Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-06-29

United States with Mexico there seems me 70 30 double
propey In giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction 70 s1ae
the construction Of that treaty. think We ought % allow
Texas be the actor instead of providing -" na' ne
United States shall sue Texas It WIN % our M, S s
that will be organized under the operation Of this bill onr
Government will be in full operation there VIII nave iu
possession of the Territory. In this state o. ac Goes not
make much difference whether party or tne oner become
the actor in the suit but to me that the natural or
aer If things would be- to provide that Texas may bring
suit against the United States.
Hsvng made ,bs explanation Of the amendment which
have offered do not think necessary to say any thing
more at this time.
M. WEBSTER. dare say it is very proper to make
some provision for this subjects but would suggest TO the
Senate that any provision made, should be one which
will he eecfua and the execution of which should depend
onlv upon the voion Of this Government The provision
of the honorable member from Kentucky Mr UNDERwooD)
gives to Texas the right TO gives her, therefore, the
right to orber suing and she should prefer to take some
other mode Of settling the question, she, Of course will DO
co. The direct course undoubtedly is say that if Texas
does not agree these rendered to her the part OF
the Government of the United States shall be the duty Of
the President suit to be instituted In the Supreme
Court for the purpose of settling and adjudgng upon the
true line of boundary between New Mexico and Texas
We stand my friend suggest exactly IN the Po
sition of trustee. We want to settle the question for the
benefit Of both New Mexico and Texas Nothing can Dc
more simple and nothing else will be eecua but for the
United States take the initiative sclf to cause suit to be
brought by the United States and very little more is neces
say settle the whole matter because there are various
rules Of the Court prescribing when States are and
do not consider it order make this amendment
practical to make section Of than three lines hope
the member from Kentucky will consider whether this will not
be the better way.
promise. AsEsAroa, (playfully.) And adjustment
Mr.. CLAY. And adjustment. think, If my colleague
would reject be will that will be best TO introduce both
measures that Texas may sue she pleases. but that the
Government in the Of her not doing sp shall bring
suit Now it Is true, according to the suggestion of my
colleague that would be right for the party out Of posses
sion to bring suit; but that party might not think proper
to bring suit would suggest the propey Of putting IN
the alternative SO that If she does think proper to bring
suit the United States may file bill in the Supreme Court
II nv coeauge will put the that alternative then
shall have no objection to the amendment
Mr. RUSK. hope the amendment will not be adopted,
either with the modification suggested without it. do
not intend to 60 into the controversy whether under the
stuton Of the United States the Supreme Court has jurs
dicon upon subject Of this description. but with the utmost
respect for gentlemen learned in the law, must say that
do not believe that the Supreme Court has any II has
or can ever assume jurisdiction, must be under prov
sion of the consultation Of the United States be
done by Legislative enactmen for how jurisdiction
State which is not already given by the constitution
be conferred by simple act of Congress
Mr. BERRIEN. We cannot give jurisdiction to the su-
preme Court but call upon the Executive Of the
Government to cause that question to be determined.
Mr. RUSK. And that proceeds upon the ground that it
is settled fact that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
Mr. BERRIEN. That question will be presented for the
decision Of the Supreme Court anterior the decision Of the
question upon the title.
Mr. RUSK. And that must proceed upon of two
suggestions that the Supreme Court has urisdcon
Or has not that it is necessary gveit that jurisdiction
by the action of Congress
Mr.. BERRIEN. 1t proceeds simply on the ground that
it is advisable present the whole question to the decision
Of the Supreme Court-6s to decide to its jurisdiction,
and then to decide the question of title.
Mr.. RUSK. Even with that explanation am opposed
to the entire amendment know that Texas will contend
to the end that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the
all and cannot have any under the constitution and
the illustration put by the Senator from Kentucky first up,
shows my mind conclusvey that Congress- without
actmen of this sort would have power to bring suit in
the Supreme Court Of the u Sateso terminate this difficulty
Ifhe Supreme Court has jurisdiction certainly the right
ought be reciprocal If understand the position
assumed it s that the United States may Texas, but
Texas cannot the United States without act Of Con-
gress authorizing to be done. This convnces that the
Supreme Court has not jurisdiction
The Debate continued by Messrs. RUSK, BADGER,
FOOTE, and MASON.
Mr. BUTLER. l intended to make some remarks with
he view Of directing the attention Of the Senate to the mpor
lance Of the subject embraced in this amendment lay down
the proposition, That know of in which the United
States be sued IN nm or be party suit without its
own consents and in of view but convention,
submission arbitration know of no case in which the
United States may be by law party except as plaintiff
There may be controversy in which The Federal court pr
MARTY may have jurisdiction, like any other party in interest
to dues under laws enforce penalties
&c. In such the rights and abez of the parties
expressly recognised and result from law and obligation and
subjects Of ordinary udction between the Govern
ment and private citizens corporations &C. The parties in
the Supreme Court limited and enumerated State can
be party defendant except in the Supreme Court
and then only in the specified in the constitutions and
then it is court of exclusive and original jurisdiction. In
all affecting ambassadors and other public ministers
and those in whcha State shall be party, the Supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction In such cases. the
would occupy the position Of indifference, regards the
parties before Especially controversies between
States where State is involved in controversy
with any other party than the United States In such
cases. its decision would not involve the extent of its
Government and it could have temptation to take part
with or the other Of the lidgating parties Two
States may dispute about boundary, about
essential right growing out Of the constitution of the
United States and these disputes that may be submitted
to the Supreme Court for adjudication by the States them
selves. do not know that there any provision Of law to
say how process shall he served, how suit shall be
brought how State may be made party, how shall
be brought before the Supreme Court There has heretofore
been little difficulty, the States carrying the litigation
before the Supreme Court have made objection in being
brought before it, The United States has assumed
be party, and hope will and before they attempt to
take such position before of the departments of their
Federal Organization, they ought have legislative
sanction and direction Before the United States, party
undertake to bring before its Judicial tribunal sovereign
State that may pechance be dpung the extent of Federal
power enforced by the State ITSELF there should be
to direct the suit and the mode Of conducting it. the Gov
eminent should think proper suit ought
emanas from some other branch Of the Government than the
tribunal that try il s officers. No such act has
passed for such purpose and yet the Federal and State
jurisdictions have often in conflict Such conflicts have
ALWAYS brought in question the constitutional extent Federal