LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 647 097 A Conservation Resources Lig-Free® Type I 392 B7 S8 opy 1 TEXASAND NEW MEXl LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SPEECH OF liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii null Av-H. »srEPl-JEN8, ()i< iteumtia, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FRIDAY. AUGUST <^, 1850, O.i the Presidenfs Message of JJug^ust 6, 1850, concerning Texas and ^'ew Mexico. I'tie House being in Coniniitte.e of the Whole on the stale of ihp Union, and having under consideration the Civil nnd Dspl(vnatic Appropriation Bill for the fiscal year ending 30th of June, 1851, (Mr. Burt, of South raroliiia, beinir in the chair)— Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, addre.ssed the oommittee as follows: " - Mr. Chairman: The most interesting of the many interesting subjects which are now pressing themselves upon the consideration of this House and the country, in my opinion, is the message communicated a few days ao;o by the President to Congress upon the subject of the Texas boundary, and the difficulties and embanassments attending that question. That message is now upon your table. It deserves our immediate consideration, and demands wise, prudent, and speedy action. I propose, therefore, in what 1 have to say upon this occasion, to confine myself to the general top- ics embraced in it; and it is a matter of regret to nie, in the midst of so many disquieting and irri- tating causes which now distract and stir up the public mind, to see that we are likely to have new ' elements of strife and contention, to excite and I inflame those strong sectional feelings which for i aome time past have so unhappily existed among us, j Tiiese elements are to be found in the message I wlluded to. The principles assumed by the Pres- I ident in that paper are, in my judgment, in .sev- I eral particulars, unsustained by the Constitution I and laws of the United States, and dangerous in i their tendencies not only to the rights of the States but to the liberties of the people. They strilte at the very foundaiion upon which the whole struc- ture of our system of representative republican government was reared, and upon which alone it can permanently stand. This, I Know, is strong language, but no stronger than the truth requires I I/O be spoken. There is no principle more essen- [ tial to the preservation of our Government than that the mi]itary in time of peace shall be subject lo the civil power. The message is in opposition to this principle. The President informs us that '• by the Constitution of the United States, the ' President is constituted commander-in-chief of ' iho army and navy; and of the militia of the sev- ' era! States, when called into the actual service of j * the United States. The Constitution declares ' ' also that he shall take care that the laws be faith- i ' fully executed, and that he shall, from time to j ' time, give to the Congress information of the • state of the Union." This, sir, is true. By the Constitution the Pres- ident is the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States, and it is his duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. This is all true. But there is something else equally true, and that is, that in seeingthat theiawssare faithfully execu- ted, he mmt himself act in saborditialion to law, and in conformity with the provisions of the laws which point out the mode of their execution. And he can u.se the military to execute no law which contains no provisions tor its execution first by the courts. The President further asserts that " the Con- ' stitution of the United Stales declares that « this • Constitution, and the laws of the United States ' which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and ' all treaties made, or which shall be made, under ' the authority of the United States, shall be the ' supreme law of the land.' " And then he refers to the late treaty with Mexico, and amongst other clauses he refers particularly to the clause which guaranties to Mexicans who may remain in the ceded territory protection in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and security in the frie exercise of their religion, without restriction, jn this way he a!?sumes that the treaty of Guadaliie Hidalgo is such a law as he is bound to see " faith- fully executed" in all its obligations. He further informs us that the State of Texas is about to'cx- tend her civil jurisdiction overa portion ofcoitotry lying this side the Rio Grande within the limitfe of the boundary of Texas as originally clained and asserted by her, but which, in his opinion, l(e' longs to the General Government, and not toTex;, by virtue of the cession made by the late treat And without suggesting the slightest cause to «: prehend that any of these rights of " libert property, and religion," guarantied to Mexicani under the treaty, would be interfered v;ith by the' extension of the civil jurisdiction of Texas over those of them residing east of the Rio Grande, even if they were included in the terms of the treaty, he tells us that he feels bound to resist such fxiension of her jurisdiction by Texas, and ifne- ces.sary, to repel tt with the military force of the Government at his control. By information re- ceived from Texas, no one can doubt that she intends to maintain her civil authorities coexten- sive with the boundary claimed by her. And we have the issue fairly presented, whether the Pres- ident has the rightful power, under the Constitu- tion and laws of the Unitod Stales, as those laws now exist, to use the military power nt his com- mand against the authorities of Texas. I main- tain that he has not. I mtet the question at the threshold. It is one of the most important that has ever arisen in this country; and its decision, if force should be resorted to, cannot fail to mark an era in its history. I deny to the Pnaident the power he claims; and I assert that, under the Constitution and laws, he has no power, in time of peace, " in seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, "to resorr to military force, except when their due execution l)y the courts, the legally con- stituted tribunals for the administration of justice, may be iilsg.illy o \strucfed or reiisied. This proposition 1 lay down distinctly, broadly, and confidently. It id above the reach of asaailment, 73884 iind beyond the power of refutation . And I main- tain funher, that the very laws cited by the Pres- ident, iVom which he claims the exercise of the extraordinary and