The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-12-07
SLAVE CLAIMS.
The Grounds on Which Texans Hope to
Make Them Good at Washington.
st. Louis Globe Democrat.

considerable comment, are ABOUT 10 pe lhStl-
tuted in the Court of Claims at Washington.
The suit is designed to make the national
government responsible for the loss of slaves
held in Texas. The announcement that such
action is in contemplation will probably in
spire a feeling of incredulity as to honesty
of motive on the part of the ~litigants, Such
sentiments may be banished from the start.
The action is taken in good faith and on the
strength of advice from some of the best
lawyers in Texas. There is no political sig
nificance designed, although the suit will I'M
doubtedly make a stir in political circles.
Texas was admitted to the United States
under peculiar circumstances, differing from
those of the admission of any other State.
In the concerted action of Congress and of
the Republic of Texas, then an independent
power, was laid the basis on which this hti-
CATION is undertaken. For the test case, an
old STAKEHOLDER, whose course during the
war was one of answering loyalty to the
Union, has been selected for the plaintiff.
This is for the purpose of divesting the case,
as far az possible, from connection with the
war.
The negotiations for the annexation of
Texas extended through several years. In
1843, President Tyler, in obedience to a grow
ing sentiment in the South in favor of TAX
ing in the Lone Star Republic, made propo-
sitions to the President of Texas. The latter
had suffered severely from the Mexicans,
and was unable to make the revenues meet
the expenditures The offer was taken up
and a treaty of annexation was made. This
was completed and signed by commissioners
representing Texas, and by Mr.. Calhoun,
Soorntaru IF Gfatos for this 0OnnfrV If was
submitted to the Senate. A presidential cam
paign was coming on. Both of the leading
candidates, Clay and Van Buren,, wrote let
tiers opposing the treaty, and the Senate re-
jected it in Tune of 1874. Then it was that
Polk was taken up as an available presiden-
tial candidate, and elected on the annexation
issue as much as anything. POLK and Dali
las, Texas and Oregon was the campaign
slogan. When Congress next met, after
this manifestation of popular feeling, the
legislators acted promptly in the mat
ter, but even then the lines were sharply
drawn.
A treaty was not wanted, for joint resolu-
tons providing for the annexation passed
the House by 100 to SO, and the Senate by q
to 25. On March !, 1916, President Tyler APP
proved the resolutions. They were somewhat
peculiar, and form part of the case for the
plaintiff in the suit to be brought. They
started off in this way:
''Be it resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled: That Congress doth
consent that the territory properly included
within and rightfully belonging to the republic
of Texas may be erected. into a new State, to be
called the state OF Texas, with "a republican form
said republic, by deputies in convention assem-
bled, with the consent of the existing govern
ment, in order that the same may be admitted
as one of the States of this Union.
'fSec. 2. And be it further resolved that the
foregoing consent of Congress IS given upon the
f0llnWinO ann6Ifiana and with thu fOl0wInn
guar antees:"
The second section provided that Texas
should cede all the defenses, public build
ings and such property to the United States,
and should retain all her public lands with
which to pay off her debt. The third section
was the significant one.
"Sec. 3. New States, of convenient size, not
exceeding four in number, il addition to said
State OF Texas, and having sufficient population,
may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be
formed out of the territory thereof, which shall
be entitled to admission under the provisions of
the federal constitution. And such States as
may be formed out of that portion of said terri
tory lying south of thirty six degrees thirty min
utes north latitude, commonly known as the
Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted
into the Union with or without slavery as the
people of each State asking admission may de-
sire"
The Texans proceeded to act on this. The
guarantee in regard to slavery they stretched
to a limit which the lawyers of to-day
bA1hkh RIdSC0 lax 4EOBOholOALibJ " GAIC AOoo
of slave property upon the general govern
ment.
DIR. Arson Jones, the President of Texas,
called a convention of delegates on July
4, 1916, to consider propositions of annexa-
ton. That convention voted in favor of
such action, and drafted a constitution I'M
der which Texas would be willing to come
into the United States. This constitution
was submitted to the people OF Texas, and
adopted. Then Texas was ready to be
taken in.
When the next Congress met, in December,
1916, the new President reported what Texas
had done, and submitted with his message a
draft of the constitution. Then ensued a
hard, bitter struggle. Those who favored
vnnexation claimed that the body was in
all honor committed by the action of the
last Congress. Northern members fought
the proposition to the end. The report of
the debates shows that the. very portions of
the constitution which are relied upon for
the proposed litigation were pointed out as
not only Objectionable but dangerous. Con-
gress was put in the attitude of virtually
guaranteeing slave property. By their pro-
posed State constitution the Texans were
putting beyond their reach the power of
State legislation in regard to slavery. Here
is one of the clauses:
"The Legislature shall have no power to pass
laws for the emancipation OF slaves without the
consent Of their owners"
Another reads in this way:
"The Legislature shall have no power to pre-
vent emigrants to this State from bringing with
them such persons as are deemed slaves by the
laws of any of the United States" and so on.
As if to make these the more binding the
Texans engrafted clauses in their constitu-
ton to make amendments next to impossible.
Referring to the first of the clauses quoted
above, one Congressman, in the course of the
debate, put it this way:
"Now 1 consider this clause in the constitution
of Texas open to the most serious objection. 1t
is virtually perpetuating slavery in Texas. It'll
effect takes away from the State the power of
acting on a most important subject"
Another member said: There were words
in that constitution which were wholly I'M
known to the constitution of the United
States. There was one article of it which be-