The southern press., 1851-06-28


800 miles in length; while the Rio Grandc hav-
ing It's course in its lower portion some l5o
miles west Of the Nueces, extends from the
\ Gulf some 2O00 miles 60 It's sources IN The
Northern mountains Of New Mexico. This ter
ritory between the Nueces and the lilo Grande,
part of the original Mexican State OF famaull-
pas, was that which the Wings denied and the
! Democrats affirmed 10 belong 10 Texas Not a
foot aboye-~not foot OF all that was, before
the treaty of cession, Coahuia, Chihuahua, aud
! New Mexico, belonged TO Texas. All this ter
ritory upon the treaty of cession, became the
territory of the United States, precisely in the
same sense and to the same extent that the re-
gion northwest Of the Ohio became the terri
tory of the Union, upon the cession by Virginia
of her claim To It,
Texas, nevertheless, boldly asserted her pre-
tensions She even talked Of going to war with
the general government in Wndication OF her
claim To be sure her representatives at Wash
ington were asking the interpostion of the same
general government to protect her from Indian
hostilities Ard it seemed hardly natural that
she should fight her protector. War, too, re-
quires munitions; and to provide them there
| must be treasure. The resources of Texas had
been exhausted in her contest for Independence.
She could not pay her debts, at least she did
| not, and her creditors were urging the govern
nent of the Unitod States to assume and pay
her obligations Without an army, without re-
sources, without credit, Texas was about, we
were told, to make war upon the United States,
| if Congress would not concede her claims. She
was going to raise and march an army hundreds
Of miles through Wilderness inhabited by
those tribes against which she asked the protec-
| ton of the government, and storm the gar:isons
of the United States in New Mexico confess
was not much alarmed by these demonstra-
tions But other gentlemen thought them suf-
fcientIy serious to make large concessions ex-
pedient. Congress finally agreed to pay Texas
ten millions of dollars and cede to- her greater
portion of the territory to which, as have al
ready shown, she had no title, il she would con-
sent to Weld her claim to the residue, and re-
eve us from the terrors Of invasion!
The government of this Union certainly ought
to exercise great liberaty in the adjustment of
conflicting claims with individuaStates appealing
to its honor and justice. But nothing should be
Welded to menace nothing to demands at the
point of the bayonet.
But another reason had much influence upon
my vote against the ten millions bill. Years ago
the Democracy entered their solemn protest
against national assumption of State debts 1t
might have been convenient to the people of
Ohio to have shifted the burden of her debt upon
the general government 1t might have been
convenient for Illinois, deeply involved, even
to the point of suspending payment, to have
repaired her credit by the aid of the national
treasury. And so Of the other States. But the
Democracy of the nation sternly refused the
smallest countenance to the idea Of assumption
Each State was left to manage its own indebted
ness in its own way But the ten millions bill
provided for the assumption of five millions of
the Texan debt in addition to the payment of
five millions and the surrender of vast territory
as The price of peace.
| FeIlow-citizens, desired for the United States
not single square inch of land justly belong
ing to Texas No question of slavery would in-
fluence me at all in the settlement of question
of boundary A court might as well make the
character OF litigants an element in the determ-
nation of question Of title Let Texas have
her land let her have it ALL ! only desired to
have the matters in dispute settled upon some
principle. was quite willing to have them de-
termined by the award of impartial arbitrators
or commissioners. | voted for proposition of
that SORT ! voted also for proposition to refer
the subject of dispute to the decision of the
Supreme Court. | certainly thought that con-
si1ering the composition of that court,fve judges
out of nine being from slave States, Texas, Mt
least could not object to this reference But
she declined the jurisdiction Of the Supreme
Court. She refused an adjustment by commits
siopers She insisted on money and land. /
thought her claims unfounded, and voted against
the bill which allowed them. ] regarded it MS
a measure wrong in principle, dangerous as a
precedent, and wholly inconsistent with Demo-
cratic doctrines.
The Fugitive slave bill was another of these
measures Of compromise. Permit me to call
your attention to brief historical account of
the constitutional provision in relation to fugi-
tives from service. Soon after the convention
of trainers assembled in 1887, four drafts of
constitution, or plan of government, were sub
mitted to IL; the Virginia plan, by Mr.. Randolph !;
the New Jersey plan, by Mr.. Patterson; the
South Carolina plain, by Mr. Pinckney; the New
York plan, by Mr.. Hamilton. Itmust be remem-
bered that all these were then slaveholdng
States; and it is remarkable enough that not
one of these plans contained any alluson, how
ever remote, to the subject of fugitives from
service. So far is it from being true that pro-
vision for the reclamation of fugtives was at
all leading object even with Southern gentle
men in that convention. Indeed the idea of such
a clause does not seem TO have been entertained
until n late period in the session of the conven-
ton. When proposed it was adopted with
degree Of unanimity which indicates an under.
standing based upon some concessions intended
as equivalents for it. My own idea of the ar
rangement is this The Congress of the confed-
eracy was sitting in New York while the consti-
tutional convention was sitting in Philadelphia
Several distinguished gentlemen were members
at the same time of both bodies Each, there
fore, was likely to be well informed as to the
transactions of the other On the 18th of July
Congress promulgated the ordinance of 1887,
prohibiting slavery in the territory northwest of
the Ohio, and providing for the erection, Of five
free States within its limits. This ordinance
adopted by a unanimous vote, was understood
TO secure permanent majority of free States in
the confederation. No one contemplated the
permanent or even very long continued existence
of slavery in any State. The ordinance itself
contained provision for the reclamation of
fugitves from service limited to cases of escape
from original States. Nor was this limitation
accidental. The benefits Of the provision, rela-
ting to The navigable waters leading to the Mis-
sissippi and the 81. Lawrence, were expressly
secured to the citizens not only of the original