{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2792, "word_count": 505, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9836999773979187], "ccnet_perplexity": [906.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
not go forward at once and admit her direct ", instead oi indirectly? The treaty of the last session had been referred to. He Mir. Al could not pretend to say what were the sen tIment oi the TeXian minister when he enter- ed into this treaty with our government. But ne could say, in the language ofMr. Webster, that were he the tunctonary of the Texian government, when our minister was proceed ing there with such proposition so insulting, he should see that his feet should not restup- oil such soil What was the propositioa3 A proposition bearing indignity on the very face of it. And yet gentlemen are claiming that we were treating with Texas as equal. Treating her as an equal! by asking her 10 come and depend upon our magnanimitv to restore her to the rights of freemen! The very proposition of asking them to treat with us' Was such an indlgnity, that, so help him Heaven, if he was the President of Texas. he would regard it as the greatest insult that could be pefPetrated upon his country Turn the tables, and see how 1t would apply. Re gardlng little State as equal to the largest and most powerful empire, if Texas were to come to the United States and say if we con- sented to reduce our present Union to ter rltory, she would afterwards introduce us

 into her Union, and raise us mp to her stan dard, how would it be treated? Why. 1t would be treated with scorn And yet such was the indignity offered to Texas. You must compl y with the forms of our constitu- tlon--was the proposition---by reducing yourselves to servitude, so that we may take you by the hand, and extend our fosteling care oyet you.

 It was among the strapgest things that the Texian minister ever could have been con- tent to negotiate treaty with this govern ment, which was to reduce the people of Texas to a state of colonial yassaagc

 Mr. A. here adverted to the objections ur- ged on the other side that this was new ex- else of the constitutional power of admitting new States by legislation--that nobody ever heard of an external independent State being admitted under that clause till now. The req son was perfectly obvious: 1t was because this was the first time such case required the exercise of the power. It was ourselves that had raised the necessity by the wrong we had done to Texas in 1919.

 Mir A. then argued the question of com pacts, showing that the supreme power was vested in Congress, and the auxiliary power the treaty-making power Was only a sub ordinate power, to be exercised, or not exer- cised, as convenience might dictate.

 He next dwelt upon the expediency of the measure now proposed, and presented many new and original views on the subject, which are passed over in this necessarily brief syn opsis, but will appear in this speech when it can be published in full