4 o 
 
 
 \0 V\ ^S^^V7 4 O 
 
 ■> 
 
 vv 
 
 \nv 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ^ ... 
 
 2 +*. 
 
 r ^o< 
 
 
MR. BENTON'S ANTI-CESSION SPEECH. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 NTON, OF MISSOURI 
 
 AGAINST CEDING SEVENTY THOUSAND SQUARE MILES 
 OF NEW MEXICO TO TEXAS. 
 
 +*< 
 
 {N THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 15, 1850. 
 
 Mr. BENTON offered the following amendment to the Compromise Bill: 
 
 " Strike out of proposition ' first " of section 39, after tlie word ' beginning,' these words : ' at the point on the Rio del 
 Norte, commonly called El Paso, and running up that river twenty miles, measured by a straight line thereon, and thence 
 eastward!; to a point where the lOUth degree of west lo.igitude crosses lied river, being the southwest angle, in the line 
 lesignated between the United States and Mexico, and the same angle in the line of the territory set apart for the Indians 
 by the United States,' and insert after thesa:d word ' beginning' these words : ' at the point in the middle of the deepest 
 channel in the Rio Grande del Norte, where the same is crossed by the 102d degree of longitude west from the meridian 
 of Greenwich ; thence north, along that longitude, to the 34th degree of north latitude ; thence eastwardly to the point at 
 which the 100th degree of west longitude crosses the Red river." 
 
 The amendment being stated by the Chair, Mr. BENTON said : 
 
 The motion is to strike out and inset t — to strike out the committee's proposed line for the 
 western boundary of Texas, and to insert a different one in place of it. The committee's line 
 begins twenty miles, on a straight line, above El Paso, and runs northeastwardly to the point at 
 which the Red river is crossed by the one hundredth degree of west longitude. The line I pro- 
 pose begins in the middle of the channel of the Rio Grande del Norte, where it is crossed by the 
 one hundred and second degree of west longitude, about three hundred miles, on a straight line, 
 below El Paso, and runs north with that longitude to the thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude, 
 where it strikes the committee's line ; and thence, with that line, to its termination at the inter- 
 section of the Red river by the one hundredth degree of west longitude. These are the two lines, 
 and the difference between them is a difference of seventy thousand square miles cut off from 
 New Mexico and given to Texas. 
 
 My objections to the committee's proposed line were stated in a former speech, and nothing 
 which was then said will be repeated now. The point of those objections was, that that line was 
 a dismemberment of New Mexico, cutting off seventy thousand square miles of its territory, and 
 giving it to Texas. My reasons for the line I propose were also slated in the same speech, and 
 will not be repeated now. Their point was, that a line along the one hundred and second degree 
 of west longitude would be the proper boundary between New Mexico and Texas — the. one that 
 would conform to the actual possessions of both countries, to their civil and geographical divisions. 
 Without repeating arguments formerly used, my design is to rise higher, and establish the same 
 points by new and closer evidence, drawn, as the rhetoricians express it, ex visceribus causes — 
 from the bowels of the case — that is to say, from the bill and report of the committee itself, and 
 from the authentic map of the State of Texas. 
 
 I begin with the committee's bill, and show from it that a cession of a part of New Mexico to 
 Texas, and not the ascertainment of the true line between them, was the object of the committee; 
 and that in fact they make a cession of one hall of New Mexico to Texas, and then accept a ces- 
 sion of the other half from her, and then propose to pay her a large sum of money besides. Here 
 is the ceding clause in the committee's bill: 
 
 "Second. The United States cede to the State of Tesas all right, claim, and title which they have to any territory 
 King south of the line aforesaid. And the said State of Texas cedes to the United States any right, claim, and title 
 which it has to any territory lying north of the said line." 
 
