The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-12

Of the committee is in supposing that New Mexico part,
70 this controversy with Texas No such thing. New
Mexico Is only the John Doe OF the concern That ero
corrected and all the reasoning OF the committee falls
the ground, For the judicial power Of the United States
extends to al controversies TO which the United States
Court extends TO all cases to which State is party
This brings the case bang up At once within the jursdic
ton OF the Supreme Court, without waiting for the con-
sent OF Texas, waiting for New Mexico 70 grow vi
into State, have suit between two Siaes and
there y no danger OF collision, as the COMMITTEES sup
pose and make an argument for their bill n the danger
there is TO New Mexico from this apprchended collision
States, 10 whom the tory Of New Mexico belongs
and she will know how to prevent this collision, first
by Offering what is not only JUST but genefoas 70 Texas
and next in defending her territory from invasion, and
| her people from violence.
These are the for thruslng Texas, with all hel
mularious questions. into the California bill; and, re-
duced TO their essence they argue thus Utah must 60 in
because she binds upon California; New Mexico must &c
10. because she binds upon Utah and Texas must 80 in
because she binds upon New Mexico. And thus poor
California is cranmed and goged until she is about ~
the condition that Jonah would have been in. il he had
swallowed The whale instead Of the whale swallowing
him. This opens new chapter in Legislative ratiocina-
on 1t substitutes contguy OF territory Tor congruity
OF matter and makes geographical ahntes the rule OF
legislative conuncons Upon thai principle the commit
lee might have gone on, cramming other bills into the
California bill, all the United States; for all our ter
rtory is binding in some one part upon another Upon
preston bill might have been intsrected for though moi
actually binding upon Texas, yet i binds upon land that
binds upon land that does bind upon her SO OF The fu-
give slave bill for let the fugacous slave run as far as
he may, he must sill be on land; and, that being the
case the territorial contgnity may be established which
jusiities the legislative conjunction.
Mr. President the mOalist informs us that there are
subjects Too light for reasonoo grave fd rdicule;
and in such the morast may laugh or cry, as
he deems best But not SO with the legislator HIS
pering, Is not his mission Work Is his vocation, and
gravity his VEN; and in that vein proceed 10 consider
this inerjeclioa OF Texas with all her muarions ques-
tions into the bowels Of the California bill
In the first place. this Texas bill is compact depend
ing for its validity the consent OF Texas and s Pat
into the California bill part Of compromise and gen
eral settlement of all the slavery questions; and, OF
the whole must stand together or fall together
This gives Texas veto upon the admission OF Califor-
MA This is unconstitutional, as well as unjust; Tor by
the constitution States TO be admitted by Con-
gress and not By another State; and therefore Texas
should not have veto upon the admission OF California
n the next place. Texas presents great many serious
compact already existing with the United States-many
OF them concerning the United Staes--one concerning
New % no oae IeaGg 70 h Ns
leo, reality with the United States, as the owner of
New Mexico and that might be for joining her
in bill, far that boundary is concerned, with New
Mexico but il can be reason for joining her TO Cali
fornia The western boundary OF Texas is the point OF
collision with New Mexico; and this plan OF the commit
tee, instead Of proposing suitable boundary between
them, adapted to localities or leaving to each lie actual
possessions disturbing interest, until the decision of
title upon the universal principle of Mi possdsts-n.
Oh ucse ODvlUuS anu DdluIdl pdu
the COMMITTEES cuts deep into The actual possessions OF
the United States in New Mexico, rousing the ques-
ton which the committee processes TO avod-the ques
lion OF extending slayeryand disturbing the whole Uni
And here must insist on the error OF the committee in
constitutional and municipal law, before point out their
mistakes in geography and history. They treat New
Mexico having controversy with Gexasas being in
danger oil a collision with heT-and that compact with
Texas 10 settle the boundary between them is the only
way TO settle that controversy and prevent that collision
Now all this is mistake The controversy is not with
New Mexico, but with The United Sates and the judicial
power OF the United States has jurisdiction OF IT, Again,
possession is title until the right is tried and the United
Staes, having the possession may give government at
once according TO the Possessio1 and then wait the de-
cision OF title.
avoid all argument about rightthe eventual right OF
Texas TO any part of what New Mexico before the
existence OF Texas. avoid that question. Amicable
settlement OF contested claim and not adjudication OF IL
Tie, is now my object. ! need no argument from any
quarter satisfy that The Texas questions ought 10
be settled happened to know that before Texas was
annexed and brought IN bills and made speeches or that
purpose Al that time brought IN such bills SIX years
ago, and again at the present session and whenever
presented single, either by myself or any other person.
shall be ready to give II generous consideration but
as part Of the California bill, wash my hands OF IT,
against disturbing actual possession Aeither that OF
New Mexico or OF Texas and therefore in favor 81
leaving 10 each all its population, and an ample amount
Of compact aud homogeneous territory. With this view
all my bills and plans for divisional line between New
Mexico and Texas--wheher Of ls4i or 1s50-leh 10
each all its settlements all actual possessions all its
unconiesied claim and divided The remainder BY line
adapted 10 the geography and natural divisions OF the
county, well suitable TO the political and social con
dton Of the people themselves This gave Longitude.
nal line between them, and the Longitude 100 degrees
IN my bill of 1874, and lo2 degrees IN my bill OF 1850
and both upon the principle OF leaving possessions
intact Texas having extended her settlements in the
time. The proposed line oil the committee violates
all these conditions. IL cuts deep and arbitrarily into the
actual possessions OF New Mexico, such she held
them before fexas bad existence, and conforms TO
principle Of public policy, private right, territorial affinity,
ltrr Ian.
ty miles straight line above I'll Paso and thence
diagouay and ENTHUSIASTICALLY, 10 the point where. the
Red river the Longitude Of 100 degrees. Now
this beginning twenty miles above I'll Paso about three
hundred miles in straight lne (near six bundled by the
windings oil the rverl above tae ancient line o New
Mexico; and this diagonal line TO the Red river cuts
about four hundred miles Ia straight line through the
ancient New Mexican possessions, cutting oi about
seventy thousand square miles OF ierrory from New
Mexico where there is slavery, and giving Il to Texas
where there is This constitutes more serious case OF
fdtkiag than even that OF sticking ncongruous bills to-
gethe and calls Tor most considefaie examination oil
all the circumstances II involves. will examine these
circumstances, first making statement, and tnen sus
lainiag il by proof.
III paso, above which the Texas boundary is now
proposed 10 be placed BY the committee, is OF the
most ancient OF the New Mexican towns and to which
the SpaDlaris oi New Mexico rereaed IN the great n
dian revolt OF 1885, and made their stand, and thence
recovered the whole province II the residence Of
the lieutenant governor OF New Mexico, and the most
southern town of the province, as laos was the most
northern Being on the right bank Of the river, the
dividing li0e between the Une States and the republic
OF Mexico leaves out OF Iiats and consequently
out OF the present limits OF New Mexico but New Mex
ico still extends TO the Rio del Nore al the Paso and
tL.raf