The history of the Louisiana purchase . orporation—an unconstitutional provision which must156 Party Wrangle Over the Purchase cause the treaty to fail. Bat the Repub-licans were determined the treaty should notfail. The House being in Committee of theWhole, three resolutions were carried by avote of 90 to 25. First, that provision shouldbe made to carry the treaty into effect. Sec-ond, that the matter of a provisional govern-ment should be referred to a special com-mittee. Third, that theCommittee of Ways andMeans should be chargedwith raising the purchase-money. When the matter cameup in the
The history of the Louisiana purchase . orporation—an unconstitutional provision which must156 Party Wrangle Over the Purchase cause the treaty to fail. Bat the Repub-licans were determined the treaty should notfail. The House being in Committee of theWhole, three resolutions were carried by avote of 90 to 25. First, that provision shouldbe made to carry the treaty into effect. Sec-ond, that the matter of a provisional govern-ment should be referred to a special com-mittee. Third, that theCommittee of Ways andMeans should be chargedwith raising the purchase-money. When the matter cameup in the Senate, each sideused the same arguments,nothing new appearinguntil Timothy Pickering, ^fT^ * /of Massachusetts, made the ^1/ extremest statement possible of the rights ofthe States. He declared that to his mind thetreaty was unconstitutional because it stipu-lated something no power existing could carryout. The third article read: The inhabit-ants of the ceded territory shall be incorpo-rated into the Union of the United History of The Louisiana Purchase Who was competent to carry tliat out ? Notthe President and Senate; not the Presidentand Congress; not an amendment to the Con-stitution passed by a two-thirds vote of bothHouses and ratified by three-quarters of theStates. He believed the assent of each andevery State was necessary before a foreigncountry could join the Union. The case waslike that of a business house where the assentof each partner must be got before a newpartner can be admitted. When the Consti-tution declared that new States might be ad-mitted by Congress, the words meant domes-tic, not foreign States. No acquisition offoreign territory was contemplated or pro-vided for, and ought therefore to be regardedas impossible. This speech of Pickering wasan interesting contribution to the discussion,but it produced no effect. The vote stoodtwenty-six to five in favor of the treaty. Both Federalists and Republicans wereagreed as to the right of the P
Size: 1299px × 1923px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorhosmerja, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, bookyear1902