 These are the words of the committee's bill — a cession — a mutual cession of territory from 
 *"tch to the other, and in terms which imply title in each. The United States cede to Texas all 
 the territory that lies south of the committee's line ; Texas cedes to the United States all the ter- 
 ritory that lies north of it. It is the act of two owners acting independently of each other, and 
 making an exchange of land, and in terms which imply an equality of title in the respective 
 cessions. Upon the words of this clause, 'hen. this transfer to Texas is a cession from the United 
 
 TOWER8, PRINTER — PRICE 50 CENTS PER ItrNTlREI). 
 
 

 States, ana conveys to Texas the right, title, and claim of the United States to all the territory 
 ceded. Another part of the bill is equally explicit in treating this transfer as a cession. The sixth 
 clause is in these words : 
 
 "Sixth. If the said Slate of Tel or decline to acceded to the preceding articles, tbey shall become i " 
 
 and void, and the United States shall he remitted bark to all their territorial rights, in the same state and condition as if 
 these articles of compact had never heen tendered to the acceptance of the State of Texas." 
 
 This is confirmation, both of the cession and of the title of the United States. It makes a pro- 
 vision for resuming the title of the United States if the exchange is not agreed to by Texas. Jt 
 remits the title — sends it back — to the United States if Texas does not accept ! and, to give more 
 emphatic meaning to this remission, as a return to its former owner, the expletive " back" is su- 
 peradded — a redundancy of phrase which could only be justified by the extreme desire of saving 
 the title of the United States if the committee cannot succeed in giving it away. 
 
 The report of the committee, in explanation and support of their bill, fully accords with these 
 two clauses of the bill itself. It treats the line they propose as making a cession of United States 
 territory to Texas, and carefully reclaims the title, if the cession is not accepted. Thus: 
 
 " If this boundary he assented to by Texas, she will be quieted to that extent in her title. And some may suppose 
 that, in consideration of this concession by the United States, she might, without any other equivalent, relinquish any 
 claim she has beyond the proposed boundary : that is, any claim to any part of J\Teu> Mexico. But, under the influence 
 of a sentiment ot justice and great liberality, the bill proposes to Texas, lor her relinquishment of any such claim, a large 
 pecuniary equivalent." 
 
 And again : 
 
 " Tt cannot be anticipated that Texas will decline to accede to these liberal propositions ; but if she should, it i, to be 
 distinctly understood that the title of the United States to any territory acquired from .Mexico east of the Rio Grande, will 
 remain unimpaired, and in the same condition as if the proposals of adjustment now ofl'ered had never been made." 
 
 Here are two distinct confirmations of the meaning expressed in the Committee's bi'\ and 
 shows that the import of the words employed by them was duly and cautiously considered. " Con- 
 cession" is the term they apply to it, which is the equivalent of cession, which is itself equivalent 
 to the word grant. " Unimpaired " is to be the state of the United States title, if the concession 
 is not accepted by Texas ; and, as an acquisition from Texas, the remaining part of New Mexico 
 is proposed to be held. The words all imply cession and acquisition ; and in that, the bill and 
 report are right. It is a cession of seventy thousand square miles of i\ew Tvlexiccvto Texas for 
 nothing ! with a proposal to purchase, the remaining part of New Mexico from her at a greater 
 price ! The whole crowned by a bungling salvo to save our title " unimpaired," if Texas cannot 
 he induced to accept these fine terms — terms which give her both our land and our money. 
 Thus, the report accords with the bill, and sustains my proposition. 
 
 I now proceed to other evidence. 
 
