The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-26

iy =. 4 O.
Mr., FooTE | am rather inclined to think thai my
mistake about this matter, notwithstanding the fscls he
has just stated Certainly expect TO with him He
have overlooked the fact that il obvisus
al the present me that IN the course OF few mO0tha
the general understanding the whole OF that part u
Mexico bordering the Rio Grande is to be roann4acd
to the United States Laughter In that event shsn
Mr. MASON | would say, in reference to that s.lAs.
sufficient for the day the evil thereof Al present the
boundary OF the United States the middle Of ths RIO
Grande The bill authorizes the expenditure OF this aps
ptopraton anywhere in the Rio Grande for the removal
OF obslIuctions in that river. =,
Mr. MASON: No, sir; not as read it, aaE.
th mS bORLaND M was gong To- e call The attention OF
lows: ~ sA1s.5
For renewing the distractions in the Rio Gande river.
Mr. FoOTE. | will say to gentlemen that they have
river in Texas II we do nothing better than that. we
ought to correct the geographical mistake at any rate.
when The whole of the river is located in Texas, while
part OF only located there think that upon princi-
pies Of comfy we ought not thus seemingly 10 encroach
upon the premises of others fa.t 1hdNtIs ao4g
Mr.. BU TIER. 1t would be singular thing, il such
an appropriation should be made that which s pro-
yded for in the biIl--to improve the Rio Grande, in
Texas-whch | suppose means the Texan side OF il.
There nation upon earth that is able 10 protect aeH
river, and TO throw the sand upon the other side Why.
such proposition would not be heard Of unless we a.
sumed lindS1s that we had the power I.s.l9,a.
Mr.. EWING ] suppose il would be admissible 10
take on, ,T, ihe snsgs upon our SIDE OF the river
should bear in mind what the Roman Emperlr said
g one inch OF ground is equal 10 dispute for .heaeu-
Mr.. MASON. Ifgentlemen will l,aOk at this bill, they
will that ii does limit the diture TO the State
Of Texas. The word Texas, rs introduced there
merely as descriptive word. The expression is; ,i
"For wing distractions the Rio Grans river.
Texas, S25. 1000" e#s ##lsst3 4 oa4i 81
II is merely explanatory, as is the word Louisiana.
in the following appropriation: s,l 49,
"For the Improvement Of Bayou La Fourch, in Loui.i-
ana x25, 900" ssias5
And also the words that are introduced in the follow
Ing appropriation: .. sags4st iass1s
Cobscock bay Falls island, below the port Of Penn
broke, the coast of Maine, $4,000" H.,
Which are merely descriptive, and nothing more. But
in the bill as now stands, the expenditure s auhor-
lied for removing distractions in any part OF that river
ask the yeas and nays on my amendment. rtn
The yeas and nays were ordered.
this pont' /, really tina, there is Thn6il
provides for the removal Of obstroctions -whetef
" In The Rio Grande rver Texas" Why, there is no 4ch
NO rEEs1s rysf ws1 s
that separates the State OF Texas from the espuSiY
Mexico, and portion of that river is upon tho ~
/
between the half and the whole will see that shs Nse
OF that river is not in Texas; and yet 90 dessbA& ia
the bill. II does say Rio Grsade" and :. bio GsAAd
the whole and not the half Of that river 81
Mr.. BUTLER do think and repeat, that this very
proposition illustration of the whole bill It has not
been consdered but has been forced upon Congress ct
a time when there is time to consider it. | say that
this very proposition open the Rio Grande 10 pre-
sumption that the United States have the domiaon Of tint
river without consulting Mexico--a presumption which
would be offensive to any nation upon earth. Now, the
proper way open the Rio Grande would be BY cou>
ven,lon with Mexico, and both courtesy, national law
and regard 10 justice would seem to prescribe such
course. ..-.t taiH. y w.
Why, even between two States tha, is observed Be-
tween South Carolina and Geergia-I believe we afe Z
little Jealous upon subjects, but generally ogfee
upon 1aihep-why. we would not allow GeoEic 70 az.
derta 10 interfere with the Savannah river at all with
out consulting South Carolina. - ~ ~ s'li
Mr. BERRiEN, lin his seat) You have no fiKht TO
Mr.. butler NV friend says we have no right 10
the Savannah Well, we take right TO It any:
how [Iaugh,erl Georgia has been rather pretenave
upon that subject We own the Altamaha, bat faxe1
right to the State beyond the Savannah and now stt
claims the whole OF it. But only used that ~ IN ius;
traton. We would not permit Georgia 10 undenAke 10
interfere with the Improvement OF the Savannah liver
without the consent OF South Carolina. Neither would
Georgia permit South Carolina to do 10 without the same
observances Hence by provision OF an act OF ConSfe
there is convention between these two States o that
purpose will not undertake to dictate TO Mexico what
shall be done with her river. So.
Mr. BORLAND II seems to me little late in the day
to take this exception to this portion OF the bill have
heard no on this subject when the appropsia-
tions were made for side OF Lake Erie, even now
on the appropratons in this bill for that purpose Will
Great Britain take exceptions to that and consider i m
occasion OF The Rio Grande river separates us from
Mexico and have much right TO improve our sl&
OF that river have TO improve side 0flAks ESe
which separates from the British provinces, TO which
have heard no objection. al3 v 'sd A4jy.
MIR FOOTE. This bill proposes to improve both sides
Of the Rio Grande @Ht sNf pW
Mr. DAVIS, Of Mississippi. This is very different
proposition TO improving Lake Ere, II is very well
that the Rio Grande at certain seasons almost
sinks into the sands that form IFS bed Very little
known OF the geological formation OF its banks and n
might very readily that tapping the stream would
destroy its navigation II we have the nght, thcn, to
tap the sream-or as honorable senator's ny. IMPROVE
side of the riverwe may destroy the navgauon o.
the whole stream Then, again, the navigauon m1M
be DESTROYED in another way. There IL reason 70 b6se
that the river crossed by lodges OF rocks, which fou
we have the right upon side Of the river 70 ~ aWat
these natural dams, the whole DavEaton OF the hvef
might be DESTROYED by such construction II seems il
desired to be put upon this clause OF the bill Such
not the case with Lake Erie That il arguing upon t
which is not at all similar or even analogous lsai ~
Mr. BORLAND Since the senator from Mississippi
Mr. DAvisl has made this distinction between Lake
Erie and the Rio Grande, desire to direct his astention
the Niagara river which separates Canada from ths
United States Great Britain has made improvement on
the Canadian shore and there any exception sksn
TO her conduct was that deemed canse OF war '-w9
there any convention necessary Why, supPoce sucT
an idea never entered the head OF any human being 4
think the principle this is precisely the same su
has been recognised in the United States long enough 70
be considered settled. - sra..a,
The question being taken upon the amendment o'ered
by the senator from Virginia Mr. MAsorJ oy 49, sno
Nays il was relectedyeas 2i nays 3i--as
YEAs-Me.ms Alchi.on, Betrisn, BraabatE; ,boslsr.
Mfssiss