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

wish to buy it, for the have given II you have
not title then are we oPsy you milousf for that which you
do not own How can we justify ourselves to our con-
stuens In such case repeat you have the title keep
it, and If You have not ask how can we justify ourselves in
paying millions for thing which you do not own
The only ground on which you base plausible foun-
dalton on which to make you handsome payment that
there is uncertainty in this thing; that there
doubt aboutt that the minds Of may honestly differs andl
tell friend from Texas when he gets up and makes such
speeches he has made this floor, there be no
doubt about it. Just in proportion you assert thing OF
that SORT you take from the foundation which stand
to make this compromise and to make you liberal allowance
for settlement II your title be good you say L. do
not want to buy it. would just that Texas should
have this territory the United States because difficult
ties which are likely grow Of It. make this
for the purpose Of showing that my friend ought to be
confdent that he ought allow honest difference Of opn-
ions that he ought place in the predcament Of fraud
ueny taking possession of country which did not belong
to simply desire that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Rusx) will be liberal enough am sure be will when he
reflects to concede that there honesty both Sides and that
men may honestly differ ABOUT these matters which trust
may settle.
Mr.. RUSK. have no doubt Of il.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. And I hope will be liberal
enough in voting you all your possessions from the north
of the Rio Grande up New Mexico and then hope we
will settle all upon proper basis But sir with these re-
marks in relation the speech of the Senator from Texas al
low 10 take up the view presented by the Senator from
Virginia AZ
Now sir had supposed that, in forming the Government
of the United States great object of the constitution was
have boodless settlement of controversies between the
different States composing the Union. There could be
such bloodess settlement of unless there should
be tribunal organized with authority to decide auhori-
tavey upon the controversies brought before that tribunal
The constitution organized such tribunal Il expressly
vdes that between the States the Supreme Court shall settle
all their controversies and have already had Of
settling controversies between the States, and which, perhaps
would have led to the shedding Of blood had there been
such tribunal to settle them Now, il 1t ndgny to the
States that their controversies should be settled in that way
Certainly Sir the Supreme Court has been most adm
raby organized and composed under the constitution Of the
United States discharge all those functions with the most
perfect mpaay the different States of the conederacy
The members composing that court citizens owing ale
glance to the States well to the United Sates and
hold the doctrine that double allegiance according
the division of powers between the States and the National
Government and this supreme tribunal organized by the
selection of citizens from different States owing this allegiance
to the States having their sympahes with the States well
with the General Government placed in position to
be precise and impartial Now, sir, is il any derogation from
the dignity of State of Nation to submit matter of
controversy to tribunal thus constituted Sir from time
immemora has been the practice of nations TO submit
oversies arbitration either to the heads of other nations
powerful and intelligent party agreed upon by BOTH
We did this in reference to the northeastern boundary And
is there any indigniy in submitting which has arisen
in midst to the Supreme Court any than there
would be in submitting il to the arbitration of foreign poen
tate There can be nothing of the kind subscribe, sir,
to the doctrine enunciated by Patrick Henry. know that
you the United States unless the United States
to be sued subscbe to the doctrine of the Sena
tor from South Carolina that question Sir It is one Of
the qualities Of sovereignty not to be sued unless she eases
But is It degradation when she consents to submit to be
sued
Mr.. MASON. Does the Senator from Kentucky mean to
contend that given by this bill will confer jurisdiction
upon the court
Mr.. UNDERWOOD will come to that directly will
show that this bill will give jurisdiction to the Supreme
Court wish obviae all idea that there any thing de-
grading to the States in all this; for unwilling
The Senator from Virginia do any thing that would be de-
grading to the United States, to State and If thought
that my amendment could operate to be degrading
either to the National State character would withdraw it
in moment
1t is that part of my amendment which gives the consent
of the United States to be sued which allows the Supreme
Court jurisdiction Therefore, assent to the doctrine which
has been laid down by the Senators from Virginia and
South Carolina that subject 1t the consent alone
which gives jurisdiction and the right to bring suit against
the United States But sir while this is the case with the
United Sates it not necessary to have the consent OF
State. The Constitution is express that between the
States themselves constituting part Of the conedecy, be-
tween State of the United States and foreign State,
suit in the Supreme Court may be instituted whether that
State will or will not consent.
Now sir assent to the doctrine laid down by the Senator
from Virginia, far to admit that citizen Of the United
States cannot State without the consent of that State
But sir in my parent Satethe good Old Domnion-there
is constitutional provision that she may be sued.
Mr.. MASON. tits not constitutional provision; II is
law.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. Then am glad that, without
constitutional provision such is the law Then, sir, would
ask does she regard herself degraded by the passage of law
to allow her citizens bring suits against her to obtain
tain rights Not at all. If she, through sense of
justice TO her citizens has authorized that suits may brought
against herself for the purpose of asserting individual rights
how be that the State of Texas would be degraded by
bringing suit against the United States to settle such
trovesy My friend from Texas this occasion, think is
wrong in feeling that degradation where none was intended
and where think none will result.
Now, to the question of jurisdiction The Constitution
gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction originally in oil cases
between two States gives the judicial urs
dcon in all between Of them; and gives
the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in all cases where
State is party Now, sir, the State of Texas will be
party to this controversy must be apary II is an nde-
Of the United States the Supreme Court has original juris
dcon where the State party, it follows inevitable
consequence that you cannot institute this suit any where ex
cept in the Supreme Court and you take there because Of
the constitutional provision which gives that court urisdc
ton. The judicial power have already stated, extends
to all cases where the United States are party.
Now sir, if in reference to the States Of the United
States the judiciary would within the denomination of
foreign Sate-and in reference to transactions between
the States every other State regarded foreign State
if in the the United States for judicial purposes
within the appelaon Of foreign State in reference
to Texas there express declaration Of the constitution
that the Supreme Court shall have power to settle this con-
overy between the United States and Texas But whether
that is the not hold that the Supreme Court should
have jurisdiction, because it expressly stipulated that shall
have 1t in all cases where State party. Now know
that Texas could the United States than in
dvdual could without the consent of the United States
for the Government Of the United States under the powers
granted to it. is much supreme in reference to States
- IL 4 Il L.