unwarranted power he does, sustains the proposition. These very acts do not, in the slightest degree, confer the power which he notifies to Congress and the country that he in- tends to exercise under them. Now, sir, let us see. He cites the 2d section of the act of Congress of 1795, and the act of 3d March, 1807. But perhaps it would be better to refer to the acts, as he himself cites them. Here is what he says : " The second section of the act of the 28th of February, 1795, declares that whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or their execution obstructed, in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or the power vested in the marshals, the President may call forth the militia, so far as maybe necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be dulv executed. "By the act of March 3d', 1807, it is provided that, in all cases of obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, ^or any individual State or Territory, where it is lawful for the President to c.ill forth the militia for the purpose of caus- ing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States as shall be judged neces- sary." TJ^ese are tiieacts of Congress upon which he relies. The first, it will be perceived, only author- izes him in certain cases to call out the militia; the Becond authorizes him, in all similar cases, to use the army and navy if necessary. He has, how- ever, no authority, under either act, to use thearmy and netvy, or to call out the militia, for the purpose of aidung in the execution of the laws, except in Buch cases as are provided for by the act of 1795. And what are those cases ? They are such as where the Ja*'S may be opposed on their execution, or obstricted in any State, by combinations too pow- erful to be suppressed by the ordinary covrse of judidal proceedings, or the •power vested in the mar- shal!. This is the only class of cases where the Preident is authorized to use the military force of the country to aid in the execution of the laws of th« United States. It is where the due course of law, through the courts and by the marshals, is op- posed and obstructed, or where the combinations in resistance to law "are too powerful to be sup- pressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceed- jngs, or the power vested in the marshals." Now, sir, is there any such case, or is there likely to be any such case, in the territory over which Texas is about to establish her juris- diction? Is there any law, any act of Congress in force there which cannot be executed in the ordi- nary course of judicial proceeding? No one will assert that there is either any law or "judicial Eroceeding " authorized by law in that country, nown to your statute book. You have passed no law for the country, even on the supposition that it rightfully belongs to you, and not to Texas. If the country belongs to the United States by conquest, as the President says, then its Govern- ment devolves upon Congress. But Congress, as yet, has provided no government for it. They have given the people there no law defining rights, or courts for the redress of wrongs. But the President says that the treaty is a law, and that he is bound to protect the rights which it secures. But, sir, I deny that the obligations of this treaty, or any treaty, weighty as they may be, which re- quire legislation for their proper execution and fwlfiUment, can be discharged and performed by the President, unless he be first empowered by the • iiecessarv laws. I grant that this Government, by the ratification of this treaty, assumed obligations towards certain Mexicans which ought in good faith to be observed. But it does not follow that the President is to assume theldischarge of these obligations himself. The same treaty put us under, the obligation to pay the Government of Mexico twelve millions of dollars— that was as much the law of the land as the guarantee of rights now under consideration; and yet the President, I pre- sume, would not dare to put his hand into the Treasury, and pay what is due under that stip- ulation, without the authority of an act of ap- propriation. In our treaty with Great Britain, in 1815, establishing, to some extent, a recipro- city in trade, it was provided that goods and merchandise, and products coming from certain British possessions should be admitted into our ports upon as good terms as those we extended to the most favored nations bringing like products. This stipulation was as much the law of the land as the obligations to these Mexicans; and yet it re- quired an act of Congress to carry it into effect and secure the rights under it — that is, to accommo- date the commercial laws of the country to suit the stipulations of the treaty. The President could not have enforced the rights secured to Brit- ish subjects under that treaty by an executive or- der; neither can the present President fulfil the ex- isting obligation to pay Mexico the balance of what is due her of the twelve millions, without the con- currence of Congress. No idea could be more erro- neous than to suppose, because a treaty is the law of the land, that the President can of himself as- sume the fulfillment of its obligations when those obligations do not rest upon htm alone, but upon the Government in all its departments — legislative, judicial and executive. And that is the case now "before us. The obligations of this treaty as to the rights of " liberty, property, and religion," on the part of the Mexicans, rest not upon (he Presi- dent alone, but upon the Government of the United States. The law-making, the law -expounding, and the law-executing powers conjointly. The law-ma- king power must first speak. Laws defining right* and wrongs must be first passed. Courts must also be instituted to expound those laws, and mar- shals must be duly appointed to execute their mandates. And if the execution of the laws thus passed be opposed by combinations too powerfal to be suppressed by the ordinary course ofjudicial proceeding thus established, (/jen, and not till then, would the President be justified under existing laws, to resort to the military force for the protec- tion of the rights secured by that article of the treaty. By the Constitution of the United States it is expressly provided, that cases arising under treaties shall be determined by the judiciary The military, in this country, by no law in your statute book, can be called out in tlrne of peace but in aid of the execution of laws in the channels of the courts, or in assistance of the marshal in the discharge of powers