of a poli ieal com munity, in which ‘.ve had
acknowledged her to he existing, into a
territorial form, in winch we had never
known her. The treaty-making power had
then nu competence to admit Texas, being
no territory. But Texas might bo admitted
as a State. True. But Congress, the two
Houses of legislature, were invested with
the exercise of this competence and even
the Senate were nut the legislature.”—
These were the views expressed by the chair
man, while we were considering a ttea y of
annexation. The Senator was truly very
anxious to acquire ‘Texas then, as ha is
now; but the Constitution, from which no
honorable representative dare depart, even
to accomodate the people, was in the way.
A treaty was not the plan; you might ac
quire territory by treaty, hut Texas was a
state, and could m.ly be admitted by Con
gress! Ilow unfortunate that we cannot
nave both plans before us at the same lime;
for having disposed of the treaty, an attempt
is made to meet the constitutional sciuples
of the Senator by legislative action, when
he presents a labored report to prove that
Congress cannot accomplish thi-, measure,’
no matter how de irablv; for the treaty-mak
ing power answers to its proper name in
the (Jonsliiul oa, is the exter.ur handmaid
for the domestic powers, and can alone per
form this lunctiuu —so that, taking the
speech and report they undoubtedly prove
that we can acquire foreign territory, and
admit a foreign estate; but that Texas is so
situated that it can neither be acquired nor
admitted. These different positi ms can be
easily explained, n > doubt; but in the mean
time the acquisition of Texas will be lost,
from the great facility of ihe Constitution
in changing its features su as be always a
bar.
[Mr. Archer reniaiked, that he really
desired to admit Texas, and but for the con
stitutional diflicul.y wouM vote fur it now.
He desired further to say, that he believed
‘Texas would be annexed, and that in a short
time, in a constitutional way.[
Mr. C. resumed. 1 have but little doubt
that such will be llie fact at this very ses
sion. lam gratified that wo have tho Sen
ator’s sympaties, but would prefer his vole.
I will not press this unfortunate change,
lesl 1 should he supposed hard lo please;
for I am reminded of the reply of one of our
Western orator-, who was charged in pub
lic discussion by his adversary with having
voted two ways upon tho same question,
and produced the ptouf. The speaker very
promptly replied, that liis adversary “was
certainly very hard to please, tor you see
that I have vu.ed both ways, and yet lie is not
satisfied.”
[Mr. Archer smilingly eaifl, “i accept
the reply.”
I confess, however, (said Mr. C.) that I
greatly should have preferred his having
made mistakes the other way, and have en
tertained his present sentiments last Juno,
and the sentiments be exposed then have
ueld now.
1 will proceed with my argument. —
From the opinions 1 have expressed, and
the arguments 1 have labored to present,
you will perceive, sir, that if the adversa
ries of the resolutions, insist they do no
mt.ro than make propositions for a contract
with Texas, that we have the constitution
al power to pass them. Ooe of the stipula
t.oil's would then be- that if Texas assents
to the cond.lions we tender, she shall be
admitted as a State in the Union. But
why are Sena'ors so startled at the propo
sition to admit as anew State foreign ter
ritory, by an act of Congress l They do
not deny the power of Congress to admit
anew Stale in the Union, but utterly deny
that Congres-* can admit anew Stale, if the
territory lie foreign.
But why may not Congress admit a lor
eign territory as a S ale? Is il for the want
ot delegated power? 1 Hunk no", for the
power lo admit new States is unrestricted,
and so far as the mere grant is concerned,
recognises no distinction between foreign
and internal territory. The difficulty dues
not result from the want of delegatfdpucer:
but Irom tbe lact, that in the exert ten ot
that power, you may infract a right protect
ed by the Constitution. Whentver it hap
pens, mat Congress cannot act tor tbe wan
of delegated power, there is no remedy but
hv a change of the Constitution. But when
the power is contained in an unrest feted
graut, toe propriety ol i‘s exetcisc must de
pend upon what* rights may he infringed by
it. A law may ho uncut,t-tiiutiotial,:il hoi)gli
the general grant exists, authorizing ns
passage; nnt (or the want of delegated pow
er, but beeitt-e the enforcement of s-jch
taw might vi late some rigiit secured by
tbo Constitution. The history of Texas
in its relations with this c >untry, all >rds an
illustration of the distinction 1 draw, and
the position 1 assume. Iu 179.1, when
Louisiana was purchased, litis country was
included; hence at any time from that year
up lo 18 19. Congress might have extended
her jurisdiction over il. How does it hap
pen that, alter 18511, this Government was
prevented from exerci-tng such jurisdic
tion? The answer is, that the ireaty with
Spain interfered with nur former rights!
