The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-25

"
this hope and that every gentleman who thinks
that the proposition, attached 10 the bill Will emoafass
many way will vote against T. hope lha lns. may
be done and that the OF the Senate IN regard 10 The
merits OF the proposition may be thus aken do this
because believe Il is correct course o leglslaon-
anS z ahsr bs YOU ADOPT The
amendment. and depend upon resolution hereafter, nm
bodyng the proposition there would Dc no prospect
nsss suros ssh ,hs arssspa sesson BELIEVING Sat and
believing conscenously make this statement with
ou intending 70 delay the Senate IN any way thai they
! One word more, sir The main matter which has EN-
barassed me, since the commencement Of Inc cons,d-
Grafton Of this bill, il has been brought before the
Senate. is that, when making bargain, want %
know how much am TO give Tor the property 10
be purchased and cannot make mp my mind mn
u know what sto be given--how 4 s 2 be PAID
the Interior measures upon that subject. do think
we the time when these matters ought 10 be
brought to our attention
MT. CLAY. regret. Mr. President. that my colleague
should have thought il necessary 70 perseyefe IN his
amendment have stated 10 the Senate that am IN favor
Of ilsprncipe and that IN separate proposition when
shas X NV q o because
am in hopes that the character OF the poposons 70 DO
made to Texas will be such that she will not feel her
self at liberty 10 decline accepting The amendment Is
only important in the contingency OF the refusal Of Texas
TO accede TO the proposals which are made. am con
strained to vote against the proposition although ~ favor
of the principle because apprehend from what has been
disclosed that will embarass the passage OF The pill
Now sir, my colleague will perceive that a u should 70
embarrass the bill defeat IT. the consequence wonld
be that should have mode OF settling the dis
disputed title OF Texas instead OF two mcthods-one pro-
posed this bill and the other TO be proposed by-and.Dy
II there absoute certainty that il would noi aiect
the passage o the bill then be there would pc less
objection 10 but il il il to occasion the loss Of the bill y
those who opposed TO this amendment what earthly
advantage result from putting II in! Under these CIR
cumsances, while i in favor Of the principle Of q
bill for the settlement OF the IN the form OF
joint resolution. am constrained to vote against TINS
Mr.. BADGER 1 was very much in hopes. sir. that
my friend from Kentucky would be disposed 10 Withdraw
this amendment have altered no opinion that have
heretofore expressed, either 10 the powers OF the Su-
reme Court Of the United States TO decide the question:
to the popre OF providing hy law. in the event ot
Be brought before he Supreme Court But Il there Is
any danger as seems 70 be supposed that this amend,
meni will endanger the success Of the bill for which
am sincerely anxious. should on that ground 80 against
it. But will say TO my friend from Kentucky that in
dependent OF that consideration. the amendment does not
satisfy me- il does answer, conceive the object
that have in views which 10 insure an adjudication
OF the boundary by the Supreme Court il Texas shall
refuse the settlement offered by the bill This the
fails 70 do because the consent Of Texas VIII
differ from him in another respect think the proper
and appropriate party TO bring that question before the
the United States, and not The State OF Texas The Uni
ted States in possession oil the disputed Territory
Il it belongs to Texss the United States stand IN the rela
lion OF trustee Texas; and, under such circumstances,
undoubtedly, il il individual transaction, the
trustee might 60 into court o equity for the purpose OF
having the title ascerlained, that he may deliver up the
property TO the person who has the just claim There is
necessity OF rcsorng action by the other party
There is no proprey in H. except when the trustee is not
willing 10 act in tulhimen OF his trust In that case, the
other party may bring the suit for the purpose OF having
the question determined. think, sir, that the amend
nent, ia this particalar, is wrong think we ought 10
direct the Presidsnito 70 institute snit is the interest
and the duty OF the United States, who have possession
10 have The disputed title settled by adjustment II that
may be: and 4 not, by having legal adjudication
Mr. ATCHlS0N. Mr.. President, am opposed to this
amendment There Il gomehlnp
feelings in bringing controversy between Tue United
States and ans OF the States OF this Union into The
Supreme Court Tor decision; for this II seems
10 TO violate principle, that one OF the parties
should be constituted the Judge OF its own
The Supreme Conn Of the United States is OF the
Department. OF this goyernmrnL IL is part OF ihsgov
ernment. The judges led and clothed out oi the
treasury OF this government and sir, II there be any
Tartiay at all TO be anticipated il would be in favor OF
the decision OF the supreme court OF Texas9 There APP
pears much proprey In submitting to the sn
preme court Of the State Of Texas as TO the Supreme
Court Of the United States.
But, sir have precedents for propositions oil settle
ment different mode, that far prefer In the dispute
that s between The oi the United States and
the State OF Mssouhe Congress OF the United States
passed law authorizing the President 70 appoint one or
with the consent OF the Legislature of
the Stale OF Missouri. authorizing the governor Of that
appoint the pumber oil 10 take
this matter into consideration, and both 10 select an
umpire prefer this mode OF settlement Let the Pres
dent OF the United States be authorized. the event that
Texas shall reject this proposition TO appoint one or more
commissioners let the OF the State OF Texas
appoint equal number OF commissioners; and let those
commissioners appoint umpire TO decide between them
upon all disputed points THIS would be fair and equta
bic. II would be settlement BY the parties themselves
But the settlement of this question, not by arbitration,
by the Supreme Court OF the United States, would be
settlement BY one OF the parties For this reason am
entirely opposed 10 this proposition oil the senator IRON
kentncky lMr UsDERwooDl for the settlement OF THIS
question
Mr.. DAWSON. 1 intend 10 vote against the amend
ment and will very briefly the grounds upon which
shall give that VOTE first doubt as the proprety OF
thus amending the BILL upon constitutional grounds.
not satisfied upon that point though have expressed
opinion upon IT, But, sir, this session OF Congress
will continue, presume, ant the month OF september
We shall be called here again according 20 the consn.
lion, upon the first Monday December this bill should
be passed il will be submitted to Texas The govern
of Texas will the legislature, TO reject or adopt
the propositions presented IN this bill II they should
adopt them consent 10 them shall be here again.
and the OF Congress upon the sub
ect well as we could now, and meet every diff
Guilty which may be presented am unwilling TO fncum-
Der this bill with an amendment OF this kind.
Mr. BERRiEN have no doubt Of the power which
il s proposed TO through the medium OF the Su
preme Court OF the United States BY this amendment
and have more doubt OF the desrableness and pro-
pey OF such provision, in order TO give pereciness 10
The bill still incline however. 10 the belief that Il may
be better 10 abstain from the insertion OF such provision
in this bill do not doubt the power OF the Supreme
Court TO entertain jurisdiction this subject matter, as
between these parties attach weight 10 the sugges
ton OF the senator from Missouri, mr. ATcHfsoN, that
the United States being party in this case the supreme
Court s NOT competent 10 do justice in IT, That objection
would be equally good n cases which are tried before the
60 1-xr- -