Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-05-18

Hdalgo to establish clearly and unquestlonaDly the
right of Texas to every foot of land east OF the
Rio Grande and if we were not distracted by
the question which is made use of for various pur-
poses, and which has divided the country into al
most sectional parties to great extent, this po-
ston never would have been questioned in the
slightest degree
After speaking to the argument for the Texas
title afforded by DIsturnelPs map, which was
made part of the treaty with Mexico, and which
gave Texas all the country East of the Rio Grande
Mr.. R. concluded as follows:
Exhausted by fifteen years war with Mexico, which
waged against powerful odds in point OF numbers
and preparations coming in under these circumstances,
ulled into security, in what condition do we find our,
selves now? part OF citizens, or those on soil
which is ours by every title at least encouraged by
fanatics to come forward and claim that the soil does not
belong US, and that they have right to set up 60
vernment within the Territory OF Texas. am, how.
ever happy to say that the President OF the United
States has recenty-although there were some por-
tons of his message which encouraged these people to
go forward and make State within State-he has re-
Gently instructed the officers there not to interfere in any
controversy that may arise between these citizens and
the State of Texas in enforcing her authority make
these remarks perhaps little too early but it is sub
ect which feel vast interest in 1t is not pleasant
for State just emerging into existence to be in state
of controversy with the General Government; and it
is less pleasant when that State came In under state
of high political excitement, which fear has not been
forgotten yet. .-.
It is nv opinion then that the boundary Of Texas
tends the Rio Grande and that her law prevails there
she being the sovereign of the soil But this bill pro-
poses to extend Territorial Government to part to
which Texas has never set up any claim. The amend
ment of the Senator from Mississippi was, suppose
intended apply that part and do not imagine that
he intended thought necessary to embrace that por
ton which the laws of Texas extend east Of the Rio
Grande.
Mr. DAVIS of Mississippi. certainly did not intend
to express any doubt of the right of Texas the Rio
Grande,. That was the boundary which she had de-
fined before she annexed to the United States
With that definition other boundary she annexed
the United States merely reserying the right to adjust
her limits by negotiation with Mexico. Negotiation fail
ing, went to war. acquiredthe territory, and
feel that acquired the territory for Texas; that every
hers according to the boundaries defined by her
when she was an independent State. had no object
toinyolve the question of Texas boundary at ALL 1t
the remark of the Senator from Kentucky, who made
application of the amendment l proposed to the
country this side the Rio Grande which brought up
this question My opinions of the boundary of Texas
are such as have advanced in former times and such
maintained by my friend from Texas. The Oh
ject of my amendment was distinctly to understand
whether to have the rght>recognised to go into
the territory with slave property or not. am among
those who held that when this territory was acquired,
the constitution extended it, and gave protection to
all rights by shield broad the territory acquired
by the United States. was who held that the
local Mexican laws were extingulshed wherever they
contcted with the rights OF citizen OF the United
States because the constitution and laws of the United
States weresupreme over the territory. That am, as
heretofore, willing to submit to the Supreme Court if
the question be presented untrammeed by legisla-
ton. Nor does the amendment proposed by me touch
that question contemplate its decision by Congress
With great Difference to the Senator from Kentucky,
think he has put construction upon the amendment
which will not bear II it contained language mean
ing more than III original bill, then I should have
thought the Senator need not have wasted time upon
it, but if was proposed to change the language with
out changing the meaning, it might have been allowed
to pass, less evil than would be debate uponit.
The object of the amendment is to restrict the Terri
tora Legislature from action hostile to property, but
not from making necessary provisions for its protection
that, instead of saying that "no law shall be passed
in respect to African slavery it should declare that no
law shall be passed interfering with those rights ofpro
perty which grow out of the institution of African sa
very as it exists any of the States of this Union-
AS stated laws in respect to African slavery me-
cessary wherever such slaves are held The Senator
from Kentucky knows that well any CAM he
knows that there police regulations which must be
enacted where that species of property held hold
that we have right to go into these Territories with
that species OF propertythat any man owning slaves
may go there retaining his right to the possession and
enjoyment OF that property in his new home. We are
giving or proposing to give Government Territory,
which rests upon the basis OF right to make such
provision We suppose we have right to confer pow
er. $50, we may mark out limit to which they
may legisate, and are bound not to confer power be-
You'd that which exists in Congress. If give them
power tolegslate beyond that, we commit fraud or
usurpation, it may be done openly covery and in
directly HCongess has no right to legislae upon this
question OF admitting excluding slaves then why is it
moi right to that the Territorial Government created
by Congress shall not under grant, legsate outside
OF the limit to which Congress may constutionally gol
1propose to amend this that shall exclude from the
powers OF the Territorial Legislature the right inter-
ere with the rights OF property in slaves, they
possessed by citizens of the United States any of the
States OF the Unon to prevent legislation hostile the
equal right OF all citizens to occupy and enjoy the COM
mon property Of the United States, with any property
h f II either Of the ere ign the true prOpe
The Senator from Kentucky asks me if meant to
apply this to the legislation in the Territories? Ger
tainy did What else could mean Did fear
Nayy 1ayuo
holding slaves in Mississippi? The idea would have
been too preposterous to be supposed. My object was
10 preventive passage OF laws hostile to our rights in
the Territories where they have may have a right
10 legislaeto prevent the passage oflaws which there
would interfere with the rights of property growing
out ofthe existence OF African slavery 1t was to Sc
cure rights which we hold under the constitution and
to prevent the discrimination OF restriction against
legislation for the protection of that species of proper
to the same extent as for every other species Of pro-
perry
But the Senator from Kentucky has avowed his
purpose that the lea loci shall remain that the right
to hold this property shall be determined by the Ler loci
Now this strikes me strange, coming from one when
two days since. in language decided so ell oquent
even iervent arraigned the non action policy of the
Administration, which would leave the local law still
in force. To US where is the difference The Sena-
tors view, equally with the policy he condemns would
prevent our Southern citizens from going there with
this species of property and though do not agree with
him as to the continuance of Mexican laws his position
shows the extent to which rights are to be respect
ed and maintained This is important to me, though
Will iiloS southern men mold tndt the law
OF Mexico repealed Except within the narrow Inn
ITS OF the relations OF person and property
and remaining in the country the acquisition of the
territory. That is my opinion, and | hold that no
political laws exist in the country to which this bill
Teersexcep those resulting from the legislation of Texas
Ihe Senator from Kentucky holds dffe rent opinion
ana therefore 1t to his opinion that my remarks appy
bis object is to leave the laws of Mexico in force
1t misunderstood the Senator will listen to his cor
recton. - ~ W. |
Mr.. CLAY. The Senator understands me nerfectlv
MT. DAVIS am happy TO have msconstrusd |
him 9ply Judged from the motion Of his head that
sident, feel that have nducement to labor here @,
least on this occasion, to due regard or the
rights of the South. feel it is as il the grain sbeaf
should oppose the sickle oppose the dominant ma |
iority, who can, and have reason to believe will
crush any proposition which will require explicit avow