But does the titak ng of a treaty change
any grant contained in tit -Constitution, or
übiidge any of tlte powers delegated bv that
instrument tj Congress? To say so, in
volvos an absurditv; for tlie power to make
treaties is itscil derived from a constitution
al grant, and its exercise cannui change the
Constitution, or destroy any othyr power
delegated hy it. It then, the power to ex
tend our jurisdiction existed in Congress
prior to 1819, that power was not destroy
ed hy the treaty; hut its exercise would
have violated stipulations by which this
Government was hound. The Constitu
tion holds treaty stipulations sacred, and
the exercise ol legislative functions, which
would violate by its crvlorecin-nt those
rights, would be unconstitutional lot that
reason only. If this reasoning be ju-t, ii
must be apparent to the Senate, that if the
right thus secured by trea y should be ce
ded, or the treaty abandoned, the constitu
tional difficulty would be at once removed.
If after the treaty of ISl9', by which Texas
was ceded to Spuiu, that Government had
retinuuished the country to tbe U. States,
and have yielded all the rights lo it which
bad been derived from tho treaty, could we
not have extended our jurisdiction wilhtm
any viola lion of the Constitution? Would
übt our ri>ht and our power have been us
ample and complete as they were before
the treaty! Suppose we had paid Spain
for ihe relinquishment of the right, would
not her acquiescence have removed the on
ly obstacle toour legislation? Suppose the
pe< pie of Texas, while they were uttering
their remonstrances against being translcr
leJto despotic Government, had made
terms with Spain inducing her to yield (he
tights to this Government, which she had
acquired bv vir.ue of the treaty, would Con
gress have hern fettered by any constitu
tional rest! iviiuii fiom affording the protec
tion (four laws? J think not; and tlure
lore couclude, that the extension of our
jurisdiction, and the embracing r.ew States,
is limited only by the rights which may be
infracted, and not from the want of delega
ted power in the Constitution. Such diffi
culties can always be removed by acquiring
those r glm would be infringed, or by pas
sing law s no’ to be enlorced in Violation of
them. So that, whether wo acquire Tex
as by purchase, by conquest, or by any oth
er mode, the barrier is at once wholly re
moved, for the delegated power to admit the
State has no other restriction. lam award
that it may be said, that this difficulty hes
not yet been removed; that Texas lias not
vet Lcen acquired, and therefore out legis
lation is permature! To this I answ*,t.hat
if the law be passed eo as not to infringe or
violate, when enforced, the rights of Texas,
there can be no possible objection, for those
rights only are the tests of the propriety or
impropriety of our action. By the resolti*
lions which passed the House of Bepresen
five, and await now the concurrence of the
Senate, instead ol vi dating any of the rights
of tbe Government of Texas, those rights
are fully acknowledged and duly respected.
It is a matter of no cor sequence, either as
to the powers of Congress or the rights of
Texas, whether those rights are first ac
quired and then legislate, or legislate firsts
but subject to the consent end acqu scence
of that Government. Legishiion, in either
form, docs not transcend the powersol Con
gress, or violate any right of the people of
Texas.