 Here is a map ! the title, contents, date, and verification of which are vital to this inquiry. It 
 is entitled, A Map of the State of Texas, by Cordova ; and it declares itself to be compiled 
 from the records of the General Land Office of the State, and is dated in the spring of 1848, and 
 professes to give every county, every town, land district, river and stream in the State; and is 
 verified by the signatures of the Senators and Representatives of the State in Congress, by die 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the attestation of the Governor, and of the Secre- 
 tary of State. It must be assumed to be an authentic map of the State, such as it was at the time 
 of its compilation — Spring of 1848 — and will not be questioned by Texas, and is the sole evidence 
 for which the United States will have occasion in maintaining the possession of all New Mexico 
 until the question of title shall be competently disposed of. It shows the possession of Texas a; 
 it stood at the time that the United States acquired New Mexico. It is the map of possession — 
 the map of the State as possessed — at that identical moment, vital to this question : it extent's 
 Irom the Sabine to 102 deg. of west longitude. And here is a reduced map in the corner of tin- 
 large one, embracing the country from the Mississippi river to the Pacific ocean, and showing the 
 whole extent of the claim of Texas. I will explain the reduced map first. Here it is, (holding 
 it >ip.) The blue color represents the whole claim of Texas, extending lo the head of the Del 
 Norte, and thence to north latitude 42 deg., where it corners with Oregon and California, ha\ 
 '•Santa Fe county" written upon it, near San Miguel — the place where the Texan expedition 
 was taken prisoner in the year 1 841 . The small red and yellow squares in the eastern part of this 
 little map represent (he counties, land districts, afld the colonial land grants in Texas ; and the" 
 show that the longitude of Hi-.' deg. — the yrtnie which I propose for the western limit of Texas- 
 was the Utmost limit to which any land district or occupied county then extended. Fannin html 
 district extended precisely to that longitude, and is bounded by it. Bexar county extended in 
 that direction) but without h settler near it r This is what the little m the whole claim 
 
 of Tex^s, covering all New Mexico east of the Del Norte— and her actual possession limited to 
 the eastern side of the longitude of 102 deg. 
 
 I now recur to the large map, entitled A Mop of the Utah of Texas ; and first read the ceriih 
 cates ol verification whrchT-find on its face. These are they : • 
 
HiijaTON City, Mugiiat -2:2, IS4S. 
 
 1. " YVe the undersigned Senators and Representatives from the State of Texas do hereby certify, thai lve liave 
 carefully examined J. De Cordova's map of the Stale of Texas, compiled by I!. Cieuzbawr, from the record'; of the 
 General Land Office of Tcxks, and have no hesitation in savins that no map could surpass 'his in accuracy and fidelity, 
 ft has delmtated upon it every county in the Stale, its towns, rivers, am] streams ; and we cordially recommend it to 
 every person who desires correct geographical knowledge of our State. To persons desirous of visiting Texas it will be 
 invaluable." 
 
 [Signed: Thomas J. Rusk, Sam Houston, David S. Kaufman, S. P. Pilsbury.] 
 
 2. " I hereby certify, that this ma)) has been compiled from the records of the General Land Office, by Robert Creuz- 
 bavvr, and that it is the most correct representation of the State which I have seen, or which has Borne within my knowl- 
 edge. The ineariders of the rivers are all Correctly represented, being made from actual surve\>." 
 
 [Signed by Thomas W. Ward, at Austin, July 4, 1848.] 
 
 3. " The undersigned, Commissioner of the General Land Office of the Stale of Te.vas, has no hesitancy in declaring 
 it as his firm conviction, that this map is a very correct representation of the State, representing all returns up to date, 
 having been compiled with great care from the records of the General Land Office by the draughtsman, Robert Creuz- 
 bavvr." 
 
 [Signed July 4, 1848: George W. Smith.] 
 
 4. " State of Ttetos : I certify that George William Ward was Commissioner of the General Land Office from the 
 Stfa day of January, 1K41, to the 20th day of March, 1846 ; and also that George W . Smith is now and has been Com- 
 missioner as aforesaid since the said 00th day of March last. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and 
 affixed the seal of the State, at Austin, the 7th day«f.lul\ , b-'i;-<, and oi'tl.e independence of Texas the thirteenth year." 
 
 [Signed, George, T. Wood: countersigned by the Secretary of State, W. D. Miller.] 
 
