But this is not all.

It is well known that when the Constitution was formed in 1789, the ordinance of the old confederation of July 13, 1787, was in full force and effect, in relation to the north-western territory. This territory now constitutes the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan.

It is equally well known, that this ordinance provided, that not less than three, nor more than five States, should be formed in certain proportions out of this territory, and ultimately be admitted into the old confederation.

This obligation to admit these new States" when they arrived at maturity, devolved, of course, on the Union, under the Constitution; and this provision of the Constitution, became necessary to carry this obligation into effect.

Here, then, are legal and constitutional provisions by which "five new States" and "four of those then existing" might have required this express power to admit new States, to have brought them within the fold, and given them their clear legal inheritance-an admission into the Union.

This number of "new States" equal to those authorized by the Constitution, to establish the constitutional Union, to say nothing of those "new States" that might, under the constitutional provision, be formed with the con sent of Congress and the States, and of the original States and the territories, is sufficient to show the necessity of such a power, and the propriety of its application, and of its application alone, to the territory within the then existing Union.

The power then relied upon, to expand the Union to an indefinite extent, will only show, when rightly applied, the provident care of those who drafted that instrument, to provide for the performance, within the then existing Union, of all existing duties.

There is another express power in the Constitution, which the Committee are of opinion is in direct conflict with the power now claimed to admit a foreign State into the Union, in whatever manner such power may be applied.

The Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, provides "that Congress

shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States."

This constitutional power, Congress has undertaken to carry into effect, by establishing an uniform rule for that purpose throughout the Union.

It is now proposed by a mere act of legislation to bring Texas into the Union as a State, with all the rights of a State, and its citizens-foreigners of course-with all the rights of citizens in all the States. Congress are authorized "to establish the rule-not to apply it. Would not, then, a legislative or a treaty admission of Texas, destroy all pretence of uniformity in the rule?

But not to dwell longer on the particular clauses of the Constitution, the Committee are constrained to believe, and to declare that belief, that the Constitution of the United States, as originally formed and adopted, gave no power to any or all the departments of the national government, to admit a foreign State, or foreign territory, into our constitutional Union.

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 than 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 people.

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 palpable 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 acquiescence 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 cession 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 considered as forming a part of the United States. The States of Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas, have already been admitted 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 excrcised 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 condition 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 manner. 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 incurred 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 our 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 necessary, 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 of 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 the 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 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 Government, 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 legitimate ends, and that therefore all the organized