to read. The House, on hearing it, will perceive that I have, myself, an interest in a fair and free discussion of this resolution.

[The extract was read, as follows:]

"And when it is recollected, too, that the very territory which it is now proposed to acquire was once within the scope of a just claim of our General Government, extending to the Rio del Norte, and that it was bartered for a mess of porridge by a prime-mover of the present opposition to its reacquisition, there remains no pretext for a subterfuge, under which the adversaries of annexation can hope to disguise the covert designs which, there is much reason to fear, prompted the exchange of our claims in Texas for the unappropriated portions of Florida, consisting mainly of barren sands and poisonous everglades."

Sir, there is a part of that paragraph which, when the subject comes up, I must turn over to the respectable gentleman, the Delegate from Florida. I hope he will feel himself called upon, for the honor of the Territory he so ably represents here, to vindicate it a little, so far, least, as to show that it does not consist of "barren sands and poisonous everglades."

at

But there is another point here introduced, on which 1, as an individual, may fairly claim the right of discussion in this House, in a document submitted to the House under the authority of the Legislature of a sovereign State, and pointing to an individual in whom I cannot forbear to recognise myself. (If the passage is not so understood by the members of the House, it shows that I have been in a great error.) I am here represented by an act of a Legislature which I respect, as I do every one of the members of this great and mighty Confederacy, and whose members on this floor, every one of them, I respect personally and politically; and I consider myself as having a right to call on this House to permit me to vindicate myself from a charge of so serious a character-no less than that of having bartered for a mess of porridge a territory of high value to all, and to which we are represented as having had a fair and just claim. It is not my intention to enter into the subject now it would occupy too much time and some may already consider me as abusing the indulgence of the House. I shall enter into no discussion which is not necessary for the full knowledge and elucidation of the subject. Sir, this charge is not a new one in this House. It was made here two years ago by an honorable gentleman from South Carolina, and, on a brief explanation I at that time gave, he professed himself to be entirely satisfied. I thank him for the liberality of his concession made on so brief an explanation.

[Mr. WADDY THOMPSON here explained, and said that he never had advanced any " charge" on this subject against the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, but had said that others did. It would be criminal in me to hesitate to admit that he acted throughout that matter both as a statesman and an enlightened patriot.]

I thank the gentleman for his ready and frank admission; but, sir, there is a long story connected with this matter, and now, though it is two years since the charge was fully refuted, it appears before this House in an act of a Legislature of a sovereign State, and it is presented as one of many strong motives here urged to induce the People of the United States to consent to the annexation of Texas. I will not discuss it now. But at a proper time I hope to be permitted to show that I never did consent to barter away this or any other right of the People of the United

States for an alleged equivalent of inferior value; but, on the contrary, that this very claim which the Legislature of Alabama thinks so just and fair, and which the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. THOMPSON] still continues to think a just claim, and which has been so laid down in another place, as if the matter did not admit of dispute, is as flimsy a claim as ever was set up by one nation against another. This I am prepared to show. It was no right. It was a claim. It was a claim of all the territory to the Rio del Norte, when, in fact, there never had been a division of that territory, or an adjustment of that claim with another and much better authenticated adverse claim of Spain. On what ground is the accusation brought against me of bartering away this territory for a mess of porridge? What pretence is there for such an accusation, when I was but the scribe, but the pen in the hand of the President in an Administration in which there were two thirds of its number from that portion of the Union which now manifests so strong an interest in behalf of the annexation of Texas to this Union? When every line and every sentence of the treaty was sanctioned by that Cabinet, and when every Senator of the United States, from North, South, East, and West, confirmed it by his vote, and not a voice was raised against it. The sentiment was unanimous in the Senate, and it became equally unanimous throughout the Union, that the treaty was one of the most favorable ones for us which ever had been concluded since the United States became a nation. I hope the time will come when I shall have an opportunity of presenting such a demonstration of this as shall leave no doubting mind, not even in Alabama.

While I am on this subject, I feel justified in referring to another document, a call for which was, by the great courtesy of this House, denied to me; I mean a report of a committee of the House of Representatives of the State of Mississippi, to which our attention was invited in an Executive message, but which paper was not communicated to this House, as, in my opinion, it ought to have been at the time. In that report, (and I have seen it,) this same charge is made, and with much greater aggravation than in these resolutions of the Legislature of Alabama. I did hope that I should have had an opportunity before this House, before my country, and before God, to bring those charges to the test, and to show whether or not they had any foundation.

