The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-07-01
THIRTY-FIRsT CONGRESS.
FIRST SESSION.
SATURDAY, June 20, 1850,
SENATE.


The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a
communication from the Secretary of State in re-
spouse TO a resolution of the Senate calling for in
formation relating to the trade in guano, &c.
MIR. PRATT moved, and one thousand extra CO.
pies of the document were ordered TO be printed.
Petitions presented by Messrs. SMITH,
DopoE OF Iowa, and CAss.
THE COMPROMISE.
MIR. WALES presented petition from sundry
citizens of Newcastle county, Delaware, praying
the immediate passage Of the Compromise bill, the
admission of California with her present bounda-
ries the establishment of territorial governments,
&c. Laid on the table.
DIMINuTIoN OF THE NUMBER or NAVAL oFFICERs.
The following resolution, submitted by Mr..
HALE "A few DAYS ago, considered and adopted
Rssoiped That the Committee on Naval Affairs
be instructed to inquire and report to the Senate
whether there may not, without detrimcnt to the
public interest, be prospective dimnution of the
number of the commissioned officers of the navy of
the United States!
THE ovERFLows OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
Mr.. SEWARD submitted the following resolu.
ton, which lies
Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce con
slider and report on the cxpedicncy OF institut
ing suryey, by Typographical engineers of the
United States, Of the banks of the Mississippi river
subject to overflow, for the purpose Of ascertainin z
an effectual mode of preventing the injury of mum
dations by the construction Of necessary embank-
ments or canals
MILITARY OFFICERS IN CIVIC POSTS.
MIR. CASS moved, and the Senate proceeded TO
the consideration Of the following resolution, sub
United by him few days ago:
Resolped That the Committee on Military At.
fairs BE- instructed TO inquire into the expedicncy Of
prohibiting by law any officer of the army from
Stunning exercising within the limits OF the UNI
ted States, any civil power or authority not con
terred by an act OF Congress, and of providing an
adequate punishment for such offences.
Mr. PRATT suggested the proprety o. making
the resolution more comprehensive, so as to make
the inquiry extend, retrospcctivey, to cases which
may have occurred
Mr. CASS said hc had no objection to having the
resolution made as broad in inquiry any Sen
ator might desire. He considered that it was
cessary that something should be done. In the
military law there was provision made for this
offence An officer in the army of the United
States had suddenly arisen declaring himself civil
and military governor of of the Territories OF
the United States. The army regulations had no
provision for the punishment OF such offence.
They had been adopted long ago, and those who
framed them could not have contemplated that
such a would ever arise.
Mr.. SEWARD said that lac had no objections to
the passage of the resolution but he could not see
the propriety of thus singing out the of the
officer in command in New Mexico. The military
laws, he supposed, fully sufficient to punish
any offence known to them. There also the
power of impeachment He alluded 10 the cAsc Of
General Riley in California, which was the same
that of the officer in New Mexico, and one
had proposed 10 have General Riley punished lie
looked upon that case a precedent. He no
difference between them. The military governor
~ New Mexico appointed TO his present post
by the late administration.
Mr.. CASS replied that he had never approved Of
the conduct Of General Riley. He did pot consider
the action OF General Riley as of the least legal oh
legation upon any one. He recognised the right OF
any body OF the people, finding themselves without
government, to form u government for them.
selves. But in the case OF New Mexico, the sub.
lect OF forming government for that country was
now under consideration in Congress this wac
known To the military officer in that Territory yet
he had set aside all the difficulties in the way by
deciding the question himself. He had decided the
question Of the moral and intellectual character of
the inhabitants of New Mexico; had decided the
delicate question Of boundary-all of which was
the subj ct of intense feeling in Congress. He then
proceeded To show the difference between the
of New Mexico and California.
Mr.. SEWARD replied, and MIR CASS reioncd.
Mr.. HALE moved 10 amend the resolution by
adding thereto the following:
And that said committee also inquire whether at
any time since the commencement Of the late war
with Mexico, any orders have been issued by this
or the preceding Administration comforting civil
authority upon any officer of the army of the United
States 10 he exercised without the limits Of the
several States Of the Union; and il 80, by whom.
aud 10 whom, and by virtue Of what laws were
said orders issued.
Mr.. HOUSTON then addressed the Senate upon
the subject Of tho Of the administration upon
all question involving the rights OF Texas. lie
then brancbed of To review OF certain military
reports, made by the commanding officer during
the recent war in which the soldiers and volunteers
for the State Of Texas most unjustly spoken
OF and alluded 10. Without concluding, be gave
way 10 take up the special order.
TIE coNPRoaI.E.
dr. PEARCE presented the resolutions adopted
at he public meeting in the city of Baltimore, on
th, 22d Of June in favor ofthc Compromse bill now
before the Senate. They were read aud laid on tho
table.
cALfFonSiA-TERRiroRIAL GOVERNMENT.
The Senate resumed the consideration Of the bill
reported by the select committee Of thirteen, 90
admit California State into the Union 10 e.
tablish territorial governments for Utah and New
Mericoj and making proposals 10 Texas Tor the -.
Enlistment Of her western and northern bOunda
ries.
Mr. DAVIS, Of Massachusetts,, resumed biz re.
marks in opposition 10 the bill. he examined the
probable effect Of the bill upon the subject Of slavery
m The Territories lie could not vote for any thing
which could Possibly leave these Territories open
10 slavery This BILL II was said, left the question
% 10 decided by the local laws Of the country. To
tins be was opposed, because the exact nature Of
that local Law was uncertain, and was disputed
Eminent men contendcd that the Mexican laws
sbOlisbing slavery were nOw in force IN tbc Terri
tories; and again, men equally learned and dstin-
guishcd commended that, under the present Law ,
slavery can be introduced. lie considered the safer
source to pursue was 70 adopt the wiimot proviso,
which had never failed In making the territory
free over which t extended. But such a pro.
visO, Il vas known, could not pass Congress. flc
could not vote for the BILL vhen its provisions
dcrcd this point involved In much doubt
pay Texas large sum Of money 70 settle the qucs-
ton Of boundary. lie considered that the question
II boundary was not such an extraordinary ono.
boundary questions between States had, for al time
since the formation Of the Government been 100
dispute. The boundary question between Msssa-
chusetts and Rhode Island had been in controversy
fOr twO hundred years and had been settled with.
out difficulty; he could sec no reason Why this
Texas boundary could not be equally settled in a
pcaceable manner.
Ile alluded to the propositions give territorial
governments 90 Utah and New Mexico. He said
that he would prefer giving New Mexico a terrific
rial government, provided h. could cngraft there
prOyiso excluding slavery forever This WIS
impossible nov. Failing this, he was in favor II
passing Law inviting New MEXICO 10 form a State
government, and Jet her people settle this question
Tor themselves This he also knew wssirnpossiblc
The next thing Was 20 bet New MEXICO follow the
example Of California, and form a State govern
rnent and receive her into the Union STATE.
He then proceeded 10 show that New Mexico wa s
AZ well adapted 10 State organization 40 a ter
ntoral organization; and Of the two he preferred
the State government, for then the subject would
be forever settled.
He alluded 10 the feelings of excitement nd AZ.