vested in them by law. If the President, therefore shall, in the contingency he apprehends, use the military forces at his com- mand against the authorities of Texas, it will be without authority of law, a daring usurpation of power, andja gross violation of the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Chairman, one of the surest safeguards of public liberty is, that in time of peace the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority. And one of the giavest charges brought against the King of England in that long list of abuses of power enumerated in our Declaration of Independ- ence, and which lost him the American Colonies, was that of quartering troops in the Colonies with- out the consent of the Legislatures, and of rendering •' the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power." Sir, this principle dtites back ante- rior even to that. It constitutes the soul and s|-.irit of Magna Charta itself. The old l>aron.s of Eng- land at Runnymede, in 1215, achieved for them- selves, their nation, and mankind, no greater or more important principle than that which com- pelled King John to grant that in all time to come within his realm — '■ \uUu-i liber homo capiatur, vcl imprvionetur, aul dissaii- iatur, aut uilagetur, aul. exutetur, ant aliquo modo destruahir; nee nuper eum ibimtii, nee super eum mUtinuts, nisi per legale judiciwH suorum, parium velper legem terra." '• No freeman sliall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispoisesscd, or otUlaweii. or in anyway destroyed; nor mill wc condemn kim, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting bi/ the legal judgment of Ai* peers, or by the laivs of the land."' This principle has remained unshaken in Eng- land for upwards of six hundred years. Our ancestors brought it with them to this western ;| continent. The framers of our Constitution re- » produced it, somewhat modified in form, but the j same in spirit and substance, in that great charter of pov,er by which every officer of this Govern- ment is limited and controlled. The fifth artinle I of the Constitution of the United States provides I, that— ■^•'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, | without due process of law." " " j, The sixth article is in these words: i '' In all criminal prosecutions the accused .«hall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been com- mitted, which district shaW have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in !; bis favor; and I'l h.ive the assistance of counsel for his | defence." Now, sir, I ask if a man can be rightfully shot j down by an armed soldiery in pursuance of an I Executive order, for doing what he could not be even indicted and tried for doing, much less con- victed of any offence for doing, by any court or , code known to the law.3 of the land ? Can the President rightfully order the army to shoot citi- zens of the country in time of peace, who are guilty of no crime, or a violation of no law? Can a man in this country, by an order from the Chief Magistrate, be deprived of his life in time of peace " without due process of law.'" Where there is no law there can be no transgression. You will | observe, Mr. Chairman, that I am only consider- ; ing this question as it now stands — I iinve, as yet, j eaid nothing about what would be the condition of i things if Congress should undertake to establish a I government for New Mexico this side the R.io Grande. If courts should be established there, and if l.iws should be passed prescribing the man- ner of determining by judicial proceeding.^ the rights of Mexicans residing there, under the treaty, and clothing the President witli power to call to the aid of the civil authorities the military force in ca.se the execution of such laws should be re- sisted, that would present a very different ques- tion from the one now before us. The President has not-invoked our aid, nor asked us to pass any laws lliai may be necessary to execute that article of the treaty, or to enable him to do it efficiently and rightfully, nor has he even asked us to pass any law to enable him to use the military force of the country for that purpose. He hos simply an- nounced what he intends to do in certain conlin- 11 gencies, without authority of law. !• If a proposition was before us to pass a law au- thorizing the President to resist the authority of Texas in extending her jurisdiction in that part of the country to which reference has beer, made, that would present the question whether there is any constitutional power in the General Govern- ment to coerce one of the States of tiie Union. That is a question I do not now wish to discuss. It is not now before us. If a bill be brought in to confer this power on the President, then I shall rneet it. That was the distinct question presented in 18.33 between this Government and t!ie State of South Carolina. The position assumed by Mr. Fillmore is fl^r outside of that assumed by General Jackson. General Jackson seems never to have dreamed of relying on the acts of 1795 and 1807, although there would have been much more reason for his doing so in that case than the present Chief Magistrate, in the case before us. For, in South Carolina there were revenue and judiciary iaws in force. And in case their execution had been ob- structed, there would have been much more justi- fiable ground for calling out the military force th»n there is in this case, when there is no iaw to ob- struct, and no judiciary to appeal to, in :he first instance. But General Jackson came to Congress with a message',-and asked an amcnume;!t pf the laws providing for the collection df the rereaue, to meet the^emergency created by the ordinatice and laws of South Carolina. And he further siked an amendment of the acts of 1795 and 1807, jlo as to give him full power to call to his aid themilitary forces of the country in case the judiciart should prove unable to execute the amended laws by reason of resistance to its process or judgments. In accordance with his views, the act (s\te1: knoxva as the force bill) was passed, which expiVed by its own limitation in twelve months from its tkte. The constitutionality of that act was very muMi ques- tioned by many at that time. But that islnot the matter I am now discussing. It is not even whether General Jackson, without that act, could hive ex- ercised all the powers it conferred on him;\but it i.s, whether the President shall make hit own. judgment of the rights of a treaty, withoii any judicial investigation, the law of the land, ann use the military force