{"character_count": 6303, "word_count": 1085, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9714000225067139], "ccnet_perplexity": [861.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



which would be presented by the question of the
oi iexaS Ih= latter STATE with independent Govern
ing territory beyond though bordeg on the Terinn ce


bo IN the treaty Of the goth of April 1898 Whether
alton of such STATE aud So what rnanner thar object
IS 10 De effected a'e questions opinion the President
agita;e ' "


so long Texas shall remain at war. while the United
T1sn 'v H peace WIN her adyersa the proposition of the


on OF that advers The United are bdund
scrupuo sly their part so long as II car h.
sonaoy hoped that Mexico will perform her duties aud
sus.ec,ed ola disregard of The friendly PURPOSE Of M c1.
pact II the O. General Huut TO b. even
on our part espouse the quarrel Of Texas with MsYc5


wholly at variance nh the spirit of the treaty
ted St4tes.'' "'''ai1 - 'ie az


From that time until quite recently, the subject
has been withdrawn from public attention. The
war between Mexico and Texas is not vet con-
ciuded; although active hostilities have ceased,
and truce is understood to have been agreed
upon In the meantime, Texas has maintained
itself, as an independent sovereignty and has
extended its relations with the nations of the
world. If IN the judgment of the Government
OF the United States there were insuperable OBJ
Jcctons, even to entertain any negotiations on the
subject of annexation, seven years ago, it seems
to me that time and events have served only to
strengthen such objections


The Constitutional authority Of Congress to
admit new States into the Union, formed of terri
tories not belonging to any of the States at the
adoption of the present form of Government is
an important point in your inquiries
The Constitution of the United States provides
that


New States may be admitted h the Congress into this
Union. but new Stses shall be formed within
the jurisdiction OF any other state any State be formed
by the Junction OF TWO more States, parts Of States,
"hout the consent OF the legislatures Of the States
ed, as we'll as OF the Congress"


1t would seem very reasonable to conhne this
provision to States to be formed out of territories
already belonging to the United States and in
regard to which the old Congress, by accepting
the ccssion of territory from individual States,
and agreeing to the proposed terms Of cesson. had
already stipulated that they might be created and
admitted INTO the Union. Any other construc
ton would be forced and unnatural : and it would
imply, that the trainers Of the Constitution and
the people were looking to the extension of their
territories, although those which they then held
were, one-half wilderness, and the other half
very thmly peopled. 1t is not at all probable,
from the history of the States from the circum-
stances in which they were placed in 1889, or
from all that is to be learned Of mems opinions
and expectations at that day, that any idea was
entertained, by any body, of bringing into the
Union, at any time States, formed out of the ter
ritories Of foreign powers Indeed, much jealousy
was felt towards the new Government from fears
of its ovcrbearing weight, and strength, when
proposed to be established over the thirteen
States. This jealousy, it is easy to believe, would
have been heated into more decisive, and perhaps
successful opposition, if it had been understood
that projects of enlargement of boundaries or
territorial aggrandizement, had been among the
objects contemplated by It's establishment. And
it is one of the unaccountable ecccntricitcs, and
apparent inconsistencies Of opinion, that those
who hold the Constitution of the United States
to be compact between States, should think,
nevertheless, that the government created by that
Constitution, is at liberty to introduce new States,
formed out of foreign territory, with or without
the consent Of those who arc regarded us the
| original parties.


By the Convention with France of the 30lh
April, 1903, Louisiana was ccded TO the United
States, with this condition:


The nhabans Of the ceded territory shall be ncorpoIa
ted In tho Union Of the Unit States aud admitted
possible according the principles of the federal const!to
munes Of citizens of the United states and the
they shall be maintained aud protected the fee enjoy
Of their liberty property, and the Ieson which they
profess


It is now known to have been Mr. Jeferson's
opinion at the time, that an amendment of the
Constitution was necessary, in order to carry
this stipulation into effect; and it is known, also,
that such was the opinion ably and earnestly
maintained by many distinguished persons in
the government. The treaty, however, was ra-
| tilted. No amendment of the Constitution was
proposed, and in 1912, louisiana was admitted
into the Union as a State, upon the same footing
| as the original States. All the hrances of the
~, LII,
try acQuescedn 1t.


| In the year 1919, treaty was concluded with
Spain, for the ccssion of Florida. This treaty
followed the precedent of that with France, and
contained this stipulation;


The nabitln,s the territories which his Catholic Ma
esy cedes the United States by this Treaty, shall be ln
corrorated in the Union of the Umled States as soon
tut,cn aud admitted to the enjoyment OF the privileges rights
| and immunles of the citizens OF the United States


Florida has not yet been admitted ints the
Union, but the treaty was ratified, the cesslon
accepted, according to its terms, and the people,
as well as the public authorities, have acqulesced
in the contract for twenty years, and given It the
sanction of their approbatlon


Louisiana and Florida, therefore, are settled
cases. The admission of one, and the agreement
to admit the other, at proper time, are facts, are
acts done, and as such must have their full effect
But 1t does not follow lnat tney arc pieCeucuts
for the annexation of Texas. Important differ
ences are pointed out, between the cases, IN Mr.
Forsyth's letter; and others might De suggested.
But it is enough to say, that what has been done,
on, at best, very questionable right, and IN
case of strong and urgent necessity, is no sui-
ficicnt warrant for similar proceeding, IN case
in which no such necessity exists, aud IN which
both the right and expedency may be very pro-
perv considered, on the original and independent
rronrdc belOu TO them