I

pass that now, and come to the last of the State resolutions, which are those of my native State of Massachusetts:

"COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 1838.

"Resolves against the annexation of Texas to the United States. "Whereas a proposition to admit into the United States, as a constituent member thereof, the foreign nation of Texas, has been recommended by the legislative resolutions of several States, and brought before Congress for its approval and sanction: and whereas such a measure would involve great wrong to Mexico, and otherwise be of evil precedent, injurious to the interests and dishonorable to the character of this country: and whereas its avowed objects are doubly fraught with peril to the prosperity and permanency of this Union, as tending to disturb and destroy the conditions of those compromises and concessions entered into at the formation of the Constitution, by which the relative weight of different sections and interests was adjusted, and to strengthen and extend the evils of a system which is unjust in itself, in striking contrast with the theory of our institutions, and condemned by the moral sentiment of mankind: and whereas the People of these United States have not granted to any or

all of the departments of their Government, but have retained in themselves, the only power adequate to the admission of a foreign nation into this confederacy: therefore, "Resolved, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, do, in the name of the People of Massachusetts, earnestly and solemnly protest against the incorporation of Texas into this Union; and declare that no act done, or compact made, for such purpose, by the Government of the United States, will be binding on the States or the People.

Resolved, That his excellency the Governor be requested to forward a copy of these resolves, and the accompanying report, to the Executive of the United States, and the Executive of each State; and also to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, with a request that they present the resolves to both Houses of Congress."

It will be observed that the last of these resolutions is an instruction to her Senators and a request to her Representatives to present these resolutions in both Houses. Now, again, I ask, is it possible that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs will attempt to justify his committee in not taking these resolutions into consideration, and not reporting upon them, on the ground that there exists no proposition for the annexation? In the resolutions of the other States there is a proposition, a direct proposition. Surely it will not be said, when any petitions or memorials from private individuals are referred to a committee, that the committee may refuse to report upon them "because there is no proposition on the subject before the House." Here is a direct counter proposition to the proposition of those States whose resolves call for the annexation. I again entreat the members of this House to read the resolutions for and against that measure, and to put it to their consciences whether they can refuse to take those propositions into consideration, and whether they can justify the Committee on Foreign Affairs in making a report upon the resolutions without ever looking into them. I entreat this as a charge of duty on the conscience of every member of this House.

The resolutions of Massachusetts were presented on the 21st of May by my colleague, [Mr. BRIGGS.] Then, for the first time, the House did deliberately refer the resolutions of a State Legislature to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This was no inadvertence; it was done deliberately, on a formal motion made by myself. A gentleman from Georgia [Mr. HAYNES] had objected to the motion, but withdrew his objection, and the House then referred the resolutions. They were referred as a mark of respect, for which I, as one of her Representatives, felt grateful. Little did I expect that the committee would turn them back on this House with the declaration that they never looked into them, or with a denial of my right to ask whether they had considered them or not. They were deliberately, I will say solemnly, referred to that committee.

Then, four days after, all the resolutions of State Legislatures, and all the memorials, petitions, and remonstrances of individual citizens on the same subject, were again referred to that committee.

I have the opportunity, in referring to the resolutions of my native Commonwealth, of noting some reference to this subject, and particularly to the agency I had in this House and in this country in regard to it, which was made in the Legislature of Texas. I hold in my hand the report of proceedings in that Legislature, of a very recent date. It records that a joint resolution was introduced into that body for the

withdrawal of the application on the part of Texas to be admitted into the United States, which was founded on the reception here of that application, and the opposition to it manifested by the People of this country.

[Mr. A. here read from the report the yote on the joint resolution referred to, as follows:]

"ANNEXATION.

“The joint resolution to withdraw the proposition for annexation was taken up, the House being agreed to reconsider the vote of yesterday upon that subject. After some amendments the votes were again taken on the resolution, which was lost. "Ares-Messrs. Brennan, Douglass, Gazley, Gant, Jones, of Brazoria, Jack, Menifee, Patton, Ponton, Rusk, Rowlett, Thompson, and Thornton-13. "NOES-Messrs. Speaker Branch, Burieson, Billingsly, Boyd, Griggsby, Hardeman, Hill, Linn, McKinney, Pierpont, Sutherland, Swift, Wyatt-14."

