The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-28

4 pdasl
qvaintance, and had been here, of and on, Tor many
years. Il may have heretofore escaped the particu-
lar notice and passed. but he thought never, al any
lime when proper attention was called TO the SUBJ
ject il had met the sanction of the Senate and new
ef could unless by that perseverance, which over.
comes all sorts Of resistance, II shall wear itself
away by the force Of airilion, through this house
! Mr.. ATHERTON supposed that this claim,
! though small 10 amount, for that reason was none
! the less deserving of the serious consideration Of
the SenAtei was he that Il less
deserving of consideration because II was claim
presented from the Stale Of New Hampshire. Ii he
understood the senator from Ken.ucky, he Mr.
CRlITENDESl grounded his remarks on the lnioTma'
ton which he drew from the observations OF the
senator from Vermont, Mr.. PHELPs That sena-
tor placed his objections TO the bill on one ground
alone, so far as he (Mr. Az was aware.
| His objection was, that this was claim OF
| New Hampshire for sustaining the jurisdiction Of
| the State within territory where her jursdIc-
uon was not disputed. Now, If the ground taken
by the failed the objection to this bill failed
To show eonelusiVey the Senate that the senator
| from Vermont was mistaken in his views, he (Mr.
/ Al had applied to the State Department, and OBJ
taiLed copies of a correspondence which took place
between II and the Canadian authorities, from which
il appeared that two difficulties grew out OF the at
| tempt on the part Of the Canadian authorities TO
exercise jurisdiction over territory which had never
i been disputed until the King Of the Netherlands
| had awarded il 10 Great Britain. From the time
of its settlement, New Hampshire had always ex-
ercised her jurisdiction. II appeared that the officer
| not only undertook TO serve the warrant from the
Canad ian magistrate, but undertook TO arrest the
persons who had served the process Of the State Of
| New Hampshire. A warrant was issued by Mr..
Ray, a magistrate of Canada, for the apprehension
Of three persons--two them citizens OF the United
| States, the other an inhabtant OF Craven, or
IDdisn stream territory Blanchard was arrested on
this warrant, issuing from the Canadian magistrate,
| and rescued by the Inhabitants. How, then, could
il be said the difficulty did not grow out Of the at
tempt to exercise jurisdiction by the Canadian
authorities' There was no pretended" warrant,
| as minated by the senator from Vermont, so far
as the facts we're concerned. Commissioners were
appointed by the governor Of Canada to in.
quire into the circumstances, and they report.
ed that the difficulty grew out Of the fact
that warrant was issued by Canadian magis-
trates for the arrest Blanchard and Lord Gosford,
and others, said that il grew out Of the attempts
of New Hampshire, Notwithstanding repeated
| remonstTances of the British government, TO
enforce its laws and sovereignty over territory
yielded by Great Britain its "Ouginal posses
j sor." Mr. A. read from documents in proof of this
and after other remarks, asked whether It could be
denied that the difficulty from the assertion Of
the right of the Canadian authorities TO exercise iu-
risdicion the territory. He proceeded TO show
that the ground taken by the senator from Vermont
was unsupported by the facts of the case Here
was Il cor tIct OF lursdictIon-not a pretended war
rant" ii recognised as a real warrant issued by
the Canadian magistrate, and had been pronoun-
Il ced by the British minister, and by the governor
general of Canada. In conclusion, he asked for the
yeas and nays.
/ Mr.. PHELPS was not disposed to 90 into the
discussion of the subject again. A few days since
he made some remarks, putting his objection to the
bill on the ground that II simply to defray the
expense incurred by New Hampshire in enforcing
ITS authority or jurisdiction over the territory He
had nothing 10 add to what he then said EXCEPT to
ITall he he fact hat
ing the controversy, an application made TO the
general government, desiring its interference in
| the matter. He had before him the response Of the
Secretary of State dated the I'd of January, 1886
in which that gentleman said al have to add in an
| swer TO the suggestion contained IN your COMMUNE
cation, that necessity is believed to exist at pres
sent for the interference Of the general government
in the manner proposed" Now, in this aspect Of
the subject the question arose. whether the general
government would assume the expense of the mill
tary expedition, when an application had been made
to the general government, in the first instance and
declined. Ii seemed to him, after this most decisive
f answer given by the Secretary of State after the
general government had declined to interfere in the
matter, New Hampshire had no claim.
Mr.. CRITTENDEN said he found, by the state
ment of the senator from New Hampshire, that the
dispute about the territory accompanied by
nothing Of hostile or military character, but civil
strife by officers of the law. Why call out the mill
taryi To resist the invasion of officer, with the
pay the fee bilR That was the amount of it, If we
were to pay this claim, he did not know where the
matter TO end. His friends from Rhode Island,
New Jersey, &c, had had internal troubles, and
about jurisdiction. We had been told, too, of naval
engagements, III which whole hota had been
captured by the enemy; and this was far more
important than the border war of New Hamp-
shire. He hoped we would not undertake to
pay the claim. If bill was brought in for
every time Kentuckians called out to resist in
> k,, aI,,ta. L.. 7.
dams, with tomahawks and guns it would amount to
pretty good sum. He would make it point Of
honor and right and stand on the ninth part of hair
he would not vote a cent, not a silver Missouri
had had her Mormon war; but had she asked the
government to defray her expenses The invasion
was carried on in New Hampshire by constables
and refugees, who claimed an asylum under one
government or the other as suited their purposes
When the military called out in the face OF
the refusal OF the general government to interfere,
there was no necessity for it. In this case, not q
human being was called to arms on the side Of the
invaders 1t was an invasion by warrant and a
constable! No matter what the governor general
4 said, we could not be made to pay. He was glad
the yeas and nays had been called and expressed
the hope that there would be final decision this
matter.
i Mr. WESTCOTT regarded this as case which
peculiarly called on the government to reimburse Ia
New Hampshire the amount asked for by the bill
She was frontier State, and every inch of the ter.
OF the frontier Sn0uQ be protected.
The PRESl DENT announced the question
Shall this bill be engrossed for third readngl and
the question being taken it was decided in the mega
tive yeas 10, nays %, as follows:
| YEAs-Messrs. Allen, Ashley. Atchison, Atherton
Benton Bright Cameron Cass Chalmers Coqui Dickin
SON Dix, Fairfield Lewis. Niles, speght, Wesco, and
Yulee-ls.
NAYs-Messrs. Archer Bagby, Bsrrien, Thomas Clay
ton John NJ Clayton Corwin Crittenden, Evans Greene
Hannegan Huntington Jarnagin johnson, of Louisiana
McDufie, Mangum Miller, rearce, Pennybacker, Phelps
Sturgeon Turney, and Upham-22.
tNoTE-The reporter is informed by the secretary
of the Senate, that Mr.. STURGEON will tomorrow
ask correction of his vote, which, as above ia re-
) corded in the negative. Mr.. s. having voted, or
intended to vote, in the affirmative
AUGMENTATION OF THE NAVAL FORCE OF THE UNITED
Il STATES.
Il The Senate then resumed the consideration OF the
following bill reported by Mr.. FAIRFIELD from the
Committee on Navel Affairs, and the amendment
offered thereto by Mr.. HANNEekN
BILL providing for the augmentation Of the naval force
i of the United States and for other purposes: