The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-22


remained within that portion OF the State
which was occupied by the enemy. A more
recent case will be recolected. Castine,
(Me., during the war OF lSl2-'l5, fell into
the possession of the enemy, and continued
so for some time. Upon the reoccupation of
that place by the United States, an attempt
was made to enforce the payment OF duties
for goods which were imported while the
place was in the possession Of the enemy.
That pr;tension was repudated by the Su-
preme Court of the United States. 1t con-
stituted, to be sure, they said, part Of the
United States, but for the time it was with
drawn from their jurisdiction, and was not !
within the scope and operation of the duty
acts. refer to- this last case particularly,
for the purpose of relieving the claim Of
Texas from the objection which was founded
upon the fact that we had consulate at Santa
Fe, and that the privilege of drawback had
been allowed for goods exported there. Mr..
President, this proves nothing inconsistent
with the claim OF Texas. You had a consul
or commercial agent at Santa Fee, and au-
thorized this allowance of drawback before
Texas was annexed to the United States,
and you continued them both, because your
citizens who traded there required con-
sular protection, and the goods which were
exported there, not being consumed by our
own citizens, or within the sphere Of the
operation of our laws, were not li?ble TOR the
payment of duties. Then, sir, as appre-
bend, this question stands upon the original
footing on which have placed it; that is,
that the United States have acquired that
territory in the assertion OF the rights of
Texas, and that she has done no act to for
felt her claim to it.
The next question which presents itself is,
what disposition shall be made of it We
are proposing to provide governments for the
whole of the territory which we have acquired
from Mexico. California assumes to pre-
scribe her own limits Utah is to have limits
which you determine for her; and then the
residue is to constitute the Territory of New
Mexico What is that residue: 1t is the
boundary of the Rio Grande from its mouth
to its source, according to the opinions Of
! some while, according to others, whose
opinions am bound to hold in respect, and
which the country cannot perhaps safely dis
regard, it is restricted within much narrower
limits. There is, then, a vexed questo .
which you are leaving open for future con-
Texas, or between Texas and New Mexico,
if you strike out the thirty-ninth section Of
this bill. How can that question be decided:
1t may be settled by the Supreme Court OF
u the United States; by negotiation, m ths'
r manner provided for in this bill or without
= the Intervention of the courts Of the United
. States, and without the amcable;;Settlement
-. which is proposed by it; you may leave it
E to be settled by forcing upon the executive
! department the necessity in behalf Of New
Mexico, or rather in the assertion of the
, right of domain of this government) of re-
sisting the claim which Texas may ASSERT, by
such force as may be necessary to maintain
3 the claim of the United States.
These are the various modes in which this con-
S troversy can be determined. It. may be deter
v mined by reference to the Supreme Court Of the
q United States. You may refer 1t TO that tribunal
tomorrow, if you will. do not consider it ne
cessary to await the admission of New Mexico
as State; for do not concur in the opinion that
o two States must be parties to controversy of this
sort before the Supreme Court | do not under
. stand that opinion to be given by the Chief Mag
I istrate in the message which is before That
is suggested Il mode by which this controversy
> may De Setleu; Dtt, II " was designed
that it is the only mode by which ii could be Judi
emily determined, must respectfully dissent from
such an opinion. Sir, the United States may
go into the Supreme Court by Il bill fled against
amy State Of this Union, for the purpose of set
tlhg a question of boundary ! confess have
heard with surprise the expression OF a dsGb; upon
this subject Why, the Supreme Court Of the
United States have long since decided, what one
weuld thlnk that common sense would have rem
dered Obvious, that the judicial power of gov
eminent IAi,st be commensurate with its Legislative
power; fhaG whenever there Is a power to make
laws in free government, there must bel power to
interpret them; whenever there is an obligation I'M
posed tO see that laws are executed there must be
IL means provided by which the person charged
with that duty can have those laws interpreted.
ii would be II most singular state Of things il a
government were deiied the privilege of going into
its own courts for the purpose Of having its own
laws interpreted; and yet that is the denial which
is involved i'm the doubt expressed in this case.
But the Constitution has left this matter without
II doubt. IL declares that the judiciary power of
the United States shall extend 10 ontroversies in
which the United States are party. Now, in
bill filed by the United States against any one
of the States Of this Union, this requisite is
piled with. There would be a controversy to
which the United States would be party. That
ascertains that the judicial power embraces it, II
the controversy be with an individual, the United
States would go into the subordinate courts, and
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be
appellate But the Constitution declares further,
that, when State is partly the Supreme Court
: should have original jurisdiction. Now, put
these two clauses of the Constitution together: the
judicial powers of the United States shall extend
to controversies in which the United States ia a
patty, and the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court shall attach whenever State is a party.
Well, them the United States files bill against
one Of the States Of this Union, and both of the
terms of the Constitution applicable to it.
Here is a controversy in which the United States
is party which brings it within the scope of the
judicial power, and here is controversy in which
a State is party, which gives original jurisdiction
to the Supreme Court.
l entertain, then, no doubt Mr.. President, as TO
the right the United States go into the Supreme
Court for the purpose OF settling this controversy
But should see that done with great reluctance
until other means had been tried, and tried IN
vain. EmphaticalIy, sir, this is political ques.
tion and il is always desirable, If we can avoid
it, to relieve the judiciary from the decision of