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


the Senate establishing new POSI- routes with an amend
me nj inserting route The House agree TO the Oh,
18th, and sth Senate amendments and have agreed to
The I'd amendment with an amendment The House dis,
agrees 10 the 4th and 9Th amendments Of the Senate !
msve that the Senate agree 10 all except the last and in
sist on lis 4th and 5lh amendments
The motion was agreed 10.
NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
The Senate resumed the consideration OF the bill ma
king appropriations for the naval service for the year
ending 30h June, 1854.
that these officers not included in the Texas navy
think my friend from Maryland took the position that
they in the Texas navy. The best authority on
that subject, think, is the Stale OF Texas herself We
are up judgment in contradsncon 10 hers,
if she alleges that they were in The navy. What she
says final as 10 that point The evidence OF Texas as
to that is. that they in the navy, and OF high
character personally and professionally. find that IN
the report OF the committee to which this subject
feIred, 1t Is stated as follows:
She has, in her sovereign capacity and in the solemn
form joint resolutions declared not only that she had
naval officers OF high character personal and profess
valor win which they sustained the cause Of Ieir coun
n.y. and from reciprocal rig and conditions clearly inn
piled and fairly deducibe from tho resolutions OF annex
aon and from "a liberal and just construction thereof,
these officers should be incorporated into the navy OF the
Unitcd States"
much right consrue these resolutions this govern
ment and she has construed them to include these
officers and this construction is borne out by the TACT
that they included in the original treaty, and by
the fact that Texas urged to go into the matter of
annexation without delay.
Mr. ADAMS. am myself favorable TO the PROPOSE
from Texas; bu, have voted agans, all amend
ments to this bill at this time, shall do so again.
shall vote with those who oppose this amendment, if
they will suffer TO have vote upon IT, II they 60 on
discussing il. shall vote according TO my judgment
/ Mr. BADGER. The rem ark of the honorable senator
from Mississippi Mr.. ADAmsl is an additional reason
why should cay few words this subject, because
nothing would pain me more than to see him placed in
circumstances where he would have to vote against his
Mr. ADAMS. have been doing since we
have commenced acting on the appropriation bills as
did not desire to them loaded down with amendments
/ however Just they might have been in themselves
/ Mr.. BADGER. He, as | understand, will pursue the
bent OF his judgment if we debate the subject further
and will not if we do not, and therefore must say few
words. y
AS was said by my friend from Maryland, this most
important measure, brought in at fate period OF the
sion upon bill ao which think il should not be intro
duced Though will not as he said he would not, ex
pend tire for the purpose OF defeating this measure
will not certainly be deferred by any consideration OF The
laeness of the hour from saying as briefly as can what
| think is proper upon Its merits.
The senator from Florida Mr.. MALLORY agrees that this
is not to be considered as matter OF courtesy He AYERS
that he would vote for upon principles OF courtesy
He votes for it because is claim OF right Let us con-
slider that moment, IN connexion with the argument
that ne offered upon the subject The resolution of an
nexaton contains not word in the connection in
which it stands that by any fair Interpretation in.
cude the officers OF the navy. The word nayy" is mix
ed up with subjects of property Notifications forts, navy.
and the governing word in the sentence is "ceding,"
which, by propriey improperly of language by no
Interpretation, strict, just, liberal or bera reasonable
unreasonable or magnanlmous can be understood to
apply to cesson OF officers cession of officers
Why, II would be extravagant enough TO say that they
ceded in the character OF slaves Will we degrade
them so much TO say that Texas SO treated them No,
sir There is not one word in the joint resolution which
even looks 10 such Interpretation that proposed by
the amendment But the senator says, for the purpose
of showing that they nevertheless have this right that
first proposed to introduce them by treaty, and that
in that treaty was expressly provided that the officers
Of the Texan navy should be incorporated into
! Now, let us what ht argument is worth to legal
mind to a reasoning mind. In the treaty the word
"ofhcers" inserted In the joint resolution 1t was
left Therefore, he says the joint resolution is TO be
interpreted as II 1t had been Kept IN This Is the agu-
meni
Now sir not the argument to be interpreted exactly
the contrary? The subject considered in the treaty.
The treaty proposed the ncopo OF the officers The
treaty rejected. and JOINT resolution prepared
and II they meant the same Thing why was the word "oi
hcers" lett out IL is obvious they did not mean the
same thing and the word officers" was left out be-
il intended that the officers" should be left
out That is clearly and undoubtedly true. The senator
says there many details in the treaty that were not
suitable to Joint Teso luton What details did il
quire' II was only necessary II that was the meaning,
to add one word, the navy and the officers thereof IN
the Joint resolution Therefore, the subject having been
expressly under consideration IN the treaty, the very
question OF admitting the officers having been considered
add discussed the treaty proposing to admit them having
lon being brought up with that word left out il be-
IL not intended 10 introduce the officers into
our navy That independently OF the decision the
decision, of The Supreme Court OF the United States
makes II clear that such thing was intended by the
JOIN, resolution the incorporation OF these officers in
to navy.
The senator says that there is another reason that
Texas by the joint resolution which she sent has de-
clsred that she that these officers should be
ceved, and that she party to the JOINT resolution
Suppose she does that authorize her 10 interpret
the joint resolution Not al all Texas and we agreed
upon the subject. and mutual agreement fixed upon
joint resolution and our mutual agreement carried the
resolution into effect originally II Is new idea that the
judgment of OF the parties determines the construction
OF compact.
Again, sir who were the persons in Texas when this
Joint resolution adopted IL there was any undet-
standing 10 be gathered with regard TO the meaning in
dependenty oil the Interpretation to be put upon the face
OF the instrument, must haye-wbai Not the legis-
isturc OF Texas to tell what meant by the
members OF the legislature the members of the
ton, the public authorities OF Texas which gave their
assent 10 the Joint resolution and understood what
ing they put upoa it, We must have what the resolutions
say themselves Then, sir, as | apprehend the case
stands clear The senator admits that ii cannot be prop
ery claimed the ground OF courtesy and has been
demonstrated, and is demonstrable that 1t cannot be put
be put upon the ground of courtesy upon the ground
of right 1t cannot be admitted at all.
But the honorable senator from Texas Mr. HoUsToN.
who is astue and polite gentleman. and who looks
as far ahead any living, has maintained pro
found silence this matter; and should not be at all
surprised if the consequences OF this act If they should be
carried their full extent revolving in his mind
ton which would place the officers of the Texan navy
the navy OF the United States would place The Pesi
dent of Texas in the presidency OF the United States
She cedes eveythDg--her government and everything