The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1838-01-16
TwENrY-FIFTn CONGRESS.
The SENATE did not Sit on Saturday.
HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES,.
g .,,.n.v Iannary n I93S

solution which was agreed 10:
ResoIyed That the Committee on the Public Lands
be instructed 10 inquire into the expediency OF re-
yiying the act Of Congress authorizing all persons
owning lands on water-courses in the state OF Louis
lana 10 enter the lands in the rear OF their front con-
cessions and into the expedeney OF authorizing al
such claimants Of land on the said waier-conrses as
may be unable 10 obtain, in the rear Of their claims
the quantity Of lands contained in their front tracts
by reason Of bends in the waler-courses on which
they are situated other causes, 10 make their en-
tries on other public lands In the vicinity OF then
front claims.
Reports Of committees were now called, when the
following reports were made:
Mr. TOUCEY, from the Committee on the Jul
dietary, reported against the petition OF Thomas
Chapman.
Mr. COLES from the Committee on Military
Affairs, reported against the petition OF Sylvester
Day.
Mr.. TAYLOR, from the Committee on Invalid
Pensions reported bill for the relief OF Parmella
Brown, widow of Gen. Jacob Brown.
MIR. MORGAN, from the Committee on Revolu-
tionary Pensions reported bill 10 amend an act for
the relief James Steel; which bill was ordered to be
engrossed, and subsequently read third time and
passed.
RELATIONS WITH MEXICO
Mr.. ADAMs's resolution being the question in
order
of delerrng the debate on the call for Mr.. Gorosli-
za's letter &c until Monday and occupying the re-
sdue OF the morning hour in reading The private
bills third time which had passed the Committee
of the Whole Yesterday !; but
The House refused, and proceeded again to the
consideration of the resolution offered By Mr. Adams,
Of Mass. together with the amendment thereto pro-
posed BY Mr. Howard, Chairman Of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. SHIELDS, of Tennessee addressed the House
in reply especially TO the remarks Of Mr. Meneiee.
He said that when the resolution Of the honorable
gentleman from Massachusetts had been up the day
before some remarks had been made which were
calculated to mplicae the citizens in vast region
Of country in the charge OF violation oil the laws OF
the United States, and Of the obligations OF neutrall
" between this country and foreign powers. II al
fusion had not thus been made 10 portion OF the
Union which he had the honor in part TO represent
for as many, probably, both OF officers and men, had
gone to Texas from his own State as from any other
in The West-he should not now have deemed II ne
cessary thus TO enter his solemn protest against the
correctness Of such statements lie had no particu-
lar objections the adoption OF the resolution, though
be did not believe it would be productive OF any
benefit. II called for the copy Of pamphlet which
had long been published, and which he presumed
every member of the House must have seen ana
read; and it further demanded the name of the mi
mister who had communicated copy OF MI. Goros-
lza's pamphlet to the Secretary OF State. he saw
no particular propriety in demanding the name oil
this individual as he had nothing 10 do with the
transactions of our Government 1t was not howev-
err with view 10 oppose or protest against the reso-
luton MIR. s. had risen, but 10 question oil TACT
that he might couneract the assertions OF the gen.
leman from Kentucky (Mr. Menefee,) and others
in relation 10 the conduct of the people of the West.
1t was not true that those people had violated the
laws of the United States, or the obligations OF neu-
traily with Mexico. Not man out of fifty OF
those who had gone from the United States, and en-
tered into the struggle Of Texas for Independence,
had gone there without bona tde purpose OF re-
naming in Texas as citizen Of that republic
These people had expariated themselves, and chosen
Texas as their future country. 1t verytIue that,
hat ina Il
Texas and the governments of Mexico; and that so
soon as they reached their adopted country, they
took up arms TO defend those political rights which
they had learned here to recognise, and those free
institutions which they had enjoyed at home
But there was no similarity between this state of
things and that which prevailed on our northern
frontier. Under what circumstances had these in
dyiduals gone into the country beyond the line q
They had been, in the first place. invited by the go
vernment of Mexico 10 emigratc and to become ci-
zens OF the Mexican Republic; and the law Holding
out this invitation remained still in force when the
revolution in Texas commenced. They had AFTER
wards received similar invitation from The govern
ment of Texas. Instead therefore Of violating the
laws, they were merely accepting an invitation which
had been addressed TO them by the mother country,
and from her revolted province. This was in ac-
cordance with the laws of the United States and the
law OF nations Mr. S. therefore here, in his place,
entered his solemn protest against the statement made
by the gentleman from Kentucky Mr.. Menefee)
But what was the state of matters on the Canada
frontier2 There were no such inducement held out
by the British government; but portion of our ci-
zens had gone over into Canada with the avowed
intention OF entering into the war which had been
commenced by some of the colonSiS against the GO
vernment They had taken arms with them, which
had been obtained from our side Of the line, and had
resolved to sustain themselves within the Canada
lines Such was the character Of the whole affair."
that any delay by our government to interfere would
have been highly dangerous. But, on the Texas
boundary there had been such military array nor
forcble invasion. This difference of the circum-
stances sufficiently accounted for the course pursued
by the American government IN the two cases IL
might be that there had been many in the west who
went into Texas in companies, knowing that they
should be expected Immediately 10 ener into the
struggle; but not solitary instance had occurred in
which troops from this country had, in hostile
manner, invaded Texas, as had been done in the
case Of Canada. They had gone over, bona fdc, for
the purpose OF settlement
Mr. HOLSEY wished to make few remarks in
relation TO some observations which. had fallen the
other day from the gentleman from Kentucky, and
who had charged the Administration with miscon-
duct and inconsistency in relation 10 Mexico. He,
(Mr H. denied the imputation, and he challenged
that gentleman TO lay his finger upon single in
stance where this Government had failed to act in
strict conformity with the law of nations.
Mr. H. went on at some langth TO show that the
Government of the United States in permitting
sstance 10 be rendered to Texas had violated, in
respect the laws of neutrality between herself and
Mexico He contended that the treaty of amity
commerce, and navigation, between thetwo countries,
was simply Of a domestic nature, and did not pre-
vent our rendering assistance to Texas as an indie
pendent power. Upon the same principle he should
have permitted Mexico to have procured similar
assistance from this country had she thought proper
There was no law which could prevent Mexico
from sending into this country and enlisng soldiers
The same privilege would be extended to both the
beigerent powers and so far as the Administration
was concerned, il had been extended to both Ii was
his opinion that although our Government might
have relaxed its pacific policy towards Mexico, yet
she had not in the least violated her neutrality, be-
cause she was at liberty to extend the same privilege
In [ hr nrn aSf 10 In nhn