to carry that private judgment of his into execution. It is simply, whether we are to be under military rule or a government of laws. The President says that the question of Texas boundary is one that he cannot decide. In this opinion I fully concur. This is a matter he has no more power to decide than you or I. And until it is determined by agreement between this Gov- ernment and Te.xas, or by judicial proceedings, it is oeyond his province to give even an opinion one way or the other. But how he can assume to say that the Mexicans on this side the Rio Grande are not within those limits over which Texas can rightfully extend her civil jurisdiction, without at the same time undertaking to decide the question of boundary, I cannot understand. These too positions of the President, to my mind, arc irreconcilal)le. If any man can show h.ow he can .say to Texas, " Thus far you may go and no further," without deciding the .question of her bounday, I should like to hear him. That is certainly a decision, and a most emphatic decision of the question. It is a decision in the last resort to be executed by force. And, moreover, it is an Executive decision, without color of authority Nothing else can be made of it. I As to the position that the United States troops I were left in the territory at the termination of the war, and that it is the duty of the President, as com"f}ander-in-chief, to keep them there and to hold possession of the country with them against any interference on the part of Texas, until the boundary be settled, I do not consider that it rises to that dignity which would justify an argument to answer it. If the country belongs to the Uni- ted States by conquest, its Government devolves upon Congress. And if any laws be necessary to defend it, and secure ii, it is the duty of ttie President to apply to the law-making power for authority to do so, And until Congress makes some disposition of it, or gives him authority to hold it by force, he has no right or power to do it. Until Congress speaks, he has no authority to defend by force the military possession of the United States of any portion of their late acquisi- tions from JMexico. How has it been in Califor- nia.' There wc have seen this possession, which it is said he is bound to defend, entirely abandoned; and the whole country taken possession of by people coming from all countries, and speaking all languages, who have appropriated it to them- selves, and who have set up a government for themselves, which we are called upon to recog- nize and sanction. Now, if it be the duty of the President to defend by force military possession of New Mexico this side the RIt Grande, against the authorities of Texas, until the boundary be set- tled, why is it not also his duty to defend in like manner the military possession of California until Congress shall make some disposition of it ? The case of California is much stronger in every point of view than that of New Mexico this side the Rio Grande. For I have shown that the Presi- dent cannot interfere there without the virtual de- cision of the question of Texas boundary, which he admits that he has no right to decide. I now go further; and I maintain that if Texas should be resisted by the Mexicans in this portion of the territory lying within her prescribed limits, and should apply to the President for assistance to put down that resistance while this question of boundary is unsettled, he would be bound, under the Constitution, and law of 1795, to afford the necessary assistance. I read from the first sec- tion of that act: " And in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government tliereof, it shall be lawful for the President of theUnittd State?, on application of the Legislauue of such State, 01 of the Executive, f when the Legii^latuin cannot lie convened,) to call forth such number of Ihe militia of any other Stato or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to i^upprcss such insurrection." These people, it is well known, reside within the limits of Texas according to the boundaries prescribed by her own laws. The law of bound- ary of that State the President is as much bound to respect and have enforced as any other law of Texas, or any other law of any other State, or any law of the United States, unless it be incon- sistent with the Constitution of the United States, or some law or treaty of the United States. I re- peat, sir, the President is as much bound to regard all constitutional laws of the respective States as he is the laws of the United States. And if called upon in pursuance of the act of 1795, just read, he is as much bound to assist a State in [)utting down resistance to the execution of any of her constitu- tional laws, as he is to sec to the execution of the laws of the United State.i. And, as it is a ques- tion which he cannot decide, he is bound to regard the lawsof Texas, whether defining her boundary or extending her jurisdiction, as valid, unless it comes in conflict with the Constitution, or some law or treaty of the United States. Now, sir, is there anything in this law of Texas inconsistent with the late treaty with Mexico.' I do not intend now to go into a discussion of the Texas boundary. I did this a few days ago I do not now wish to repeat v/hat I then said. L will barely enumerate some of the points. You and this House well recollect that i do not consider the question now as it stood before the war. Texas, as an independent State, was aiinexed and admttted into the Union with such territorial limits as rightfully belonged to her at that time. Her rights were founded altogether upon the right of successful revolution, and their extent, in my opinion then, was to the limits over which she had established her jurisdiction. Her limits were such as she had successfully marked by the sword. I did not then believe, nor do 1 now believe, that she had thus established. her jurisdiction to the extent of her claim. But the settlement of her boundary with Mexico was reserved for this Government. And this Government, without waiting for peaceful negotiation, proceeded by force of arms to assert her rights to the extent of her claim. The then President, Mr. Polk, maintained that her proper boundary rightfully extended to the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source; and this position was ] maintained in the act declaring war, by large ma- jorities in both branches of Congress. It did not receive my vote, for I did not believe it to be true. But it received the sanction of this Government in ; both the