Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-11

MI BERRrEN maintained the claim of Texas 10 the
territory in controversy, and cited analogous case
that OF Maine. Maine admitted into the Union,
with certain defined boundaries Great Britain had
possession and claimed portion of the territory
included within those boundaries. The matter was
settled by treaty, and the territory acquired by that
treaty did not to the benefit Of the General Co.
vernment, but to the State of Maine. Such was the
case with Texas. This territory was within the boun-
Diary defined by Texas when admitted into the Union
Mr.. BUTLER maintained the claim of Texas
Mr. FooTE did not consider the amendment necessary
but would vote for it.
Mr.. Mason argued that the point in controversy
could not be carried to the Supreme Court without
the consent of Texas,
Mr. WEBSTER replied, and argued that the case was
one coming within the jurisdiction Of the Supreme court
He believed, however the best way to settle it was
to pay Texas liberal sum and avoid the suit, and dis
pose OF the matter by compromise 1t was true the
United States could not buy what was already theirs,
but could buy peace they could purchase claim for the
purpose OF peace
Mr.. Mason said he would ask leave respectfully
TO dissent from the opinion that the United States
and Texas could be made parties to a suit without
consent.
Mr.. BELL said he would vote against the amend
men but did not wish that that vote should commit
him on the question fher title. He had considered
this boundary question as one OF the greatest difficulty,
and the proposition in the bill to settle as one OF its
principal merits. He hoped that the bill in this respect,
would be shaped before it finally passed as to
be satisfactory to all parties.
The question was then taken on the amendment and
it was rejected as follows:
YEAsSMessrs Atchison Borand, Butler, Clemens,
Davis Of Mississippi, Downs, Foote, Huston, Hunter,
King, Mason Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule,
and Turney-17.
NAys-Messrs. Badger Baldwin, Bell, Benton,
Berrien, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clark, Clay, Cooper,
Corwn, Davis OF Massachusetts, Dawson, Dayton,
Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge OF Iowa, Doug
las Greene, Hale Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Miller,
Norris, Pcarce, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spmance,
Whitcomb-37.
Mr. FooTE proposed an amendment as follows:
Strike out the tenth ne 39th section, and to the word
thereon inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof where
the Bath degree of north latitude crosses said river"
And at the end of the bill add the following:
Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall
be construed as in any manner to impair the rights of
the State OF Texas TO any territory claimed by her,
der and by authority of her line of boundary of 1886,
in the that the proposed to said State of
Texas should not be accepted. And pr0pided also,
as to contravene the principle of compromise on the
subject of slavery embodied in the Texas resolutions OF
annexation, regard TO the territory the cession OF
which the part of Texas is provided for in this act
Mr.. HALE moved that the bill be postponed till Mon
day next.
Mr.. BENTON said that he had been waiting in order
that important amendments might be voted upon, so
that Senators might form opinion upon the general
merit OF the bill. Such amendments he had supposed
would have been voted on by tomorrow. On Monday,
ashe had before announced he would move the indef-
mite postponement OF the bill.
The ques ion was then taken, and Mr. Hae's motion
was reected-yeas IL, nays 30.
The bill was then postponed until tomorrow at IL
O'clock.
The Senate then went into Executive session. and
shortly afterwards adjou ned