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

position TO decide disputes between the Government OF which
is part and the members Of that Government.
the Federal Government could have judicial sanction for oil
the powers may exercise might have an easy process TO
Bot it is said that in questions of boundary there
would not be much danger Of usupaton Of power re-
member reading of Roman emperor, who, in certain
struggle. said be yielded inch Of territory would de-
eide the fate of the empire So in this If you yield any
thing you yield the whole controversy far regards the
principle That principle u.s. the Federal judiciary, BY Its
mandate, make sovereign State party before against
the of the State in controversies in which the United
States claimed the rights of plaintiff to enforce its own ASSET
ton Of power Contests Of States different One State
may claim jurisdiction territory which is claimed BY
another there may be three four States coming together
angle or point and dispute may arise among them as
to which has jurisdiction any particular portion ana
is necessary to have such difficulty settled by some tribunal
And what tribunal could be better, in such case, than the
Supreme Court We would come to the Supreme Court,
in such case as that with confidence And why be,
il the guardian of the rights Of all the States and
would be supposed to stand in relation OF indifference and
impsraty Them far regarded the merits OF the con-
ovesy. But that sa very different thing from making the
party who claims right against another the Judge 70 deter
mine and adjudcate upon that right.
Sir, this clause of the constitution should DO construed
strictly State cannot before Federal court except
in the Supreme Court But does this clause say that II
shall apply when the United States are party Inc United
States as Government different from one two or three
States in question The United States 10 corporation
may use legal phrase, It is sens rationes isa
party different from each of the States and from all OF them
political communities One State may be party placed an
adverse attitude the other States and the United States as
third party, Is altogether different You may have con-
roversy between every of the States; but the moment
you substitute the United States party, you substitute the
Federal Government as distinct thing IN organization and
scope of authority And Is the Federal Government to make
itself party against ofthe Confederacy Sir looks to me
as strange proposition. There must be some reason in the
common law that subject There great reason In the
common law why you should not allow one partner to sue
80 tn hynooIf
If the United States of the States II s the same thing
as to sue ITSELF which is legal solecsm. If the United
States were Texas, would, if may the express
sion, be suing of its selves it would therefore, be con-
test of corporation within ITSELF and would not be an adj
party occupying such attitude is contemplated by
the constitution As this question of boundary, cannosee
the danger which spoken Of by gentlemen here. As
to the line, it is not he defined it cannot be defined
be defined by the finger Of department OF this Gov
eminent t
In connexion with this will say that have great conf
dence in the Supreme Court have no idea that would
in subseeny to the dictates and wishes of any one Of
the departments of this Government But, SIR this
publican Government and it is yet pure. How long this
may be said of any of the departments do not know
hope may long be said Of all of them feel confident 1t
will be said Of the judiciary long, as Of any other depart
ment and think longer II is not from fear of any one
Of those gentlemen who occupy position in the Supreme
Court that do not desire this question go before that r
buna but it because regard it proposition not con-
empaed by the constitution and you cannot 60 against the
and if you cannot you have right to say that the Gov
eminent of the United States has right to OF the
parties which constitute itself.
Mr.. President know that in transient and sudden de-
bate like this should speak with caution and dsrust
have but suggested my impressions, and not bound by
them confirmed opinions. The practice OF this Govern
men where s against exercise of power, worthy OF
observance unless great emergency should call Tor de-
Walton from it. State has yet been made party in
controversy in which the United States party and if
State to refuse to become party, fearful issue would
be presented in any attempt force her to submission Let
US avoid the dangers Of such strife.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. did not dream, when offered
this amendment that should excite the Indignation of any
one the irrascibe feelings Of any one on this floor
had occurred to that when endeavorng to pass
bill in which settling controversies that had existed
for years. any of the good people my consttu-
should ask when go home, what is to be done in
Texas should not accede to the proposition which
have made to her. would be obliged to could not
tell He would be very likely to say to me- g Have you
been engaged six months during long session of Congress-
proposing to compromise proposing to settle and to adjust
the difficulties existing between the different sections Of the
Unon and have you home now to tell us that in the
Texas does agree to the propositions made TO her
nothing has been done :" really should not like to place
myself in such position Looking at the matter in that
light was anxious that each of us might say when go
home, that such scheme had been put in operation that
work out the settlement of these questions that have 80
long divided and occurred to that that could be
done in provso for decision by the Supreme Court, in
case Texas rejected the proposition, and then would
end of the matter. Having made this proposition am
met by the gentleman from Texas expressing great deal Of
feeling and by the gentleman from Virginia, who seems to
think that State sovereignty should be excited to great de-
gree the presentation of such proposition wish to say
the gentleman from Texas that he and entered into the
controversy years sgo to whether the title Of Texas
tended to the Rio Grande at its mouth did not believe that
at the commencement of thawsr it did believe that the
Mexican State of Tamaupas embraced portion Of the
country east of the Rio Grande at its mouth but do not
propose the controversy with the Senator from
Texas that subject Far from it. proposed in my
ton this bill to yield all the country, from the mouth of
the Rio Gnde up the southern boundary Of New Mexico,
without controversy and in doing to give the opinions
had held heretofore, unless driven to 60 into
troversy the subject show that right two years
ago but whether driven to do not was willing to
yield, and intend to yield the country to Texas, even if
should be driven to prove that Texas has title.
want to present view of this subject the Senator from
Texas which. it me, must strike him. Although
dollars think, for the word is in the plural Now, let
say to the gentleman from Texas for whom he must be
sured have the highest respect that think he must see the
predcament in which he places and Others under such
argument he has made here assuring that
honestly deny the title Of Texas the country from the
mouth Of that river to the AID degree Of lat,ute.
Mr.. RUSK said the United States could not honestly
set up claim to il, and that in the shoes Of the
United States could ask Texas into the court
Of the United States to establish her claim. did not inn
pute any motives
Mr.. UNDERWOOD lam told the word after the blank
in the bill is "doa" and in the report it is "milons
But that will make difference the argument which
wish press upon the attention Of the Senator from Texas
in this attitude You get up say that the title you have
ia arising betuveen individuals.