executive and legislative departments. I The Government of the United States, therefore, 1 consider to be fully committed on this point. j Unless we are disposed to disregard the public faith most solemnly plighted, we are, in my opinion, estopped by the record. It was upon the asser- tion of these rights of Texas to the Rio Grande ' froni its mouth to its source, that the war was de- clared. It was in vindication of the rights of I Texas to extend her jurisdiction under her laws i and Constitution to the limits of her Territorial I claim, that the army was ordered to take a position \ on the east bank of the Rio Grande. The war was ' the consequence. And now 1 ask, if there is any- I thing in the treaty that was made at the end of j that war incoKsistetit with those laws of Texajj which the war was commenced to enforce ? So far from it, the treaty aifirms the boundary to be the Rio Grande up to the corner of New Mexico oji the other side of the Rio Grande — then turning westward — leaving to Texas, without the slightest lesttiction, all the territory claimed by her. And, moreover, the treaty has a map accompanying it, which is made part of it, and in which the bound- ary of Texas is clearly and distinctly set forth, aa running with the Rio Grande from its mouth to its source. So far, then, from this treaty containing anything inconsistent with the previous laws of , Texas, defining and asserting her rights, it does seem to me, upon all the rules of just and fair con- struction, to affirm and fully establish those rights, and utterly to deiirive this Government of all pre- text of 'questioning them, except by bold, open, ! and infamous repudiation. Mr. MOORE inquired whether the resolutions of aimexation did not leave it to the General Gov- ernment to determine the boundary of Texas? 1 Mr. STEPHENS. The resolutions of annexa- tion conferred upon the General Government ihe I power to settle this question of boundary with j( Mexico. They give this Govertunent authority or power over the subject for no other object, and to no further extent. " This Government had no juriadiction over the matter but with Mexico. She mi no power to say to Texas that her limits should be restricted, but in treating with Mexico. 1 have shown that in the treaty with Mexico there ie no clause restrictins; them. Of course she has ' no p'jwer to testrict them now. But, to pre~:ent the subject to the gentleman in a clearer view, suppose that Mexico hud never questioned the right of Texas to the Rii Grande, could thi^ Gov- ernment ever have done so .' — Would we not have been bound to maintain hw jurisdiction to ihe ex- tent of her limit.s prescribed by her laws, and to have put down any insurrection against her laws within those limits ? The only contesting party Texas- had was Mexico; and when Mexico ceased the contest, Texas and the United States stood to- wards each other just as they would have stood if no contcs't had ever arisen, unless in making the treaty which terminated the contest, and where the United States only had jurisdiction, some re- striction was imposed upon Texas. If such re- striction had been inserted in the treaty, of course Texas would have been bound by it; for this Gov- ernment had the power in that way to take juris- diction over it, but in no other way. And as the treaty does not contain any such restriction, and as Mexico is no longer contesting, I maintain that Texas and the United States stand towards each other upon this subject now just as they would hare stood if the war had never been wa^ed, and Mexico had never disputed her claim. The gen- tleman, i trust, understands me, and feels fully answered. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania, asked if it was not competent for Mexico to assign her inter- est in the disputed territory to the United States, and whether the United States, under the treaty, was no', the assignee of that interest .> Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, continued. No, sir. In the articles of union between Texas and the United States, or the resolutions of annexa- tion, Texas gave this Government no power to become the assignee of Mexico. The only power conferred was to extinguish the outstanding claim. This Government assumed the character of an umpire. She had power to settle the dispute as a disinterested per.son, but not to become u party to the controversy. She had no power to purchase the outstanding claim, and to become the assignee thereof. And if she had so purchased it, her rights would have been inva'id, and the purchase would have inured immediately, according to the well- settled principles of lav.', to Texas, hev cestui qui trust. But, sir, the treaty shows that she did not attempt to take an assignment of the interest of Mexico in the disputed territory, and to put herself in the shoes of Mexico in this matter. There are no duch words, no such clause, no such intent to be found from the beginnina to the end of that treaty, and no such construction can be put upon it without committing as great an outrage upon the English language as some men seem disposed to commit upon what I now consider to be the indisputable constitutional rights of Texas. These rights have, in my judgment, been thus indisputably estab- lished by the action of this Government. I do not intend now to speak of the policy which gov- erned the public counsels at that time. It is known that [ opposed it to the utmost of my ability. But what was done then cannot be undone no at. We have heard a great deal for some years past of the odiuirt of repudiation. A:id strange to say, the very rnsn who have been loudest m their denunci- ation against particular Ststca who failed for a time to fulfill their public engagements, are now th^ loudest in their clamors for a total disregard of th.e pledged faith of the Union. These arf the men, also, who are pleased to assume to themselves th;i title of conservatives. Sir, if I know anything of conservatism, it is that principle which susiai.is the supremacy of the law, which maintains the rights of all parties under the lav/, and which never aban- dons the public faith when once constitutionally ■jiven. This is the nature of my conservatism. And could a more shameless spectacle be presented to the civilized world than for this Government, after having gone to war with Mexico for contend- ing that the rigiits of Texas did not extend to the Rio Grande, and after spending all the blood and treasure which was wasted in that war, to turn round and commence another equally bloody and much more unnatural conflict against Texas for asserting that her rightful boundary does extend to that limit? Fhis is the disgrace, scandal, and m- famy which some of you who call your.