passed. In this opinion he differed, perhaps, from the executive. The negotiation had been declined by the secretary of state, because it would involve our relations with Mexico. Admitting that the executive had more extensive and exact information upon this question than he (Mr. Preston) could have, the resolution therefore expressed an opinion in favor of the annexation only when it could be done without disturbing our relations with Mexico.

The acquisition of territory, Mr. Preston said, had heretofore been effected by treaty; and this mode of proceeding had been proposed by the Texan minister, General Hunt. But he believed it would comport more with the importance of the measure, that both branches of the government should concur; the legislature expressing a previous opinion; which being done, all difficulties might be avoided by a treaty tripartite, between Mexico, Texas, and the United States, in which the consent and confirmation of Mexico (for a pecuniary consideration, perhaps,) might be had without infringing the acknowledged independence and free agency of Texas.

Mr. P. proceeded to show that "the Texan territory was once a part of the United States. In 1762, France ceded Louisiana to Spain. In 1800, Spain re-ceded it to France. In 1804, France ceded it to the United States. The extent of the French claim, therefore, determined ours, and included Mississippi and all the territories drained by its western tributaries. It rested upon the discovery of La Salle, in 1683, who penetrated from Canada by land, descended the Mississippi, and established a few posts on its banks. Soon afterwards, endeavoring to enter the mouth of that river from the gulf, he passed it unperceived, and sailing westward, discovered the bay of St. Bernard, now called Matagorda, whence, a short distance in the interior, he established a military post on the bank of the Guadaloupe, and took possession of the country in the name of his sovereign. The western limits of the territory, enuring to the French crown by virtue of this discovery, was determined by the application of a principle recognized by European powers making settlements in America, viz: that the dividing line should be established at a medium distance between their various settlements. At the time of La Salle's settlement, the nearest Spanish possession was a small post called Panuco, at the point where a river of that name falls into the bay of Tampico. The medium line between Panuco and the Guadaloupe was the Rio Grande, which was assumed as the true boundary between France and Spain. France asserted her claim to that boundary from 1685, the period of La Salle's discovery, up to 1762, when, by the cession of Louisiana to Spain, the countries were united and the boundaries obliterated."

Mr. P. referred to Mr. Adams' letter to Don Onis, of March, 1818, in which he recapitulated the testimony in favor of the French title. Mr. Jefferson expressed the same opinion. Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, in 1805, in obedience to instructions from Mr. Madison, then secretary of state, asserted our claim west to the Rio Grande, in their correspondence with the Spanish commissioner. Mr. Monroe, when president, held equally strong language, through

Mr. Adams, his secretary of state. General Jackson entertained the same opinion.

To the testimony of these presidents, he added the authority of the senator from Kentucky. During the delay on the part of Spain, in ratifying the treaty of 1819, that senator, then in the other house, taking the same view of the treaty which he (Mr. P.) was now urging-that it was a cession of a part of our territory to which the treaty-making power was incompetent-offered the following resolutions:

"1. Resolved, That the constitution of the United States vests in congress no power to dispose of the territory belonging to them; and that no treaty purporting to alienate any portion theroof is valid, without the concurrence of congress.

"2. Resolved, That the equivalent proposed to be given by Spain to the United States, for that part of Lousiana west of the Sabine, was inadequate, and that it would be inexpedient to make a transfer thereof to any foreign power."

"The author of these resolutions, in advocating them, said: 'He presumed the spectacle would not be presented of questioning, in this branch of the government, our title to Texas, which had been constantly maintained by the executive for more than fifteen years past, under three successive administrations.' And he said: 'In the Florida treaty, it was not pretended that the object was simply a declaration of where the western line of Louisiana was; it was, on the contrary, the case of an avowed cession of territory from the United States to Spain. The whole of the correspondence manifested that the respective parties to the negotiation were not engaged so much in an inquiry where the limit of Louisiana was, as where it should be. We find various limits discussed. Finally the Sabine is fixed, which neither of the parties ever contended was the ancient limit of Louisiana. And the treaty itself proclaims its purpose to be a cession of the United States to Spain.' Such, Mr. P. said, were the opinions of the senator in 1820, and he trusted the wisdom and patriotism which warred against that rash treaty of 1819, would now be exerted against its great and growing evils, by the reännexation of Texas.

