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

no" put ino tue navy oil the United States he would
DC pnt ABOVE The same grade, aud above all the com
mahueS, ana no inconslderabe portion OF the captains
! OF me navy Now. submit that unless doing
lhat unaer me iath and obligations of contract which
we made WIN Texas, we doing gross wrong to the
omcefs OF our own navy. II is saying this That man
has hghef claim upon the United States for advance
men ~ ,e navy o. the United States BY serving in for
eRn country han IN his own, and that he is 10 gain
higher position by leaving our service and employing
himseii IN me service OF foreign country Than he
| his own,
Mr. President, wish i, to be understood that have
no interest or feeling at all in this whaev
er would be extremely glad to do anything for the
promouon oil these officers which might be done consist
ently WIN Just regard to the honor OF The officers of
The United States navy anther feelings in relation to this
matter. believing we cannot do what is asked
without touching that honor and those feelings in a
der poni, and infciiDg wrongs upon them, vote
against The amendment. hope the Senate will not agree
III.
| Mr.. RUSK. | am not going to detan the Senate by
arguing this question. am going over the grounds
othceIs are lew IN number-ony eight Their numbers
have been reduced greatly since the OF Texas
by death. The vessels were taken from under them.
The state OF Texas OF the parties 10 the OF
annexation, has constantly interpreted the obligations
the joint resolution including these officers The de-
cson of the Supreme Court OF the United States was
altogether upon a collateral question, that they had no
jurisdiction 10 determine upon the question involved in
! this amendment II was upon an application for
damus 10 force claim ot one OF these officers have
drawn up the amendment IN The terms OF the bill reported
from The Committee Naval Affairs, which accom-
panied by report which wish the business OF the Sen
ale in the short time we have remaining would permit
me 10 have read. il is in bill from the Naval Com
mttee striking out the rroviso IN these words
And provided further. That those of the said officers
who were formerly oil the United States navy shall take
no higher grade, number or position than they would
have occupied by due course OF promotions ii they had
not left the service nud those who in the United
States navy shall take such position the President may
assign them"
have stricken that out. and offered the amendment
as II has been read II leaves II discretionary 10 the
Draa pF fha I1ptt.A Stata ~.
officers
Mr., FISH wish to call the attention of the sena-
tor for moment to a remark which | wish TO make.
He has thought III to refer to report OF the Naval Com
mlttee II is true that majority of the committee did
make such report The committee divided But
think express the unanimous opinion of the commit
tee when ray that they would have reported
that with the proviso stricken out and that The commit
tee now are unanimously opposed TO the provision in
troduced by the senator. majority OF the committee
agreed to report il with the proviso.
Mr.. RUSk deem this amendment but act OF JUS
tce TO those officers am sorry that the does
permit me TO investigate this subject know the siren
uous exeriions which have been made by portion of
the navy of the United States resist the claims of these
men, but could answera the objections which have been
raised, and do it in which think would show
that their objections not cedtable 10 of them
Many OF the most respectable officers of the navy of the
United States do not object 10 this pance of justice be
ing done to the officers OF the navy OF the late republic
OF Texas Some OF them against it, and have used
the most strenuous efforts 10 prevent III and they have
tempted every time whenever this subject has here
TO have it overslaughed and defeated The Senate un
ders,ands IT, have no doubt II has been investigated
here several times and therefore shall not the
time Of the Senate in discussing it. very sorry tha,
the appropriation bills. and other matters which need
10 consider, prevent me from going into the subject.
Mr.. GWlN. hope we shall have voe the bill is
in jeopardy.
| Mr PRATT. | desire to put myself right upon this
question. | agree entirely with the senator from North
Carolina that should be doing great injustice 10 the
officers OF navy, if these gentlemen put into
our navy the terms proposed by my friend from Texas
AT the same time, cannot but admit that something is
due the part Of the United States TO the officers of the
Texas navy. They were the officers of that navy, and
that navy, by the of this government with that
OF Texas, received and incorporated into the navy o
the United States. Now. although the Supreme Court
has decided and correctly, as thnk-for always sub.
mi, 10 their decisions questions OF aw-tha the per.
sonne OF the Texas navy not thereby introduced in
10 the navy OF the United States yet they have been de-
prved OF Offices which they held under that government
in consequence OF the annexation OF Texas to the United
States. have prepared amendment, which desire
to submit which will carry out the views that have
pressed, aud which hope will be agreed by the Sen
ate, for the purpose OF settling this quesion 1t is
strike out all that part OF the amendment proposed by my
friend from Texas after the word "modhed which pro-
poses TO introduce these officers into the navy OF the Uni
ted States, and insert these words:
As entite the officers Of the lste navy Of Texas to the
Of officers Of the navy OF the United States leave
absence-noi exceeding eight In number.
This would give them the pay which they would have
If the amendment OF my friend were adopted, and would
take away the irresistible Argument TO my mind, which
has been made by my friends from North Carolina in re
gard to the injustice which would other wise be done by
introducing the officers OF the late Texan navy into oui
own, nope my friend from Texas will accept the
amendment any rate, that the Senate will adopt il
so that may give them the compensation 10 which
they would be entitled, and then we shall not only dc
them justice, but we shall do no injustice others
Mr. RUSK. Let the amendment be read, as it will BE-
when the proposed amendment is made to il.
The amendment was read as follows;
SEo. And be IL further enacted That the existing aw
miung the number Of officers in the navy OF the United
States, be, and the same hereby, FAR mod fled
ens the officers Of the navy OF Texas to the pay OF Off
the of the United States absence
not exceeding eight In number
MIR. BAYARD. | do not mean to deian the Senate
by introducing matters not pertinent TO this question
make objection in the trs place, that here is contro
vered matter, which is in the nature of a private claim
and which is brought, into The Senate now on the las
day Of the session. after has been lying on the table
long tme and when the friends OF the measure mig hi
have brought it up and had II fairly discussed and de-
cjed.
Mr. RUSK. | hope the senator will allow me to say
that struggled day after day at the last session. and
again have tried at this ssion TO get il up but il was
postponed by the action OF the Senate.
Mr. BAYARD. impute blame 10 any one; but
considering The weight the deserved weight OF the hon
orable senator from Texas in this body can scarcely
conceive iba, that bill should have been brough, up
VI there was an earnest desire TO the bill broug ht
up and discussed. My own opinions clearly formed
torn act of greater injustice to the officers your
navy than TO adopt the provision of the amendment
proposed by the senator from Texas will not, how
evef into that question further than that
think that senator is under msapprebenson the
decision OF the Supreme Court. That decision could
among others IT took up the question whether by the
proper construction OF the articles OF annexation OF
Texas the officers OF the Texas incorporated
into that OF the United States, and with argument ut