-ielves con- servatives would bring upon your country. I belong to no such class of men. i am for abidin-- by the order of things as I find them constitution ally existing, until they be constitutionally changed If they get too bad tn be borne w ithout hope of re- dress, then I shall be for re^^.ion. But having been led to 8ayrW>fg upon this s^ib- ject of the boundary of Texas than I intended^ m consequence of the interruptions, I return to/ the point I was upon. And I again repeat, that i^ the President should be called upon by Texas t^ put down illegal resistance to her authorities withfri her limits, he would be bound to regard the law of/Tex- as, defining her boundary, as the law of the land on this subject, until it be displaced or invalidated by some superior law. The treaty would have\been such superior law if it had done it. But it diiinot. A law of Congress, with the consent of Tex- as, would be such a law ; but none such is in eiist- ence. Whether a law of Congress alone, w\;h- out the consent of Tex^is, would be such a Uw, is not now before us. It will be time enougliUo discuss that question when it arises. All that Ve now have before us, is the message announcib the opinion of the Executive that it is a queitidii that he cannot decide; but that, until it is decideif by competent authority, he will use force to pre* vent the extension of the jurisdiction of Texa^ over territory lying within her limits as prescribed by her laws, notwithstandig those laws are rot inconsistent or in conflct with any superior law; and that he will do this without asking any au- thority from Congress in addition to that conferred upon him by the acts of 1795 and 1807. I have shown conclusively, I think, that those acts con- fer no such a^nhoriiy on him. And now, in con- clusion on this branch of the subject, I assert, that if he attempts thus by force to arrest the le- gal authorities of Texas, it will be a gro33 usurpa- tion of power which should be resisted And if you wish to knovv- what I mean by re- sistance, or how 1 mean it should be resisted, I say distinctly, it should be resisted by arms, as lawless force always should be resisted. I cannot speak for Texas— I have no authority to apeak for her— she has men upon this floor who can speak for her. But I have mistaken the character of her people if the spirit exhibited at ths Alamo and St. Jacinto would submit tamely to such wanton wrong. The rights and duty of Texas, to my mind, are clear, "if the question be not settled, she should extend her jurisdiction over thia territory— she should pass all laws necessary to command obedience to her sovereignty within her limits. And if the execution of those laws should be opposed by force, either on the part of the people residing in the disaffected section or th 3 army of the United Slates, she should meet force with force, let the consequences be what they may. And no man need delude himself with the opinion, that in such a conflict Texas would be alone. 1 have lately expressed the opinion, that " the first Federal gun that shall be fired (gainst the peo- fle of Texas tvithout the authority of law, will be a signal for the freemen from the Delaicare to the Rio Grande to rally to the rescue." And I repeat the sentiment here this day. The clangor of battle at Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill, did not more magically arouse every friend of his country, from Massachusetts to Georgia, in the time of co- lonial wrongs, than the first roar of Federal artil- lery in such a cause, at Santa Fc, will start to arms, at this time, every true-hearted man south of Ma- son and Dixon's line. The former was the begin- ning of one Revolution, and it will be welPfor those to whom the destinies of this Republic are nov/ committed, to take care that the latter may not be the commencement of another. The peo- ple in the slayaholding States of this Union can- not mistake this question. They understand per- fectly well that noUiing would ever have been lieard of this doctrine, of its being the duty of the President to maintain the possession of the United States over this country against Texas, if it had not been that Texas is a slave State. We have heard nothing of it in California, or Utah , or New Mexico the other side of the Rio Grande. We have heard nothing of the obligations of the. treaty securing "life, liberty, and religion," to those Mexicans vho have fallen within the dominions of the Mor- flnons, or who have become a prey to the savages that roam over the immense tracts of country be- tween the Del Norte and the Pacific. No, sir; we have heard nothing of these obligations of the treaty, and this doct-rine of holding possession by force without authority of law, saving in that comparatively small portion of the Territory lying east of the Rio Grande, which falls within the pre- Bcnbed limits of Texas. " Liberty, property, and religion," stand in no need of protection amongst the mixed and motley herd who have flocked to California from all nations and climes — the.se sa- cred rights are perfectly safe amongst Mormons and savages. It is only in slaveholding Texas that they need protection. Now, sir, I say there is no mistaking the issue. And I tell you, the peo- ple of the South will meet it, and they will meet it as freemen " who know their rights, and know- ing them, dare maintain them." Mr. Chairman, it gives me no pleasure to speak in this language. 1 do not wish to be understood as picturing a state of things which would afl'ord me any gratification to behold. 