Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-01-11
a8sAAsnsa s'Ssrelss.
x 1 Z Ii NJ o N d,
FRIDAY. JANUARY IL, 1911.
MIR. HORsFY,S spFfcu--

MIX. HORSFY'S SPEECH. 4
|. The speech ofihe Delaware Sena-
tor, which we promised on It's coming
forth to criticise, has made It's appear
lance 10 the National Inteiligencer Of
Saturday the 5'h inst. Itis 10 be pre-.
sumed that it contains the chief
Igrounds Of opposition to the act of the
President iii relation TO West. Florida.
Let US, then, briefly examine its me-
Iri S.
In the first place, MIR Horsey Oh.
jects, that the act of occupancy is un.
consritul iona, inasmuch as. the Presi.
dent was not aubotisedby hw to pro.
coed III the affair. This objection is
Isepportsd Ly reference to the act
OF Congresssof March 26,h, 1901, e.
recting Louisiana into two territories,
and which MIR. Horsey asserts limited
the duration OF the act of Oct. 81. 1908.
which last act did authorize the Pre-
sidens To take possession of Louisiana
as coded by France, and TO use the
naval. military, aud militia force, to
teFeet 1t. Nov, if We sl,ew that the
act OF a0+ did moi limit the act Of / o3
in relation to tatihg Possession, we
prove, OF course, that MIR Horsey's
I objection on this head has no ioJce.
What, then, did the act of 1904
prescribe with respect to the act Of
1908 Why, it prescribed an eaten
sion OF the &C, OF 1903, and NOT H.
! imitation: for the act of 1908 was ORR
ginally passed TO endure in relation to
the government Of Louisiana, ouly antii
the expiration ef that Session Of Gan
gress, < tha, session did not continue
longer than the 27th Of March, 1904 !:
But the act oF the 26rh of March 1904.
continued the act OF 1903 u ntil the first
day ofCcto6er 1904. Thus, instead
/. OF knlit0tion, it was extension. More-
over, The extension to he FIRST day of
October 1904, is not designated as the
period when the act of 1908 is to be
repeated, but only as the day on which
the act of 1907 IS 10 go into operation
SO that tbs act of 1904 [agreeabiy
to well known rule of cons,.uction1
only supercedes those parts OF the act
| OF 1905, which interfere with it, and
they are those parts Only which relate
to the Seoernaae'H. of Louisiana. 1t
IS by confounding the act of taxing
possession, with the act of goyey7aniemt,
| that Mr. Horsev coninses the subject.
Furthermore, the act of 1908 vested
the President with power to take pos
session no ala has ever been passed
divestipg hlu4 Of that power; Of course,
The power srIE eS,ii inses for the pos
session was ouiy commenced, and will
not be perfected till the territory is oc-
onpied as far as il has been coded
that IS, to yhe Perdido. Mr.. Horsey
seems to admit that, on this point.
here are other Subsequent acts (Which
be citrs that are against his object.
on; These he attempts to ohviate by
Iaiie6sing that these. last contemplate
"a possession TO be obtained by friend
ly negotiation )" and, for this purpose,
ne quotes a passage from "a letter
written by MIR. Madison, when Secre-
tary OF State to the Marquis Yrujo,
wherein the latter is assured that the
provisions relating to Louisiana
6 would not be, extended beyond the
meteorological E}aiis OF the u. States,
until il. shall be- rendered expedient by
h'ie1dly etacidatioas and adjustments
with his Catholic Majesty" In this,
however, Mr.. Horsey defeats his own
Argument /; because, if che acts Of Con.
! grsss auahOr!se~ an oCcupation If th.
territory by Z" friendly negotiation, y
under claim of title, they clearly ad.
init the authority to take possession by
force when friendly negotiation has
failed; and the whole world knows
that the President negotiated n oaIy
whilst there was a probability Of sue
cess, but until there was no Catholic
king to negotiate with nay, that
ttfe President actually rrfrai0ed until
the possession was wrested from The
old Spanish monarchy, not by Napole on
or Josepn DOnapsrte, hut by a parcel Of
ladventureTs, Az 70 these sdvsntureys.
or revoluiiqnists, we can turn Mr..
Hofsey's ewn reasoning against him
sell /! What right had they to erect
themselves into a state on land claim
ed by the u. States What right had
they to occupy, In sovereignty, a ter
rltory beioneIDg TO the Union! What
law OF occsFeacy can Justify these
rcvolutionists, unless it be the Law of
robbery ? for With all their professions
o patriotism, and virtue. and indie.