The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-11

make will be hnal, and the United States treasury will ~
be liable thereafter:
from MARYLAND. lMr PEaRcrl when he introduced ai Il.
hill disayowed any such mplicatloa-disayowed sir a.,
he at all misirused the honor Of Texas but the lang
Of this proylso. 10 my mind ana 70 me minds OF olhsI
taMll M DAWSON. One or two considerations that NAV
induce me to for this bill are, that lhls government
when she acquired Texas by annexation, knew the fac
that Texas had pledged the proceeds OF her custqs
houses as security for the payment OF certain amour
Of debt We, by the annexation OF Texas, taking con
troll of her custom houses, took that security pledged
these creditors and having full knowledge OF that M
in equity we bound TO pay the DEBT ana that, SIR
one OF the main considerations why desire that thai
proyIso should he reained-or the pfovlso is nohn,
more or less than this that the bondholdes cen6
cate holders against Texas who had this collateral /.
curty Of the proceeds OF their custom houses, shall re-
nanish that claim TO the United States before the bonds
shall be liqudaied by this government That credit was
given 10 Texas when the loan was made, upon The faith
OF that pledge, and without that pledge me money would
probably never have been advanced os me pohanodth
= M BRADBURY. Mr., President. il should moi be Iu
gotten that the claim has already been made npon &
government by creditors OF Texas i9r whom me duda
pledged, and that those claims will be continued TOE
pressed upon them unless they are provided for hoe
therefore, that the amendment proposed by the senate
from Maryland [Mr. PEARcEl Will be adopted T
honorable senator from Indiana mir BRIGHTl was mis-
taken in supposng that the debt contracted for The pu
chase OF the navy covered the live millions. That deb
The question being then taken on concurrng in Ii,
amendment. il was decided in the affrmative-yes &
nays Pas fellows:
YEAS--Messrs Badger, Baldwin, Besren, Braabay,
Daw on, cklnson. Dodge OF Wisconsin, Dodge Of Iowa
Ewing Fec4 Foo,s Grssne a,ml an. King MI
Smitn, Spn,ance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, Wales
Walker, end WinttroP-35
NAYS-Me. ps. Aichison Benton, Bright Batlef, Davis
Of Mssiss ppi, Douglas, Houston Mason, kusk, souk
Turney, and Whileomb-l2.
The question was next stated on concurrng in the FOL-
lowing proyso. which added 10 the bill on the motion
OF Mr. Mason:
Construed npaIr qualify anything contained he
third aetice Of the second seeon o. the Joint resolutions
ng Texas 10 the United States approved March
1885, either regards the number Of States tina, may DO
formed our Of the State Of Texas Or Otherwise.
The amendment was concurred in without division
The amendments having thus been all disposed Of,
Mr.. UNDERWOOD renewed the motion to amend the
bilf by substituting the following in the boundae,
of Texasto strike out all after the word commence
and insert:
AT the point the Rio del Norie, com.uoniy called E
Paso and running thar river twenty mites, uieasured
by straight line thereon, and thence east~afy 10 pom
where the hundredth degrees Of west longitude crosses Red
river being the southwest angle IN the line designated be-
tween the United States and Mexico, and tbs anA
IA the line q the territory SET apart for the Indians by The
In moving the amendment,
Mr.. U. said: Mr. President, renew my motion %
amend 10 the manner proposed IN the committee OF The
whole. Il is to substitute the line precisely as propose
by the Committee OF Thirteen for the northern BOUNDARY
line proposed by this bill The Senate will indulge
with one remark, il they please.
That country is now Indian country. II cannot be
available to Texas until the Indian title is exiting ushe
This government will have to extiDgush that title %
make il available That the reference 10 The
Indians in Kentucky, and in all the other States OF The
Union II being lniian country, nninhabted, and this
government being compelled 10 exlingush the Indian
title before il could become applicable 10 The purposes Of
civilization. The line OF the Committee 'of Thlrteen
which propose, can Interfere with ano present avas
BILE right Of Texas II must stand as il now does, uni
the United States by the exercise OF that power The
Indian tribes. shall exnguish their title. hope, there
FORE that the line proposed will be adopted II
close vote in committee. and renew the motion
One more remark, sir ! am totally opposed to that
species of legislation which calls up senator in bis
place to say that an amendment should be dsaegarde
because ii from who is not willing 10 support
the bill. want TO stand upon the suggestion have
made and if that suggestion is not worthy OF consider
9n and the line should J, not be adopted shall submit
Mr.. FO0TE. Ismeo Danaos ct dona ferentes.
Mr.. DAVIS, OF Mississippi | hardly know which 10
object TO most-,he proposition OF the senator from Ken
lucky, or the reasons gwen for IT, The proposition al
together objectionable, and the reasons, think, are
Objectionable as the proposition itself The United Stats
have no Indian territory In Texas; the United States
have no control over Indians in Texas except so f
the government of Texas may have permitted.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD, Gnterposing.) Will the gentle
man allow me an explanation did not say MIR Pres;
believe that the United States have the right 10 conto
the Indians in Texas, in Kentucky and elsewhere
wish the Senate TO make the distinction, that when
Indians located in State having territory which they
have settled, that State has right TO expe them
from that territory, and that the title must be exngushe
by the Uniled States But when oxtngushed, in this
case inures to the benefit Of the State according to The
former practice OF the government That has been The
case with regard TO Kentucky, Tennessee, and otbG
States OF the Union. | suppose BY the annexation Of
Texas to the United States the Indians located in her m
rtores, in any part OF her territory, and the title which
the Indians had to the lands 10 the territory OF Texas
came placed precisely The footing with the To-
dams and their titles when placed in the original States
and upon other and different footing II my friend
from Mississippi can show me the distinction 6etu
the Indians located in Texas and those located in III,
States, really should be thankful for the information
II was upon that idea, and not upon the idea imputed
that the United States had territory in Texas because
the Indians owned tit was entirely upon that iorma
idea that made my remarks.
Mr. DAVIS, Of Mississippi resumed did not misun
derstand the senator from Kentucky al ALL He seemed
however, to that the Indians had title in Texas
which the United States must extingulsh to enable 1ex1
TO take possession Of the country. That was the lao
which intended TO deny IN toto. II was difficulty
which was ioreseen at the annexation OF Texas wbsn
determined that Texas should retain the public land
that the United States would be unable anihob
ty over the Indians This trouble anticipated BY it
South. Il was argued that in the annexation Of Texas
instead OF surrender OF her public lands, leaving her
pay her debts, should take the public lands and pg
the deot This has been the difficulty from the beginning
oil the question, since Texas became part OF the Ualea
States ! have great doubts whether, IN the bill INTRO
duced the other day extending the laws OF the nercouS
oil the Indian tribes 10 Texas, there " any power 10 m
United States 10 do IT, Texas is sovereign over be-
lands. She annexed independent State, and
was not State erected by the United States out o. TER
rItory belonging 10 her She annexed with al me
rights, and privileges and powers OF an ndependen gos
M bp Iadfa srero a. hars