 This is the authentication of the map, and certainly nothing could be more full and satisfactory. 
 The dates of the certificates are also most essential ; for they show the map to have been com- 
 piled as late as the Spring of 1848, the very date of the treaty with the Republic of Mexico, as if 
 compiled for the exact purpose of showing the United States the extent of the Texan possession 
 on the day she became interested in the question, by becoming the owner of the territory contigu- 
 ous to Texas. Here is this authentic map. Look at it — (holding it up.) It is large enough to be 
 seen across the Chamber, and shows objects with sufficient distinctness to be discerned by all. Its 
 western limit is the longitude of 102 ! the very limit I propose, as if I had made the map myself 
 to suit my bill'. Here is the longitude of 102 constituting the western limit of the map, running 
 through the centre of the Staked Plain, leaving every country, every town, and every land district, 
 and every stream and river of Texas, with all their head springs and sources to the east, leaving 
 the whole course of the Puerco and its valley to the west, and striking the del Norte just below 
 the mouth of the Puerco, and three hundred miles on a straight line below El Paso. Behold it ! 
 Here is 102 cutting the long blank space marked El Llano Estacado, the Staked Plain ; and here 
 are all the breaks in the eastern declivity of that long, broad, and sterile table land, from which 
 issue the thousand little streams which, taking their course towards the rising sun, and gathering 
 themselves into large channels, give birth to all the beautiful rivers of Texas — the Colorado, the 
 Brasos, (Los Brasos de Dios, the Arms of Gcd,) the Nueces, and the southern forks of the Red 
 river. There they all are ! Everything that is Texan by nature or by law ! Rivers, towns, coun- 
 ties, all to the east of 102, and all separated from New Mexico by the high desert plain which 
 marks the structure of the country, and divides systems of rivers and of lands from each other. 
 
 This is the line vfhich I propose, and upon the adoption of which the sense of the Senate will be 
 taken. It is entirely different from that of the committee, and makes a difference of 70,000 square 
 miles to the United States territory in New Mexico, according to its adoption or rejection. 
 
 I have diligently studied the report of the committee to find out the principle on which they 
 could take a line beginning above El Paso to divide the territories of New Mexico and Texas — a 
 line which, conforming to neither claim, falsifies both ! and which, contradicting history, geogra- 
 phy, and law, invalidates itself! I have been greatly at a loss to discover the principle on which 
 such an anomalous line could be based ; and suppose I have found it, so far as it can be found, in 
 the paragraph of the committee's report, which 1 will now read. This is it : 
 
 '• The committee beg leave next, to report on the subject of the northern and western boundary of Texas. On that 
 question a great diversity of opinion has prevailed. According to one view of it, the wesiern limit, of Texas was the 
 . ", i, ■■■.-, -. ; according lo another, it extended to the Rio Grande, and stretched ftcm its mouth to its source. A majority 
 of the committee, having come to the conelur-ion of recommending- an amicable adjustment of the boundary with Texas, 
 abstain from expressing any opinion as lo thr tru i [ate western and northern boundary of that. State. The 
 
 lerms proposed for such an adjustment are contained in the biil herewith reported, and they are, with inconsiderable va- 
 riation, the same as that reported by the Committee on Territories. 
 
 " According to these terms, it is proposed to Texas that her boundary be recognised to the Rio Grande, and up that, 
 river to the point commonly called ill Paso, and running thence up that river twenty miles, measured thereon by a 
 straight line, and thence eastwardly to a point where the hundredth degree of west longitude crosses Red river ; being 
 the southwest angle in the line designated between the United States and Mexico, and the same angle in the line of the 
 territory set apart for the Indians by the United States." 
 
 This is it ! and a pretty light it is to guide the Congress of the United States — a great diversity 
 of opinion among the people, and no opinion at all in the committee. Some think the Nueces 
 the true and legitimate western boundary ; some think it extends to the Rio Grande. The com- 
 mittee think neither one nor the other,. nor anything else ; but, having come to the conclusion to 
 recommend an amicable adjustment, they abstain from expressing any opinion as to the tree and 
 
legitimate western boundary of Texas! and then, without any regard to what is either true o? 
 legitimate, they cu' New Mexico in two, and give half of her to Texas. If the committee had 
 studied the question ot boundary, and expressed an opinion, and then made their line conformable 
 to it, their recommendation might have been entitled to great weight. But they do no such thing. 
 They do not study the question. They expressly abstain from it. They neither give an opinion 
 of their own nor adopt that of anybody else. They neither take the Nueces, as they say some 
 believe, nor the Rio Grande, as they say others believe ; nor name any line which they themselves 
 believe ; but, going it blind — making a half and half business of it — cutting instead of untying 
 the Gordian knot — they take a new course across the Puercos, beginning half way up the Del 
 Norte, cut New Mexico in two just below the hips, and give the lower half to Texas, leaving 
 New Mexico to stump it about as she can, without feet or legs. 
 
