The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-27

II sired 10 understand his colleague he did not I'M
: derstand him when he says ne VIII not repeat the
i conversation which had with him, or with others
z of my colleagues. Now, he certainly knows that
remark Of that sort is calculated 10 create improper
' impressions, much than If he were TO re-
\ peat any conversations may have had with him.
z do not now remember what may have said TO
him; bat state to my colleagues and 70 the commit
tee that said nothing to him in private, To any
1 of my colleagues, which ia Inconsistent with the
position have assumed now and previously.
Mr.. CHAPMAN. understood my colleague, then,
as he was reported-that Is thar he wanted TO limit
the bill 20 the joint occupancy 30 did others un-
r derstand him.
Mr. HousroE said he had not read his remarks
as reported, nor did he generally read the reports.
But he found that his remarks were correctly TO
ported that when the time came for the expiration
Of the treaty, they all contemplated further legisa.
: ton, and knew II TO be necessary. He did not
mean to say that this bill would absolutely expire
then, but simply that it would be suspended by fur
Their legislation.
Me-. CHAPMAN. take the gentleman by what he
4 says himself as reportedj he admits that he u cor
REILLY reported and il is fsly thai he is msre-
ported, as he sits within fe~ eet OF the reporters.
have said that was gratihed when my colleague
moved his amendment with the avoWed purpose Of
limiting the operation Of the bill to our own citizens
Ito the time OF the joint oceupaneyto conform the
h bill to It's title. regret to learn from him that
his object was not as | supposed, not declared by
him at the time TO me to be his object. Then, what
object had he In offering the amendment have
shown that 1t would not change the bill in any way
that its operation would be the same vih the
amendment as Sithotl t. The amendment would
render the bill Objectionable in this that IL
serves TO conceal what without Il is ayowed. The
title ofthe bill is calculated as have shown, To mis-
lead us as 10 It's object the first section goes beyond
the title. My colleag Ies amendment only serves
still TO keep up the deception, although am sure he
would not Intentionally practice such deception.
| will not believe for a moment that the committee
who reported this bill intended to practice any de.
cepton upon the House by giving it false title
much less will suppose that in adding the tail
which my colleague proposes 10 cut oil, they acted
as horse jockey who puts the price OF his horse
ten dollars in addition, to fall, If il becomes neces-
saTy, IN order TO effect sale. But will say that
the bill ought TO conform TO its title, especially in
so important particular. Bills are often read
here by their titles, and sometimes passed by their
titles, without further examination. The first sec
ton Of the bill, then, is highly Objectionable: FIRST
because Il extends our laws over British subjects
after the twelve months notice, in violation Of our
treaty supulatons because II holds out threat TO
Great Britain that shall take possession Of the
whole territory, when we have, for nearly half a
century, recognised her joint right TO occupy it,
Such measure at this time following the notice
we have authorized, will, in my Judgment, seri-
1 ousy embarrass the President in his efforts TO set
tie the dIthcuty by negotiation il II does not bring
war. Secondly, object to that section, Mr..
Chairman, because 1t proposes to extend the uris
4 dlcton and laws Of the Territory Of Iowa. not only
as they nop erist, but also such may be passed
by the authorities in Iowa hereafter, over the
whole territory OF Oregon up TO the Russian line;
thus transferring from Congress to that Territory
the delicate power Of legisatng for territory
which a foreign government claims equal rights
I Of occupancy. This power is too important to be
transferred; II 10 power to MAKE toar, which we
have no right 10 delegate to Iowa. Ii 10 too i'm
portant to be exercised, except in the very last
resort, by ourselves. II should never be trans
ferred.
Ii has been said, Mr. Chairman, that this bill has
been so framed ss 70 commit sslwho VOTE for it to
the doctrine Of the "whole Of Oregon or none e"
This has been boldly avowed here, but cannot ad-
nit such construction, although oppose the bill
If such committal could egitimatey, Il would con-
sttute with me an insurmountaLle objection TO the
bill; for my policy has always been to leave the
President altogether free and unfetered by esisla-
tion to settle the matter by negotiation. And who
can expect him to compromise the question il we
vote for bill asserting our rights tn the whole'
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr.. CoBB, ! in his
speech few days ago gave US his opinion as TO
the effect of voting for this bill. He stated (f
did not misunderstood him. that those who believe
in clear right TO the whole territory could very
consistently vote for it; could those who be-
lieved in our perfect title up to ago, and our
better title the res but that those who only be-
ieve that we have right up to the 49th degree and
are willing to compromise at that line, cannot con-
sistenty vote for this BILL and if they do, they ar
committed to $40 40'. As | am opposed to COM
hitting myself upon questions Of much impor-
lance until there is necessity for it, will save
such construction, far as | am concerned, by
denying the conclusion. The gentleman failed alto
gether in convincing me by his argument that such
a conclusion was legitimate his rule, to be good
one, ought at least to work both ways. 1t has also
been contended that all who voted for the bill off
last session committed themselves to $40 4U. This
conclusion ia much more reasonable, as that bill
expressly defined our limits to that latitude, organ
lied separate territorial government throughout,
and had the notice incorporated in it; in all which
it differed from this bill. will not undertake to
say, nor do believe, that those who voted for that
bill intended to commit themselves to $40 4V. That
bill was hurried through without much considcra-
ton. Many members who voted for it, | know,
have regretted the vote since they have examined
its provisions | confess that I had not an oppor- |
tunity Of examining it as well as | desired Act
ing therefore, upon the safe rule of voting against
such measures as have not chance to examine,
as well as such as disapprove of, voted against
! A voice. "You acted on the masterly-inactivity
principle VI
Mr.. CHAPMAN. No; am not one of your mas |
terly-lnactivity men; but had rather remain mac
tive-had rather vote against measure have not
fully examined, or as to the policy of which doubt,
than to vote blindy or doubtngly.
/ Mr.. Chairman, to the fourth section Of this bill | |
object. That section provides that hereafter there
shall be granted to each settler in Oregon eigh-
teen years ofage, three hundred and twenty and to
all under that age, one hundred and sixty of
land. Now, all whe know me, and my uniform
course here, can testify to my zeal in behalf of the
settlers on the public landslide adventurous and
worthy pioneers in new country enabling
them to obtain their lands even toithoa price. But
cannot see how grants can be made in Oregon con-
sisently with our treaty, so long as the joint occu-
patton continues and until the Indian title is extin-
guished. The President very justly says, that after
these difficulties removed, it will be proper to make
liberal grants of land to the settlers. He does not
recommend it TO be done nop, because it is a viola
uon of the treaty. In fact, by expressing his
opinion that it will be proper to do it AFTER the
difficulties referred to removed, he expresses
the belief, that without violation Of the treaty
it cannot be done before. But it is said that the
bill does not grant, but promises hereafter that
land shall be granted. Is there not an obligation
incurred by the government II So it is as binding
an nbsnIute prant I hard NV friend from, Genr-