"But he took higher ground than this. Mr. Clay rested the constitutional objection upon the incompetency of the treaty-making power to alienate territory; he (Mr. P.) considered it incompetent to the whole government. The constitution vests in congress the power "to dispose of the territory or other property of the United States." This clause was inserted to give power to effect the objects for which the states had granted these lands to the general government; and the true exposition of the clause was found in our vast and wise land system. It was never dreamed that congress could dispose of the sovereignty of territory to a foreign power. The south, he said, had gone blindly into this treaty. The importance of Florida had led them precipitately into a measure by which we threw a gem away that would have bought ten Floridas. Under any circumstances, Florida would have been ours in a short time; but our impatience had induced us to purchase it by a territory ten times as large, a hundred times as fertile, and to give five millions of dollars into the bargain. He acquiesced in the past; but he proposed to seize the present fair

and just occasion to remedy the mistake made in 1819; to repair, as far as possible, the evil effect of a breach of the constitution, by getting back into the Union that fair and fertile province which, in an evil hour, we severed from the confederacy.

"This proposition which now inflamed the public mind was not a novel policy. It was strange that a measure which had been urged for twelve years past should be met by a tempest of opposition; and very strange that he should be riding upon and directing the storm, who was first to propose the annexation of Texas, as one of the earliest measures of his administration after he was made president. He had endeavored to repair the injury inflicted upon the country by the treaty of 1819. As secretary of state in 1819, he negoti ated the treaty of transfer; in 1825, as president of the United States, he instituted a negotiation for the reännexation. Through his secretary of state, Mr. Clay, he instructed Mr. Poinsett, minister to Mexico, to urge a negotiation for the reäcquisition of Texas and the establishment of the southwest line of the United States at the Rio Grande del Norte. Jackson and Van Buren had continued the effort; and why it had failed, it was useless now to inquire. It was certain, that president Jackson never lost sight of it, and that he continued to look to its accomplishment as one of the greatest events of his administration, to the moment when the title of Mexico was extinguished forever by the battle of San Jacinto.

"Mr. P. considered the boundary line established by the treaty of 1819, as an improper one, not only depriving us of an extensive and fertile territory, but winding with a deep indent' upon the valley of the Mississippi itself, running upon the Red river and the Arkansas. It placed a foreign nation in the rear of our Mississippi settlements, within a stone's throw of that great outlet which discharged the commerce of half the Union. The mouths of the Sabine and the Mississippi were of a dangerous vicinity. The great object of the purchase of Louisiana was to remove all possible interference of foreign states in the vast commerce of the outlet of so many states. By the cession of Texas, this policy had been to a certain extent compromised. He also referred to the instructions of secretary Van Buren to Mr. Poinsett, saying: The line proposed as the most desirable to us would constitute a most natural separation of the resources of the two nations.'

"Mr. P. next considered the report of a committee of the Massachusetts legislature, which said: 'The committee do not believe that any power exists in any branch of this government, or in all of them united, to consent to such a union, (viz. with the sovereign state of Texas,) nor, indeed, does such authority pertain, as an incident of sovereignty, or otherwise, to the government, however absolute, of any nation.' Both of these propositions he controverted. As to the powers of this government, the mistake of the committee laid in considering it, as to its nature and powers, a consolidated government. The states originally came together as sovereign states, having no power of recíprocal control. North Carolina and Rhode Island stood off for a time, and at length came in by the exercise of a sovereign discretion. So Missouri

and other new states were fully organized and perfect, and self-governed, before they came in; and so might Texas be admitted. The power to admit new states was expressly given; and by the very terms of the grant they must be states before they were admitted. The power granted to congress was, not to create, but to admit new states; the states created themselves. Missouri and Michigan had done so, and exercised all the functions of self-government, while congress deliberated whether they should be admitted. In the meantime, the territorial organization was abrogated, and the laws of congress superseded."