1 am but proclaiming disagreeable truths, which public duty requires me to utter. I am not insensible to thejconsequences which would inevitably ensue from such a collis- ion. I am, therefore, as anxious as any man can be to avert them if possible; but they can never be averted by the policy of this mes.sage. I have for a long time looked upon this question of Texas boundary as the most embarrassing one before us, and I feel no hesitancy in saying, that 1 am in favor of a speody and amicable adjustment of it. I am also for a settlement of all the other causes of irritation and agitation in the country, which now so |mi«fully disturb and distrnct the public ri, mind, as well as the public councils. But it is important that we do not deceive ourselves on these questions. ! intend, therefore, to opeak plainly and disfinc.'ly to you and the country. When we talk of nn amicable adjustment, we may as well understand clearly what'we mean by it. The President in his message, notwithstanding this threat of force, urges upon Congress the set- tlement of these matters of contention and strife; — that part of the message meets my cordial approval. But how are they to be amicably settled ? This brings us directly to the principles which must govern our action — to the basis upon which we are to agree. I shall give you mine candidly and frankly. So far as the boundary of Texas is concerned, I am willing to settle that upon the plan suggested by the President, provided we can agree upon the terms of disposing of the other sectional diflficul- ties. We hear a great deal about settlement, ad- justment, compromise, harmony, and union. Now I am for all these. I am no enemy to the Unio;i. And those of this House v/ho know much of me, know full well that I mean exactly what I say. I repeat, I am no enemy to the Union — and I am for its preservation and its perpetuation, if it can be done upon principles of equality and justice. Attachment to the Union with me and with the South generally, I think, is a sentiment of patriot- ism — it grows out of the recollections of the past, the glories of the present, and the hopes of the future. It arises from no base calculation of dol- lars and cents. But I tell gentlemen of the North it is for them now to determine whether it shall be preserved ornot. In pointof money value, I think it is worth more to the North than to the South. We have heard but little from gentlemen from that sec- tion, for eight months past, but eulogies upon the Union. If they are sincere in the expression of this deep devotion to the institutions of our fa- thers, it is time for them to present the offering which they are willing to make upon the altar of our common country for its preservation. If they expect the South to make all the sacrifices, to yield everything, and to permit them to carry out their sectional policy under the cry of " our glorious Union;" they will find themselves most sadly mis- taken. It is time for mutual concessions. This Union was formed for the protection of the lives, the liberty, and the property of those who entered into it, and those who should fill their places after them. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal; where no protection is extended, no rightful allegiance can be claimed. And no people, in my judgment, who deserve the name of free- men, will continue their allegiance to any Govern- ment which arraysitself not only against their prop- erty, but against their social and civil organization. If you, gentlemen of the North, then, intend to in- graft upon the policy of this common Government your anti-slavery views, and to make its action conform to your sectional purposes, it is useless to say anything more of compromise, settlement, ad- justment, or union. It is as well for us to come to a distinct understanding upon the subject, at once. I do not place a iow estimate upon the value of the Union 10 the South; but I do not con- sider itsdissolution, with all the manifold attending evils of such an event in full view before me, as the Streatest calamity ihat could befall ua. Far from it. Tlier-" is no evil which can fall upon any people, in my opinion, equal to that of the degrada- tion which alwa]^. follows a .submis.yon to insult, injury, outrage, ant5 aggression. And whenever this Government, is brought in hostile array against 1| sage of a law more effectually to secure the rendi- me and mine, 1 am for disunion — openly, boldly, Ij tion of fugitives from labor; which is our right and fearlessly, for revolution. I speak plainly, il expressly guarantied under the Constitution; and Gentlemen may call this " treason" if they please, m this you continue to refuse us. And how is it upon Sir, epithets have no terrors forme. The charge of i this very territorial question which is now the '• traitor" may be whispered in the ears of the timid II source of the excitement, which the gentleman and craven-hearted. It is the last appeal of tyrants. | from Pennsylvania says will never be allayed until Ilis no new word of modern coinage. It is a term the South ceases her endeavors to gain an unjust- long since familiar to those who know how free- \\ ifiable control over the action of theGovernment? dom is lost and how freedom may be won. And it How does this case stand ? Who is it that is at- 1 say here, in the presence of this House, in broad jj tempting to control the policy of the Government day, that I will acknowledge allegiance to no Gov ernment that puts the property of the people to which I belong out of the pale of the law, and which attempts to fix public odium and reproba- tion upon their social order and civil organization. When that day comes, if it ever does, " down with the Government" will be my motto and to carry out their sectional views and purposes • A public domain has been acquired by the com- mon blood and common treasure of all, and the South, who is charged with endeavoring to con- trol the Government for their purposes, asks noth- ing but that the common territory which ia the public property, may be opened to the entry and watchword. When I am outlawed by you, I shall ij settlement and equal enjoyment of all the citizens become your implacable enemy. I shall never || of every part of the Republic, with their property kiss the rod that smites me. And no people who : of every description; while it is the North who donotdeaerve to be scoffed at, trampled upon, and jj comes here and demands that the whole of this kicked by their oppressors, will, i told you that j! common domain shall be set apart exclusively for ■ we mightas well talk plainly upon thissubject, and :l themselves, or for themselves and siTcfi persons I intend to do it. And it is for you now, who have i; from the South as will strip themselves of a cer- nothing on your lips but " union," if you are in ij tain species of their property, and conform their earnest in your professions, to come forward and ji views to the policy of the North. 