Arkansas true Democrat., 1858-01-26
CONGRESSIONAL.
Thirty fjM Cmgress-frst Session--7Auysdav Janua'y z, 1858-Senate-arresto of General
 UnlEpy

Janua'y z, 1858-- -Senate-a,rest Of General
 WaHer
 message was received from the President of the United States in arswer to resolution ot the Senate requesting him, as far as it may be compatible with the public interest, to com muncate to the Senate the correspondence, in- struchons, and orders to the United States naval forces on the coast of Central America, connect led with the arrest of Wm. Walker and his as soclates at or near the port of San Juan, in Mi caragua; and, also, to transmit such further in- formation as he may possess in rela ion to that event.
 The reading of the message having been con- cluded, Mr. Mason moved its reference to the Committee on foreign relations, and that it be printed, together with the accompanyinc ,locu- ments.
 1Ee motion to print was agreed to, and on the question of reference long debat. ensu- ed.
 Mir. Davis took occasion to dissent from some ot the arguments contained in the message - He remarked that the President had assumed that the neutrality laws, which required that such expeditions as this should be suppressed also conferred upon the Executive power to 70 beyond the jurisdiction of the United States to suppress them. This seemed to be the key to the policy on the part of the administration which sent the navy down 10 the coast of Gen. tral America, instead or sta,oning the vessels where they should have been stationed. at the mouth ot the Miss ssippi and on the coast of Alabama. Were this expedition all that it Is described to be, It Is ony misdemeanor in stead of a violation of the neutrality aws.- The suspicion that there was an intent to make war agalnSt a nation with which we are at peace would have justified the detention of General Walker and his men within the limits of the United States, but not their arrest beyond our own limits. As we have no extradtion treaty with Nicaragua they could not have lawfully been taken upon her soil, even had they been fugltives from justice. The President has no morr power to make such an arrest than any member of Congress. If our neighbors are too weak to protect themselves, we should use all lawful means to prevent our citizens from nva- ding their territory; but it is not within the theory of our government to fit out expeditions to catch half dozen, or dozen, or one or two hundred men, who may choose to leave the United States and land upon their shores. In this respect he thought we were making a great departure from those principles which have heretofore guided the conduct of our govern- ment. If 1t be the pleasure of Congress to give the President police powers over the hiqh seas
 
 constabulary force, let it be done by the pas- sage of laws to this end
 Mir. Mason said that he doubted the expedi ency of discussing this subject without further and more mature delberation The President of the United States was appointed by the con stitution the head of the army and navy. and the laws of the land direct how they are to be used. Without going into any lengthy arg,, ment, he thought Il clearly incumbent on the President to see that the neutrality laws were faithfully executed.
 Mir. Crittenden alluded to the remark of tbe President that Commodore Pauldiug had con- mitted grave error, and said that according to hls own premises such a conclusion was alto gethcr lllogcal; and the conduct of Com. P was as comtormabe to law as if he had recev ed express instructions to do what he did.
 Mr. Brown thought it was little singular that while the President dsapproved of the ar rest of Gen. Walker, yet he at the same time excused the act. The arrest of Gen. Walker was in violation of law; for if Commodore Paula. ing had right to make the arrest his conduct is not only to be excused, but appauded. If he had no legal right to do that act. then inc President owes it to the people of the country to condemn it. But if Gen. Walker has been guilty of any violation of law, and has been ar- rested and brought back to our shores as froi tive from justice, why is he not put in the clutches of the law? Why was he brought to New York, placed in the hands of the marsaal, then brought here and delivered into the hands of the Executive, and then set at hbcrty?- Why was he not carried back to Louisiana by | the same authority that arrested him, and there put upon his trial on this charge of violating the law? Mir. $. went on to say that this was a farce being played out before the American people, which was disreputable to all who were l engaged in it. There had been no violation of law. Those who have trumped up this charge against Walker knew that there had been no | violation of law. If they believe that he has violated the law, they have been guilty of dereilctlon of duty in not punishng him for it. The fitting out of an expedition in violation of the neutrality laws was one thing and the vol untary expatriaton of citizen was an alto- gether different thing asar hl | If General Walker went tbere. avowing that it was h.s purpose to endeavor to regain the