The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-16
But objection being made, leave was not granted.
And then, on motion. the House adjourned.
THURSDAY, AUGUST is, 1880.


Read and agreed TO-
On motion Of MI; BAYLY. the House then went into
Committee Of the Whole the state OF the Union INF
BUKT in the chair when taking up the civil and dipo-
matte appropriation bill. -
Mr. btER. who was entitled to the door, addressed
the committee, principally 10 defence OF the message Of
the President relative to the boundary of Texas which
he endorsed in all its parts Mr. d. directed his remarks,
hs 10 reply 70 the speech o. Mr. SEDDoS who. he held.
had urged that the general government had no RICH, to
use force against State OF the Union when The latter
might BE- 70 ams-he State having the right TO nulliiy
an acl oil Congress
Mr. 5 tsaid Mr.. d. further held that il the law ques
toned was resisted by the authority OF the Stale egsla
ue the general government had no constitutional power
Mr. d. held the contrary Of this doctrine The execu
tive power was vested in The President The constitu
uon gave the Congress the right to make the laws, and
the judiciary the night to determine what those laws
meant The constitution also provided that the constitu
ton laws, and treaties OF the general government should
be supreme, anything ~ The laos or consultations of
Sares 10 me contrary Notwithstanding Thus, il was
PLAIN that the State law, 10 conflict with that Of the gen.
eal government fell This he held to be an obvious
reala,lon q ne notification position Of Mr. SEDpoS
Suppose, (sad he'd for offending against law Of Con
geas an indicted individual should set up the defence
that the law was unconstitutional that would be fair
defence But suppose that Mr.. SEpDoN, as his counsel
should plead that law OF the State conicted in his case
with The law Of Congress: would the Judge, on exam
ming the provision OF The constitution which he refer
red, decide that this defence valid one |?
Here followed an interruption from Mr. SEDDON-not
UNDERSTOOD as his back turned the Reporter
conversation between that gentleman and Mr.. DUER,l
ME- Duck lconunung) said that in OF too oppres-
sve legislation, he, too, would be for resistance, he
would never surrender the right OF resistance yran
ny--the right OF revolution.
But be held the distractions Of Mr. Seldom not to be
those Of the great fathers OF Virginia ashington, Je-
feTson. and others The doctrines Of secession, null
lihcation &C. held BY the schoo! now called that Of
Virginia, We're not the doctrines Of those fathers Let
those doctrines prevail, and OF the Union could
not long stand Let the doctrine that the judiciary shall
determine what law sound under The constitution rule
paramount, and there would be no difficulty in the har
monious working of our whole system OF government
MID next turned toihe speech Of Mr.. TooMBs, with
whose readings OF the intent of the law of 1895 he also
found fault He held that the marching OF an armed
body Of men into the territory in dispute, to Inc
jurisdiction OF the general government. it matters not
whether they went there under State Legislative authority
not would constitute such riot or unlawful assem-
bage az was contemplated in the law Of 1895
Mt -, SIEpnEmS, in,efrrupang num- Went on e quote
show that MIR TooMBs had been correct in his under
standing OF the intent of that statute.
Mr.. DUER (continung) remarked that he had not
looked at those proceedings and could not take time from
his hour to argue their bearing the case in hand
The constitution gave the President the power
the army the militia but il had also placed the
mlia-tbe right 10 call that branch OF the service out
wholly under the direction Of Congress Hence General
Jackson being DESTROYS 10 the militia against South
Carolina IN 1884, applied to Congress for the requisite
authority He next referred to various laws, as well
10 the constitution, to show that, without going to Con-
gress General Jackson could have gone 70 the army in
that case had ne judged its employment Insufficient to
his purposes. In some cases action of Congress was
necessary for carrying out treaties in others, this
not so.
Mr.. D. argued this point at length, holding that law
Of Congress by necessary to justify the
President in carrying out the obligations OF the treaty of
Guadalupe Hdago, so far that instrument contained
guarantees in favor OF the inhabitants Of the coded terri
tory The President had merely esssyed 10 keep things
there as he found them He had not attempted 10 settle
the boundary dispute. This position involved decision,
in measure, against the right of Texas This he ad
mied and he held that the fact the face of
the circumstances. Thus Texas did not have posses
he M shnxu t<o
had been said that this territory was not in the pos
session OF the United States Now, the United States
mad conquered \ / had a.o been yielded to be, IN her
sequent declaration OF President Polk the validity OF
The claim OF Texas was not matter OF importance.
From the signing OF the treaty to this day, the people
have held under the United States not Texas having
no manner acknowledged the authority OF Texas Thus
the possession wholly in the United States, and the
II had been said in the debate that before the cession
this was territory OF Texas. Mr. TooMBs had said (Mr
emarked) that before that time it not territory OF
Here followed conversation between Messrs T. and d.,
not distinctly understood BY the Reporter
find reason why northern men should vote ior The in.
demnity He (Mr d. would vote for that feature in
The Pearce BILL because be believed this question OF title
doubt, be generally thought there was doubt as 10
what would be the decision OF judges on the ques
ton. Thus many legal gentlemen had made most able
arguments 10 sustain this claim, and he really conceived
doubtful how the Supreme Cour would decide IL the
question came before Them. His second reason was,
that he believed the money TO be due TO the creditors OF
IeSas-how and why, he proceeded to show He would
also vote for Il from consdera OF preserving har.
mony between the sections. There two kinds OF
eathe personal, and the other lest great caames
that they without the courage to refrain from
ming away from personal danger, arising out Of effort
on their pa 10 discharge their duy were apt TO be most
brave in bringing on their fellow citizens public calam.
ties n general taught He, for one, had no dspo-
son TO be responsible Tor any such calamity as might
grow out Of failure 10 settle this controversy. His
courage, he acknowledged, did not run in that line
Mr. STEVENS (sad Mr.. d. had really attacked the
President IN attempting to argue that that funconay had
went on 10 show. Now, II being quite possible that the
Supreme Court might decide that the claim OF Texas was
valid, adudicatng the question: be repeated he should
have no hesitation in voting the indemnity.
Mr.. MsLANE, OF Maryland. then obtaining the floor,
addressed the committee for hour, holding that the
President mad adIudicaed the question which, in the
message ne claimed not TO have touched effectively The
declaration that he had not and could not settle the ques
ton had camed the public mind--the people failing 10
the afierpart OF the instrument in which, on the
plea OF carrying the treaty. he had gone on 10 assume
the authority he had just before repudisted all idea OF
exercising
Mr. Mel then went on to make q legal argumen, as to
The nights Of parties to property under titles iron different
this question could come before the Supreme Court and
he coniended that the President, in insisting that the
property Qetory in dspue) was acquired BY the treaty
took action which would have conclusive force on the
decision OF the courts But he held to be the duty o.
Congress settle the question OF boundary He differed
IRON Mr. Seldom on an important point believing tina
congress settling the case against Texas, would max