1 submit it to assist in devising the ways and means of sustain- jj every candid man in this House, and to every in- ing it. 1 have on a former occasion given my |j telligent and candid man in the world, outside of views upon the subject of our differences, and I i| the House, if this is not a fair statement of tl»fe intend to repeat them before I close; but I have not \\ question The South asks no discrimination |i yet heard anything from those who compose the II her favor. It is the North that is seeking to ott- majority in this House of a conciliatory character. |i tain discriminations against her and her peopfe. If your only reliance for harmony, peace, and ij And who leads in this endeavor to control the Re- union is force, come out and say so; or if you have 1| tion of the Government for sectional objects ? ' It anyplan of conciliation, submit it. I am forconcili- ij is the gentleman himself, who brings this charge ation, if it can be accomplished upon any reason- ij against the South. Sir, I deny the charge, ind able and just principles. I am also for making a I repel it. And 1 tell that gentleman, and \he clean busmess of it. 1 am for no partial arrange- 1 House, if these agitations are not to cease ur\til ment. If we aim at peace, let us have no tempo- |i the South shall quietly and silently yield to the(e rary truce, but permanent quiet and repose. This, j| demands of the North, it is useless to talk of ar in my opinion, can only be done by a settlement of ii amicable settlement of the matters in controveri all the questions growing out of these territorial || If that is the basis you propose, we need say noth acquisitions upon liberal and proper terms. What | ing further about agreement or adjustment— upor are such terms? This is the practical point for ii those terms we can never settle. The people o^ us now to consider. ] the S mth have as much right to occupy, enjoy. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [iMr. Wil- ' and colonize, these Territories with their property,^ mot] said the other day, that these agitations || as the people of the North have with theirs. This would never cease until the South ceased her en- is the basis upon which I stand, and the princi- ■deavors to force the General Government to con- pies upon which it rests arc as immutable as right form its policy to their sectional views and inter- H and justice. They are the principles of natural ests. This was the purport of his remarks, if I ij law, founded in natural justice, as recognized by heard him correctly. In this he virtually charged the ablest Publicists who have written upon the thatjtheseagitationscame from theSouth, and with- jj laws of nations and the rights pertaining to con- out just cause. And the correctness of this ac- |i quests. These acquisitions belong to the whole cusation I deny. When, let me ask that gentle- {i people of the United Slates, as conquerors. They man, did the South ever attempt to control the ' hold them under the Constitution, and the General action of this Government for the promotion of ! Government as common property in a corporate her peculiar interests.' When did she ever ask this Government to pass any law for the promotion of her interests ? The North has repeatedly asked for tariff acts and navigation acts, upon which their interests so much depend — which have been re- peatedly granted. It is true, that men from the South have often voted for such measures when presented and urged by the North — not because the South was particularly interested in them, but because the North was, and they were willing to advance the interests of the North, when, in their 4)pinion, they could do so without injury or detri- ment to other sections. But when did the South ever invoke the action nf this Government for its «xclusive benefit? I ask for the instance to be named I recollect but one, and that is the pas- capdcity. Vattfcl, in treating on this subject in his svork on the laws of nations, says, {book 1, chap. 20, p. 113:) " All itieinbers of a corporalion have an equal ric^hl to the useof the common propoly. But reppectiiig the manner of enjoying it, the body oltlie corporation may make such reg- ulations as lliey may Ihirilv propi^r, provide. i tliat those ri-gu- latioiis bfi not incon>istriit with that equality of right which ought to be pi(.s( rvcd m a i oioinunion of property. Thus a corporation may d. tirniMn' tlic use of a common forest era common pasture, liitlni allotting it to all tht nienitiers, ac cording to their wants, or allolting each an equal sharr ; but Ilicy have not a right to exclude any one of the members, or to I make a distinction to his dUadvantage, by 'assigning him a tes-v .9/iure than that of the others." The principles here set forth are those upon which 1 place the merits and justice of our cause. Under our Constitution, the power of makini^ reffu- latJons'for the enjoyment of the common domain, devolves upon Congress, the common agent of all the partifs interested in it. In the exerution of this trust, jt is the duty of Congrfss to pass all laws ne- cessary for an f qui and just pnrticipatinn in it. And eo far from this common agent having any right to exclude a portion of the ptopie, or " to make dis- tinctions to their disadvarrtagt ,''' it is the duty of Congress fo open the country liy the removal of all ohstruction5, whether they he existing laws or anything else, and to give equal protection to all who may avail themselves of the right to u.se it. But you men of the North say, that we of the South wish to carry our slaves there, and that the free labor of the North cannot submit to the deg- radation of being associated with .slave labor. Well, then, we say, as the patriarch of old said to his friend and kinsman, when disputes arose be- tween the herdmen of their cattle: *' Let there be ' no strife, 1 pray thee, between me and thee, and ' between my herdmen and thy herdmen, for we « be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee.' ' Separate thyself, I pray thee, fronn me. If thou • wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; ' or, if thou depart to the right hand, then I will • go to the left." In other words, we say, if you cannot agree to enjoy this public domain in com- mon, let us divide it. You take a share, and fet us take a share. And I again submit to an intelligent and candid world if the proposition is not fair and JDSti — and whether it.s rejection does not amount to a riear expression of your fixed determination to exclude us entirely from any participation in this public domain.' Now, sir, all that we ask, or all that I ask, is for Cong'ess to open the entire country, and give an equal right to all the citizens of all the States to ente', settle, and colonize it with their property of cTcty kind; or to make an equitable division of it. Is ije Ofliue. LIBRARY OF CONGRESJ 014 647 097 A \ Conservation Resources I :. C.««^ X.,nn I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 647 097 A i^ Conservation Resources