The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 8, July 1904 - April, 1905 Page: 245
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Explanation by Stephen F. Austin.
joined and their governments being united provisionally for con-
venience until Texas should have the elements for a government
It seemed to the convention that the object of paragraph 7, re-
ferred to above, was to prevent congress itself from surprising the
nation with any change in the number or territorial organization
of the states, which is avoided in demanding by fundamental law
the knowledge and approbation of three-fourths of them. The
convention believed that this principle was not applicable to Texas,
because the states themselves, through their representatives in the
constituent congress, gave a provisional character to the union of
Texas to Coahuila, with the object, then declared and sanctioned,
of admitting it as a state whenever it should have the elements to
figure as such. Consequently the other states should not be sur-
prised if Texas constitutes itself a state with only the approbation
of the general congress, because this sovereign resolution would be
no more than the carrying out and fulfillment of another already
sanctioned about eleven years ago, and the perfection of an edifice
whose foundations were laid by the Mexican nation represented in
the constituent congress.
To claim that the special condition or circumstance of the law
of May 7 should have been expressed in the constitution, in order
to be considered valid after the sanction of the fundamental
law, is to claim that the same provision should be decreed twice.
It was necessary that the constitution should include at the time
of its publication the number of states that existed on October 4,
1824, because otherwise it would have presented an imperfection.
The argument that the Texans have made relative to this point
is founded exactly upon the elementary principles of legislation.
Since there was not in the constitution a clause definitely repeal-
ing the special law of May 7, it could not be the intention of the
framers of the constitution to repeal it; since this must neces-
sarily have been done in express terms. This is the more evident
from the objection that the special law is supposed to be annulled
because the general law does not contain explicitly the same pro-
But for the principal purpose of this explanation, the vindica-
tion of the conduct of the inhabitants of Texas, the matter of
chief import here is a question of the construction or interpreta-
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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 Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 8, July 1904 - April, 1905, periodical, 1905; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101033/m1/252/: accessed June 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.