{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p4", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5730, "word_count": 958, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9681000113487244], "ccnet_perplexity": [1052.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
zzzzzz2szszszzsazzzzszssz. z7

 It was maintained, on the other side, tha ] all the precedents we have, since tine begin- nino of this government, in relation to the acquisition of foreign territory, have been founded on the treaty-making power. Se they are, and very properly, according to the rule laid down. and already explained. 00 legislation could be responded by France or Spain, as they had no legislative bod'es corresponding with our Congress; and I they had, the negotiation with them was iol territory alone-the application for transfer to us nat coming from the people, but the acquisition of the mere territory beng oul object, for our national security. The treaty making power was properly exercised; and although the first of these preeedents occur red III iSS6s35s7 if was Eot til 1919, sixteen years afterwards, that portion of the territo- " acquired was admitted into the Union and then 1t was done by Congress, agteeabIy to its express power in the constitution. A long interval was allowed for such foreigners as chose to remain on the territory to become Amefieaaized, to learn the principles and operations of our institutions, that they might unite with our own population settling there, in due lime, for applying for admission into the Union.

 Gentlemen opposite, rely much on argn- meats founded on their view of Mr. Jefer- son's opinions; but he (ME ". could tell them that Mr. Jefferson was stronger author ity against them than for them. All the elo- quence of the Senator from Kentucky (Nr 4Foorehead aid the Senator from Virginia Mir. Riyes4 egemed to aim at tproFlng, through 3It. Jefferson, directly the contrary el what they themselves admit-that annexation by treaty is constitutional. Now, whatever opinions or doubts bIr. Jefferson at first held on the subject, il was well known that he subsequently came into the views entertained by 3Ir Madison, who made no hesitation ol signing bill admitting new State into the Union.

 Mr. NoTehead interposed to call the atten- ton of the Senator from New Hampshire to 3Ir Nicholaaos letter to 3Ir. Jefferson and Mr. JeiIefson's answer

 Mr. Woodbury, in continuation, remarked that the question discussed in thosa letters was the acquisition of territory the question of the admission of new States did not arise till nine wears afterwards Mf. Jefferson was not, like Mr. Nicholas or bIr. Madison, a member of the convention. and therefore Hei so well acquainted with tbe grounds of ar eament which had pfeFailed in it. But even if the inference drawn from dr. JetlersoH2s opinions were fairly deducible from them. the cases are not parallel ones. The propria- ty of admitting territory by treaty, and new States by legislation, cannot be treated as the same issue. The treaty-naking power and legislative power, in those diflereat cases. are uot in conflict.

 Now, with regard 10 the arguments urged on the othsr side, that the convention never intended to give the power of admitting new States formed out of foreign territory, did moi the history given the other day, by the Sena- tor from Pennsylvania, prove that the subject was very elabofafely de5ated in convention and that. although the first drslt and subse- Hqaenf amendments of the fourth article of the constitution had restrictions in view, all such restrictions were finally Jeff out, aHtlt eeH- eral power was given to Congress of admit- tug new States It Is said that this is nota legitimate power, and therefore, we ought hoi 10 act upon ii; that il asarPs power leglti- mately belonging to the executive and Sen ate-the treaty-making power. He woald ask gentlemen where the power IS found ?- Where do we get the PoWer3 Was itnot m the heoonstiiulion--the same constitution where the judicial and executive powers, as well as the legislative powers, are given by express grants The Senate was legislative body l yet 1t was associated with the treaty-makiHe power; and ii had the approval of nomina- tons So far, therefore, their action, in these respects, was the action of legislative body Gentlemen applying by implication restric- lions 10 the constitution that they would no to an incorporated charter. They would no say il was a violation of q charter to admi new partners with additional capital, increas- ing the security and auementing the wealtl of the institution; yetnew States of the same republican form ol government with our own brothers and children devoted 10 our institu- tions, and as ready and willing to maintain oHr liberties as we are, may not be admitted lest ii would weaken and undermine our sta biltY, instead of strengthening and knitting 1t more firmly together, as 1t obviously mus dc.

 Thus if may easily be seen that there is more speciousness than solidity in the argu- ment thatthe treaty-making power instead oi Congress ought to be resorted 10 in regard to this measure; for, as we have an express and legitimate power to accomplish the object by legislation, it is proper that power should alone be exercised iii the first instance, as far as 1t legitimately may go, which is to the full extent of admitting Texas inethe manner pro- posed by the joint resolution of the House now under consideration. IL is particularly proper, because it Is more safe and more sat- islaetory. If the country to be annexed had no legislature 10 consent, there would be pfopriety in leaving the matter to the treaty. making power. But such wasthe fact. The Senator from Kentucky seems to think there Is exceeding great danger in this precedent he was thrown into the horrors at the bare idea that 1t might, however improba- ble, lead 10 the admission of foreign govern ments amongst Us, of different tongues. reli- piOD institutions and habits entirely mimi