The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-08-12

Mr.. ROCKWELL asked and obtained the
unanimous consent Of the House for the introduc-
ton 1t resolution directing the proper ofhcer Of
the House TO pay over 10 the administrasor ex-
e.utor Of Daniel p. King, late member iron,
Massachusetts, the balance due him Tor pay ard
mileage at the time of his death which was read
and agreed tn fa ~ N
Mr.. NELSON moved to go into COMMITTEES
of the Whole on the private calendar.
Mr.. BAyLY moved to go into Committee of
the Whole on the state Of the Union. When, at
the request Of Mr.. Harlan, Messrs Nelson and
Bayly having temporarily Withdrawn their re-
Mr.. HARLAN then by leave urged on the
House the necessity for imme lately enacting the
bill for the relief Of Alloloh a Miami Indian, his
legal representatives and their grantees. And
then,
On motion of Mr.. HARLAN the Committee of the
Whole House Tomorrow was discharged from
the further consideration of the above mentioned
bIj, md having been ordered to be engrossed and
read the third time, it was passed
The question recurring the motion to go into
Committee ofthe Whole on the private calendar:
II WAS not agreed to.
And then the House went into Committee Of
the Whole on the state Of the Union--Mr. BuRr
in the ,chair---and taking up the Civil and Dpo-
matte appropriation bill,
Mr.eftAMPTON concluded his speech COM
menced ON the day before, in favor Of the views
as to the rights of Texas TO the disputed territory
found in the recent message of the President on
this subject.
Mr.. MOORE spoke next. He held that Texas
had no valid claim 10 the disputed territory but
believing that the United States was bound in
equity for certain Of the debts Of Texas was ready
to appropriate fair sum in the settlement of this
question which should be applied to the extn-
punishment of these demands.
Mr.HARALSONt the addressed then Committee
at length in speech upon the territorial slavery
question. He was most anxious for settling that
question fully and finally, on basis which should
prove satisfactory TO the whole country if that
might be possible; and he protested against the
anti-savery policy that The North seemed bent on
forcing upon the legislation of Congress. He ex-
pressed his continued appreciation Of the plan OF
settlement known as the Clayton Compromise He
was opposed TO the nominal non-intervention poll
cy now being urged, which was IN effect, a pro-
position to give the South the name of non-inter-
yenton after the North had appropriated large
share Of the territory to herself and had surroun-
ded the rest with by chain Of circumstances us
bid fair to exclude the South from the rest.
Mr. II. then arr uel the question of the title of
Texas to the dis ut ID territory, maintaining its
validity to be beyond dispute. The friends OF
California in insisting her admission as thew
proposed, were pursuing course which might
end in the adoption of policy the part Of
Georgia and other Southern States to suit them
selves, without regard TO the views interests Of
the rest of the Union As matters stood, the
South asked for justice only. As for himself, his
allegiance due, first to his State and go as 81
would, he would be found with her IN any con-
tngency.
Mr. f. was willing to make concessions for
the sake of peace, harmony and the Union. He
had no plan to which he was welded in this mat
ter of the dputed Texas boundary, being wiling
to sustain whatever Texas herself might approve.
But until she had signifed her approval def
nitey, he felt boundt oppose the project recently
enacted by the Senate,
Mr.. PEASLEE then addressed the Committee
urging the justice of the claim Of New Hampshire
To the interest due on the amount expended by
New Hampshire on account Of the General Gov
eminent during the Northeastern boundary diff
Guilty.
Mr.. WOODWARD was aware that the Com
mittee were indisposed to hear speech on any
subject. So strong was this opposition on the part
Of the House, and so little did the country now
look to speeches, that he should have declined to
address the Committee upon this bill, but for
desire to correct the Misrepresentation Of those
who Eod that members who favored the CLAYTON
Compromise and oppose the Clay scheme, are in
consistent The first, he held, covered the whole
question, while the Clay bill touched but part
Up to a late period, all in this country acknow
lodged the right of Texas to the Bio Grande. al
ambitious Individual, aspiring to be pacifcator,
had originated the other claim to what is now
termed the disputed territory, as it were.
Mr.. w. then argued at some length, the ques-
ton of the binding force of the Mexican laws
over the acquired territory, prohibiting slavery
there. which he held to be an unsound position
With the Clayton Compromise in force, slave
holder going into California would find the Next
can laws IN force there, practically silent on the
subject, while the Constitution would expressly
legalize the existence of slavery.
Mr.. MANN claimed that the Constitution pro-
hlbied the existence Of such property there. A
Shareholder as MIR. Nj. went on to prove, on going
into that territory with the Clayton Compromise
pr ssel, would be protected amply in the enjoy
n ont of his properly, which would not be the
under the operation Of the bills now proposed
to lie enacted. He held, that under the Clayton
scheme, on going to California with slaves the
planter would be at home, and might keep them
with as clear title as in South Carolina.
The Clay scheme was miserable abortion. II
designated as California, much territory, which,
before was known by that title. Thus, in
the same way il proposed to take from Texas much
territory which was justly hers. Mr.. w. then
argued the title of Texas at length. 1t rested hers,
he held, on the grounds which all nations OBJ
tanned property without directly paying for it; that
Is, under the laws of nations. Her title was as
good as that of the United States to Oregon. The
time at which she allowed to be possession Of
the disputed territory, was nearer at hand at the
period OF annexation, than was that at which the
United States would have had possession of Ore.
gon, at the date OF our British treaty concerning
Oregon
Now, the claim Of Texas to the disputed terri
tory was by conquest II was also by contiguity
and because she could take il !, and further, be-
cause it was necessary TO her completeness, &c.
The treaty with Santa Anna gave her fair color
of title and constructive possession. BY tie an
nexation tr atty, the United States acknowledged
the validity of this title.
Up to the treaty with Mexico all parties except
those with whom Mr.. GiDDiNes acted, in es,ima-
ting the slavehoding territory ofthe United States,
bounded on the north west according to the claim
Of Texas, m the Rio CIR nde
Mr.. CASS in the Nicholson letter has uged that
the resolution, Of annexation put the legal rondi-
ton of this disputed territory beyond all contra :
versy, forever. The resolutions of annexation
conferred the General Government only the
rightto settle the question with a foreign govern
ment There authority in this Govern
ment to settle the question of boundary without
the consent Of Texas with foreign government.
The resolutions were particular in describing the
question to be that of boundary with Mexico
The United States bound herself by the annexa-
ton resolutions to protect the rights of Texas as