The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-21

its laws II has been so decided in the State courts an
in the courts OF the United States The senator iron
New Jersey md myself have agreed 70 lay aside our y
dlcial titles trust we have not parted entirely Will
our professional recoections The senator from New
Jersey am sure, has not In the meridian OF life, AM
soxsEsa - pursuits; - H. ,ns SnGPd W
me- the reed ectons OF an earlier day are hope not en-
trey efaceL The territory within the limits Of one o.
the States Of Athis Union, when by the occupation OF
foreign force Il was Withdrawn from the jurisdiction
that State, was held to be longer within the scope o
the operatonof its laws During the OF the revou
ton, portion OF the State Of New York was for con
siderable time in the occupation of the British forces II
decided by the supreme court OF that Sate that the
statute OF limitations did not operate against person
was occupied by the enemy, more recent case vii
be recoected* Castine. (MeD during the war Of
ls2l5 ell inQ the possession OF the enemy and con-
tinued SO for sofae time Upon the Teoccupaon oi that
place by the United Sraies an attempt made 10
force the payment OF duties for goods which were I'M
ported while the place was in the possession Of the ene-
/ my. That pretension was repudated by the supreme
court OF the United States II constuted TO be sure.
they said part Of the United States, but for the time il
was withdrawn from their jurisdiction. and was not
within the scope and operation OF the duty acts refer
to this last case particularly for the purpose OF relieving
the claim OF Texas from the objection which was found
and ihatihe privilege Of drawback had been allowed for
goods exported there Mr. President, this proves moth
| ing inconsistent with the claim OF Texas. You had
a consul or commercial agent at Santa Fe, and au-
thorzed this allowance Of drawback before Texas
was annexed to the United States and you continued
them both, because your citizens who traded there re-
quired consular protection, and the goods which
were exported there, moi being consumed by our own
citizens, within the sphere OF the operation OF our
laws. not liable for the payment OF duties Them
appehend this question stands upon the original
footing which have placed it that is that the United
States have acquired that territory in the assertion OF the
rights OF Texas, and that she has done no act TO forfeit
her claim 10 IT,
The question which presents itself is what DISPOSE
tion shall be made OF in We proposing to provide
governments for the whole Of the territory which we
bav rad from ass Il n.
scribe her own limits Utah is to have limits which you
determine for her. and then the residue s 70 constitute
the boundary OF the Rio Grande from its mouth to
its sources according to the opinions of some whilc ac
cordng to Others whose opinions am bound to hold IN
respect and which the country cannot perhaps safely DIS
regard il is restricted within much limits There
is, then, vexed question which you leaving open
Tor future controversy between the United States ana
out the thirty ninth section OF this bill How can that
question be decded II may be settled by the Supreme
Court q hs United hi hSas oy q. n ns
Of the OF the United States, and without the ami
cable settlement which is proposed by 1t; you may
partment The necessity tin behalf Of New Mexico or
rather in the assertion OF the right OF domain OF this gov
enment OF resisting the claim which Texas may assert.
By such force as may be necessary to maintain the claim
of the United States.
These the various modes in which this controversy
be determined II may be determined by reference TO
the Supreme Court Of the United States You may refer
it TO that tribunal tomorrow, il yoa will do not
slider il necessary await the admission OF New Mexico
State for do not in the opinion that two
States must be parties 70 controversy Of this soil before
the Supreme Court do not understand that opinion 10
be given by the Chief Magistrate in the message which
is before US Tha, is suggested mode by which this
controversy may be settled hut il il was designed to
intimate that il is The only mode by which il could be
judically determined, respectfully dissent from
such opinion Sir the United States may go into The
Supreme Court by bill filed against any State OF this
on for the purpose Of settling question OF boundary
confess have heard with surprise the expression OF a
doubt upon this subject Why, the Supreme Court OF the
United States have long since decided, what one would
think that would have rendered obvious,
that the judicial power OF government must be commen
saraie with IFS Legislative power; that whenever there is
power TO make laws in free government there must
power loinerpet them; whenever there is oblga
ton imposed TO that laws executed, there must
be u means provided by which the person charged
with that duty have those laws interpreted. II
would be most singular state OF things il gov
eminent were denied the privilege OF going into It's
own courts for the purpose OF having It's own laws
interpreted; and yet that Is the denial which is in
volved in the doubt expressed in this But the
constitution has left this matter without doubt II de-
cares that the Judiciary power Of the United States shall
extend controversies in which the United States
party Now in bill filed by the United States against
any OF the States OF this Union this requisite is CON-
Piled win There would be controversy % winch Tue
United States wond be party That ascerains that The
judicial power embraces it, II the controversy be with
an individual the United States would go into the subor
dnae courts. and the jurisdiction OF the Supreme Court
wood be appellate But the constitution declares further
that, when State IS party, the Supreme Court should
have original jurisdiction. Now put these two clauses
OF the constitution together: the judicial powers Of the
United States shall extend 10 controversies in which the
United States is party and The original jurisdiction Of
the Supreme Court shall attach whenever State is a
party Well. then, the United States files bill against
OF the aes OF this Union and both OF the terms Of
the constitution applicable it. Here is a
versy IN which The United States is party which brings
il within the scope Of the judicial power and here is
roversy in which State is party, which gives original
jurisdiction 10 the Supreme Court.
entertain, then, doubt, Mr. President. as 10 the
right OF the United States TO 60 into the Supreme Court
for the purpose Of settling this controversy. But should
that done with great reluctance until other means had
been tied AMI ied IN vain. Emphatcaly, sir this is
political question: and II is always desirable, ii we
avoid H. 10 relieve the judiciary from the decision OF such
questions. Ii is OF ncalcuabe importance 10 preserve
that department in It's purity apart from political contro
verses and the feelings they too apt to generate
would prefer therefore, the adoption OF any other mode
by which the controversy could be settled consistently
with the rights OF the respective parties and equally cal
eulaed 10 produce peace and harmony ~ The country
Besides, as political question, il would have to be de.
Supreme Court holds that in judging such case must
look TO the action Of those other departments OF the gov
ernment which are charged with its political relations.
Then, IN deciding the question OF the limits OF the State
OF Texas II viii be necessary for the Supreme Court to
go through the political history OF this fansaction
certain the views taken upon this subject by the egsa
tive and executive departments Of the government.
II to me, sir. would be very SINGULAR certainly
Ii would be very unfortunate, ii we, in the exercise of
our legislative powers, familiar with the poht.
ical history of this transaction, In which most OF have
been actors, cannot devise mole hy which a sasfac-
tory setllcaehl o. can be accomplished lnmy judg.