SPEECH oF NfR. wooDBuRY.
{"character_count": 5695, "word_count": 981, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9476000070571899], "ccnet_perplexity": [965.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
In secret session on the treaty Tor ile ali

 nexation of Texas to the uniled States.

 {coNrINuEp.)

 The old Congress of 17S6, Secret Jour nal. pace lo0,A held that the U. States pos@ sessed no power, by treaty to conyey7a part or narts of the territory of the United States west of the Alleghany and Vattel, book |, $ chanter 21, section 260, holds, that only the nation. or its representatives, and not the prince, or treaty making power can cede ter- ritorv. And it seems well settled in England, that no part of the realm can be disnembered or alienaled without the consent of Parlia- ment, as well as of the King.--( Book ll6, chapter ?, sec. f0.1--Mr Shelley, in debate, National Intelligencer, January ,, l8lI,l pronounced the opposite view, as 10 part ol d State, Ca doctrine spusaed at by all

 hhEf. Clay maintained, fh 1920. thatiteould not be done wilhout-the assent of Congress; i; but the better opinion is that the territory or liate eeded must consent, and not Congress alone.

 The cessiou, then, of both jurisdiction and soil in Texas, in 1919, without the previous consent of it's actual inhabitants or territorial government, was irregular nd.lmperlect. Whatever subsequent acts might be regarded as technical acquiescence in the cessIon, It was snll, in point of law, erroneous, and must be departure from treaty stipulatons, unless we now, wien requested, admit them to all : the privileges originally promised. There can he nc doubt, I these positions are well supported that they are fully competent ta ask our assent te the reiroeession and re- union; and thus, without regard to forms, do in substance all which is necessary on then part to perfect the measure. But while con. tending for this in their behalf, OH great prin- ciples of moral and political obligation, would not do injustice to any other power with whom we inadvertently made new and incompatible engagements. Though these engagements are, according to Fattel, inopef- alive, the first treaty being valid over sub. seqaent one which conflicts with it, vet any injury done by aniulling the subsequent ces sion ought to be remunerated to the party suffering.

 But that party, whether Spain or Mexico have no cause of complaint, and suffer no loss by this construction; because, since that ces- sion in lS19, and while ii remained de fdcto in force, Spain, in December, lS36, relin- quished all her claims over Mexico. if moi trexas; and the latter has been independent of Spain for more than twenty years, and lol more than ten years has resisted the ustlrpa- tions of Mexico over her rights as a separate and sovereign State, and for eight years has declared and maintained her independence a' to the whole world.

 There will be then a great moral fitness and beauty in the distribution of human af fairs, if now, after the lapse of whole gen eraton, we should be able, by the re-annex alton of Texas. to meet the wishes of her peo pie by being admitted to the blessings of oa Union, and should, at the same time, fulf our own previous treaty etipuladons in thet favor, and, without injury to any rights 0 others, should regain territory so vital to st many interests of all sections, and so lon4 and so devoutly sought for by such success sion Of statesmen and patriots.

 The solemnity or irviolability of the treat of 1903, is quite as great as that of 1919, 0 1928, or any other since, and its obligation on this subject are both prior and paramount

 But, supposing that both these views ar untenaale; and, for the sake of argument mdulging a moment in the idea that Texa was not embraced within the limits of Loui siana, or, if so, was legally ceded to Spain and afterwards became an integral part of tht Mexieanem had she not when the term: of her coniederacy with that government became wantonly violated, her citizens in- prisoned, and her privileges outraged-had she not a right to assert and maintain her in dependenees Would she not have been false to her American blood, not to have done i on the field of San Jacinto, as well as down to the present moment

 Among the long list of grievances anC usurpalions set out in the declaration of hei independence, Senate document, No 4l5 June 23, lS36,) was this: that Mexico ''ha' dissolved, by force of arms, the State Con gress of Coahuila and Texas,o as well q denied liberty of conscience, and committed piracies son her commerce. For such a these she made that declaration, and ha since sustained itwith the rife and the bayonei

 On the American system of politics, ha, she not mghtto separate for such abuses ant violations of duty on the part of Mexico Listen to the doctrine--which some seem tt forget, but--which is laid down in our Deola ration of independence on this subject, pen. ned by Jefferson, and sanctioned by Franklin Hancock, Adams, and their patriot eoadjutors

 ssWhen long train of abuses and usurpa- tlohs, pursuing invariably the same object evinces design to reduce them the people, under absolute despotism. 1t Is their right, i is their duty, to throw of such Government and to provide new guards for their future security"

 What is the American system, as adopted by my native State, and most of the other. in the Uniono

 ''Fhe people of this State have the solt and exclusive right of governing themselye. s as free, sovereign, and independent State s'All government of right originates from the People.n

 sWhenever the ends of the goyernmen are perverted, or public liberty maniiestly endangered, and ali other modes of redress are intellectual, the people may, and of righ ought to reform the old, or establish new government (See the New Hampshire Con stitution.

 See also Barlemaue. n. 12e. statino thai