 This is called abstaining from expressing an opinion ; but it is certainly acting an opinion, 
 and executing it also. They amputate New Mexico — cut her in two just below the middle — 
 give half to Texas — and call that no opinion. Sir, there was once a dispute before a wise man 
 with respect to the maternity of a child. Two different women claimed to be its mother, and 
 Solomon, puzzled with their contradictory asseverations, and not able to decide which was the 
 true and legitimate mother, and abstaining from expressing any opinion, ordered the child to be 
 cut in two, and half of it to be given to each. You know how it ended. The true mother 
 would not have the child cut in two ! and the wise man knew that ! and his judgment was no- 
 thing but a device to find out the truth by making nature speak. I do not know whether our 
 committee have acted on the policy of Solomon — Solomons though they all may be ; nor in fact 
 upon what policy or principle they acted. There is no point from the head to the mouth of the 
 river which may not be taken on the same principle. Amicable adjustment is the only rule they 
 profess, and that seems to be very amicable ; and, according to what they propose, all their ami- 
 cability runs in one channel, and all their adjustment leans to one side. They give seventy 
 thousand square miles of New Mexico to Texas, and offer her ten millions of dollars to accept 
 it! This is amicable enough to Texas, and adjustment enough to suit her! But how does it 
 suit the United States and New Mexico ? How does it suit truth and justice — that true and 
 lecitimate line which the committee did not even pretend to ascertain ? 
 
 The committee propose a consideration to be paid by the United States to Texas — how much 
 they do not say in their bill or report, but rumor talks of ten millions of dollars. This is what 
 the report says: 
 
 " As a consideration for it, and considering that a portion of t lie debt of Texas was created on a pledge to lier credi- 
 tors of the duties on foreign imports, transferred by the resolution of annexation to the United States, and now receiv- 
 ed and receivable in their treasury, a majority of the committee recommend the payment of the sum of millions of 
 
 dollar? to Texas, to be applied in the first instance to the extinction of that portion of her debt for the reimbursement o\' 
 which the duties on foreign imports were pledged as aforesaid ; and the residue in such manner as she may direct. Ac- 
 cording to an estimate which has been made, there are included in the territory to which it is proposed that Texas 
 relinquish her claim, embracing that part of New Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande, a little less than 124,933 
 square miles, and about 79,957,1:20 acres of land. From the proceeds of the sale of this land, the United States may 
 ultimately be reimbursed a portion, if not the whole, of the amount of what is thus proposed to be advanced to Texas." 
 
