New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-07-30

Nav not the Senator from Texas Mr.. Ruskl justly
retort upon him by asking wha, be wants
Mr.. DArTos said, II the gentleman would sePa
rate this Texas question from the other and allow
him to vote upon II independently, be would vote
for his pending proposition; but when the Senator
put with il other ingredients, offensive 20 him, he
would not vote for the objectionable measures with
view 10 secure even that which be favored he
believed it was usual for Senators TO endeayor to
improve any bill even though they might design
voting against ii in the end, that 10 the event OF
It's passing, it may be as little Objectionable as pos
sible.
Mr.. UsDKRwooD, in the course OF few re-
marks declared bis readiness TO yield his own oPin,
IONS and vote for almost any measure that would
lead 90 q settlement and peace
Mr. BESToS referred 70 Mr.. CLArs expression
Of hope that this measure would procure set
tlement-inquired whether il was for this hope
merely that the Senate bad been engaged in six
months discussion 10 The delay Of California and all
public business. Had al this been for the simple
hope Of settlement b thought that every SEN
ator must now see the iniquity OF this uniting oil
incopgruous me asures-there had not been an hour
since the trsnsm Of the California message to
Congress when the admission Of that state had not
msiority on this floor, and yet that question had
been postponed for months, and for the mere hope
of a settlement Of other questions. II The Senator
from Kentucky, Mr.. UNDERWOOD, was ready TO vote
frapy MEASURE which would secure settlement he
would say to him, lay this bill upon the table and
take up the separate bills relating to the same
question. He would ask him 10 leave this omnibus
out of which the heaviest passenger with the ten
millions had been spiIed-he desired also to say to
the Senate and the American people that there
| had not been day or an hour during the session
| when there had been majority of the Senate in
| favor of the object OF each Of the measures con
tanned in the bll-if presented each by itself, and
if the Senate had been allowed TO do one thing at
A time as the farmer, mechanic and lawyer does
the general object Of each Of these measures would
| have passed.
| Mr. CAss said the Senator from Missouri was
| mistaken when be supposed every Senator must
| see the inquity of combining these measures-on
| the contrary he but saw the more clearly its pa
| triotism and wisdom. Who did not know that the
ATTEMPT in the first instance to admit California az
| an independent measure would have raised q sec
tona estioD, such as the country had never seen
| before Was il not then worth the experiment
| made TO avoid that sectional question: The Sena-
tor from Missouri had objected 10 the term hope,
used by Mr.. Clay. He would ask upon what else
all legislation rests than the hope the confidence,
the belief that il would produce the desired object.
Mr.HALE expressed his readiness TO vote for
| the amendment because he preferred the arbitra-
| ton of the Supreme Court TO the Commission-not,
| however, because he had any confidence In the
decision OF the Supreme Court, but because he be-
leved there was nothing at issue, nothing at stake,
the success Of Texas being foregone conclusion.
| The Supreme Court was composed OF men, and he
knew very well how that Court was constituted
| aphically, and knowing also the history OF
past decisions of that Court, he felt fully assured
that i. would allow the c lin Of Texas, which could
not be sustained before an honest and unbiased
Jury.
Mr.. FooTE suggested TO the friends Of the nea-
| sure to avoid further discussion.
| Mr. DAYTON expressed his full confidence in the
| Supreme Court. They were, in bis opinion, re-
moved above and beyond all political and personal
| Influences.
| Mr.. Ewing cited the case OF the boundary dis
| pute between Missouri and Iowa, az one In which
the Supreme Court decided against the Slave
holding and In favor OF the Free States He ex'
pressed in strong terms his high opinion Of that
| Court, and bis confidence in its decision he de-
cIared bims elf Opposed to Mr.. Bradbury's amend
| ment because it was simply postponement Of
| tie question. He was in favor Of reference oil
| the que ston 10 the Supreme Court Texas, how
| ever could not institute a suit against the United
States, except law be passed by Congress CIV.
| ing her such power. The United STATES could
were in possession. BE was in favor, then, OF al
fordng the only means which could be offered for
| the bringing OF SUIT
Mr.. FoofE inquired whether Mr.. Ewing means
TO be understood as saying that it was competent
To bring suit for the settlement OF the boundary oil
| Texas before the erection of New Mexico.
Mr. EWING said it was not now competent but
would be upon the passage by Congress OF law
authorizing such suit
Mr.. FooIE read from the Message OF the late
President (which be supposed received the 9nan
mons approyal of his Cabinet) where he refers 70
the fact that suit could not be instituted as things
then were. The Senste agreed with the late
President in that opinion, and had acted accord
ipely but now, at this late day. member OF the
Cabinet comes into the Senate and tells them tha'
the opinion was good for nothing.
Mr. EWING maintained that there was no Goa
| he
expressed by him. The message did not say tha'
il was in the power OF Congress to pass law au'
tloriziDs suit-t declared that as things tnen
were, DO suit could be brought But suppose
he had differed with the President in that opinion
upon the question OF Law, the opinion oil the Attor
nfv General would probably prevail, even though
the Cabinet was made up ofLawyers and II ne nae
| d;fFercd hi, duty would have been silence, Bal
| here "a a Senator, bis duty was 70 express hsoSn
opiniops and act upon them. His position thenwas
first that his opinion was not INCONSISTENT VIZ
the message, and second, that II II was ne was Gu
titled a, Senator to exercise his own opinion
The ouestion on Mr.. Dayton's amendment was
ZEN and Il was rejected Yeas 10 nays 49, al
follows 60 nj. %
yx.s-mesrs Baldwin, Benton, Chase ClaT1 Dsyls o
Mas Dayton Dodge OF Wis Ewing trSsne, nS Ginnsm
lin, Miller, Phelps Seward slni'n' iu'H'" OP
Nnys-Aictison, Badger Bsrnwe Bell Berls s b b.sa
tuTV Bright Butler Casa Clay CemeIr cooper, Usv v.
- uiss Dhw.on Dickinson, Dodge OF love- p Hos
vs,rh Foote. Houston, Hunter, Jone, MmguA's ,s,S.
os, Morris Pesrce Prsu Ru,E Sebastian snieds,
sovs spusnce surgeon Underwood, Wales "hieoAo
! Yuee ...,;s<
NJ Rr,ros moved TO amend, adding provis'
that i no person shall be appointed Commissions
uSo bs. formed or expressed an opinion upon tn'
o.t;on and that ,eid Commissioner shall be sworn
twas twas rejected Yeas l2i Nays 80. e,.a
The question being then taken upon nr' d H' az
bury's amendmentit was rejected fess%oi Nsy
2s. As follows; ,.,.A
e.. sI.Is Cav Cooper Dawson DicIson, D9eso
soxs n'wn, FeIeh Roole Jones' King hsngam no ont
PesTce. Pratt Shields, sprusnce' Ssufseoo 0"o''
N1y,NBaIdwin Banwe, Benton, Butler Chase Cen
a.. nsvis of Mas DAB son. Dodge OF Wis LYLE sI