The North-Carolina standard., 1850-08-21

March. No boundary is mentioned. Nothing il
said which could warrant Col. Monroe in autholzinf
the people the east bank OF the Rio Gande to par
Gen. Taylor intmated to Congress that he intended
to maintain the possession for the United States
the east bank of the Rio Grande until the question
boundary was settled, but he issued any orde
to that effect.
President Fillmore. therefore, has changed the
whole position of this question, and threatens to up
hold that change by the force Of arms.
1t now remains to be seen whether sovereign
State Of this Union can be invaded by the federal
government, and subdued within its own limits by
military power and violence. The solution of this
question will form an era in the history of this gov
eminent.
Mr.. STEPHENS, Of Georgia, said that he intended
to address the Committee to the extent of the pow
er which the Constitution and laws confer on the
President to call out the military forces to execute
the laws He set out with this propositions (and he
asked the attention of the committee and those who
disagreed with him. that under the Constitution and
laws the President cannot and has no rghtful au-
thority to employ the military power of the country
to aid in the execution of the laws except where the
execution is obstructed in the Judicial proceedings.
to the military power. The President quotes the law
of 1895. which declares that. whenever the laws of
the United States shall be opposed or their execu
tion obstructed in any State, by combination too pow
ea to be suppressed BY the ordinary course or judi
cial proceedings the power vested in the marshals
the President may call forth the militia, far may
be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to
cause the laws to be duly executed" And the act
OF 1907 authorizes in similar cases, the employment
Of such part of the land naval force of the Uni
ted States shall be judged necessary" Now, he
would ask. has there been any civil process Has
the marshal ever arrested any one Has writ ev-
been issued The President is to see that treaties
are to be executed according to law. Is there any
law relative to the treaty with Mexico? This is the
question. Until Congress and this Government speak,
until we say how the rights under the treaty shall be
determined. and what are those rights, there is no
law. The act of 1895 says, when legal proceedings
shall be obstructed. When the territory was acquir-
ed, was the duty of Congress to pass the necessa-
~ laws for the regulation of the Territory. But
where is the power which gives the President the
right to judge the rights of those proceedings! He
can only act when the judicial proceedings arrest
ed. There must first be law defining the rights
under the treaty and then it must be obstructed,
TO warrant the calling out Of the military. 1t was
asurpation Of power until Congress has declared the
rights. This is the foundation OF civil liberty estab
iished in the Constitution. The old barons at Run
nymede extorted from King John this announcement;
that no freeman shall be seized imprisoned, or
disPossessed. outlawed, in any way destroyed,
but by the judgment Of his peers and the laws of the
land. He would ask, do we establish the principle
that the President shall override all this, define
mans liberty, and make use of the military force of
the country for purposes Of punishment without trial
This is prohibited by the Constitution.
No judicial tribunal has been established in New
Mexico. And is it legally right that man should
be shot dead for doing that for which you could not
try him! For doing that which is not defined by
law as crime! liza force from Texas go into New
Mexico it is no crime, if there be no law. There Is
court there to try man, and could he be rghtfuly
shot down for doing that for which he could not be
raigned before tribunal of his country How can
the President say that part Of Texas is within the
limits of New Mexico, if he does not assume to de-
eide the line I
Mr.. MOORE inquired whether there was not a
law which left to the United States the settlement of
the boundary question:!
Mr.. STEPHENS replied that the Texas annexatio
resolutions did not commit this Government at any
time to the boundary. Her constitution defines
her boundaries to be from the mouth TO the source of
the Rio Grande. She applied for admission with
that BOUNDARY. Congress declared that she should
be admitted with whatever right she claimed but
reserved the right settle the boundary between the
United States and Mexico. Suppose there had never
been dispute with Mexico, would not Texas have
had the full extent of her claim? Then, Mexico, does
not dispute it If the only claim has been extin
guished, how any one dispute the claim of Texas!
Mr.. STEVENS of Pennsylvania, was understood
to say that Congress has power to settle the boun
dairy.
Mr.. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Texas came into this
Union by as solemn treaty as that made with Mexi
CO, and gave the United States no power to do any
thing but to satisfy Mexico. This Government was
umpire, and only settled the question with Mexico.
Whenever army is called out without authority of
law, to shoot down citizens, he should hold every
man traitor to his country who does not resist. The
fires at Concord and Lexington were kindIed when
King George attempted to coerce the people without
authority of law. He approved of concatory
curse. He anxious for settlement Of the ques-
tions. He was for settlement the principles
of justice and equity; and if you want perma-
nent union of these States, northern men say they
do, he would tell them he was for the Union, and he
would cherish love for it, If they would let him.
1t was with him cherished sentiment. The Union
was common property. The gentleman from Penn
sylvania said that there could be peace until con-
sent was obtained to enable the South to legislae
for her own benefit. The South has asked that
the Government be conformed to her wishes. The
North think slavery wrong. We havepubic domain,
acquired by the North and the South. This is not
denied; but why do the North interfere and seek to
deprive the South of her just rights 10 an equal par
tcipation in the possession 1t was acquired as COM
mon property, and should be enjoyed by all. He
would repeat anoths trnt. in the face of day and
before the sun, that he never would acknowledge al
legiance to Government aTrayed against the proper
y and the social order of the South; and would say
again, that no people deserve the name of freemen
who would submit to be kicked and tsampled upon.
Seven millions of people are not easily conquered.
1t was for gentlemen Of the North to estimate the
value of the Union. He had estimated the conse-
quences for himself, and it was for other gentlemen
to count what will be the result hereafter.
He thon adverted to the sentimentaity of the North
the question of slavery. 1t nothing but quar-
reing with Almighty God. You attempt to make
human being different from what his Maker created
him. He cannot be placed on an equality with the
whites. The EthioPe cannot change his skin, nor
the leopard his spots. The gentleman from Massa-
chasetts (Mr. MANs) said that rather than that slav-
cry should extend over ono foot Of the acquired ter
rtories, he would prefer war, famine, devastation.