The argument I have just made, is based
upon t lie supposition, that by admitting
Texas as a Slate, this Government acquires
the territory of Texas. 1 have thought pro
per lo enforce this view, because it seems
impossible lor some minds lo conceive how
Texas can become a member of the Union,
unless ibis Government dues thereby ac
quire her territory. To my mind, the dis
cJmclion is manifest; that by the resolutions
from the House,’ we acquire no territory,’
but leave Texas, as a State, possessed of
her entiie domain, to dispose of as she
pleases, under cur Constitution; fixing only
the terms by which she may beoome a con
federate. ‘The acquisition of territory is one
thing; the admiss.on of a State is another,
and total y different. Look a moment to
tlie condition of (lie Ufd Thirteen Slates,
when they formed an alliance by the
articles of confederation forsafety and
defence. Did eiiher the States or all of
them acquire additional territory? Did
that government, which they constituted
for the general advantage of the State,
acquire any territory? I suppose no Sena
tor will deny, but that the territory of each
State remained with the States, as fully as
before tlieir alliance was firmed. They
would not only have been willing, but were
anxious, to interest Nova Scotia, Florida,
and Canada, in the great cause of Inde
pendence. They fondly hoped that these
political communities, would throw off’ the
allegiance to foreign powers—rally with’
them around the standard of freedom—and
stand by them, side by side, in the ranks of
war, battling lor independence. Such an
alliance upon the part of Canada, Florida,
and Nova Scotia, with the thirteenth revolt
ing States, would not have beefl an acqui
sition of territory by them, nor by the go
vernment which luid been constituted hy
the articles of confederation. The adop
tion of the Federal Constitution, after the
war of independence had closed, did not
change the character of the domain within
the States; but was merely as it was inten
ded, a more perfect bond of union between’
them. The illustration that has been giv
en by one of the delegates from Georgia
(Mr. Stephens,) and which has been urged
with great ability by Senators here, is td
iriy mind, conclusive, not only as to the
truth of this position, but likewise to the
action ofonr Government upon it.
When the Constitution was submitted to
the States for ratification, it was ordained
that the acquiescence of nine should be ne
cessary to its adoption, It further ordained,
i hat it should be binding only on those
States", which would ratify. The question
at once arises, what was the situation of
those States which refused to’ ratify after
the new Government was adopted? The
old Confederation was dissolved, and to
iDo new Government they were not par
ties. Their having parcipitated in the war
of tho Revolution did not make them par
ties, for France participated very efficiently,
and yet none dare assert that her alliance
j in the was, made her a member of the Go
! vermneiit formed afier ihe war. The
| Slues then ot Rhode Island and North Ca.
! rolinn, having refused to ratify the Consti
j tution, were sovereign, independent Go
vernments, not ionnecied with, nor in any
wise controlled by the Confederated States,-
or tho newly formed Government. These
separate Governments went into full opera
tion; and while allied in spirit, feelings, and
general principles, were, as Governments,
loreign to each other. The admission <ol*
these States—these independent political
cominumnities into the Union with the
eleven States, which already composed it,
was the admitting of new and foreign
Smtes, in the broad acceptation of the terra.
Yet, no one ever supposed that the Gener
al Government, by having added this addi
tional strength to the Umon, bad acquired
additjpnal territory? What were the terms
of their admission? or, if gentlemen prefer,
what was the contract between these States
and the General Government? They had
lo give up their revenue laws, public pro
perty, and conform their Government to tho
Constitution. These terms were necessa
ry to admission; they assented to the con
dition as sovereign independent States, and
tvete admitted into the Union under that
clause of the Constitoton, by which Con
gress was empowered toadmit new States.
I Icnorablu Sena’ors seem to bienfl.the idea of
acquiring territory and admitting States, and
thereby produce confttsion. It is insisted
that we intis! acquire territory by ireaty!
Let this bo so, and it docs not touch
the argument. For it b absolutely cer
tain that you cannot admit a Slate into
the Union by treaty; that power being con
lerred alone upon Congress. Tho hon
"iable Senator firom Massachusetts*, (Mr.
’ .ti,) after having fatigued himself,
ni the indulgence of his exuberant fan
cy, plating bowl3 with the moon and
stars, paused to rest himself on the outside
of tire Constitution; and by a view ot its
exterior structure, concluded ‘ hat we could
neither acquire Texas by treaty, nor admit
her as a Slate, without violating that instru
""lit. It is true, he admitted, that we could
treat for a part, if it did not intrude the
whole; and ihe part acquired by treaty might
be admitted by Cougress as a Slate. It
• hat honorable Senaiorwill pardon roe, I
think lie yields the principle, and relies up
.oii the effects or results to be produced
hy its exercise. So far as the principle
of acquiring territory is concerned, R it as
completely settled, when you admit the
power to purchase the quantity that could
he covered by a heel-tap, as if ita extent
was fifteen hundred miles equate. The et+r