5

[ 5 ]

But it is said, whatever may be the language of the Constitution, or whatever the people who adopted it may have intended in
regard to the admission of "new States," the practical construction has become fully settled and established, by the admission of
Louisiana, and the full recognition of that act, for more that forty years, by the people.

The basis on which this position rests demands grave consideration. It abandons, of course, all express and original power
in the Constitution to admit, and places the right of admission of new States solely on the long continued acquiescence of the peo-
ple.

This subjects those who maintain this right on the precedent of Louisiana, and that alone, to the charge of having added to the
Constitution, by mere assumption, a power that could only have been rightfully added by an amendment of that instrument. If the
power is claimed by the acquiescence of the people merely, it must begin and end in the precedent itself. Mere submission to a pal-
pable assumption of power without right, can never prove more than that those who submit believe the evils of resistance would
more than counterbalance the evils of submission to the assumed power.

But such submission to power, merely assumed, can never be drawn into precedent, or extended by construction. It may, like
the judgment of a court in a particular case, not founded on, but in opposition to, the law of the land, sustain itself until reversed.
But it sustains itself in solitary singleness and sadness, without imparting to the Constitution, or those who administer it, any right
whatever to apply it as a precedent to any other case.

The acquiescence of the people may sanction, for the time being, the very act to which it applies, but can never be applied to a
new case, or to sanction additional infractions of the original instrument.

The assumption of the power to admit Louisiana, can never authorize the admission of Texas. It has no resemblance to an
original power in the Constitution. That may, of course, apply to all new cases which arise within the same principle ; but acqui-
escence merely tolerates the very act to which it applies, and while it applies, and that alone.

The case of Louisiana, the Committee believe, is of this class. Its great features are easily stated and understood.

In 1803, under the presidency of Mr. Jefferson, a treaty was concluded with France, by which the United States obtained a ces-
sion of the entire claim of France to the territory known as Louisiana. This treaty, thus negotiated, was ratified by the Senate of
the United States, and Louisiana, admitted as a territory by the treaty, and formed into a territorial government, has since been con-
sidered as forming a part of the United States. The States of Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas, have already been admittted into the
Union, as States formed out of the territory thus acquired.

This is the precedent ; does it authorize and justify the admission of Texas, as a foreign and independent State?

The admission of Texas by legislation would violate this precedent in all material respects.

If admitted by the treaty-making power, the resemblance would be nearer, but the act of admission would be still radically and
essentially different.

The treaty-making power under our Government can only be exercised among sovereign and independent States, and is applied
to regulate the interests, and provide for the future intercourse, of such parties.

A treaty is then the contract of at least two parties, and presupposes those parties to exist, and remain in existence, in a condi-
tion to fulfil the guaranties of the treaty. It never has been applied, and the COmmittee believe never can be applied, to annihilate
or extinguish politically either of the contracting parties. A state has no right to be felo de se, by treaty, or in any other man-
ner. Texas proposed all this by the treaty of April, 1844.

Louisiana, in 1803, made no claim to be an independent State. She was an appendage or Colonial possession of France, and was
transferred as such, not by herself, but France. The act of cession in no way impaired the functions of the Government of France.
She still remained after the treaty, as before, with full power as an independent nation, to sustain and fulfil all the obligations in-
curred by the treaty.

This, then, was a transfer of territory only from one nation to another,- each independent, and remaining independent, of the
other,- and ratified with all the formalities known to the treaty-making power under out Constitution.

Yet no fact in our history is better established, than that Mr. Jefferson, the great author of this important national act, himself
doubted its constitutional authority, and deemed an amendment of the Constitution itself neccessary, to extend a rightful power over
the territory, or to admit it as a state into the Union.

But more than forty years have passed away, and all branches of the National Government, and all the several states, have in
various forms acknowledged the states formed out of the territory thus acquired, to belong to the Union. Let this question then rest
in peace.

But can this be deemed a precedent for the admission of Texas in any form?

Texas claims to be an independent state, and to make the transfer as an ordinary act of Government. Louisiana made no such
claim, and had no such claim to make.

Texas claims the right, under delegated powers of Government essentially the same as those entrusted to our National and State
Governments, and acting under and in pursuance of those powers, to transfer the country, the inhabitants, and all their rights and
immunities, to a foreign power. The Committee believe this to be a claim without precedent, and without right. The powers of all
rightful Governments create a trust which those only who are called to execute thae trust may rightfully carry into effect.

But it is no part of the delegated powers of our own Government, National or State, to transfer the Nation, State, or people, to
any foreign power.

The Committee are not able to see, if the delegated powers of the Government of Texas, exercised by the officers elected to
administer it, are deemed in any form sufficient to transfer the people, the country, and all the functions of the Government of Texas,
to the United States, why, if it had so pleased the Commissioners who negotiated the treaty of April, 1844, and two thirds of
the Senate, the whole people, and territory of these United States might not with equal power, and equal authority, have been
transferred to Texas. This would have placed the people of the United States, in at least a new, if not a position to be desired. It
would have placed them where they might have been left to grope their way for the future, by the time dim twinkling of "the lone star
of Texas," rather than to march on to the fulfilment of higher and more glorious destinies, under the more ample folds and brighter
and purer light of our own star-spangled and revolutionary banner.

The committee believe, that the people of the United States have never delegated power to any or all the departments of Gov-