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

position to decide disputes between the Government Of which
it is part and the members Of that Government If
the Federal Government could have judicial sanction for oil
the powers may exercise might have process TO
an irresponsible despolism. - n $50 a
Bot it is said that in questions Of mere boundary there
would not be much danger Of usupaton Of power re-
member reading Of Roman emperor, who, in certain
struggle said if be yielded inch of territory would de-
eide the fate of the empire. 30 in this you yield any
thing you yield the whole controversy far regards the
principle That principle is the Federal Judiciary BY its
mandate make sovereign State party before against
the consent Of the State in in which the United
States claimed the rights of plaintiff to enforce its own ASSET
ton of power Contests of States different One State
may claim jurisdiction territory which is claimed by
at an angle point and dispute may arise among them as
to which has jurisdiction any particular portion ana
is necessary have such difficulty settled by some tribunal
And what tribunal could be BETTER in such case, than the
Supreme Court We would come to the Supreme Court,
ia such a as that with confidence And why Be
is the guardian Of the rights of all the States and
would be supposed stand in relation OF indifference and
mparaliy to them, far regarded the merits OF the con-
oversy But that is very different thing from making the
party who claims right against another, the judge to deter
mine and adjudicate upon that right
Sir this clause Of the constitution should be construed
strictly. State cannot before Federal court except
in the Supreme Court But. does this clause say that
shall apply when the United States party The United
States Government is different from one or two. OF three
States in question The United States Is corporation
may use legal phrase, it is Sens yaticnes 1t is
political communities One State may be party placed in an
adverse attitude the other States and the United States as
third party altogether different You may have con-
oversy between every Of the States; but the moment
Won substitute the United States party, you substitute the
Federal Government distinct thing in organization and
scope authority And is the Federal Government to make
itself party against Of the Consdeacyl Sir looks me
as strange proposition. There must be some reason 10 the
common law on that subject There great in the
common law why you should allow partner to
another which the thing to sue himse and thus
If the United States of the States is the same thing
as to sue ITSELF which is legal solecism. If the United
States were to sue Texas, would may use the express
sion be suing one of it's selves would therefore, be
test Of corporation within ITSELF and would not be an ad-
verse party occupying such attitude is contemplated BY
the constitution As to this question of boundary, Icannotsee
the danger which spoken Of by some gentlemen here AS
to the line il not to he defned it cannot be defined
cannot be defined BY the finger Of department OF this Gov
eminent.
In connexion with this will say that have great conf
dence in the Supreme Court have no idea that 1t would
act in subseyency to the dictates and wishes of one Of
the departments Of this Government But, sir, this
publican Government and it is yet pure How long this
may be said of any of the departments do not know
hope may long be said Of all of them feel confident
will be said Of the judiciary long of any other depart
men and think longer. 1t is not from fear Of any one
of those gentlemen who occupy position in the Supreme
Court that do not desire this question to go before that m
bunal but it is because regard it proposition not con-
tempaed by the constitution and you cannot against the
United States in the indicated by that amendment
and if you cannot you have right to cay that the Gov
eminent Of the United States has right to of the
parties which constitute itself.
Mr. President know that in transient and sudden de-
bate like this should speak with caution and distrust
have but suggested my Impressions and not bound
them confirmed opinions. The practice OF this Govern
men where it against exercise Of power worthy Of
Observance unless great emergency should call for de-
Walton from it. State has yet been made party in
controversy in which the United States party and If
State to refuse to become party, fearful issue would
be presented in any attempt force her to submission Let
US avoid the dangers of such strife.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. I did not dream, when offered
this amendment that should excite the indignation of any
one the irrascble feelings Of any this floor 1t
had occurred to that when endeayoring to pass
bill in which settling controversies that had existed
for years. any Of the good people my constu-
should ask when 60 home what is to be done in
Texas should not accede to the proposition which you
have made her. would be obliged answer, could not
tell. He would be very likely to say to me, Have you
been engaged six MONTHS during long session of Congress-
proposing compromise proposing to settle and to adjust
the difficulties existing between the different sections OF the
Union, and have you home to tell us that in the
event Texas does not to the propositions made to her,
nothing has been done really should not like to place
myself in such position Looking at the matter in that
light was anxious that each Of might say when we go
home, that such scheme had been put in operation that
must work out the settlement Of these questions that have 30
long divided and il occurred to that that could be
done in provso for decision by the Supreme Court, in
Texas rejected the proposition, and then would
an end Of the matter. Having made this proposition
met by the gentleman from Texas expressing great deal of
feeling and by the gentleman from Virginia, who seems to
think that State sovereignty should be excited to great de-
gree at the presentation of such proposition wish to
to the gentleman from Texas that he and entered into the
controversy years ago. to whether the title of Texas ex
tended the Rio Grande its mouth Ibid not believe that
at the Of thawar did believe that the
Mexican State Of Tamaupas embraced portion Of the
country east of the Rio Grande at its mouth but do not
propose the controversy with the Senator from
Texas that subject Far from IT, proposed in my
ton this bill to yield all the country, from the mouth of
the Rio Gnde up the southern boundary Of New Mexico,
without controversy and in doing give up the opinions
had held heretofore, unless was driven to into con-
roversy the subject to show that was right two years
ago; but whether driven to do not was willing to
yield, and intend to yield the country to Texas even if
should be driven to prove that Texas has no title.
want present view Of this subject the Senator from
Texas which, it seems me, must strike him. Although
this bill is now blank it proposes to pay Texas millions OF
dollars think, for the word is 10 the plural Now, let me
to the gentleman from Texas for whom he must be
sured have the highest respect that think he must the
predcament in which he places and Others under such
an argument he has made here assuring that
can honestly deny the title of Texas the country from the
mouth Of that river to the AID degree Of latute.
Mr.. RUSK said the United States could not honestly
set up claim to il, and that in the shoes Of the
United States could ask Texas into the
Of the United States to establish her claim. did not inn
pute any motives.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD am told the word afterthe blank
in the bill is "dolar" and in the report it is millions
wish press upon the attention Of the Senator from Texas
who trust will allow to say am his friend You place
in this attitude You get up say that the title you have
SO clear, that arising between individuals,