{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5643, "word_count": 989, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9810000061988831], "ccnet_perplexity": [844.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
oi the people, and in the guaranty. elsewhere

 gwen, that every new State shonld have .

 hsPabllcan form of Government. If tbis ar-

 tlcie was, as some gentlemen contended.

 coniihed to thereception of new States formed

 within the boundary of the Union. why was

 !he proposition of Mr. Randolph voted down

 Ill 'lie convention? And why did that Con-

 Ventlon adopt in its place different article. more enlarged in its terms? Obviously it was intended that the power of Congress to aamlt new States shonld be left an unlim- ited power.

 Inc proposition, therefore, of the gentle- man rom Kentucky, came up, as he had said. to the very letter, and, what was better, to the very spirit of the Constitution. This provision was inserted as one great means of PFoVlaing Tor the common defence and the general welfare. And Mir. Y. preferred the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky. because on that plan we could get possession ol lexas by Texas ceding to us her territo- ry' Just as Virginia and many of the other States had ceded theirs. This resolution pro- Vlded for her doing the same thing, and that strictly within the purvlew of the Constitu- ton. MT. Y. would say to the friends of the measure on that floor that, however their Pafualitles might incline towards some other oi the several projects which had been pre- Sehted, and however well convinced some gentlemen might be that Congress now DOS sessed the power to receive foreign territory lnto the Union, (and Mir. Y. entertained no uo4et that by long process of reasoning that position might be logically established,j ] they had still better adopt this proposition. because it ea&led the same purpose in a more direct manner, and more in conformity With the letter of the Constitution. Other plans might perhaps be plausibly objected to, but no man could so cut down the power contained Tn the words of the Constitution that It would not apply to States lying con- lessedIy without the existing boundaries of the Union.

 Considering the cultivated mind, clear un- dersiandmg, and enlarged views of the hon. orable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Wnthrop,1 Mr. Y. had been astonished to hear hlm say that the Constitution adopted by our patriot fathers was by them inten- ded to apply only to the territory then with

 Tn the United States. This, surely, was too narrow-minded view of things to be wor- thy of the mind of any true friend of our American liberty. The Constitution appli- cable only to what were the bounds of the Unlon when 1t was framed? Why, where. then, must Louisiana, and Arkansas. and Mis- sour stand2 At the adoption of the Con- these were not within the limits of the United States. And would the gentleman from Massachusetts maintain that these three States were now internationally within the limits of the United States2 Had the people of Louisiana and the people of Ar kansas and Missouri no share in the graran- tees ol the Constitution Did they possess no rights ba it and under it? The gentle man Would~not say so. Yet these were States which lay without and beyond the ter ritory of the United States when the article was framed which empowered Congress to receive new States into the Union, They had come into the Union-they had received a cheerful welcome. And what Republican freeman would close the doors of this, our fellowship of freedom, to any who in a prop CT spirit came and knocked for admisson3

 Il appeared very singular to Mir. Y that there were onl y two instances in our history where treaties has been made by which for elgn countries were allowed 10 diminish the extent of our territory. And the negotia- to' of both happened to come from the State of Massachusetts. Wherever our territory had been clipped, and privileges enjoyed by our citizens had been taken from them, 1t had been done under the auspices of two gentlemen from Massachusetts Why was this3 Was 1t that their hearts were so mar row, and their views so contracted, that their sympathies could not 90 an inch beyond that precise area of territory possessed by us at the framing of the Constitution Or, did it not rather arise from the old Federal leav- en which yet worked in the hearts of the children of that Commonwealth, and which, to this day, was ever ready and disposed to curtall the liberties of mankind which was ever prone to circumscribe them within as small space as possible, and which seemed to have an inborn proclivity towards bestow- ing on few the monopoly of rights and blessings which God had given alike to all

 Mir, Y. should forbear dilating on the mer- its aud bearings of the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky, but would leave them to be better said, and more clearly set forth by that gentleman hmsef;s

 And now, 10 the second point It would, he presumed, be admitted, whether the ad mission had an suspicious bearing on our selves or not, that the honor of nation was the brighest jewel it possessed, and that its character before the nations of the world should be guarded by its representatives with all that sensitive solirjtude and watchfnlneeS with which they would guard theirs aown.- Now, what were the facts in our relation to the people of Texas? Mr. '. was not going to argue for remuneration, for on that point doubts might be and were entertained; he was speaking to the proposition to annex Texas to the United States. By the treaty of 1919, il we had any right or power or claim over Texas, we eeded them all to the Government of Spain. WhateVe our title was we yielded it to her; but Spain had not perfected her title; she never had taken pos session; the people of Texas resented and

 .tz ,..