The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-11


boundaries Of The United States at that tmenot by de-
Glazing war against Mexico, but by declaring that
existed and that il existed By the act Of Mexico.
Sir have adverted TO this matter in passing, only
part OF the history Of the subject The act to which
refer says IN the preamble
Whereas by the act of the republic ofMex.co state Of
war exists, &c.
Andhe enacting law refers TO the preamble. and makes
Now, II war existed between these two countries by
the act Of Mexico, was because the Mexcans by cross
ing the Rio Gande had invaded the territory OF the Uni
led States and by shedding American blood there had
caused war. say then, that shall fasify the action
OF this government, both in its executive and its legsa
tive departments, II deny the right OF the State
OF Texas 10 the country west OF the Nueces.
Sir will go further III this question could be got be-
fore the Supreme Court that court would be bound to fol-
low the action OF the government OF The United States in
relation to this boundary, beyond all question The hon
orabe senator from Kentucky has said that the Supreme
Court would not find for the State OF Texas favorable
Mr. President should The law OF the Supreme
Court differently from that senator understand their
rule OF decision TO be, on every question OF boundary
actions OF the federal government and strictly to adopt
that as the true boundary which the government assumed
as the boundary This was the rule laid down in the case
decided, think, in 1929, and followed in subsequent
cases The opinion oil the court was that questions OF
boundary between nations were political questions and
guide the acts and determinations regarding il, of the
government OF which it a ordinate department
Now suppose this case went before the Supreme Court
and il said you must look to the actual title to the
country west Of the Nueces An would be given
at by the political action OF the government this
subject submit. therefore, that. whatever opinions
may have been sustained before the with Mexico
to the southern boundary OF Texas, that boundary
definitely settled, and the federal government concluded
H. WEssTERs President sas think this question
is to which we should give the greatest consdea
t!on. have never desired 10 see great political ques-
IN them apttjed hy orb her
means--such some form OF compromise. II has al.
ways appeared TO that certain questions always
best determined by one or the other Of these modes OF
ceedng, Nevertheless in answer 10 the honorable gen.
teman from Virginia, must say that difficulty
whatever in bringing this question to trial before the
Supreme Court OF the United Statesmen the slightest
The controversy respects errioryand claimed by the
United States the side, and the State of Texas
the ether But territory Of the United States and in
ton. Now, the honorable member will remember that
State be sned Alter one of the amendments to the
constitution Of the United States took place, State can
not be sued by individual Of another State, by
individual subject OF foreign power but State be
made party to suit al lava suit in equity One State
may another in The national udicature and mol only
is that so, but wherever State is party the jurisdc-
ton OF the Supreme Court OF the United States becomes
original, and action may be brought in that court direct
appeal from an inferior court as apprehend but d-
recy. by original process issuing out OF the Supreme
Court Of the United States The Judicial power Of the
United States extends 10 every in which the United
States party; and the original jurisdiction Of the SUI
preme Court OF The United States extends to every suit in
which State is party believe that is the plain text
OF the constitution; SO that, in point OF legal authority
and constitutional power, there is nothing in the way
of bringing suit by the United States against the
State OF Texas to settle this disputed boundary
But the senator from Virginia has, with great popriety,
spoken OF one consdeation-not that this is political
question, but that the court is bound to consider how
has been REGARDED by the Of the United States
very well remember, for think had something to do
with il The chief justice says the language Of treaties
sge
many years; but the decision does proceed upon the
ground that, in settling questions OF boundary between
the United States and other powersboundaries in which
other powers have been connected heretofore and which
have been the subject OF treaythe decision goes,
peat upon the ground that the Supreme Court OF the
United States is bound to look tol will not say abso
lutey bound blythe course which the executive and
legislative departments OF the government have taken in
regard TO it.
be most happy, for one. it, in the further progress Of this
bill, an understanding can be come to, and provision
made likely TO be satisfactory to Texas And although
would not wish to buy what is already our own.
would yet buy peace sometimes, as every individual may
buy peace. He may come TO terms of accommodation
without any surrender OF his right think that this is
very appropriate occasion 10 put end to what may
be hereafter very troublesome dispute between Texas
and the United States for one, would regard any
amount OF reasonable cost that might be incurred 10
bring about an amicable adjustment OF this question.
Mr.. MASON. No one has higher opinion OF the lc-
gal attanments OF the senator from Massachusetts, than
myself; but must enter very respectful dissent 10 the
doctrine OF the honorable senator IRON Massachusetts,
that the United States take into the Supreme
Court of the United States, in which the United States
would be party on the one side, and State on the
other
Mr.. BELL. | do not often think il necessary TO
trouble the Senate by explaining the grounds OF my vote
but this is question OF so much importance, that de-
sire 10 stale, few words, the considerations which
will influence my upon this occasion, ii the vote
taken this morning wish 10 say that am not pre-
pared TO give any vote Indicative OF decided opinion for
against the claim OF Texas to the Rio Gran1e, from
its mouth to It's source, her rightful boundary and
therefore, IN voting against the amendment oil the hon.
deciding against the claim OF Texas | also feel
difficulty in regad to the point suggested on the
other side OF the chamber to-day, TO the power
of Congress TO accept cess0n OF territory from State
whose boundaries wel-dehned and understood; but
think there is sufficient doubt what is the real
boundary OF Texas this case TO make IL fair subject
of arrangement and adjustment between the United States
and Texas. While, therefore, in voting against this
ndment do 10 be understood giving any
decided opinion against the claim OF Texas 10 the whole
OF the disputed teHioryieritory which may, upon full
examination, consider rghtully belonging to hernor
to preclude myself from giving my vote to confirm that
right upon further examinaon-l wish further 10 explain
that have considered the adjustment OF this boundary
question OF Texas, in view OF the difficulties that are
lkery TO grow out OF il, If il is not settled, to be the
principal merit OF the proposition now pending before
the Senate, and the principal upon which grounded
my the proposition made 10 separate these meas
10 the country and that would be regarded by
other gentlemen, that II the terms oil an arrangement with
Texas could be made generally satisfactory those who
felt particular and decided interest IN the other