The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-29
came before the Supreme Court and both were decided
adversely 10 the claim OF Texas officers will read the
decision gwen in relation TO that point which
Considering;

r
Mr Justice Nelson delsere the opinion Of the court.
THIS wrlt q error TO the circuit court held N ana
70. the he District q Columbia ! !. hsovv for
mandsmus against the defendant 10 compel me paynen
Of ss 100 aages Of pay due him n I ins tsss Which
application founded on The following laSs h The navy
Of the .ep"be Of Texas on The 2sd September is4
and continued in the down 10 the annexation Of The
pSSo 20 ss co uss March J. s5 and until
into the Union a. one o. ths Saies OF me
at the lime Us navy consisting q i1uf Vessels Q; war
delivered over TO The Of inc United States
.The plaintiff insists that, according TO the terms and
condition OF the compact between two countries on
line uanser OF navy of Texas the United States and
their acceptance OF the he secame officer OF the
United navy and entitled TO his pay and emolumens
He that he had reported himself the
Secretary for duty, aud had demanded his pay Of the
same but that the Secretary had refused recognise him
officer Of the navy, or 10 make payment him
'The court below refused the mandamu and dismissed
the application
" Tie case is now before us for review.
is not pretended that there has been any stipulation
either by act Of Congress by treaty between this
eminent and Texas by which the officers of her navy were
become Incorporated into the navy Of the United States
as consequences OF the xaon but it is supposed to
resat from proper construction and understanding Of
Of the stpnlaons contained in the second joint resolution
Of Ms,ch ! isi5, The part material is as ioows'
after cedng the United States all public edces, iorf
cations barracks and harbos and yards
docks magazines arms. and all other proper
~ and means pertaining 10 the public defence of Texas,
snail all puDllc
:" The argument is. that the term navy properly in
equipments, but also the usual complement OF officers and
board the respective vessels and that in this
.We think not but on the contrary are of opinion tina,
II relates exclusively to the shpsofwar and other
belonging the wal establishment Texas which,
according Y the compact were to become the property Of
The two governments were not negotiating about per
the old government and its reconstruction for admission
generally disabled holding, under constitu
ton OF the United States, after her adni son it fell
under the jurisdiction and direction OF the federal govern
The resolution provides ceding the United States
all public edihces notifications barracks ports and har
bors, and yards docks, magazines NC, and all
other property and pertaining the public defence
The phraseology s appropriate for the purpose OF con-
veyng The Of the one government to the ohe but
exceedingly inaPt and unIorunate intended to embrace
the of public officers commended for by the plain
The argument in favor including the officers of the
navy Of Texas in The transfer OF the ships might be urged
with equal force by the officers and hands charge OF
catons for the term navy in the connexion in which II
is used includes, the officers and
officers and hands charge that part pnbc prop
erly the Qualifications includes the officers and
1.-THE CONSTRUCTION coaended for we thik altogether in
admissible, and properly rejected by the court below"
will add not word more than 10 say that, in my
opinion, the point was correctly decided.
Mr.. PEARCE Mr.. President
Mr.. GWlN Will the senator from Maryland allow
to make appeal TO the honorable senator from Tex
on the Committee on Naval Affairs, will bring the
subject, if have poweI-and am sure can do it-be
fore the body early in the next session SO that can be
fully discussed There possibility, if it passes
The Senate that can pass the House oil Represent
and become law this session. They will strike
il out if il is put into the bill now and hope the
will consent to withdraw It, and have it brought up
separate bill at the next session. so that II may be fairly
discussed
fornia should under The circumstances. ask TO with
draw it. Let Us vote | stood by him, although the
proposition that he favored created debate, and
more important than this only ask Tor a vote.
Mr. PEARCE. | cannot be deferred from continuing
the discussion of this question by the consideration that
may possibly probably defeat or embarrass this bill
Sir, am IN favor OF discussing 1t until II shall be fairly
underslood-unl every member OF the Senate shall be
acquainted with the character OF the claim set up for the
officers OF the late Texan navy, and the grounds upon
which II rs placed. 1t any responsibility rests upon any
one, let fall upon those who introduced measure OF
this kind at this late period OF the and
amendment to an appropriation bill We must not have
legislation like this forced upon without discussion,
because told that II is too late TO discuss such
topics, and that discussion may defeat the BILL The
senator from Louisiana Mr.. Dowssl admitted that
express provision for receiving the officers OF the
late Texan navy into the navy OF the United States
be found in the resolution OF annexation such thing
nominated in the bond neither, contend, is il
10 be in any implied from the language spirit
OF the resolution But the senator says is TO be infer
red by fair, liberal, and magnanmous construction"
i do not know any such thing as magnanmous con-
strsction construction may be strict or laiudnous,
reasonable or unreasonable. II construction is not
reasonable, then IL may be very magnanlmous con-
ceding something granted and which there is no
son for granting have asked in vain for the principle
upon which II is proposed to give magnanimous con.
structon the language OF those resolutions which will
transfer the officers OF the navy OF the late republic OF
Texas to that OF the United States and have heard none
stated.
The senator says the resolution Of annexation was
passed in hurry The senator is mistaken with regard
TO that The resolution passed after long discus
sion The treaty debated during long weeks OF the
warm weather in the session of 1874. the resolution
OF annexation. Ii resumed in the winter OF 1874
and 1s45. A very great degree OF deberation was ex
ercsed upon the subject, and the greatest
ployed in framing the resolution II required to be deli
by only one vote, believe. This thing not there
fore, overlooked in the hurry. Indeed, il never
dreamed Of nobody ever supposng that consequence
OF the nnexaton OF Texas to have the officers
OF the Texas navy thrust into corps
Now, what called upon to do First, how
let say that these office not the
tor from Louisiana supposes CALAMITY fighting the bat
ties oil their country at The tune Of annexation reso
luton OF the legislature OF Texas had been adopted in
640 directing that her ships should be laid up in odna
ry Practically, her navy had been abandoned at The
time OF the passage OF the resolutions OF annexation
Now, what s II we propose 10 dol Practically TO put
body OF into commission officers of the navy OF
United States, not in manner Acknowledged by the
constitutions by the nomination Of the President and
by the advice and consent oil the Senate but by eEsa
tive act perverng the constitution and taking away from
the President his principal executive and constitutional
.sihor,y Sir this monstrosiiy seems TO me- and
should be glad to hear OF the able lawyers and
judges on this floor explain this matter large To me
II ~ as clear a of light. that what about