Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1850-08-23

that instrument. No man could be
seized and tried under the Constitu-
ton, except for violation of law,
Therefore, it was preposterous to
hold that a man could be rightfully
shot down by the military power Of
this Government, for doing that fer
which he couldnotbe punished, when
arraignec, before some legal tribunal
of this country.
He (the PresitlenD could not say
that the jurisdiction of Texas could
not extend up to Santa INe, as he had
said, without virtually deciding the
boundary dispute.
Mr.. Moore inquired whether the
annexation resolutions did not say
that the General Government should
determine the boundaries of Texasl
Mr.. S. replied in the negative.
Had Mexico not put up a claim for
territory East of the Rio Grande, no
power on eartn would have disputed
the claim of Teqas, to this strip of
territory. The only outstanding
claim being extinguished, the claim
of any other party against Texas
v as prepOsterOus.
Mr.. Stevens, ofPennsy'vania, held
that the U. States was the assignee
of Mexico.
Mr.. Stephens, of Georgia, denied
the fact. Texas only permitted the
u. States to become the umpire be-
tween herself and Mexico, not the
assignee ofthe latter.
The House, hy large majority,
in voting that Mexico had spilled
American blood on American soil,
had acknowledged the right ofTexas
to the the territory in dispute. He
Mr.. S. had originally denounced
this declaration as untrue; but the
nation had affirmed it. Would Con-
gress present the shameless front of
now declaring that declaration to
have been made in bad fai th2 That
would be saying to the world, that
we had gone TO war at the cost ofone
hundred and fifty millions, and thou
sands of lives, to steal land from
Mexico; such would be the declara-
ton involved in this proposed change
of front on the part of Congress.
There was another grave question
involved in this controversy. 1t
was whether Congress had the pow
er to pass a law to coerce State of
this Union. He would not discuss
that question now, however. Jack
son had not dared to say that he
would use force against South Caro-
lima until Congress had expressly au~
thorized him to do so. He could
not say whether Texas would main
tain her jurisdiction over the dispu-
ted TERRITORY or not. Were he citi-
zen Of Texas, he should advocate
the enactment of laws extending the
jurisdiction of that State there, to
hang those forcibly combating that
jurisdiction, and to repel by force.
ny forcible effort of the General
Government to dispute its validity.
Whenever inc President Of the u. S.
or his officers attempted to shoot
down American citizens without au-
thority of law, he, for one would go
to the rescue. .s
Mr.. S, here drew an analogy be-
tween such advice as he was here
giving Texas, and the course of our
fathers in the War of Independence.
He approved highly Of the concilia-
tory tone of the message, but if the
Government ever attempted to car
ry out the course for it laid down in
| that paper, his voice would be for
war, and for the destruction of the
changed and vitiated General Gov
ernment. He was for peace, and for
the preservation of the Union, which
could only be preserved by rightful,
constitutional and just legislation.
He denied the allegation of Mr. Ste
vens, of Pennsylvania, that the South
asked special legislation. She had
only asked co-equality and protection
from demands of this character COM
ing constantly from the North, as
Mr.. S. proceeded to show. The
South had done asmuch to the North
and under the laws of nations, (as
Mr.. S. quoted from Vattell to show)
she was en- tiled to enjoy it with as
many privileges in the territory as
the North. He would never acknwl-
edge allegiance for day to a Gov
ernment which arrayed itself against
the property and social organization
OF his section of the Union. Seven
millions of people were not easily
conquered, and it would be as well
for the North to estimate the cost to-