The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 344
xv, 408, 421 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
344
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
the Senate, it would be owing to a disposition on
their part to listen to "a gentler tone than that in
which it had been addressed, for it was not in his
power, in his present state of health, to maintain
that emphatic tone of address which prevailed
m this debate.
He had not mingled in the daily debates of the
session, having, devoted himself to the duties im-
posed upon him as chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
He abandoned the discussion of the question of
expediency to those who chose t6 indulge in that
branch of the question. It_ was not expedient for
him to violate the provisions of the constitution.
Concede that Texas was the celestial paradise
which it had been represented to be—every way
desirable to the South—still the boon was denied to
him; he could not enter the portals of that paradise
lor the constitution forbade it. He heard and
obeyed the prohibitory command of the genius of
lus country, "Stand back, it is not lawful!"
On the question of expediency, he concurred last
session with the senator from Ohio. He
did not then doubt the competency of the
treaty-making power. If there had been now
one proposition submitted for this object which he
could believe to be constitutional, he would seek to
ascertain the wishes of his constituents; and having
ascertained the wishes of the people of Georgia
on the question of expediency, their wishes would
be his, and he should conform to them. But this
question was not now one of expediency, but one of
constitutional power. On such a question the duties
and responsibility of each senator are his individu-
ally, and it was between him and his God to decide
upon his course.
v He then proceeded to the character of the joint
resolution under consideration. There was one
provision of that joint resolution which had forced
itself on his mind. It was in reference to our rela-
tion with the sister republic mo it interested in it.
Writers on national law say that all nations, large
or small, weak or powerful, are equal in point of
sovereignty. We have treated with Texas as an
independent nation. She is, according to our own
declaration of independence, free to do all that a
sovereign power can do. It is to a State—a sover-
eign State—that this legislative missive is to be sent,
by which we, the Congress of the United States,
are to give our assent, (not invited by them to do
this act,) that the lands rightfully belonging to
Texas, not to us, shall be erected into a State. We
are to give our gracious assent that they must
manage their affairs in the precise mode in which
we prescribe. We may be told this will not be of-
fensive to Texas. It was to present the inquiry
whether this Congress has the power to impel itself
to absurdities like this, that he had stated these pre-
liminaries in order to examine them.
If he had rightly estimated the character of the
people of Texas, the stay of our messenger will be
but short there. They will repel the offer which
they cannot accept without dishonor, or the spirit
which was shown on the field of San Jacinto has
fled from them, < The senator from Missouri had
seen and avoided" this error.
He now proceeded to the consideration of the
constitutional power; and, as preliminary, his first
inquiry was, whether this power was vested in any
other department of the government. Pursuing
this inquiry, he investigated the various granted
powers of the constitution, noting the fact that the
constitutional existence of the treaty-making power
was acknowledged, and that territory could be ac-
quired by that mode. He called upon the other
side to show any sufficient grounds why that indis-
putable power alone should not be resorted to, in
preference to a power never before perverted to an
object such as that now in view.
Philosophers say nature delights in few courses.
When plain causes are conspicuous, there is no ne-
cessity for going in search ot others. So, by anal-
ogy, one distinct and applicable power to do the
thing now proposed being found in the constitution,
and in the uniform practice of this government, there
was no propriety in going in search of other hidden
and doubtful powers.
/ He next adverted to the arguments deduced from
the important powers conferred on Congress, such
as those of declaring war and making contracts,
and proceeded to the denial of the deductions drawn
from their superior importance in favor of the as-
sumption that the minor power of acting by the
executive and Senate was necessarily included in
the major powers of Congress, contending that these
were constructions, rebutted by the acknowledged
-constitutionality of the treaty-making power;
whereas the legislative power in this matter was a
disputable power.
Here Mr. B. entered into an elaborate technical
investigation of the abstract question of legislative
power, to which he devoted most of his remarks
till the hour of recess.
At 3 o'clock the Senate took a recess till 5 o'clock.
EVENING SESSION.
The engrossed bill for the relief of the legal rep-
resentatives of William D Cheever; and
The engrossed bill for the relief of John R. Bry-
an, adminstrator of Isaac Garretson, late purser in
the navy of the United States, were read the third
time, and passed.
The PRESIDENT pro teni. laid before the Sen-
ate a communication from the State Department,
transmitting a copy of the instruction given to the
minister of the United States to China; which was
ordered to be printed.
Also laid before the Senate a communication from
the Treasury Department, transmitting, in compli-
ance with a resolution of the Senate, of the 4th inst.,
a report from the Commissioner of the General
Land Office, covering several copies of opinions and
information prepared by him, concerning the issue
of patents issued under the adjudication of that de-
partment; which was ordered to be printed.
Mr. PORTER submitted the following resolu-
tion; which was agreed to, viz:
Jiesiilvcd, That the sergeant-at-arms be authorized to
continue Patrick II. Brooks an an assistant messenger of the
Senate; and that the usual pay he allowed him for lus ser-
vices as such, from the 6tli of January last, to the end of
the present session.
On motion by Mr. UPHAM, the bill for the re-
lief of John P. Skinner, and the legal representa-
tives of John P. Skinner, and the legal representa-
tives of Isaac Green, was taken up, and considered
as in committee of the whole, reported to the Sen-
ate, and ordered to be engrossed for a third read-
ing.
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
On motion of Mr. WALKER, the spccial order
was resumed.
