{"newspaper_name": "Mobile register and journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1549, "word_count": 261, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9592999815940857], "ccnet_perplexity": [622.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The legislature of Massachusetts has adopted A set O violent aniTexas resolutions, one of which declares that an act of congress for the admission of Texas "would have no binding force whatever upon the people of Massachusetts" The reason assigned

 in tie resolution IS that the admission of foreign Sae or Territory, by legislation, IS not within the powers granted by the Constitution to Congress.

 That is the Massachusetts construction, it seems, of the powers of the Consttulion and its declares that acts fully passed through all the forms ol the constitution, are of no binding force upon the people of Massachusetts because the State construes the Constitution otherwise. This same legislature has elected Mir. Webster to the Senate of the Unit. ed States; the same Mir. Webster who put forth so much and such great effort in 1880, to establish the doctrine that all acts of Congress whatever, are bind ing upon the people of the States and that to treat the mas of mo binding force, treason to begin with, and revolution if successful. It would perhaps have done them good, at any rate il might have shamed the violence of their present acts, if somebody had read 10 them chapter two out of Webster's speech upon Foot's resolution, which Massachusetts then maintained to be the only true exposition of constitutional doctrne-the doctrine of implicit obedience to of Congress. IL is to be hoped for The curiosity of the thing, that Mir. Webster will have the offering of these resolutions in the Senate. His speech would be something rare.