The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-18

known, Mr. President the remark is common one
in the courts and esewherehat there Is nothing in de-
bate so likely to lead into reliance upon mere
analogy. think the analogy which be gives US is no
a. as1 a IA lSa s S
northeastern boundary and the controversy now pend
ing between the United States and Texas 10 not ana
was rup, not upon question between the United State:
and Great Braip bat upon question OF contfoverted
right between the States OF Maine and Massachusetts,
and the government OF Great Britain The United States
had always admitted that whatever land was got there
belonged TO Maine and Massachusetts That was never
The only question as to whs.s ne
themore again. that Massachusetts and Maine did not
take the land which fell within the ne BY Of any
legal principle operating 70 the case oSt @ they TOOK
and i was insisted in the negotiations that the
land falling within the limits claimed by the Uni
ted States belonged TO the States OF Maine and Massa
chusetts. They took i, not by the operation Of
principle but by virtue OF contract applied TO agven
It was not because Maine and Massachusetts hap
Pened be border States that they took such land as
happened TO be acquired, lying upon the border line
Why, sir suppose that instead OF that nehe one that
was agreed uponhe United States had, as result OF
grounds acquired the whole Of Canada and New Bruns
wick, outside OF and beyond the States Of Maine and
Massachusetts does any suppose that these immense
acquisitions would have accrued TO the benet OF those
States that any other effect would have been produced
than ransmuation OF the question OF boundary between
these States and Great Britain into question ct bound
ary between those States and the new acquisitions OF
the United States Can you pretend that, BY the opera
ton Of any legal principle, those States would be ent-
lied to the territory thus acquired That il the question
The question s whether there is any principle OF
tona State law which will give to border States prop
ery which is acquired by the United States bordering
analogy as the senator has attempedto establish between
these Two But them the learned senator has A.
lustraed his meaning again BY another analogy. ne
because she had taken possession Of the territory
and he asks the title Of the people Of the United States TO
the city Of New York not good while that city was
in the hands OF the British was before or alter
wards, being within the limits OF the country claimed,
and from which they were only Temporarily expelled
This, again, is not analogous case But suppose hat
Great Britain. the State Of New York had thought proper
to define line of boundary running up around Canada,
act give Canada 10 the Stale o New York. in case Can
ada had been ceded to the United States by the treaty of
referred TO the fact that Texas had never ex-
reason that she claimed title first in virtue of occupancy
and then by virtue of treaty. Well then, to repel her
claim Of title by virtue Of occupancy and possession,
show OF possession of that part Of the country that
lies within the limits Of New Mexico, whatever may
have been the with regard to that which lies upon
the lower Rio Grande and between that and the Nueces
which is, 10 say the least very doubtful
MIR. BERRlEN Some short reply seems to be repdsred
necessary BY of the remarks of the senator from
New Jersey, MIR. DAYroN,l and hope the Senate will
indulge After had contended that the United States
had entered upon the dispute between Texas and
Mexico. in afrmance Of the rights Of Texas deduced
from the conclusion that that the subject OF the
war. il was followed by war, and was the alleged JUS
tifcaton of the war, this territory, when acquired,
he SsG q al aS ss.r $ me y
whole OF the territory in dispute Why, sr II the reply OF
the is pertinent for the purpose for which he de-
BY that act OF the United States unless they had entered
upon the territory in sufficient numbers to cover every
inch OF il. We entered upon part OF the territory in
dispute in assertion OF the right OF Texas to the whole.
and that is the only way in which right by possession
is ever established Whether they entered upon part
the other of the territory. il does not matter They
could not enter upon the whole It, etM1.9.
The senator tells the Senate that the territory which
acquired for Maine and Massachusets was not &C
qured them because they were border States, but be-
they sub.pares-I think that was the term
the negotiations and that was understood throughout
the negotiation that the land, acquired 70 inure to
the benefit OF Maine and Massachusetts Sir II this were
so, il would be most singular state Of factsthat the
United States, in stpulatng treaty with foreign pow
err should sPulae first with one or more Of the States Of
this Hoa that sGy Ss
tor Mr. WEBsrER] Is before me. and he can answer
whether any such negotiations took place between the
United States and the States Of Maine and New Hamp
Mr.. WEBSTER. viii the senator. allow me to ak
plain The dispute in relation to the northeastern bound
ary arose, not out OF the old chartered limits OF Massa
chuses but out OF the treaty Of 1883, upon the true
construction OF the terms OF that treaty OF peace.
Everybody knows that this led to prolonged negotiations
remained unsettled. Nobody ever doubted that. when
the line prescribed by the treaty OF 1888. far
il remained unsettled should be settled, the territory
lying on this side OF the line would belong TO the Staes
and that the territory the other side OF the line would
belong to the British provinces Then sir the States
bordering upon that line were Massachusett: or Maiae,
New Hampshire and New York. all interested in this dis
pued line That line was TO be settled by arbitramsnt;
and il any portion Of the territory in dispute fell this aide
OF the line, OF course understood that much ct
would belong to those Staies and that II any pos
ton OF fell outside oil the line Of il would
belong to the British possessions. II with that
derstaadipg that the treaty OF lS42 negotiated IL
was understood that Massachusetts or Name might in
longing her. and that abe might lose some portions OF
territory to which she had good title.
Therefore, after discussion about the meaning OF
the treaty. the matter settled IN the end py tnat line
OF agreement and according that line OF agreement there
was money TO be paid and the United States paid the
money TO Maine and Massachusetts believe, In inct
the State of New Hampshire and the State OF New York
royersy connected with this subject The original grant
of New Hampshire did not run up to 45 deg. Quere-
whose the intermediate property IL was settled by
individuals, attempted 10 be settled and they tested
the night Of New Hampshire. because they said the char
ter did not 60 up far But here something acqnir-
ed by the United States to the United States and whom
the United States drove them of, they willing TO Co.
And the principle is, instead OF an attempt 70 settle the
boundary OF the United States and the British provinces
according TO the Interpretation of the treaty OF peace
was settled by equivalents II wasa treaty OF equiva-
lents. 81, \.
Mr.. BERRIEN here made few words OF reply, which
were almost inaudble to the Reporter but in which be
understood to take the ground that the cited By
the senator from Massachusetts, established perfect
analogy between that case and the one in question:
Some further conversation ensned between Messrs.
onI WI n.