The New York herald., 1850-06-13

butipg 10 the tranquility of States which are al
dy tranquil, the happiness of people who are al
ready happy, the settlement of questions in which
she has no concern, and the formation Of com
promises which breed new quarrels IN assuming to
settle old ones.
The Texas boundary question is next thrust into
the bill-a compact with State put into law for
the life of another And veto upon the admission
OF Caliio rnia given 10 Texas This is monstrosty
OF which there Is no example in the history OF our
legislation The reasons given Tor by the commit,
and municipal, and of geography and history. They
assume a controversy between New Mexico aud
Texas No such thing. New Mexico belongs
TO the United States, and the controversy rs win
the United States. They assume there is no
way TO settle this controversy but by compact
with Texas, This is another great mist axe.
There are three ways 10 settle II hrs', ana oes',
by compact secondly, by suit in the Supreme
ing a government TO New Mexico, according
10 her actual extent when the UGited States ac-
qumed her, and holding on TO that until the question
Of title is de ecded, either auiicaby by contract, or
legally by the Supreme Court. The fundamental
error of the committee is in supposing that New
Mexico is party 10 this controversy with Texas.
No such thing, New Mexico is only the John
Dee OF the concern. That error corrected and all
the reasoning of the committee falls to the ground;
for The judicial power Of the United States ex-
tends 10 all controversies to which the United
States are party, and the original Jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court extends 10 all cases TO which
state Is party. This brings the case bang up
At once within the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, without waiting for the consent of Texas,
or waiting for New Mexico 10 grow up into State,
so To have suit between Two States; and SO
there is no danger Of collision, as the committee
SUPPOSE, and make an argument for their Bill in
Ihe danger there Is TO New Mexico from this ap-
pretended collision Ii any take place, it will be
a collision with the United States, to whom the
territory of New Mexico belongs; and she will
know how TO prevent this collision--irst, by Of
lerng what is not only Just, but generous TO Texas;
and next, IA defending her territory from in
yaeiOn, and her people from violence.
These are the reasons for tbrusting Texas, with
all her niultifarous questions into the California
bill and reduced to their essence, they argue thus:
Utah must 90 in because she binds upon California;
New Mexico must go in because she binds upon
Utah: and Texas must go in because she binds upon
New Mexico. And thus poor California is cram
med and gorged until she is about in the condition
that Jonah would have been in if he had swallowed
the whale instead of the whale swallowing him.
This opens new chapter in legislative ratocina-
ton. il substitutes conguiy of territory for con-
eIuiiy OF matter, and makes geographical afinties
the rule oi legislative conjunctions.
Upon that principle the committee might have
gone on, examining other bills into the California
BILL all over the United States; for all territory
is binding in some one part upon another Upon
that principle the District of Columbia slave trade
suppression bill might have been inerjected: for,
though not actually binding upon Texas, yet it
binds upon land that binds upon land that does bind
upon her. So of the fugitive slave BILL For let
still be on land, and, that being the case, the ter
ritorial conguty be established which justilies the
legislative conjunction.
Mr.. President, the moralist informs us tia, there
are some subjects too light for reason-too grave
for ridicule; and in such cases the mere moralst
may laugh or cry, as he deems best. But not so
with the legislator His business is not laughing
or crying. g.-Whimpering, or simperng, Is not his
mission. Work is his vocation, and gravity his
vein; and in that vein proceed to consider this
inteuection Of Texas, with all her multfarious
questions, into the bowels Of the California bill.
In the first place. this Texas bill is compact,
depending for its validity on the consent of Texas,
and rs put into the California bill part Of a
compromise and general settlement OF all the
slavery questions; and, OF course, the whole must
siand together, or fall together. This gives Texas
veto upon The admission Of California. This is
unconstitutional, as well "a unjust; for, by the
constitution, new States are 10 be admitted by
Congress, and not by another State; and, there
fore, Texas should not have a veto upon the
presents great many serious questions Of her own,
sorne OF them depending upon compact already
existing with the United Sates-many OF them con-
cefnlpg the United Staics-onc concerning New
Mexico--bnt no one reaching To CalifsrDis She
has question Of boundary Dominally with New
Mexico, in reality with the United States, as the
owner OF New Mexico; and tha, might be- a reason
for joining her in bill, so far "a that boundary is
concerned, with New Mexico: but il can be no
reason for joining her 10 California. The western
boundary of Texas i the point of collison with
stead OF proposing suitable boundary between
them, adopted To localities, or leaving To each its
actual possessions disturbing no interest, until the
decision OF title upon the uniVer principle OF Hti
possid,fis: instead Of these obvious and natural
remedies, the plan of the committee cuts deep into
the actual possessions cf the United States IN New
Mexico, rousing the question which the commit
tee PROCESSES 10 avoid-ihe question OF extending
slavery, ard disturbing the whole United states.
Mr.. Benton then goes on to show, 81 length, and
with copious quotation Of authorities, III Il the
1.fst
Texas aud the United States, and that the judicial
power Of the United States has jurisdiction Of il.
Again. possession il title until the righ, is tried; and
the niied States having the possession, may give
government at once. according 10 the possession,
and then wait the decision Of title. lie shows that
New Mexico, or rather the United States, has ac-
tual possession and that IL hes right TO it until the
question Of iiil, i decided. THIS possession, he
insists. has bceH continuous from the conquest of
the country, in l5.J, io the present time, and he
shows II ts reference 20 maps and historical records.
To show, hc says, that the committee eIc totally
mistaken IN law, IN assuming The consent OF
Texas to be Indispensable Ia the settlement of the
title, say there are ihiee ways 10 settle 1.-THE
fret and best, by compact, az proposed before
Texas was annexed. and again by bill Of this
year: next, 10y suit in The Supreme Court, under
that clause in the constitution which extends the
iuoicia power Of the UnitcdStaes 10 al conirover-
se- 10 which The niied states is party, and that
other clause which gives the Supreme Court orici-
nal jurisdiction of all cases to which state is a
party tie third way il for the United States to
give a government 10 New Mexico according 10
the territory she Possessed when she ceded TO
the nited States. These are the three ways 10
settle the gnestion-one Of them totally dependent
IN The will Of TeNas-onc totally independent Of
her will-snd one independent OF her viii until she
chooses 10 90 into court. As 10 anything that Tex
~ or New Mexico may do in taking or rcnquish-
ing possession. IL u all moonshine. New Mexico
- territory of The United States. She is the
property Of the United states aud she cannot dis
purpore of herself. or any part OF herself nor can
Texas take her. or any Part of her. She j. TO
stand as she did the day the United States &C.
guired her
This possession cannot b. disturbed without
raising the double question. frat, of actual eten-
sion OF slavery; and. secondly Of the present legal
existence of slavery IN all New Ncxico east of the
Rio Gfaudc. us fatt Of Texas. These are the
questions which the proposed line Of the committee
ruisc. and force US 10 face. They are no, qucs-
tions 81 my seeking. bni shall not avoid them. II
!. not a new question with me, this extension Of
slavery IN TINT quarter. me, IL IN Is4t, before the
annexation of Texas. On the 10Th day of June, Of
that year. and as part oi bill lor compact with
Tcies, end Ia settle sli questions with hcr-thc
NefN ones which now perplex us-bs,orc she was