The Hawk-eye and Iowa patriot. (Burlington, Iowa) 1839-1843, 1840-02-06

SS'S*a uIAOAl VI tAC SClldLOT from
Missouri that Iowa had no interest in
this question. He must insist, on the
contrary, that she had an interest, in
full proportion to the value of the ter
rltory in question, and she was under
as strong inducements as Missouri to
retain it, to add to her strength and
resources. But Mr. C.'s object was
not to debate, but to have this subject
suitably referred.
Mr. Norvell said that he should not
have risen, but for the allusion of his
honorable friend behind him from Mis-
souri, (Mr LINN to the case of the Nj
chlgan boundary. He had no doubt
that his friend had touched the right
chord, when the decision of that ques-
ton had been ascribed, in some de-
gree, to the number of electoral votes
controlled by the State of Ohio, Indi-
ana and Illinois, upon that occasion.
lie had, however, risen to second the
motion of the Senator from Alabama
for the printing and reference of the
letter of the Delegate form Iowa. 1t
was. he believed, couched in respect
full language. It had relation to a
boundary line between that Territory
and Missouri, in which the People Of
Iowa had an important interest. He
protested against the idea that they
had no interest in the question. Itap-
] peared, from the whole action of this
Government, that the Territories OF
! the Union possessed neither rights nor
interests OF any kind. He trusted that
such a doctrine would be no longer
entertained. In the present cuntro.
versy, he confessed his sympathies to
/ be with the People of Iowa, but not
he hoped. so deeply enlisted as to in.
duce him to do injustice to Missouri.
| Mr. Linn said perhaps he had com.
f mitted an error in his language; but
} he merely meant to say that, as a par.
ty to this question, Iowa had no in.
!, terest in it. Asa question to be set.
tied, it lay wholly between the Unit.
: ed States and Missouri. And would
any body now say that the decision
, of Congress on this question would
: be binding on Missouri? Would any
one say that Missouri could be torced
: into acquiescence to it? The ultimate
}, appeal was beyond the reach of Con
, gress, and if Congress did not settle
it, the courts was open. Mr. l.. pre-
: ferred that Congress should settle it
i but if they determined that Missouri
: had no rig hit whatever to the terrific
S ry, the decision would be met by ;
q spirit of resistance on the part of Mis-
: souri,.
: Mr. Allen said he was not aware
!, that the subject Of Presidential cleo
: tors had any thing to do with the case
of the Michigan boundary. He was
then member Of the House of Re.
: personalities, and in speech at that
time, he had taken the same ground
: which he should take now; that after
: the settlement of the controversy
: Michigan had only resulting contin.
: gent interest in the question; but, as
: party to the controversy, she had
t no interest at all; the question was
: wholly between Ohio and this Gov,
: eminent.
! But Mr. A. had now risen chiefly
! to express his dissent from the doc.
trine of the Senator from Missouri
:. as to final appeal on this question,
I The United States Supreme Cour,
: had no jurisdiction over this question
s by the Constitution, and into that ju.
| risdiction it would not drawn. Il
was a question between sovereign
: powers, with which that Court hao
5 no right to interfere either directly
: or indirectly.
T; Mr. A. would remark, further, thai
ne had never looked at this question
: as to the right Of Missouri or the
f United States to this territory. Blu
he hoped Congress would act on thi.
! subject purely in reference to suct
right as should be found to exist il
the formation of the Constitution o
: Missouri, and without'any reference
: whatever to the Presidential election
: If Missouri had a right to the terrific
: ry, let her have it, without setting W
, as scare-crow the Presidential cleo
!. ton. Let her have exact and equa
b justice. :.
r Mr. Buchanan said this was purely
: a judicial question, and one which re
| quired the Senate to act upon it will
a perfect calmness and deliberation
: They would hear both sides; and j
their decision should terminate tn
j. controversy, it ought to be by it
0 moral weight and strict Partially, al
e terra thorough and calm investigation
e But what was now to be seen? Tn
E question was introduced as to wheth
E er the Supreme court would have j.
E risdiction in this if it should be decid
; ed against Missouri. Gould it be Q
Il any earthly benefit to Missouri to de
d eide this question in advance? Mr. B