The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-16

policy for the government TO recognise the practice Of the
Congress OF the United States making compacts win
sovereign States How FAR Il Is constitutional am mol
prepared TO say; for have not examined y IN AL Oh s
bearings historical usage, and am always cautious IN
laying down roposops of 80 grave ~ import M.,s
Mexico after che shall have become State, or me Un
ted States for her people, may nstule sui aSansl
Texas % sss this question 9i boundary y,S aavs ons
for the opinion OF my friend, the distinguished sena
tor from Massachusetts lMr. WEBSTER upon ali legal
Questions. and especially those o. constliacna Eina
but concedng to him the broad principle that so lar as
regards the arbrament OF questions OF this kind where
the subject gives Jurisdiction IN the case IN aus
ad od1a y ~ saeshe
itself may carry The case into the Supreme Court put y
suit goes there to decide the controversy referred to- i
ar party deiendsns IL such litigation One State can
another, because they stand on an equal footing
The language Of the constitution Is 80 CONTROVERSIES be-
tween two or more States p and when State ls q
party the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The
federal judiciary has also jurisdiction in cases OF con-
trovesy whre the United States IL party Can i be
party against State Two States may consent
10 have their rights settled among themselves because,
under the compact they have other mode OF arbra
ment ia ths ay they have given their consent g be
sued Under the obligations Of good faith, they VIII be
bound to be governed by such arbltaent But il is
different question to maintain that the United states may
be the party plaintiff That would give the authority oi
the agent 10 sue the principal rather the authoniy ot
the agent OF several to sue OF the principals This
has been done; and n questions insciyng 'ne
Limitation OF power, claimed by the one ana denied Dy
the other give the power Ia the one claiming power
decide upon its extent through Of its departments
is to take from the other all right OF Judgment as 70 us
rights and remedies Of redress. Surely such power
could have been in contemplation. These matters
are know foreign 10 the question, In one aspect OF tne
subject but if you pass this bill in the form IN which
is, should Texas not acquiesce and consent 70 your
proposals. you must necessarily run all the hazard oi
trial by the Supreme Court Of the United States, either
by the United States or by New Mexico becoming
State, as has been suggested 50 as 70 make party WIN
"a thaa ads of
by the majority would be most dangerous, because II -
loading me constitution and II you do not strike out
this clause you vii involve y ,h ms
the United States, OF BY some voluntary commission
agreed between the parties Il you strike out this
clause and define the boundaries Of the territory without
going into Texas, you will at do away with All the
difficulty But now whilst maintaining that this Will In
vove the United States or New Mexico and Texas 10
question OF this kind would be likely to lead 10 the eu-
OF blood. am inclined 10 think that, you leave
this territory under the jurisdiction OF Texas the ndivd
uas camoring for the rights OF New Mexico will soon
settle down quietly, and submit to the authority OF Tex
as but il you do strike out this clause, you will retain
all the difficulties and complications which have indi-
Gated
This is all have to say at present Hereafter when
the bill assumes its true complexion, may give some
general views on other features oi the pi 70 wnicn
have radical and deeper objections Than to this But
you wish avoid litigation, the safest way s TO- recog
mise the prior existing acknowledged Juflsdiction IN
stead OF embarking IN interminaoe law suits. opect
settlement of the Texan boundary question; for, sir
hereafter when California has been admitted Texas may
repudiae these proposals should not be at all sur
prised il Texas ultimately did repudiaie them. There
are chapters in the history OF this Commonwealth
than The now making for her-perhaps an
eventfu for her future desiny-eyenul chapters we
cannot read. What will be her destiny few chapters
beyond this The future rs hidden BY curtain should
I the language Of aamonition TO that proud State
but will say that If | understand that people, she
should pause long before she would give up hairs
breadth OF her rights She has long existence before
her. and perhaps an eyentful one in this coniedeacy
Who shall say what will be lis history twenty years from
this day Perhaps il will be broken up into fragments
by the wild fanaiicisn OF portions OF the United
States know not But believe the Commonwealth
OF Texas is destined TO play prominent part She
should look into the future and doubt much II she will
ever suffer her State to be divided and cut up II may
be that her integrity will constitute her strength think
therefore, the policy would be 70 leave this territory
under her ursdctonfor che Is fully compeient to gov
ern the people and, ii necessary, will vote 10 pay OIL
her debt for which this government, IN the estimation OF
creditors responsible; but cannot 90 Tor proposition
like this which, for the sake OF temporary peace - IN
conflict with the permanent interests OF that Common
wealth. Let her not give up her brthrght Tor mess OF
pondgs. ~
(T6e remainder Of this days debatewitbheld for re-
vision-will appear hereaiter]
SATURDAY, JUNE Is, 1850.
The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a CON-
nunicaiion from the Department of War; made in COM
naffh fha