Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-06-29

wish To buy it, for the have given If you have
not title, then are we toPay you millions for that which you
do not own How can we justify ourselves to our con-
situens In such case repeat you have the title keep
it. and II you have not ask how justify ourselves in
paying millions for a thing which you do not own
The only ground on which you base plausible foun-
dalton on which to make you handsome payment is that
there some uncertainty this thing; that there Is some
doubt aboutit that the minds Of may honestly differ and
tell my friend from Texas when he gets up and makes such
speeches az he has made this floor, there be no
doubt about It, Just in proportion you assert thing OF
that Sort take from the foundation on which stand
to make this compromise and to make you liberal allowance
for settlement your title be good you say is do
not want to buy it. would just that Texas should
have this territory the United States because see difficult
ties which are likely grow Of it, make this statement
for the purpose of showing that my friend ought not to be SO
confdent that he ought allow honest difference of opn
ion that ne ought not place in the preacameno fraud
ulen taking possession of country which did not belong
to u.s. simply desire that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
RUsK) will be liberal enough, he will when be
reflects to concede that there honesty both Sides and that
men may honestly differ ABOUT these matters which trust
may Y settle Hs,sv
Mr. UNDERWOOD. And hope will be liberal
enough in voting to you all your possessions from the north
of the Rio Gande up New Mexico and then hope we
will settle all upon proper basis But s with these re-
marks in relation to the speech Of the Senator from Texas, al
low me to take up the view presented by the Senator from
Virginia
Now sir had supposed that in forming the Government
OF the United States, great object Of the constitution was
to have boodless settlement of controversies between the
different States composing the Union. There could be No
such bloodes settlement Of unless there should
be tribunal organized with authority to decide authors
avey upon the controversies brought before that tribunal
The constitution organized such tribunal expressly pro-
vdes that between the States the Supreme Court shall settle
all their controversies and have already had Of
settling controversies between the States and which, perhaps
such tribunal to settle them Now, is it an indgny the
States that their controversies should be settled in that way
Certainly Sir, the Supreme Court has been most adm
aby organized and composed under the constitution Of the
United States to discharge all those functions with the most
perfect mparaly the different States of the confederacy
The members composing that court citizens owing ale
glance the States well to the United States and
hold the doctrine that owe double allegiance according
to the division of between the States and the National
Government and this supreme tribunal organized by the
selection Of citizens from different States owing this allegiance
the States, having their symPathies with the States well
with the General Government placed in position to
be precise and impartial Now, s is it any derogation from
the dignity of State of Nation to submit matter Of
controversy tribunal thus constituted Sir from time
mmemora has been the practice Of nations to submit
roveres arbitration, either to the heads Of other nations
powerful and intelligent party agreed upon by both
We did this reference the northeastern boundary And
is there any indignity in submitting which has arisen
in midst to the Supreme Court any than there
would be in submitting to the arbitration of foreign poten
tate There be nothing of the kind subscribe sir
the doctrine enunciated by Patrick Henry know that
you cannot sue the United States unless the United States
be sued subscbe the doctrine of the Sena
tor from South Carolina on that question. Sir is one of
the qualities Of sovereignty not to be sued unless she pease
But il any degradation when she consents to submit to be
sued
Mr. MASON. Does the Senator from Kentucky mean to
contend that consent given by this bill will confer jurisdiction
upon the court
Mr. UNDERWOOD. will come to that directly. will
show that this bill will give jurisdiction to the Supreme
Court wish obviae all idea that there any thing de-
grading to the States in all this; for am as unwilling as
the Senator from Virginia 10 do any thing that would be de-
grading the United States State and If thought
that my amendment could operate to be degrading
either to the National State character, would withdraw
in moment.
It is that part of my amendment which gives the consent
of the United States to be sued which allows the Supreme
has been laid down by the Senators from Virginia and
South Carolina that subject. 1t is the consent alone
which gives Jurisdiction and the right to bring suit against
the United States But sir while this is the with the
United States is not necessary have the consent of
State. The Constitution is express that between the
States themselves constituting part of the confederacy be-
tween State Of the United States and foreign State,
suit in the Supreme Court may be instituted whether that
State will or will not consent.
Now sir the doctrine laid down by the Senator
from Virginia. SO far to admit that citizen of the United
States State without the consent Of that State
But sir, in my parent Statehe good Old Dominion-there
is q constitutional provision that she may be sued.
Mr. MASON tits not constitutional provisions IT is a
law.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Then am glad that, without
constitutional provision, such the law Then, sir, would
ask does she regard herself degraded by the passage Of law
to allow her citizens bring suits against her to obtain
tain rights Not at all If she through mere sense of
Justice her citizens has authorized that suits may be brought
against herself for the purpose of asserting individual rights
how be that the State of Texas would be degraded BY
bringing asut against the United States to settle such
roversy My friend from Texas this OCCASION think is
wrong feeling that degradation where intended
and where think will result.
Now, to the question of Jurisdiction: The Constitution
gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction originally in all cases
between two States gives the judicial
dicton in all between two Of them and gives
the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in all cases where
party this controversy. must be party is an nde
pendent party Inasmuch therefore, by the Constitution
of the United States the Supreme Court has original uris-
diction where the State is party follows as an inevitable
consequence that you cannot institute this suit any where ex
cept in the Supreme Court and you take there because OF
the constitutional provision which gives that court usdic
ton The judicial power, have already stated, extends
to all cases where the United States are party
Now, sir, if in reference to the States OF the United
States the judiciary would within the denomination of
foreign State-and in reference to transactions between
the States, every other State is regarded foreign State
if in the the United States for judicial purposes
comes within the appeaon Of foreign State in reference
to Texas there express declaration OF the constitution
that the Supreme Court shall have power to settle this con-
oversy between the United States and Texas But whether
that the not hold that the Supreme Court should
usdcon because is expressly stipulated that it shall
have it in all where State is party. Now, know
that Texas could the United States than an n
dvdua could without the consent of the United States
granted to it. Is much supreme in reference to States It
he