{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p4", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5699, "word_count": 985, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9646999835968018], "ccnet_perplexity": [754.2999877929688], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
 savage nations into our Union From what quarter of this world have we admitted pa eans to participation in our confederation i During the half century of our existence ] there has been no such admission. When ] Louisiana Eas acquired we did not admit i France 10 oaf Union; nor did we Spain when we acquired Florida. But, 1t is said, we pro- i pose admitting, with Texas, its government. ] Certainly we do and there Is good reason ] for it. Texas comes in with one hundred i thousand of our brothers, children, and friends; our own race; our own people, who have l fought with Us against tyranny and oPpses- sion; who have set the splendid example, as well as ourselves, of coHteading successfully for public liberty and free institutions; who +ConIe amongst us, and au1afganIate with tls5 without requiring the alteration ol single guaranty of our national stability; button the contrary. increasing our ability to maintain our eminence among the notions oi the earth.

 It has been said that 1t is proposition to give preponderance to the South over the 1 Atlantic States. What had been the result of 1 the acquisition of Louisiana, about which the same cIamor was raised pending the negotia- ton for that acquisition3 Did you not gain but an addition of five degrees latitude to the southern States, while you gain to the north erH States eighteen degrees of latitude? Was t not quite the reverse? for gentlemen would not deny that independently of the disparity l between five degrees of latitude 10 the South, and eighteen 10 the North, the free States increase their population much faster than s,F fia ffa ger was altogether oil the other side. He Nr. " did not say this as the partisan of one section or another; but he stood here to do justice to all, the South as well as the North; and 10 abide by the constitution which guarantees the interests of both.

 h the Madison papers he found that, in the convention on the l4th July, 1787, 4If Gerry, in relation to the dangers apprehended from western States was for admitting them Oil liberal terms, but not for putting ourselves into their hands. To guard against these consequences. he thongh ghtitneeessafy to limit the number of new States to be admitted into the Union, in such manner that they should never be able to outnumber the Atlantic States He accordingly moved that the number ol representatives in the first branch of the States thereafterto be admitted, should never exceed the number of representatives from the States aeeediRg fo tie confederation at the time Af. Sherman opposed t, considering that in these He# Safes We were only providing for our children and grand children as likely to be their citizens as citizens of the old Sales

 Thus t Is shown that 1t was even then fofeseen that, west of the AlleghaHies, the descendants of those forming the eoaledera- ton would migrate and spread the republic and it's institutions.

 But the chief argument on tic other side is, that tAeadmissjen of foreign territory was not contemplated by those who framed the consultation. Now what were Mf. Madisoa's own words That there was tg be no limit to the repuhlirn Was not the aeq8isi- ton Of Canada accomplished Vas aeI the necessity of securing, by acquisition, thenay- igation of the Mississippi contemplated, and tI3e command q the mouth of tlat rltef = Did they never contemplate, n all tlIlz, the possession ol foreign territory:

 DisuHion is talked of. Lis said Louisiana was brought in by general assent, and we should wait tiil Texas can be so acquired too Now, Was not the admission of Louisiana a subject Of debate just as much as the present measure is. II the gentlemen who say Texas will Be admitted by treatv-for they admit that is constitutional, and imply that they are ready to go for that mode of admission were the friends of annexation, why did they not vote for the treaty last session. Why did not the two senators from Virginia vote for il; They now say they cannot vote for l the House resolution because t is annexation l by Congress-a usurpation of poewr belong ing to the treatymaking power There are only the two modes of accomplishing the annexation of Texas: either by treaty or le- gslaton. Now, if thesenatofs were opposed to both modes, how could they maintain that l they were the friends of annexation

 In 1872, we had the first threats of dis union. He held in his hands the proceedings of the Hartford convention. Here Mr ". pointed out many passages in the report of these proceedings, showing the nature of the opposition to the admission of new States

 Here Is a newspaper which was received by the last mail, containing resolutions passed by the lower house of the Massachusetts le- gislatare, containing the same doctrines held in 1903 and 1872 He read them as follows: RESOLVES CONCERNING TIE ADMISSION OF

 TEXAS.

 l. Resolred, That Massachusetts has never delegated the power to admit into the Union States or Territories without or beyond the original territory of the States and Territories belonging to this Union at the adoption of the constitution of the United States and that, in whatever manner the consent of Mas sachusets may have been given or inferred to the admission of the States already, by general consent, forming part of the Union, from such territory, the admission of such States, in the judgment of Massachusetts, forms no preeedenlfortbeadmis of Texas, and can never be interpreted to rest on pow CTS granted in the constitution.

 7. Resoleed, That there has been hitherto no precedent of an admission of a foreign siate or foreign Territory into the Union by legislation. And as the powers of legisla- tfDu rrraufpd in fine constitution of tho TFuifa1