 The consideration is not named ; but some things are named which may help to form a judg- 
 ment as to what it ought to be. Let us consider them. In the first place, this is an affair of 
 mutual cession — an exchange of land — so much on one side, and so much on the other — and 
 then boot from the United States to Texas to the figure of some millions. The first question is, 
 how much land does each give? And the committee answers for Texas, with great precision, a 
 little less than 124,933 square miles, including that part of New Mexico which lies cast of the 
 llio Grande ; and I answer for New Mexico, 70,000 square miles, including the El Paso and 
 Puerco country. Upon the figures, Texas would seem to have ceded most, and entitled to re- 
 ceive boot ; but when it comes to be considered that this cession from Texas includes all New- 
 Mexico east oi the Del Norte, from twenty miles above El Paso to the head of the river — that 
 it cedes five hundred miles of what was New Mexico for a hundred years before the name of 
 Texas had been heard of — that it includes thirty towns and villages, and seventy thousand New 
 Mexican people who admit no allegiance to Texas — then it becomes a question whether this 
 five hundred miles of New Mexico should not be deducted from the committee's quantity of 
 124,933 square miles. 1 happen to be of that opinion ; and so would deduct about 50,000 square 
 miles from the committee's count. That would make the two cessions about equal in extent, 
 about equal in quantity. And now for quality and value. How would the two cessions stand in 
 that respect? Evidently the 70,000 square miles taken from New Mexico is worth more than 
 the 75,000 ceded by Texas. It is in a better climate, being all of it south of 34 deg., and part 
 as far south ae 29^ deg.; while the Texan cession goes up to 42 deg., in the Rocky Mountains — 
 within thirty miles of the South Pass, and cornering on Oregon and California. It is better 
 land. It has civilized people upon it — four or five thousand at San Eleazario, and two or three 
 thousand at ot'ier places. It is unincumbered with resident Indians, and will be ready for im- 
 mediate sale and settlement, and lies in the direct track from the lower Mississippi to the north- 
 ern parts of the Republic of Mexico, and the Gila route to California and the Pacific ocean. 
 
It is the most valuable cession, equal in extent, better in climate and quality, and more desirable 
 from position. And yet the committee propose boot — good boot — some millions. That is not 
 the rule in the horse swap. It is not the rule to give the best horse, and then give the price oi' 
 the other in boot, especially when both horses belong to yourself. 
 
 The committee, in their report, seem to be a little conscious that they were rather overdoing the 
 matter in this article of compensation to Texas — this new mode of swapping land — giving the 
 best land, and then giving boot besides. They say: 
 
 "If this boundary be assented to by Texas, she will be quieted to that extent in her title. And some may suppose that 
 in consideration of this concession, by the United States, she might, without any other equivalent, relinquish any claim 
 she has beyond the proposed boundary : that is. any claim to any part of New Mexico. But, under the influence of a 
 sentiment of justice and great liberality, the bill propo-es to Texas, for her relinquishment of ami such claim, a large, 
 ■pecuniary equivalent," 
 
 This is candid. Doubtless many will suppose, as the committee think some will, that the 
 United States had given land enough without superadding money to it. They would think so 
 upon the very reasonable principle, that when a man had given up half his land to quiet. 
 a claim to it, that he should not pay money for the other half, especially when he believed both 
 halves belonged to himself, and when he had possessed it all for two hundred and fifty years. It 
 is very reasonable in such a case, that some would suppose that he had done enough in giving up 
 half. I, myself, would certainly be one in that some. But, not so the committee. They have 
 a new rule to go by, unknown in trade or politics before. They have recourse to sentiment ! and, 
 under its influence, and from a feeling of great liberality, they will make "other equivalent" to 
 Texas for relinquishing her claim to the rest of New Mexico, This is the way it stands in the 
 committee's bill and report ; and I give what they say in their own words, that there may be no 
 mistake about it ; another equivalent is what they propose. One might suppose that one equiva- 
 lent was enough, but they propose another, so that there shall be both a moneyed and a landed 
 equivalent to Texas. Now. I object to all this. J object to accept a cession of New Mexico from 
 Texas, first, because the United States has a claim to it herself, and has the actual possession, 
 which is a right to possession until the claim is decided. Secondly, because the acceptance of 
 such a cession would admit the title of Texas to all New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, and so 
 raise questions to disturb both New Mexico and the United States. Thirdly, because we give 
 more valuable territory than we receive, and then pay the value of what we receive into the bar- 
 gain, and which was our own before. 
 
 Sir, this is strange work. A committee undertaking to guide, in a case where they admit they 
 have not looked for either truth or law — prescribing a line, which they admit to be neither true 
 nor legitimate — abstaining from expressing an opinion, and yet forcing an opinion — making a 
 sacrifice, and calling it a compromise — undertaking to save New Mexico, and saving her by giv- 
 ing away one-half, and purchasing the other half. Thists strange work, and new work, in the 
 American Senate : but let us go on with it. 
 
