Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-06-29

United States with Mexico there to me 70 BE- double
proprety 10 giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction 70 s9te
the construction of that treaty. think we ougn' @ sow
Texas be the actor instead of providing by law mat the
United States shall sue Texas Il will be our Government
that win be Organized under the operation of this BILL Cor
Government will be in full operation there VIII nave iui
possession of the Territory 10 this state Of ac does not
make difference whether party or the other become
the actor in the suit but to me that the natural
der Of things would be, provide that Texas may bring
suit against the United States.
Having made this explanation of the amendment which
have offered do not think il necessary to say any thing
moro at this time. 4F
Mr.. WEBSTER / dare say it is very proper to make
some provision for this subject but would suggest the
Senate that If any provision made it should be which
will be eectua and the execution OF which should depend
only upon the voion of this Government The provision
of the honorable member from Kentucky Mr. USDERwooD)
gives to Texas the right TO gives her, therefore, the
right to forbesr suing and if she should prefer take some
other mode Of settling the question, she, of course will DO
So The direct undoubtedly is say that Texas
does not agree these rendered to her the part OF
the Government of the United States shall be the duty Of
the President to cause suit be instituted in the Supreme
Court for the purpose Of settling and adudgng upon the
true line Of boundary between New Mexico and Texas
We stand, my friend suggests. exactly In tne Po
son Of trustee. We settle the question Tor the
benefit of both New Mexico and Texas Nothing can 90
more simple and nothing else will be efecsua out or the
United States to take the initiative ITSELF to suit to be
brought by the United States and very e more neces
sary settle the whole matter because there are various
rules of the Court prescribing when States are ana
do not consider necessary in order to make TINS amendment
practical to make section Of than three lines hope
the member from Kentucky will consider whether this will not
be the better way
promise. A SENATOR, (playfully.) And adjustment
Mr. CLAY. And adjustment. think, if my colleague
would reject be will that it will be best TO introduce both
measures that Texas may she pleases, but that the
Government in the event Of her not doing So shall bring
suit Now, it is true. according to the suggestion Of my
colleague that it would be right for the party out of posscs
sion to bnga suit but that party might not think proper
to bring suit would suggest the proprety Of putting It in
the alternative that if she does not think proper to bring
suit the United States may file bill in the Supreme Court
nv colIeauge will put the that alternative, then
shall have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. RUSK. hope the amendment will not be adopted,
either with the modification suggested or without It. do
not intend 60 into the controversy WHETHER under the
stituon Of the United States the Supreme Court has uris
dction upon subject of this description but with the utmost
respect for gentlemen learned in the law must say that
do not believe that the Supreme Court has any. II it has,
or can ever assume jurisdiction be under pov
sion Of the consultation of the United States cannot be
done by Legislative enactment for how can jurisdiction
over State which is not already given by the constitution
be conferred by simple act Of Congress
Mr.. BERRIEN. We cannot give jurisdiction to the Su-
preme Court, but call upon the Executive of the
Government to cause that question to be determined.
Mr. RUSK. And that proceeds upon the ground that
settled fact that the Supreme Court has Jurisdiction
Mr.. BERRIEN. That question will be presented for the
decision Of the Supreme Court anterior to the decision Of the
question upon the title.
Mr.. RUSK. And that must proceed upon Of Two
that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction,
Or has not that is necessary to give that Jurisdiction
by the action Of Congress.
Mr.. BERRIEN. It proceeds simply the ground that
it is advisable present the whole question to the decision
Of the Supreme Coutfrs to decide its jurisdiction,
and then to decide ON the question of title.
Mr.. RUSK. Even with that explanation ana opposed
to the entire amendment know that Texas will contend
to the end that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the
ALL and have any under the constitutions and
the illustration put by the Senator from Kentucky first up
shows my mind concusivey that Congress, without
actment Of this Sort would have power to bring suit in
the Supreme Court Of the u States to terminate this difficulty
1.-THE Supreme Court has jurisdiction, certainly the right
TO ought to be reciprocal If understand the position
assumed, s that the United States may Texas but
Texas the United States without act of Con-
gress authorizing be done. This convnces that the
Supreme Court has not jurisdiction.
The Debate continued by Messrs. RUSK, BADGER,
FOOTE, and MASON.
Mr.. BUTLER I intended to make some remarks with
the view of directing the attention of the Senate to the mpo
Of the subject embraced in this amendment down
the proposition that know of in which the United
States can be sued IN u, or be party suit without its
own consent and in thai point of view is but convention,
OF submission to arbitration know of case in which the
United States may be by law party except plaintiff.
There may be controversy in which the Federal p
may may have jurisdiction, like any other party in interest
to dues under laws TO enforce penalties
Sc. In such cases. the rights and abe of the parties are
expressly recognised and result from law and Obligation and
subjects of ordinary jurisdiction between the Govern
ment and private citizens corporations &C. The parties in
the Supreme Court limited and enumerated State can
be party defendant except in the Supreme Court
and then only in the specified in the constitution and
then is court of exclusive and original jurisdiction In
all affecting ambassadors and other public minister's
and those in whch.a State shall be party, the Supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction In such cases. the
court would occupy the position Of indifference regards the
parties before Especially to controversies between two
States where State involved in controversy
with any other party than the United States In such
cases. its decision would involve the Of its own
Government and it could have temptation to take part
with or the other of the ligating parties. Two
States may dispute about boundary, or about
essential right growing out Of the constitution Of the
United States and these disputes that may be submitted
to the Supreme Court for adjudication by the States them
selves do not know that there is any provision Of law to
say how process shall he served how suit shall be
brought how State may be made party how shall
be brought before the Supreme Court There has heretofore
been little difficulty, the States carrying the litigation
before the Supreme Court have made objection in being
brought before it. The United States has assumed
be party, and hope will and before they attempt to
take such position before of the departments of their
Federal organization, they ought TO have legislative
sanction and direction Before the United States, party,
undertake to bring before its Judicial tribunal sovereign
power enforced by the State ITSELF there should be some act
direct the suit and the mode Of conducting it. the Gov
eminent should think proper commence suit it ought TO
emanate from other branch Of the Government than the
tribunal that is to try it is officers No such act has ever
passed for such purpose and yet the Federal and State
Jurisdictions have often in conflict Such conflicts have
always brought question the constitutional of Federal