Mr. BERRIEN continued his remarks on the
unconstitutionality of the joint resolution under
consideration^ He maintained that the word
"States," in the fourth article, was indeterminate,
and meant merely an association of men bound to-
gether for political purposes; and that, to carry out
the intention of those who used the word in the
constitution, it was necessary to adopt some speci-
fying word changing it from a generic term to a de-
terminate term. Hence he came to the conclusion
that a construction must be given to the words "new
States," in harmony with the tenor and intention
of the constitution, taken as a whole.
/ He held that the joint resolution, if passed by
this government, was, issuing from their hands, a
caput mortuum, and that it could have no life till it was
imparted to it by Texas. It should owe its life to
the Texas government, and not to this government.
We only conceited this child of many fathers; but
without the assistance of the accoucheur, (Texas,) it
must necessarily be still-born.
He next held that the power to admit new States,
and the limitation of the power, had relation to the
same thing; and if the power itself did not point
out the specific thing to which it related, and the
limitation did, the thing designated by the limitation
should and must be taken to be the thing to which
the power itself related. Hence he maintained that
the limitation being circumscribed within the limits
of the United States, the grant itself of the power
to admit new States was limited to territory within
the United States.
The framers of the constitution spoke of new
States, as States Just emerging from the crysalis con-
dition of territorial dependence, into the more perfect
condition of full-grown States. The term implied,
in itself, the passing from a probationary condition
into a condition of fruition.
He asked, was Texas a new State in the sense of
the constitution? He held that she was not. If she
was a new State now, would she be so fifty years
hence, should you have to admit her then as a neto
State? New States were not to be found without
the territory of the United States at the time of the
confederation; but abundance of new States were to
be found within the territory of the United States,
and were then undergoing their probation.
He referred to the proceedings of the convention
in support of these views, quoting largely from the
Madison papers.
v Id reply to the argument on the other side, that
the power to admit new States being an express
power, and the power to acquire territory by treaty
being an implied power, the implied power was sub-
servient to the express power, he would meet the
case by asking, where there was an express power
in the constitution to lay duties on wool ana iron?
The express power was the grant to lay taxes, in
which the power to lay duties on wool and iron was
included.
>/He asked, was it desirable to force Texas into this
Union under the pressure of a bare majority in
both Houses of Congress? Could the value of Tex-
as be compared with the peace, harmony, and sta-
bility of the Union? Have not the minority in Con-
gress constituents who know, and will exercise, their
rights? Was not the final action to rest with another
Congress with newly chosen representatives? Why
not adopt the mode admitted by all to be constitu-
tional? Why not wait for an expression of the peo-
ple's will? Should the people of Georgia express
their will in favor of annexation, he should yield,
to their wishes in adopting a constitutional mode of
proceeding.
Mr. WALKER next obtained the floor, and ad-
dressed the Senate for three hours.
.He examined the argument advanced by those on
the opposite side who had opened the debate, to the
effect that the United States could not constitution-
ally enlarge its territory by the combined powers of
legislation; and asked, what government in the world
from ancient to modern times ever confined itself to
the rule, that it could not enlarge its territory? He
showed the inconsistency and evil tendency of such
a rule. He commented upon the limitation maintained
by some gentlemen, that the only territory which
could be added was that necessary for boundary
lines, slips and strips of territory for the perfection
of boundary lines; showing that even in this limita-
tion the power of acquisition was established.
Mr. W. adverted to the history of the revolution,
and the formation of this government, showing that
the framers of the constitution looked to the union
of the surrounding British colonies with the origin-
al States forming the confederation; and proving
that the power of admitting new States by legisla-
tive enactment was considered sufficient to admit
those colonics as new States. It was not contem-
plated that they could be admitted by treaty.
4 Mr. W. referred to, and quoted the ordinances in
•S-elation to territory, before and after the adoption of
the constitution, showing that it was by compact
the Congress under the new form of government
was bound to admit the new States composed of the
northwest territory.
/ In answer to the argument based on Mr. Jeffer-
son's denial of power to admit new territory, he
showed that it was as strong against the power to
acquire territory by treaty as it was in relation to
States growing outside of territorial limits. Mr. Jef-
ferson, he showed, afterwards abandoned his
grounds of objection; and he quoted Mr. Jefferson's
last opinion, in which he admits that Cuba, and
Texas, and Florida could be admitted, on the ac-
knowledgment of their independence; for he says,
"They would naturally accede to this Union." And
this, he (Mr. W.) maintained, covered the whole
ground.
'/He held the objection to admitting a foreign gov-
ernment or foreign State into the Union was in itself
a nullity; for the moment a State was admitted, it
ceased to be foreign; and as to admitting a foreign
government, it was an impossibility, for no such
thing as admitting another government into this
Union could happen. The moment a State was ad-
mitted, its foreign government ceased. He read an
extract from the writings of Mr. Hamilton, showing
that he contemplated the annexation of contiguous
territory.
^dtn answer to the charge that the mode of annexa-
tion now proposed was an after thought, never
heard of till within the last ten months, he referred
to a published letter of his own, written on the 8th
of January, four months before the late treaty. He
also read quotations from Mr. Van Buren's opinion
in April last, in which he specifically states that
Texas may be admitted as a new State by legislative
act. He also quoted Judge Johnson's opinion, ex-
pressed eight months since.
v 'He next referred to a letter which he wrote in
September, 1835, and in which he quoted opinions
he had advanced in 1826, just eight years after the
senator from Missouri [Mr. Benton] had entered
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, legislative document, 1845; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2366/m1/360/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.