 The committee propose a consideration in money to Texas for accepting their line. Upon 
 what principle ? It is an exchange of territory — a mutual cession — and Texas receives better 
 than she gives. Is it for the remaining part of New Mexico ? If so, it is unjustifiable to purchase 
 what we already possess, and dangerous to rouse the questions to which the admission of Texan 
 title to New Mexico would inevitably give rise. This is too serious a question to be lightly evoked. 
 If the State of Texas now covers the Santa Fe country, as the bill and report of the oommittee 
 admit, then the constitution and laws of Texas are in force there ! and this is what the Senate 
 will say if it sanctions the committee's bill ; and what cannot be said without rousing great ques- 
 tions. 
 
 A moneyed consideration is to be paid to Texas, but how much is kept a profound secret, for 
 the profound reason of preventing jobbing in this Texas stock. In the meantime it seems to be 
 known, in the knowing circles, that ten millions is the amount to be offered ; and on that basis 
 stock-jobbing is rife ! and three hundred per centum has already been the advance. The chance 
 of California for admission, and of the two territories for governments, rises and falls with this 
 rise and fall of Texas stock. They are all in one cart together — California, Utah, New Mexico, 
 Texas boundary, and Texas stock ; and must all go through, or balk together ; and all depends 
 upon the Texas stock. 
 
 The committee say, in their report, it is not to be anticipated that Texas will refuse to accede 
 to their liberal propositions. That, I presume, will depend upon the amount of money with which 
 that carefully-guarded blank is to be filled ; and that is not to be filled until the last moment — 
 until the bill is on its third reading. Then the filling is to come ; and upon the quantity of it, I 
 presume, the vote of the State of Texas is to depend — both the State in its rejection, or accep- 
 tance of the proposed terms, and her representatives here, in voting for or against the bill which 
 contains them. I speak of the State and of her representatives here, as I would speak of my 
 own State, and of myself, under the like circumstances. Our first duty is to our own State ; and 
 under the sense of that duty, the vote of the Texas Senators on this bill — this omnibus bill, in 
 which the admission of California and governments to two Territories is mixed up with money to 
 
6 
 
 Texas — their vote upon the whole bill must depend. Money enough to Texas, and they go it ! 
 and all the measures are carried. Not money enough to Texas, and they halt ! and all the mea- 
 sures are lost. It is not only an enormity in itself to make the passage of the other great mea- 
 sures dependent upon the amount of money voted to Texas, but it leads to a vicious and con- 
 demnable mode of fixing that amount. It leads to voting the amount, not which Texas ought to 
 receive, but of what will pass the bill ! and to the contrary, what will defeat the bill. Thus, those 
 intent upon the bill must vote a large sum to secure the Texas vote: those opposed to it must 
 vote a small sum, or nothing, in order to defeat it. This is vicious voting, and to be c ndemned 
 everywhere. A jury that should make up a verdict in that way would have their verdict set aside, 
 and themselves reprimanded. What should be done to us and our verdict under the same circum- 
 stances > For one, I confess the vice of my vote, and lay its blame on those who force me into 
 the false position in which I am to vote. In a bill by herself, and for such a line as 1 propose, J 
 would vote Texas a liberal sum : in this connection, and under these circumstances, not\a cent. 
 
