The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-29

That resolution imposed duty upon Texas Tsxaswas
to be the active party IN this matter Texas was the
party 10 make the cssson OF whatever that clause In the
resolution Of annexation required to be done. Now,
suppose she has complied with the terms OF the resou-
lon OF annexation she has ceded to the United States
whatever that clause OF the resolution of annexation re-
qured her TO cede. But did Texas think she was
required by that clause 10 cede her officers TO the United
States believe not Did the United States ever de-
mand of her that she should cede these officers 10 the
United States. in 10 make them part Of the
naval establishment OF the United States presume
body ever heard OF that Yet gentlemen that under
that clause OF the resolution OF annexation these gente
men equ'laby become attached to the navy Of the United
States This is claimed by gentleman with whom al
most always sympaibze But we do not appear TO sym
paihze on this subject.
Mr.. DODGE, OF Iowa think the senator totally
msapprehends me. do not say that the resolutions OF
annexation did so provide; said that they ought to
have provided in that manner.
| Mr.. WALKER Upon that ground canno find as
much sympaihze with the views of the gentle
man from Iowa upon the other. Why ought il to
have provided that they should be attached to the navy
OF The United States Suppose II should become part
OF the policy OF the United Sa,es--which 1 hope it
never wll-to annex other counIriss TO this suppose
that some all of the Central American States
should at future day be annexed and should have
independent naval establishnents-suppose Canada
should have an independent navy, and should be
nexedwould 1t not be deemed strange that in ad-
ming to our embrace these various countries should
be required not only 10 lake in their naval establish
ments. only their armamen,s in the way OF guns
ships, navy yards dock yards &c., but should be requr
ed to admit also as part OF our naval establishment
their whole official corps. 1t seems to my friend
ought to have received these officers of the Texan navy
And IT shoad have been done in their why should
kind Of naval establishment should have after
time, # such practice were adopted Why, should
have officers from every country which might be annexed
to the United States attached 10 naval establishment
cannot Tor my life upon any ground why these Of
fces should be attached TO the navy OF the United States
Mr. DOWNS i may Be true as the honorable sena.
is not expressly nominated in the bond that these Of
hcers should be admitted into the navy Of the Uri,ei
States do not understand that to be the question for
1t was there would be no necessity on the part OF Con-
gess to act in putting them into the navy But the Qnes
ton is, whether by fair, and liberal, and magnanim
construction OF the eaty was not to be expected mat
when the navy TRANSFERRED the officers would also
come into the navy OF the United States That is the
question: and not whether there was any stipulation in
the treaty authorizing them TO come n without any
ton of Congress- have never had any doubt on that
subject In The hurry of forming the treaty, and when,
perhaps, these officers were fighting the battles OF their
county. there action which formally put them
into navy But there is doubt in my mind that,
upon fair construction OF the treaty they ought to be
doubt that they had every 10 suppose that fair pro-
vision would be made Tor them when the Texas navy
was transferred TO the United States
And why should the officers OF our navy complain
Have they any right TO complain contend that they
have not We do not dspace them in order to bring in
the officers of the Texan navy but incre the
Der of the officers by permitting the Texan officers 10
come in We do not interfere with the officers area
in the navy ask gentlemen who take the ground thal
it would be unjust TO admit these officers into navy.
to tell what harm be done SO long the present
officers maiatain their relative rank The proposition is
10 admit others to be placed above those in the
navy. but simply 10 increase the number.
cannot see anything monsrous in this proposition.
The senator from Wisconsin supposes we may wish to
other countries, and admit their navies, and asks
il we will admit the officers of those naves equality
with ours. see no very good reason why il we annex
other countries. we should not receive their naves and
the officers of their naves along with them If it be-
advisable to annex any country do not see why
we should not increase our navy and II II be advisable to
increase H. do not see why should not adopt the
Wy and officers OF the country annexed But If there
would be any objection to admitting the officers OF
navy OF foreign country after annexation, does not
follow that there would be any objection to admitting
these officers. They every Americans, and some
of them have been officers in navy Therefore the
argument OF the senator from Wisconsin does not apply
in this certainly. Nor do think the question is
fairly presented when it is put the ground OF edui-
table claim which these gallant officers have the Uni
ted States The admission OF these officers will do
justice TO other officers because the number is 80 in
creased not TO dispace them 1t is not fair. in my
opinion TO exclude them Do you suppose that the
Texas authorities in making the treaty. if they had sup
posed that their own naval officers would have been
thrown aside, and notice taken of them would have
accepted III This amendment comes recommended by
the Naval Committee, who approve OF the measure, and
they cannot be accused of being unavorabe TO the Off
Of the OF the United States hope. therefore,
II will be adopted.
Mr. RUSK do moi design 10 detan the Senate |
simply desire 10 read the preamble OF resolution which
was introduced into the legislature OF Texas and passed
both the house and senate II is IN these words:
Whereas there were connected great measure
Of annexation to the confederacy Of which
member various reciprocal rights and conditions prescribed
by the thereof well others clearly implied and
fairly deducble from same, all of which Texa. has
her part fully and completely redeemed and whereas
IL is the opinion of this legislature that the officers OF
late navy by liberal and just " not by strictly Legal
OF the OF annexation, should be inco
poraed navy OF the United States in their several
ranks and they justly entitled the well
from the construction here claimed from their high
personal and PROFESSIONAL and the ZEAL fidelity
arotism and valor with which they sustained the
Of their country while its navy was in existence therefore,
resolved" &c.
Mr.. President, wish. have said before, that the
time OF the Senate authorized me TO occupy very few
moments in answering the arguments which have been
made. In the first place, have been told that the navy
nothing than ships, navy yards, armaments,
and other property. Now, the universal opinion OF
mankind Is that navy means not only the ships naval
armaments and guns. but the officers also When we
speak of the navy OF Great Britain, do not include
the officers well the ships When we speak OF the
navy OF the United States, do mean TO exclude all the
officers and all those who attached to II Z great
has been raised by the honorable senators from
Maryland and Wisconsin, on the ground that we could
not cede The oces and that II comply with the
luton of annexation, we must cede the officers Does
not country cede portion OF its territory to another,
and does every citizen upon that territory 70 along
with the territory that thus ceded, and under the
jurisdiction of the country TO which IL is ceded These
the sort of arguments that have been used II might
well be said that when you cede portion OF the
country TO another do not cede the Inhabitants that
belong to IT, But we are getting 10 the close OF the
ate Texas thinks she is entitled to have her officers in
corporaed into the navy OF the United States but do
no, intend TO debate the subject farther now. want
Mr.. GWIN. II now two o'clock, and we must lose
our amendments unless we vote upon the bill