6

[ 6 ]

ernment, to transfer the United States, or the people thereof, to any foreign power ; and that Texas, in this regard, has no greater
powers. They believe, that the powers of Government are a trust incapable of transfer, and granted to be applied only to their legit-
imate ends, and that, therefore, all the organized powers of the Government of Texas could never rightfully transfer her Government,
territory, and people, to the United States, with any more or greater effect, than all the organized powers of the Governments of the
States, and the United States, could Transfer the Governments, territory, and people of the States, and the United States, to
Texas.

But if this were otherwise, and if all the organized powers of the government of Texas, in any or in all forms, were competent
to transfer the people and territory to this Union, the Committee believe there is no rightful power in all or any of the departments
of our national government to recieve them.

Bit it is said further, that Congress may, as an ordinary act of legislation, declare war, that war may lead to conquest, and
thus territorial acquisition may be forced on the country by the simple action of a clearly defined power of legislation, and that if
this be so, what Congress may do by legislation, "forcibly, if they must," they may do by legislation, "peaceably, if they can."
But this argument takes from granted what is by no means conceded.

Congress may, it is true, by a simple act of legislation, place the country in a state of war. Congress may raise armies, and
the Executive, as commander-in-chief, may overrun foreign territory and hold it by conquest. But this right of Congress, if right
at all, it must be always remembered, is but a temporary right. It is a right merely to hold and occupy the country until peace takes
place. It is the treaty of peace, and that alone, which settles all rights of conquest in war, and all rights of territory at its close.
And although war, under our Constitution, is a legislative power, peace is not. Peace being attainable only by treaty, and that
power being clearly placed by the Constitution in the President and two-thirds of the Senate, excludes, of course, the legislative
power from any participation in the act of peace, and thus leaves the argument without any foundation whatever.

The Committee have, on the matter referred to and considered by them, arrived at the following conclusions, which they ask
leave to state :

1st. That the Constitution of the United States was originally formed and adopted for the territory of the United States, as it
existed at its formation and adoption, and for that alone.

2d. That the Constitution contains no power whatever to admit new Sates, or territories, without and beyond the bounds of the
Union, as established when it was formed and adopted.

3d. That there has been hitherto no precedent for the admission of a foreign State by traty, or a foreign State or territory by
legislation.

4th. That the States and territories admitted since the adoption of the Constitution, out of territory not then within the Union,
are admitted by the general consent and acquiescence of the States and people, in the acts of admission.

5th. That this general consent and acquiescence form no precedent for the other cases, and impose no duty on any state of the
Union to extend it to any State or territory not now within the bounds of the Union.

6th. That the power to admit States and territories not within the bounds of the Union at the adoption of the Constitution,
having never been delegated, is reserved to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or the people thereof, and can only be rightfully ex-
ercised in such manner as they shall hereafter appoint.

Such being the result of the examination of the powers of the national government, under the Constitution of the United States,
to admit Texas into the Union, the labors of the Committee might have come to a close. But the actual position of Massachusetts,
in regard to this momentous question, seems to them to be such as to require them to proceed under the order of reference to some
further considerations.

It might perhaps, be deemed, under other circumstances, and those of a less pressing and embarrassing character, more respect-
ful to the authorities of the United States, to presume that no attempt would actually made to push the powers of the national
government beyond the constitutional limits in the admission of a foreign State. But when it is considered that the attempt has not
only been made once, but has been repeated already, that it is urged on by all the ofrce that can be applied to it by a section of the
country, and by an interest in that section which has hitherto known no result in political action but success, it may be proper for
the people of Massachusetts, through their Representatives, to declare the grounds on which not only her opposition to the admis-
sion of Texas is now placed, but will hereafter maintained. The decisive, unanswered, and unanswerable objection, is the want
of constitutional power to admit.

Massachusetts makes no boast of her fidelity to the Union. It is simply her duty to be faithful to her engagements, and she
fulfils her obligations as such.

She forbears to inquire into the expediency of the admission of Texas, or any other foreign state, into this Union. If benefits
ten times greater have ever been presented by the glowing imaginations of its most passionate admirers were certain to fol-
low the admission, she would still say, "the Union as it is," until altered by the power that made it.

She forbears to inquire whether the admission of Texas would bring war in its train from Mexico or any other nation.

She forbears to inquire whether Texas would come into the Union oppressed and overwhelmed with debts, or with "the pos-
sibility of riches beyond the dreams of avarice."

She forbears to inquire into these, not because they are not of the highest importance in themselves, but for the reason that,
when a clear principle obstructs her way, she can never be made to pass over it or around it.

The Constitution is in the way of the admission of Texas. This is insuperable, and she inquires no further.

But if, instead of submitting the question of the admission of Texas to Congress, or to any or all the departments of the
national government, it was now submitted directly to the people of Massachusetts, what would and ought to be the answer?

His Excellency the Governor, in that part of his message referred to the Committee, says, in relation to the admission of Tex-
as into the Union, "It is too obvious to require argument that slavery, with the considerations connected with it, is the leading motive
which impels the movement for the hasty consummation of this important measure."

Massachusetts is compelled to say, that the whole evidence before her, in regard to this matter, renders it impossible for her to
doubt that the acquisition of political power by the extension of the slave interest into Texas, and the greater security to that inter-