After some further discussion of the question, Mr. P. said: "There is no point of view in which the proposition for annexation can be considered, that any serious obstacle in point of form presents itself. If this government be a confederation of states, then it is proposed to add another state to the confed eration. If this government be a consolidation, then it is proposed to add to it additional territory and population. That we can annex, and afterwards admit, the cases of Florida and Louisiana prove. We can therefore deal with the people of Texas for the territory of Texas; and the people can be secured in the rights and privileges of the constitution, as were the subjects of Spain and France."

Having considered these "formal difficulties," he next adverted to those which exercised a more decisive influence over that portion of the Union which was offering such determined opposition to this measure. He regarded this joint movement of the northern states as a "combination conceived in a spirit of hostility towards one section, for the purpose of aggrandizing the political power of another." It could not fail to make a deep and mournful impression upon the south, that the opposition to the proposed measure was contemporaneous with the recent excitement on the subject of abolition. He said: "All men, of all parties, from all sections, in and out of office, Mr. Adams most conspicuous amongst them, desired the aquisition of Texas, until the clamorous interference in the affairs of the south was caught up in New England from old England. Then, for the first time, objections were made to this measure; then those very statesmen who were anxious for the acquisition of Texas for their glory, found out that it would subvert the constitution and ruin the country. You are called upon to declare that the southern portion of your confederacy, by reason of certain domestic institutions, in the judgment of your petitioners wicked and detestable, is to be excluded from some part of the benefits of this gov ernment. The assumption is equally insulting to the feelings and derogatory to the constitutional rights of the south. We neither can nor ought-I say it, Mr. President, in no light mood or wrong temper-we neither can nor ought to continue in political union on such terms."

"Mr. P. spoke of the diminution of the comparative political power of the south. The sceptre, he said, had passed from them, and forever. All that was left them was to protect themselves. All they asked was some reasonable check upon an acknowledged power; some approach to equipoise in the senate. All the power they coveted was the power to resist incursions. He sus

pected that the idea of checking the extension of domestic slavery was but a hollow and hypocritical pretext to cover political designs. He did not think the extension of slave territory and the increase of the slaveholding population would increase the number of slaves. Instead of this, annexation would rather prevent such increase. We stand entirely on the defensive; we desire safety, not power, and we must have it. Give us safety and repose, by doing what all your most trusted and distinguished statesmen have been so long anxious to do. Give them to us by restoring what you wantonly and unconstitutionally deprived us of. Give us this just and humble boon, by repairing the violated integrity of your territory, by augmenting your wealth and power, by extending the empire of law, liberty, and Christianity."

In the house of representatives, on the 12th of December, 1837, Mr. Adams presented a large number of memorials against the annexation of Texas, and moved that these and all others presented by himself and his colleagues at the extra session, be referred to a select committee. His colleagues had assented to approve the motion. Mr. Howard, of Maryland, having moved their reference to the committee on foreign affairs, Mr. Adams expressed his views on the question of annexation in a manner which subjected him to several interruptions.

Mr. Adams said he and his colleagues viewed this question as one which involved even the integrity of the union-a question of the most deep, abiding and vital interest to the whole American nation. "For," said he, "in the face of this house, and in the face of Heaven, I avow it as my solemn belief that the annexation of an independent foreign power to this government would, ipso facto, be a dissolution of this Union. And is this a subject for the peculiar investigation of your committee on foreign affairs?" Mr. A. said the question involved was, whether a foreign nation-acknowledged as such in a most unprecedented and extraordinary manner, by this government, a nation' damned to everlasting fame' by the reïnstitution of that detestable system, slavery, after it had once been abolished within its borders-should be admitted into union with a nation of freemen. 'For, sir," said Mr. A., "that name, thank God, is still ours! And is such a question as this to be referred to a committee on foreign affairs?"

Mr. A. said the exact grounds upon which the memorialists based their prayer were not officially known to the house. He had presented one hundred and ninety petitions upon this subject, signed by some twenty thousand persons, and his colleagues had presented collectively a larger number. Members from other states had also presented similar memorials; but his colleagues had thought it fitting to move the reference to a select committee of those only which he and they had presented. All had the same object; and they contained nothing that had the least connection with the foreign affairs of the country.

These memorialists from Massachusetts, Mr. A. said, had observed with alarm and terror the conduct of the government towards Mexico, during the last, and as far as it had gone, of the present administration, in relation to the