The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-23

treated with all NE MARKS VI pablo indignaiion-tha Is
should do with the views entertain But certsini,
!no.e gentlemen who have conscientious seruplss ars
Jusuned IA pursuing exactly the opposite course
| lhr PRATT then add essed the Senate His remark
a. ms and subsequent points in the debate having been
w NM "a ao yT Tsysioa NV WILL appear hereafter
me Tor a moment So lar as am concerned, really do
moi care much whether this adopted not
Al Is constitutional and proper remedy II does not,
however strike me that is such, and therefore, shall
vote against it, The senator has, in the first place.
sured himself that il he could but gain my he would
satisfy my judgment that wrong in the view had
taken OF the obligations which bis nsndmen imposed
on the federal government Now sir, have given him
my ear, and am not satisfied. But seems 10 that
ence existing only between the remedy and the subject
admit that under the decision in the OF Pennsyl-
vana and Prgg, the primary obligation to give the
remedy rests upon the federal government That is
all, sir. But that is leaving the question OF afford
ing a remedy out OF the way Who is to do the act
OF delivering up the slave Why, the Satehe citizens
OF the Jurisdiction OF the State to which he applies Ii is
incumbent upon them. As long they do their duty
no obligation arises upon the part OF this government
tve thenand nottill thenthe obligation upon the part
OF this government, under this amendment TO pay the
money arises that IS 70 say, IN default OF their doing
certain act the federal government is to paw certain
sum of money, it being the endorser and underwater of
the State for the doing OF particular That is the
whole difference between the senator and myself upon
Now. Mr. President the basis OF my friends argument
II strikes is really dangerous than the amend
ment itself What is III Under the treaty with the Mex
lcan government we agreed to protect the Mexican from
tier from any Indian hostility, if did not give that
protection IN all its paris. Ii did not carry ont the
treaty, we are bound to respond in damages Letus at
treaty; and if a Mexican house is burned down,
Mexican horse stolen, they to this government,
and call upon us to pay the money With the utmost
spect the senator take issue upon this question and if
that question was presented permit TO the federal
government would never recognise an obligation OF that
description Why, the obligation of the treaty is an OBJ
llgatlOn 10 be earned bV good faith We
to do utmost to protect the Mexican residents from
Indian hostility; but if after have endeavored to DO
our duty by mere chance accident Mexican house is
burned down, or Mexican horse stolen, they TO
come to the federal government and ask repayment for
that house or for that horse II so, where is this thing
to end! Now, sir in that CASE in the are
now considering, the duty Of the federal government is
performed when the remedy in good faith is provided
that is all, sir But them the senator from MARYLAND
Mr. PRATrl says that in his State they have recognised
this provision, and that in OF domestic violence
of mob-the State of Maryland thought proper make
that it right for her to do But let me follow
that section of the constitution, and if the senator's
principle is right All that the State OF Maryland
bound to do was, 10 send word down the executive
government at Washington, and tell them there
Instruction. of domestic violence there, and If the
federal government had not sent up troops and defend
ed the city OF Baltimore they could have called upon the
federal government to respond IN damages Now, sup
pose that ,i my learned friend
to that my recollection of the constitutional provision
is, that in OF domestic violence instruction the
United States have no right power to interfere except
upon the demand oil the executive of the State which
the instruction is Now suppose this that
suTrecton had occurred within any State of the Union
which il impossible for the power Of that State 10
conquer and that the legislature OF the State, the
ecuve of the Staethe authority authorized by the
sutution to make the demand-makes the demand upon
the federal government furnish protection and the
federal government having the means having the
troops within distance reach, neglect to discharge the
suiy-wha' then sT, \ the property is destroyed, would
the senator say Would he say that the United States
not bound 10 pay it, Here OF instruction,
mob in Baltimore, which il is impossible to quel the
federal government of the State incapable of subduing
1t; they then make demand, through the executive
upon the general government to send troops the govern
ment have 900 troops in Washington and railroad 10
carry them there but Tor three weeks while the mob
in full force, they do not send them would ask the
senator whether, such OF neglect OF duty The
part OF the federal government they would not be bound
10 pay indemnity TO Maryandl
Mr.. DAYTON, (resuming) / supposed the senator
wished TO make correction or ask question
Mr.. PRATT. lin his seat That is all intended
MIR. DAYTON, Now, does not the senator that
his very question gives up the case Does he not
that as soon as ne attempts to make II determine upon
the question whether not the federal have
neglected TO provide remedy he abandons his prin-
ciple and positions That is exactly what said before
of the federal government, in reference this
considering Its remedy is by legislative action
We TO provide for legislative remedy. When the
government has done that II has done its duty Now, the
senator supposes IN the case OF domestic violence they
send down here this government having troops hand
TO aid them, yet for weeks together does nothing
neglecs this thing OF providing remedy, and asks,
would 1t not then be responsible But this begging
the question: or Taiher is II not abandoning his
prncIplel
Take this treaty with Mexico We provide the remedy
We do what we in good faith and IT, in defence OF
them, damage is done, they cannot call upon pay
Now, take this provision OF the constitution, that the
United States shall protect each State against invasion
Suppose the State OF New York is invaded and the gen.
eal government in due time supplies the remedy and pro-
tects and opposes its against the INVASION But
suppose while IT is supplying that remedy the city OF
New York is burned down the federal government 10
respOnd damaresP On the appcalOn of the lpyisa.
executive, when the legislature be con
vened-for protection against domestic violence the fed
era government must interfere, Suppose does inter
fere, and yet in despite OF that Interference the city of
Baltimore is burned down your obligation imperative;
you have protect it, You have agreed to do par,icu.
lar thing and you must either do that thing pay the
money. apprebeDd such principle as that will ever
be sanctioned. does strike me, with great respect
do not wish 10 characterize this principle in any terms
which may be considered all dsrespectfu to the iudg
ment OF any other member OF this body, for all
sder these questions in ways peculiar to ourseyes-it
strikes me legal proposition that cannot be main
tanned Tor moment but II sustained, wall lead 10
conses nences the end OF which
Mr. MASON. | can assure the senator over the way
from New Jersey tMr DAYros,l and The Senate gener
ally, that the people of the State which come and
OF Mary and-these three States bordering upon the
sayebodng States of this Union-haye had their aen-
ton turned 10 this subject of losses resulting from the
cape OF their slaves to the Tree States, Thin the las, few
years, very closely and they have made up their minds
upon thing-hat they have right 10 be Unidentified
from some quartet They people accustomed to
law-to laws protect them in their property well a.
in their liberty and IN their lives And they accus-
toned, moreover, IN that spirit OF sefreiance which be-
longs The American pe0pe determine that where the