The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-22
THElUNION.

better discuss il without using hard words upon either
side Now, my friend says the lille OF Texas - clear
do not think 50. There is difference OF opinion.
have certainly no interest 10 this question, and have
nothing in the world connected with the subject cacu-
lated 70 bias nay judgment - opinion y the slgn'es as
OF perfect indifference So far as my wishes are con-
cened wish that Texas could absorb the whole of New
Mexico, But, when we consider what Is New Mexico
and what is Texas that question 10 be decided DINER
wise than by wishes and bases, My friend may De
right Texas may the whole OF this territory east Of
the Rio Grande but entertain different opinion upon
this subject All ask from him is TO do me the justice
that do himto believe am honest about ii that Is
not fraudulent il is not petence not dishonest and
that would be as lar from pressing fraudulent or DIS
honest claim as my friend from Texas
Now sir, what il the question as 10 boundary Is II
to be decided II il be decided how There are two
parties to the question. Surely neither party can claim
The right 10 decide the question exclusively against the
other party and yet il understand my friend, i comes
precisely that position He says that Texas insists,
and he thinks rightly that she has good claim, an In,
dispuable title to the whole Of this land in dispute, and
that the United States cannot honestly set up contrary
claim any portion OF it. Then, what is TO be done
Are bound 10 say that # Texas thinks 80, is so
Are we bound TO say that Texas has put the brand Of
reprobaon upon title, and therefore we must not
in Are bound to say that Texas declares there
is question, and therefore we Pnst be contents Sure
ly not Then, what is to be done? This bill proposes 10
make an offer 10 Texas to have peaceable ADJUST
ment OF this whole matter, without deciding the vexed
question Of strict title at all There y nothing dishon-
orabe in that II there be dispute between two ndi-
vduals the boundaries Of their respective lands,
there's nothing dsonorabe in one OF them saying to the
other: We will not embarass ourselves in this qaes-
ton; we will nix the boundary and will pay you SO
much money for the claims you think you have beyond
the boundary fixed That is not in the least degree dis
honest dishonoable among individuals. nor can il DO
to Texas Suppose that Texas refuses the offer what il
be done Is the question to remain unsettled forever
Is Texas settle il Tor herself irrespective OF the judy
and opinion Of the United States OF the members Of
this Congress- Of this Senate orany other portion OF the
American people, That lisa proposition too unreasonable
10 be maintained Texas is but one OF the States OF the
Union and she has no more right 10 settle for herself
disputed question between her and the United States
than North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts. or any
of the Old Thirteen has 10 set up such preence
What, then, are we 10 do! Texas refuses TO settle;
Texas rejects the proposition made to her. There but
three alternatives left: first, that we shall yield 10
Texas-,hat cannot be maintained Then there are bat
two modes OF settlements one peaceaby by reference to
the opinion oil arbiter the other forcbly by an APP
peal Can there be any hesitation in the choice
Is Texas already grown SO and powerful
that she to listen to that tribunal appointed BY the
constitution OF the United States for such purposes and
which has repeatedly had sovereign States before il as
parleswhich has repeatedly settled their territorial
rghls' We ask nothing in this proposition respecting
Territories, except what exists under the constitution,
and has been practically apped e the other States form
what my sna from cpaT
the of Texas declining the offer made her. ne pro-
poses 10 let suit be instituted in the Supreme Court Of
the United States and let the title be fairly considered and
adjusted Now. my friend says Texas has clear title.
II she has can be have any doubt what will be the udg
ment of that high tribunal upon it Certainly i is lar
session than members here My friend from Georgia
[Mr BERRIEsl thinks that Texas has good title. The
arguments that will make manifest that title TO him and
before that tribunal 10 Why then, il my friend
from Texas confident OF his title, is he SO unwilling
to submit it 10 the arbament Of the Supreme Court OF
the United States l. sir, for one, am perfectly willing
that that tribunal should decide the part OF the United
States and, as have already mentioned, so far my
wishes concenedn this great controversy the larger
the boundary OF Texas the more shall be contented.
But sir. this question of strict right and should be
decided upon its own merits the proper way and not
upon preferences or assertions on either side.
Mr.. FOOTE, Qnierposlng) Will the senator allow
me 10 ask him single question wish to do so Tor my
satisfaction am sure he has examined the sub
jec want TO know what the honorable senator thinks
of the constitutional capacity oil the Supreme Court oil
the United States take jurisdiction question like
this refer TO the question discussed by the honora
Bile senator from Virginia, Mr.. MAsoN] should be
glad 10 hear the honorable senator's views upon this sub
Mr.. BADGER do not propose to 90 into any dis.
cusson OF that subject Il seems to me that it i clear
under the constitution of the United States. The Su-
preme Court OF the United States has original jursde-
lion OF all controversies to which State is party.
That is clear Then, under the constitution of the Uni.
tends ten 10 al pS which shs United States
party That is the whole OF IT, Here the parties are the
United States upon side, and State upon the other
IL the opposite party 10 the United States any other
political body than State, the United States must inst-
tue its proceedings inferior court, and, through
that process, come ultimate decision in the Su-
preme Court, by means OF appeal or writ OF error but
the opposite party from the United States being State OF
the Union aud the constitution OF the United States hav
conferred upon the Supreme Court OF the
United States original jurisdiction in all controversies TO
which State party il TO me that the conclu-
sion is irresistible. The United States are capable .of
suing. The United States capable oil having claim
and by the constitution OF the United States, State is
capable OF being sued in the Supreme Court OF the United
States. SO il seems TO me. But am not going 10 dis
cuss the question
confess that little mortified 10 see my friend
from Texas Mr. RUsE much excited. and 10 hear him
calling 40 many hard names about claim which he con
sidered particularly clear, when have the misfortune
to differ from him upon the question. and in relation TO
which think II is quite possible Tor the United States to
entertain clam, without being liable 10 the charge OF In
Justice, even against the claim OF Texas
! Mr.. RUSK. Mr.. President, may have used rather
strong language
Mr. BADGER That you did
MIR. RUSK think my case justihes II but certainly
intended to be respectful 10 those who differ from
For upwards of two years have been asking that The
grounds which the United States set up claim should
be gwen. Whenever posi-roue was 10 be established,
the right OF Texas has been Denied but the right oil the
from Mary land (Mr PEARcE1 AID the honorable senator
for Vermont Mr. UpHaM] before the treaty denied the
night OF Texas IL is true The honorable senator from Ne
JerseyI Mr. DAyTos the other day attempted TO show the
title oil the United States These the only attempts
that have been made And yet Judgment after judy
men has been pronounced here against Texas, and in
favor OF the United Staes, without deignng to give the
reasons for that judgment Besides, SIR tos ques-
lion great Importance 10 Texas. She is poor and in
debt She has clamotous creditors This s.the only
she has of paying her debts. She has not full
The ITnied Siaiea haye. and iudg.