Iowa territorial gazette and advertiser., 1845-06-28


quest was reasonable one, and inasmuch
as compliance with It would not have
involved the government in the expendi-
ture Of single dollar not already appro-
priated, l entertained the opinion that but
little opposition would be made to it.
brought the subject before Congress at an
early day of last session, but soon ascer-
tanned that my hopes Of success were not
likely to be realized. The diversion was
opposed on the ground Of the precedent it
would furnish; and although, from the ma
ture OF the case, similar state of things
could probably never again occur, it was
contended that compliance with the re-
quest Of our Legislature would not only
commit the government in favor of all sim
liar applications from new States entering
the Union, but would constitute the basis
OF similar claim from the States which
have heretofore been admitted, and would
thus entail new and endless expense
upon the treasury. These arguments de-
feated the proposition, greatly to my re-
gret. The members of the convention had
an honest and equitable claim upon the
Territory for their services, apd it would
have given me great pleasure to have been
instrumental in speedy liquidation Of the
debt.
| AN act was passed at the session before
the last for the final and peaceable settlement
OF our boundary difficulty with Missouri,
and an appropriation of four thousand dol
lars was made 10 carry it into effect. I'm
der the provisions of this law, the matter
in dispute was to be left to the decision Of
Commissioners, and the Legislature OF
Missouri was required to pass an act
agreeing to abide BY the award of the Com
missioners. With this requisition the
! Legislature complied, but unfortunately
for the settlement of the question, the
Governor of Missouri vetoed the BILL
But for the refusal Of the authorities of
that State to comply with the law of Con-
gress, all our border difficulties would ere
this time have probably been adjusted.
Besides several other bills of local i'm
portance. to which it is too tedious for me to
refer, there were two Of general character
to which much ofmy time and attention was
devoted. allude to the one for our ad-
mission in connexion with that of Florida;
and to the supplemental bill which provided
for the due execution of the laws of the
United States within our State, and making
us grants Of lands, &c., both Of which
passed the two houses of Congress, but
were rendered imperative by the rejection
Of our Constitution at the April election
"a result which all candid minds must
admit was produced by the unlocked for
alteration and reduction in the boundaries
of our contemplated State. Although we
rejected the terms upon which Congress
offered us admission, as it was our right
and duty to do if we thought them not to be
such as would promote our growth and
prosperity, l mention these acts Of Con-
gress for the purpose, among others, of
saying that their passage was attended
with no slight labor and difficulty. The
past Congressional history of the country
shows that there is much and bitter oppo-
sition to the admission of new members
into the confederacy. A majority Of the
Committee on Territories, to whom the
subject Of the admission of Iowa and
Florida was referred, was composed Of
members from the South or slave-holding
portion Of the Union. The Delegate from
Florida, supported by the members from
the South, brought forward proposition
for the prospective division of that State,
although its whole territory was three
thousand square miles less than that en-
braced within the constitutional bounda-
ries Of Iowa. The object Of this move
being palpably to increase the number Of
slave States and the weight Of slave rep
resentation in Congress, it of course met
with the warm opposition Of the members
from the non-slaveholding States; and, as
counter movement, they came forward with
a similar proposition in regard to Iowa.
After being fully, freely, and even angri-
ly discussed, at various meetings Of the
committee, the result was that the propo-
sition to divide Florida was carried, and
that looking to similar division Of Iowa
rejected, by a strictly sectional voie.
1t was here that discovered for the
first time, and with feelings of the deepest
modification, fixed determination on the
part Of the members from the free States,
and especially those coming from the West,
to disregard our wishes in relation to our
State boundaries, and to impose upon US,
as far as their action could do SO, lines
considerably curtailed and mutilated.-
When the bill came into the House, where
the relative strength Of sectional parties
was reversed, the action of the committee
was overruled by large majority; the
clause looking to the division Of Florida,
as soon as she numbered certain popula-
ton, was stricken out, and the boundaries
Of Iowa, in opposition to my earnest pro-
test, were subjected to considerable cur
tail,nent. The arguments adduced and in
fuences brought to bear in etfecting this
result were briefly adverted to BY me in a
letter which l addressed to you from
Washington, Immediately after the ad.
journment Of Congress, and it is not neces-
sary that should now repeat them. 1t is
proper to say, however, that | did moi
yield to any Of these arguments or inAu.
ences; but in every stage of the proceed.
| ing maintained and defended the bounda.
| ries Of the constitution--the boundaries
then thought and still regard as the bes
that have been proposed. Inclination, a.
well as sense of duty to those repre-
sented, impelled me to this course; and