The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1851-07-04

Congress would u s cenceds 'lls< tleima
She was goins md u axch and
srmy hundroSa oI guah e'vilder-
ness, iuhabiIed N l5es pgaIdaI
which she sske tli9 ION Of ''!|e
Government, and storm The Rarflsons q
,ho United States ins New Mexicqly Il
confees | was not much alarmed by these /
demonstrations. But other genuemep|
thought them Sufficiently serious 70 make make
large concessions expedient- Congress
finally sqreed 10 pay Texas ten millions
Of dollars and csde;to hsra greater poT''
hon Of the territory 10 which, as | have
already shown, she bad no lille, if she
would consent so Yell her claim 10 the
residue, and relieve Us from the terroIs
or invasion! ~ lssss siiS
The government ofthis Union certain
N ought 10 exercise great liberality in
,ha adjustment Of conflicting claims with
Individual States appealing 10 lis honor
ind Justice. But nothing should be
yielded to menace ;--nothins TO demands
ii The point Of the bayonet. ot
But another reason had much influence
upon my vote against this Ten Millions
bill. Years ago this Democracy entered
their solemn protest against National
Assumption Of State debts. Il might
have been convenient tothe people Of
Ohio 10 have shifted the burden Of her
debt upon tho General Government. IL
might have been convenient for Illinois,
deeply involved, even TO the point Of
suspending payment, to have repaired
her credit by the aid Of tie National
Treasury. And so Of the other States.
But the Democracy Of the Nation sternly
refused The smallest countenance 10 the
idea Of assumption. Each State was left
10 manage it's own indebtedness an iis
own way. But the Ten Millions bill
provided for the assumption Of iivc'mil-
lions Of the Texan debt in addition 70 the
payment Of five millions aud the surrender
of vast territory as the price of peace.
Fellow-ciiizens, desired for The
United States not single squsre inch Of
land Justly belonging 10 Texas. No
question Of slavery would influence me
Il Ill IN the settlement Of question Of
boundary. A court might ss well make
<ha character Of lis;gants an element in
iho determination Of question Of title.
Lsf Texas have her land; let her have
Il al. l only desired 10 have the matters
in dispute settled upon some principle.
was quite willing 10 have them determ..
ined by The award Of impartial arbiira,ors
or commissioners. | voted for PROPOSE.
ton Of that sort. voted also for pro-
position to refer the subjec! OF dispute TO-
The decision Of the Supreme Court. \
certainly thought that considering the
composition ofihat Court, FIVE Judges out
Of nine icing from Slave States. Texas,
al least, could not object 10 this reference.
But she declined the jurisdiction Of the
Supreme Court. She refused an ADJUST
ment by Commissioners She insisted
on money and land. Iihoneht her claims
unfaundsd, and voted against the bill
which allowed t'lem. ! regarded j, as a
measure wrong nprinciple, dangerous as
precedent, and wholly Inconsistent with
Democratic doctrines:
The Fugitive Slave Bill was another
ofthese measures oflcompromise. Per
init me 10 call your attention TO brief
historical account Of the constitutional
provision ID relation 10 fugiiiyes from
service. Soon after ahe Convention Of
Farmers assembled siins IA / 7e7, four drafts
of constitution dk plan Of government,
were submitted sonits she Virginia plan,
~ M. Randolpb; tho' New Jersey plan,
81 M. Patierson;l tle Souths Carolina
nian. bv Nj. Pinckney; The New York
nlan. .bs MI. Hamilton. Il must he re-.
membetcd ihai iii sfesa swsfe sh6u Slave.
boldiDg States; and II Is remarkable
xnouob ihat not ohc of these t,laiIs con.
snins3 .snv a|lui'ssion. |li's boweyer 'roliote. ID
ia subject of fueitives from service.
a. IA Il Il drs,n, bei,o fsue fIIat g,ro,