New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-08-26
The Texas boundary.

We publish this morning another letter
from our correspondent New-Yorker,' ar
rsigning and impugning, in manner which
seems to us most presumptuous and inso-
lent, the conduct and motives of those Mem
bers Of the House who will not be Dragon
ed into swallowing Pearcs's Texas Bounda-
ry bill, just as it came from the Senate
Having given place to this letter. we choose
10 remark that
l. The use made in it Of the Presidents
name and authority is plainly unconstitu-
tional and we trust wholly unauthorized
!. Mr.. Fillmore has in no official or public
manner recommended or approved the line
4 of Boundary proposed by Pearce's BILL
He has no right, and I've are confidently no
desire, to influence the course Of Members
of Congress by limitations and menaces
uttered entirely without responsibility. All
that our correspondent says, therefore, Of
the bill being approved by the President
and his Cabinet and having become an
Administration measure is at onse without
legitimate support and directly in the teeth
of the most Enthusiastically WIG Of all
the Wing principles Of twenty years stand
ing-viz. the essential and absolute indie
pendence Of the Executive on the part of
Congress. No monarch Of Great Britain
dare convey such an irresponsible intima-
ton of his pleasure to Parliament, aud no
Congress of the United States shall ever
submit to one without our most emphatic
protest.
2. But this Pearce Boundary, it seems, is
an Administration Boundary No, Sir!
not exactly Ii was sustained in the Senate
over that proposed by Mr.. Clay, ION Mr..
Underwood's motion to strike out the Pearce
and insert the Clay by one majority-25
to 24-and of that majority sir were friend
ly to the National Administration to nine
teen opposed, while of the minority or anti.
Pearce men, fourteen were Administration to
ten Opposition. If there ever was a mea-
sure which had no claim at all TO Admins
tration paternity, this is one Of that sort.
8. As to the motives of Members who
oppose this Boundary, we do not suppose
that they will seriously suffer by our cor
respondents arraignment, and shall not
attempt to vindicate them. But for our
own part, we have risked and suffered
enough in the cause Of Compromise and
Consolidation to merit belief when we say
that we are hostile to this Pearce Boundary
and hope to see it changed, because Il girss
rp too much Territory to Slavery and
sars, too little to Freedom. Whether that
reason is susceptible of comprehension at
Washington, we do not ask, but if it earns
us the sppellstion of mere factionists" then
we must abide the consequences. We thought
ve went as far as could reasonably be asked
of us when we agreed to the Compromise
We took that step after mature elaboration,
believing it best for the cause Of Free Soil
that we should do it, fully aware that it gave
our enemies opportunity to asssil US with
effect. But We took the step, and have never
rspented Of it We are now willing to SET
lie the Territorial difficulties between the
Free and Slave States on the basis Of the
Clay Compromise, (no matter whether in
one bill or half dozen, although We do not
think Texas honestly entitled to one cent OF
che Ten Millions. Still. though her claim