Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1846-09-04
NEW SEysIES,---No. IA.

Mr.. Moreleld followed in defence OF the
laims, and in condemnation Of the veto.
And the question being put Shall this bill
Ass, notwithstanding the objections oftha Pea
'ident ?" it was d'cidel by yeas and nays as fol-
ows yeas 81, nays l5 go,
There not being two-thirds in the aiirmatWe
| he bill did not pass.
NEGOTIATION WITH MEXICO. -
Mr.. Lewis moved that the Senate tnke nnfor
| consideration the bill from the house. entitled
e An act making further provision for the eX-
| lenses attending the intercourse between the
United States and foreign nations" and de-
manie1 the yeas and nays upon hi; motion.
The bill, having been read first and second
inc, bcing then before Senate as in committee
of the whole
Mr.. Lewis moved to strike out the proviso
which had been added to The bill in tbs House Of
Representatives and which i as follows:
P,ocidcd, That as an express AMI Fundamental
condition to the acquisition o any territory nom the
Republic Of Mexico By the United Sut,s by yirtu: Of
any treaty which may be negotiated between them,
and 10 the use by the Executive Of I'd. monies herein
appropriated, neither slavery nor Involuntary serv
tuIe shall exist in any part OF said territory, eH
vic.ei."
Mr.. Davis slil he should ike 10 hear some
reason assigned Tor striking ont this proviso.
Mr. Lewis said there was no time now for CIV
iIg reasons or making explanations.
Nj. Davis observed tina. this seemed like le-
gslatng upon high degree Of steam pressure.
he then proceeded to examine the details Of the
bill. 1t proposed first. as he understood il, to
appropriate thirty thousand do'l4rs for the pur-
pose Of negotiating with Mexico, and atterward
, it proposed 70 add two millions Of dollars fer
, so.netling like the same purpose. He inquired
! why il was necessary that there should bc the
enormous appropriation OF two millions Of dollars
for The purpose Of negotiating n treaty with
Mexico. IL asked, aud he thought he he'd
some right to denlnd. some explanation Of a
provision cf this description, when it was clear
II understood here and oyervwhcre throughout
this country that the United States was not tie
debtor OF Mcxico--that she had no pecnniary
claims upon this country whatever. On the
contrary. it was altered as one Of the reasons
1 why this country should make war ar4in=t tlat
: Republic TIA, she was largely indebted TO the
=, United States. A rcfu-a' on her part to make
d prompt payment Of tac.c d7btr was alleged as
one Of the causes # tie hOs,ililics which now
: exists.
n What. then warc the tv) millions Of dQ,ilrs
wanted FIR? Cartlinig Mt fl the purpose f
5, cancelhng N obligation existing between rs
e and her. WdEt. tlen is it. purpose It hls
: been minated that It to be appropriated f-r
n the purpo-e Of acquiring adltJua, rritory :
i and, if he could understand another section Of
= the bill rightly. Che meant that one which was
now proposed 70 be stricken out) that wa the
P object. And OF what possible utility he asked,
= WIS tito the United Statos to lure further
e casaicns @: territory? Hw long was it since
J. the question # the annexation Of Texas had
IA ceased - agtatc the public mind How ,oGr
n was it since the p.bc i,elin. had boea mani
w f,7.,i upon tls- POM, th.t the b1u,,,r, Of 1Ic
u United states had ben extended a. FIR ., u
! was desirable that It should at present be c.;-erd-
I'd e.
+: But i return to the enquiry. why should ths
Q, clause be stricken out Iae House Of Repre-
n ser;ativos has socn lit "a n-cr, in the bill hat.
if there be an acquisition Of territory iuvoun-
Is tary servitlie snail not exist within that terrific
'e ~. Now should like to hear some reasons if
4 there be any. why it should exist
u Whcrc y the ambition of t.s couutrv-of
II this O3ycrnnent--CorL to lead us F.? What is
"a going to lie acquired! Why. 1t has been stated
II as matter OF public ruuor that we are to uc-
qUirc Ca.tornd--that that region of country IS
re to be attached to the United States, and a new
batch of states to be constituted Now | ask
on what foundation does this supposition rest
O. that it viii be agreeable 10 Mexico to negotiate
Q, for the surrender Of California! l. any rentle-
H. man prepared to state to Us that there has been
Of any intimlti5n on thu part Of the Government
D. OF the Republic of Mexico of Il desire to part
re with any portion of her territory ! have
n heard Of none. sir. On the CONTRARY there has
p seemed al all times to be a very anxious desire
l. existing in that country to muintuin it, ipterr-
n " a. it is. have noticed recently that there
z has been some attempt made TO negotiate with
= Of The provinces cf Mexico that i said t. be
in state oi revolt mean Yucu;an The
ST answer was a singular one. Il was. if ! an
IS correctly informed" that they had no Ill Dos-
sc ton to reHn1ui-h the connection which thov had
le with Mexico. as to the integrity OF the nation
n They chose still 10 recognize Mexican iUrSdic-