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

II. under these circumstances The proposon which i
oheed py me senator from Maryland is that
some consideration before II Is acted upon. admit that
am willing TO compensate, in proper mode those off
GERS oil The Texan navy who still alive or if you
please the children OF the deceased officers who hat
died since the annexation of Texas, If ii is supposed thai
they have any equitable claim this government in con-
sequence of the union OF the two States and the ncorpo
ration OF the Texan navy with own | am rather IN
cned TO think that the did not stpulae any
thing Tor these officers, and their widows and children
would be the more dependent they would come fairly
before you with claim Tor compensation. But the mode
OF that compensation is that be decided with,
out some consideration. ! could never agree to place
country on the basis than of the officers of our
own navy on leave of absence might perhaps agree 10
give them compens alton il bill brought forward,
ana especially II that compensation given such
principles as TO meet my own judgment. | mention this
only as showing that this question requires consideration
that amendment 10 this bill il is out OF place
cannot vote Tor the amendment OF the honorable senator
from Texas, or the amendment to that amendment pro
posed by the honorable senator from Mary land although
might agree TO the pri ncple of that amendment that
compensation should be made but there is no time now
TO consider and adjust it.
Mr.. SMITH. The amendment to the amendment is a
proposition to pension the officers of the Texan navy
am entirely opposed 10 it, If they entitled 10 any
consideration, they entitled TO be admitted into The
navy and am utterly opposed TO pensionng these Of
Mr.. GWIN Let us have the question.
Mr. RUSK think they are entitled to their commits.
sons 10 The navy and therefore will vote against the
mendment to the amendment.
Mr. BRADBURY | think the amendment is calcu
from Texas think il is but fair that the question
should be taken unembarrassed Again, there may be
those who in favor OF who would be opposed
the other. think the amendment of the senator from
Maryland ought not 10 be adopted.
! Mr.. PRATT. will state to the Senate that the oh.
ect OF the amendment to the amendment is 10 give TO the
late olcers OF the Texas navy not 10 exceed eight in
number, the pay to which they would be entitled if they
were in our navy. and on leave OF absence. They TO
come into the navy retired officers, with tie pay which
they would receive officers leave of absence II
10 prevent them interfering with officers, and
at the time gives them the compensation justly
due 10 them.
Mr. SMITH ! am totally opposed to this mode of
settling the question. 1t is proposition TO grant pen
sion 10 these gentlemen for e-to place them in the
condition OF pensioners for life. while they will
der any service 10 the country any time hereafter
| Mr.. MALLORY. Is the question upon the amend
men 10 grant the officers compensation
Mr.. PRATT Yes, sir
| Mr.. MALLORY. trust this proposition, at least, will
not be adopted The Naval Committee, reporting the
bill the subject, proposed, upon the ground that i was
not an act OF courtesy only but strictly legal h that
they should come in on the terms prescribed by the pro-
vision OF the act providing for the annexation oil Texas
ing than this country undertook TO guaranty TO
Texas in the resolution OF annexation do not conceive
that IL will be pensloning the officers They do ap
pear as pensioners They appear here claiming it as
legal right 10 come into the navy
Mr. WALKER. Is this question on the proposition 10
attach these officers to navy
Mr. PRATT. Its on the amendment to the amend.
ment.
Mi WALKER This, then. is clearly nothing bu,
| The question then taken on the amendment to the
amendment, and il was rejected.
| The question then recuned on the original amend
i MIR FISH. | now offer an amendment to the amend
men,-to add the following at the end OF the amend
ment
And provided further, That those said officers who
formerly in the United States navy shall no
higher grade position than that which they would
occupy by due course Of promotion 1hey had not left it
shall take such position the President may assign
them.
That puts the amendment in the precise position in
which II was put by majority OF the Committee on Ma
Mr. RUSK. hope it will be rejected. II will rem.
der the amendme mt useless.
! Mr. BADGER. | ask for the yeas and NAYS on the
amendment to the amendment
j The yeas and nays were ordered.
/ Mr. DODGE, OF Iowa Having believed that the act
providing for the annexation of Texas should have ncor
poa'ed these men into our navy, have regarded
the proposition as liberal and just and shall
/ MIR PEARCE. | have not heard any principle an
nounced upon which the officers Of the late Texan navy
are entitled TO come into the navy OF the United States
suppose the only preence that they entitled which
be set up is, that the resolution Of annexation pro-
vided that Texas, after cedng the United States all
shall retain ali her public lands &c Now, s although
may cede territory and jurisdiction, never heard OF
such thing ceding the officers OF army of a
Wy. think the "cede" clearly appropriate TO be
applied 10 territory and jurisdiction people, but
persons in public employment Suppose Texas had had
a number of negro slaves then in employment in her
yard would they have passed TO the United States
under this provision, which cedes only The things emu
eated and property pertaining TO the public defence r.
You might convey negro slaves, but not by such pro-
vision this. Texas had property in the officers who
were in her employment How, then, could they be
trans erred 10 service by such cession that in
question: believe that II these officers entitled by
the resolution OF annexation, into the navy OF
the United States they entitled without the
sy OF any action by Congress II the resolution OF
nexa,ion recognises that fact need have no legisa-
he But Opulse fact. .
or al least so the judiciary have decided The Supreme
Court, IN the OF Brashear, decided He petoned
the for a rule the Secretary OF the Navy TO show
cause why mandamus should not issue, comm ding
him. as Secretary OF the Navy, pay him what due
TO him officer of the United States navy, since the
annexation OF Texas.
The court in the opinion delivered by MIR Justice Mel
son, said that IL pretended that there any
express stipulation for The admission OF officers OF the
Texan navy into that OF the United Staes and that
only claimed a result from the clause which have
referred The court OF opinion that the clause in
question related solely to the sbips-owar and their
mament belonging 10 the navy OF Texas that the
lutons OF annexation did not refer persons holding
public employment in Texas or 10 any provision for that
class OF persons and that while the phraseoogy ap
proprae for transferring to the United States The military
and naval property of Texas, 1t exceedingly unfit to
embrace public officers.
II has been udicay decided. them that the resolutions
of xaon did transfer the naval officers OF Texas
into the navy OF the United States. Upon what preence
then, this proposition be urgedl IL would be dong
the grossest injustice to le officers OF navy who
pose that the measure ccessful, would result in the
giving OF back pay the gentlemen whom IT s propped
thus surreptionpIy to Introduce into navy. Sir,
declare you that shall look upon 1t as great outrage