There is the vote, sir. Ayes 13, noes 14. So, by a majority of one member of the House of Representatives of Texas, that body has refused to withdraw its application for annexation to this Union. Here I must be permitted to observe, that there is in this newspaper publication more explicitness and candor than I was able, or than this House was able, to obtain from the President of the United States. I offered a resolution calling on the President, if it were not incompatible with the public welfare, to inform us whether that application had or had not been withdrawn. In answer to this call we had a letter from the President, referring us to an enclosed letter of the Secretary of State; which letter of the Secretary I here recommend as one of the completest specimens of mystification ever sent to this House. It does not say whether the application has been withdrawn or has not been withdrawn. The substance of it is, that, after the rejection of the first proposition, made by the Plenipotentiary of Texas, the Executive Government thought the subject beyond its control. That was not the question asked. The question was not about their thoughts; but whether the proposition for the annexation of Texas to this Union had or had not been withdrawn. It was the act of a foreign Government about which we inquired, and not into the opinions, clear or muddy, of the Executive Government; whether they considered the subject as within their control or without their control. It has been said of the People of the part of the Union from which I come, that you cannot get a direct answer from them to a plain question of fact; surely, then, we must have a Yankee Secretary of State, for it seems we cannot get any direct answer from him. But, though we cannot get the answer from him, here it is. The proposition has not been withdrawn. It is still in existence. And I will ask the patience of the House a little longer while I read to them some of the reasons assigned in the Texas Legislature for and against the resolution to withdraw it.

[Mr. A. here quoted debates in Texas, as follows:]

"Before the votes were taken, several gentlemen proceeded to express their views upon the subject.

"Mr. Jones read extracts of a letter from our Minister at the Court of St. James, setting forth the friendly feeling on the part of the British Government towards this Republic, whose ability, however, to maintain her independence, the letter observed, was doubted in England. With regard to the United States, the question of annexation was there considered as involving a war with Mexico, and was consequently hopeless."

Here they say that, owing to the danger of a war with Mexico, the annexation is "hopeless:" just what the Secretary of State told the Texian minister, and just what the chairman of the committee told this House. The inference I draw from this language is, that, were it not for fear of a war with Mexico, the measure would not be "hopeless."

Mr. CAMBRELENG here inquired of the Chair whether the morning hour had not expired?

The CHAIR replied that it had.

Mr. A. entreated for sufficient time to read through the report of these Texian debates. By general consent, the leave was given, and Mr. A. proceeded :

ઃઃ

England was interested in severing Texas from Mexico, but would never recognise our independence so long as we continued to request annexation to the United States."

From this, said Mr. A., it appears that England has been too wise to recognise the independence of Texas so long as her application continues for admission into our Union.

Mr. A. read on:

"There were interests, too, in the United States that clashed with our own. Here Mr. Jones read several passages of a speech by the honorable John Quincy Adams, upon the subject of the annexation of Texas to the United States, to show the feeling upon the subject in the States north of the Potomac.

"Mr. Rusk was in favor of an immediate withdrawal of the proposition for annexation. Even were the scheme desirable, it was impracticable. The benefits, too, would all be on the side of the United States.

This last assertion caused him some merriment. He continued to read, where the Texian orator was saying that " to the People of the United States Texas owed much, to the Government nothing." "How that may be, said Mr. A., I leave as a question between Texas and the Administration.

He proceeds:

"A large proportion of the People, however, opposed the annexation of Texas to their country: it would give strength to the South, and that was what they were determined the South should not have. Self-respect required of us to lose no time in withdrawing a hopeless proposition; let us stand or fall upon our own merits. Even if we were willing to give to the United States all the advantages of the contract, she would not receive us. The matter, as it now stood, operated unfavorably to us with regard to England, who, if she once saw that we were to stand upon independent ground, would be led by her interests to cultivate our friendship, and would, at once, recognise our independence. On every view of the subject that could be taken, it was highly desirable that we at once withdraw the proposition for annexation. "Mr. Gant concurred with Mr. Rusk in most of his arguments.

"Mr. Hill doubted the right of Congress to withdraw the proposition. The People had directed it to be made, and would, if necessary, direct it to be withdrawn."

This Mr. Hill seems a very sensible gentleman; his speech certainly contains a great deal of sound sense. He expressed a doubt whether the Government of Texas was authorized to withdraw its application to us for annexation. His doctrine is, that that withdrawal can be made only by the People of Texas.

Mr. A. here again read on :

"Mr. Thompson contended for the right of Congress to withdraw the proposition, which he thought ought to be withdrawn.

"Mr. Branch was in favor of annexation. A large portion of the People of the United States were also in favor of it.