I begin by quoting Mr. Webster against himself. In an address to the people of the United States, emanating from the Massachusetts Anti-Texas state convention, held January 29th, 1845, the subjoined passage, which is understood, or rather, I may say, is now well known, to have been dictated by Mr. Webster himself, may be found:-- “But we desire not to be misunderstood. According to our convictions, there is no power in any branch of the government, or all its branches, to annex foreign territory to this Union. We have made the foregoing remarks only to show, that, if any fair construction could show such a power to exist any where, or to be exercised in any form, yet the manner of its exercise now proposed is _destitute of all decent semblance of constitutional propriety_.” Thus cancelling the authority of Mr. Webster in 1850 by the authority of Mr. Webster in 1845, I proceed with the argument. Though the annexation of Texas was in pursuance of a void stipulation, yet it is a clear principle of law, that when a contract void between the parties, has been _executed_ by them, it cannot then be annulled. If executed, it becomes valid, not by virtue of the contract but by virtue of the execution. I bow to this legal principle, and would fulfil it. But any independent stipulation which remains unexecuted, remains invalid. Such is that part of the annexation resolutions which provides for the admission of a brood of Texan states. The resolutions themselves say, in express terms, that the new states are to be admitted “under the provisions of the federal constitution;” and the federal constitution says, “New states may be admitted _by the Congress_ into this Union.” By what Congress? Plainly, by the Congress in session at the time when application for admission is made; and by no other. The fourth Texan state may not be ready for admission for fifty years to come; and could the Congress of 1845 bind the Congress of 1900? The Congress of 1900, and all future Congresses, will derive their authority from the constitution of the United States, and not from any preceding Congress. Put the case in a negative form. Could the Congress of 1845 bind all future Congresses _not_ to admit new states, and thus, _pro tanto_, annul the constitution? Positive or negative, the result is the same. No previous Congress, on such a subject, can enlarge or limit the power of a subsequent one. Whenever, therefore, the question of a new Texan state comes up for consideration, the Congress _then in being_ must decide it on its own merits, untrammelled by any thing their predecessors have done; and, especially, free from a law which, while similar in spirit, is a thousand times more odious in principle than statutes of mortmain.