Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-08-17
Washinytnu gentinsl.
NAVAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
SPEECH OF SENATOR JONES,
OF TENNESSEE,

D@sre0 IN He Senate, august Sd, 1904
On the Naval Appropriation bill, and in defence
OF Commodore Moore.
Mr.. JONES, of Tennessee. Mr.. President,
need not express my regret at finding myself
compelled, at this late hour Of the session, to
trespass on the time or the Senate; but with
my views of justice, and the demands of friend
ship, If this were the last hour Of the session,
should feel it my duty to ask the indulgence
OF the Senate while vindicate, as briefly as
may, the character and reputation Of friend.
In the remarks which / intend to make, shall
have nothing to do with the personal contro-
versy of any gentleman in the Senate or out
OF the Senate. With the private and personal
relations of gentlemen, / have nothing to do.
They are always presumed to be competent to
adjust their own affairs, in their own way.
But sir, with the public records Of the country
have something to do. When | am called
upon to vote, under all the responsibilities that
attach to me, as an American Senator, have
right TO inquire, and to consider, what / am
about to vote upon; and shall exercise that
right fully, freely, and independently.
The first question for your consideration, sir,
and for mine, is, whether the surviving officers
OF the Texan navy shall be incorporated into
the Navy of the United States? That is the
greatquestion which Senators have to determine
for themselves; and it does seem to me, that
every Senator on this floor ought to feel himself
bound to examine the question fairly and impair
tally for himself, so that he may render Just
verdict for his country and for the citizens liv-
ing under its government.
by the terms of annexation between the gov
eminent of the United States and the late re-
public of Texas, it was stipulated that the navy
OF Texas should be transferred to the govern.
M If he ta1 Whot -. l.
mean by navy? Do you mean its vessels, its
munitions of war, and do you exclude its men
1T you mean that, then, upon a technical con-
struction of the terms of annexation, you may
exclude the officers Of the Texas navy; but, &C
cording to every just Interpretation, it seems to
me that the terms of annexation intended and
contemplated that the officers of the Texan
navy should go with the navy. am very well
aware, sir, that the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States has decided that, under the terms OF
annexation between the two republics, the gov.
eminent of the United States is not bound to
receive the officers Of the Texas navy. / am
willing to bow with the profoundest Difference
and respect to the opinions of that tribunal.
The question, however, went there BY indirec-
ton. 1t was not directly presented to the
court; but an free to declare that they an
nounced that, by the terms of annexation, we
were not bound to receive the officers of the
navy as part of the navy itself That was the
decision in the case of Brashear, which went
up 10 the Supreme Court on mandamus which
had been issued to require this government to
pay him his salary The court undertook 10
decide that question, and decided it as have
stated. That, sir, is not the question for us to
decide. We have as much right to construe
the terms of annexation as the Supreme Court.
II tl1.-
bound by it; and, therefore, admit, we are
not compelled, under a strict Interpretation Of
the terms Of annexation, to accept the officers
Of the Texas navy with the navy itself
Mr.. RUSK. Let me say to the Senator
from Tennessee, that the decision of the SUI
preme Court was upon an application by Mr..
Brashear, contending that, by annexation, he
was, without further action, attached to the
navy Of the United States. The Supreme
Court decided only that the act of annexation
dip not Of itself, without further legislation,
bring in the officers of the Texan navy.
Mr.. JONES, of Tennessee. So understand:
and if j was not fortunate enough to convey
my idea distinctly, am sorry for it but that
iswhat / meant TO say. Sir, as / have said,
there is question for the Senate to decide for
themselves which is outside the tenchnicalities
of the law. There is question of Justice, a
question Of fairness, a question Of magnanimity
for the Senate to decide. / apprehend no man
on this floor will undertake to say that we have
not the right and the power to incorporate this
remnant Of the Texan navy into the American
navy. Then, if we have the power to do it, the
question arises, shall we exercise that power
Are we under obligations Of fairness, Of JUS
tice, iberality, aud magnanimity, required to
exercise that power? 1t is upon that point
- IL
there ] hope to be enabled to convince honor
able senators that they may, and that they
ought to do this, without a violation Of any
principle, or an Infringement Of the right Of
any American citizen?
Now, sir, what objection is urged 10 this I
1t is said, that five incorporate the officers Of
the Texan navy into the navy Of the United
States, we shall be violating the rights and pri
yieges of the officers Of our own navy. Sir, il
know my own heart, ] should be one of the
last men in the world TO trench upon the rights
OF any man in this government; and least oil
oil should be inclined TO supersede any man
either in the army or in the navy or in any
way abridge his rights, or in any degree tres
pass upon q single privilege which he enjoys
under the government. But, suppose you In.
corporate these eight men into the navy Of the
United States, what wrong do you inAict upon
any man in your navy? Do you take from any
man in the navy an toto Of power and position
which he now enjoys? Not at all. Do you
obstruct single man in the navy in his pro
gress 10 advancement? Not at all. SO far
from postponing his advance, you increase il
by increasing the number. Of chances for hi.
promotion. You add one additional captain
TO your navy, and thereby you add to thu
chances Of all who are seeking promotion, BY
death, resignation, or otherwise you increase
The chances Of every officer to that extent, and
thus you advance the interests Of the officers Of
the navy. Alb, but it is said, you bring into
the navy Of the United States man who once
belonged to il, but who has joined another gov
ernment and that you put him back into the
navy in a position which he would not have
been entitled to occupy if he had remained in
your navy; and this is said to be crying in
justice. Well, sir, as l understand, but one
man Of the eight now seeking to be incorpo
rated into the navy of the United States ever
belonged to your navy, and that one is Com
modore Moore. You object 10 incorporating
him into your navy with the position which be
held in the .navyof Texas, because you say il