The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-01-16

to expenses on account of Indian wars in Oregon
and Washington Territories. The House then adj
journed until Monday.
1850 AND 1858.
In the discussion which occurred in the House on
Thursday on tho subject of the neutrality laws the
to prove that an American citizen might lawfully
emgrate to another country and take his arms with
him. We have not observed that this position has
been controverted in the recent debate on that sub
ject, and we have no purpose to controvert it now.
The question which is presented in the Walker case
is the question of illegal expedition set foot in
the United States against friendly nation, and
zen or company of citizens, to emigrate to a
new home in foreign land. We have frequent ar
rivals in the United States of ship-oads of immi-
grants who intend to become permanent residents
here and who prove their peaceful purposes by their
acts But if those shiploads were to land here as
the company of Walker landed at Nicaragua we
think that the apologists for Walker would them
selves be surprised if it should be attempted to JUS
tify their conduct by an appeal to the right of emf
grafton. If any seeks the authority of Mr.. Web
ster this precise case, venture to commend to
his attention extract from the senatorial record Of
1850 In May of that year the Hon. Mr.. Yulee, SEN
ator from Florida, offered the following resolution
Resolved That the President of the United States be
requested to inform the Senate whether any and what
information has been received by the executive depart
ment respecting alleged military expedition against
the island of Cuba and to communicate to the Senate
copies of all correspondence and orders relative thereto
To which Mr. Walker, of Wisconsin, offered an
amendment in the words following
And that he be requested to inform the Senate by
what authority he has sent armed vessel vessels
for the suppression of such instruction if such he the
fact S E ss
In the discussion which grew out of this rcsolu-
ton, Mr. Webster said
But now let us come to the direct question What
is it that il complained of? 1t il said that the President
of the United States has directed portion of the naval
armament of the country to the coast of Cuba for
tain specific purpose and If the facts they gen.
orally believed to be- for purpose not only perfectly legal
and perfectly constitutional to be executed the part
his especial duty by positive statute If there is any
case it is of this kind military expedition has
been fitted out begun to be fitted out, in the United
States to act against the island of Cuba belonging
to the Spanish government and ii is not material If
such be the fact If be fitted out begun to be fitted
out or prepared according to the language Of the statute
in the United States whether by the citizens of the Uni
ted States by Others The law prevents the thing
being done in tho United States Now, suppose that
whatever action the President has taken this subject
founded upon information that this is military expc
dtion prepared and set foot in the United States in
whole or in part Well them if that be so, the law
makes it his express duty wherever he exert the mil
itary and naval power within the limits and jurisdiction
of the United States to exert it to defeat such exped
ton And in the next place. If United States vessel is
found the coast Of Cuba intending to violate this law
~
ton against Cuba that vessel Is just much within the
jurisdiction of the United that the word of
the statute if she lay in the Potomac river"
1t appears to us that these views of Mr.. Webster
apply to the case of the Walker expedition far bet
ter than any ideas he may have had the right of
emigration. There action, we believe, in the
Senate, on MIR. Yulee's resolution, and no change
seems to have been thought necessary in the neu-
trality laws in order to exclude the construction
placed upon them by Mr.. Webster. The President,
therefore, is not only sustained in his view Of the
laws by the broad doctrines Of Mr. Web
ster but here is case where the attention of Con-
gress had been directly called to the subject and
where Congress had neglected to interfere to prevent
any future Interpretation Of the laws such as is now
complained of in Congress. We are glad to observe
the laws here given by Mr.. Webster, demand for the
most part repeal of these laws and venture upon
no defence of those who violate them. As to what
constitutes violation of them, we hardly see how
opinions can differ. If Walkers expedition against
is not such an expedition as the laws for
bid it is difficult to imagine an expedition which
would be thus forbidden The whole subject is now
before the nppropriate coDmitt,es of congreec and
from the debate which it has already elected, as
well as from the general tone Of the public press
it, no one doubt we think, that both
in Congress and out Of it the views of the President
in favor of national good faith and against all fill
expeditions in violation of law, will be
most thoroughly sustained.
g. g. POINDExTER ESQ
The GAINESVILLE (Tenn.) Jcffersonan, published at