 Mr. President, there is something overruling in the affairs of men, which, in the end, brings 
 out things right, and establishes the dominion of truth and justice ; and never was this overruling 
 superintendence more visible than now. Here are measures of the most discordant kind clapped 
 together in one bill, in violation of all parliamentary law, and to the ruin of all fair legislation, in 
 order to force some measures to carry others. It is the most flagrant case of parliamentary im- 
 propriety which the history of our legislation has ever presented ; and, to rebuke and crush it, 
 here is the highest proof of its enormity which the wisdom of man could have devised. Votes 
 are nearly balanced on this floor, for or against this conglomerate bill. There are two Texas 
 votes on this floor, and they count four — two off and two on — and every one knows that these 
 votes will decide the fate of the bill, and that they themselves will be decided by the amount of 
 money to be voted to Texas. Sir, I touch a point which is still ahead, and which I will not de- 
 velope now. When we come to the filling up of that mysterious blank, sb carefully guarded, I 
 may be able to demonstrate that the effect of this conglomeration of bills, and that reservation of 
 a blank, to be filled at the last moment, is to open an auction upon the floor of the Senate, for 
 the votes which are to carry through the omnibus bill, with all its multifarious and heterogeneous 
 contents. The filling of the blank may develope the fact, that the admission of California, and 
 the establishment of governments for two Territories, may depend upon the amount of money 
 to be paid to Texas ; and, if it does, it will present the highest evidence of the flagrant enormity 
 of tacking incongruous bills together which the history of American or British legislation has 
 ever exhibited. The bill is caught flagrante delicto — taken in the fact — seized by the throat, and 
 held up to public view — (and here Mr. B. grappled a bill and held it up) in the very act of perpe- 
 trating its crime — in the very act of auctioneering for votes to pass itself. I seize it in the act, 
 and hold it up to public opprobrium, aijd make it an era to be recurred to, and its fate to stand as 
 a warning against allfuture conjunctions of incongruous measures. 
 
 I beg my friends from Texas (Messrs. Houston and Ruse) — and I call no man friend without 
 being ready to stand for a friend when one is needed — I beg them to take what I say in the sense 
 I intend it. In their place, I should do as they will do — vote for or against the bill, and all its 
 measures, according to the amount of money to go into the blank — and with the same sentiment 
 of profound humiliation which they must feel. And this shows the enormity of such unnatural 
 conjunctions of discordant measures. And here I will use an argument but lately come to hand, 
 but which ought to have its weight on this occasion. I allude to the new constitution of Ken- 
 tucky, and its salutary provisions against the ruinous practice of" log-rolling." In section thirty- 
 seven ot article two of that instrument, there is this provision : Every eh,:, shall contain but 
 
 ONE SUBJECT, AND THAT SHALL BE CLEARLY EXPLAINED IN THE TITLE. This is the Sentiment Ot 
 
 Kentucky on the fatal practice oi tacking incongruous bills together. She has pointed her con- 
 stitutional cannon against it. True, we are not bound by the provisions of her constitution ; but 
 we are bound to respect the principle of morality in which it is founded, and of course to con- 
 demn and repudiate this omnibus bill, freighted with so many subjects, and dependent for its pas- 
 sage on the amount of money to be voted out of the public Treasury to the State of Texas. 
 
 Sir, I have myself, in a bill now before the Senate, proposed a compact with Texas for the set- 
 tlement of her western boundary ; but I proposed no mutual cessions — no exchange of territory — 
 no dismemberment of New Mexico — no purchase of the Santa Fe country — no giving away our 
 own territory, and paying Texas to take it. My proposals steered clear of all that folly and 
 blunder. This is what I proposed : 
 
 " Art. 3. The Slate of Texas cedes to the United States all her territory exterior to the 
 limits to which she reduces herself by the first article of this compact." 
 
 And the limits then proposed by me for her reduction were the same now proposed — 102 deg. 
 of west longitude, and .11 <leg. of north latitude. This is all the cession thai my bill proposed — 
 n cession from Texas only — and not of all the territory, but of all her territory exterior to her 
 reduced limits. This avoided the consequences of a cession from her of the whole country, in- 
 cluding New Mexico as a part of Texas. It avoided the consequence of holding the Santa Fe 
 
country as a purchase from Texas. It avoided the consequence of admitting all that country to 
 have, been a part of the Slate of Texas. It avoided all the serious and disturbing consequences 
 in which the Committee's bill would involve us. For such a line as I proposed to Texas, ceding 
 no territory to her, accepting no title to New ,'uexico from her, leaving New Mexico intact, and. 
 conforming to ancient title and to present actual possession, I would vote fifteen millions of dol- 
 lars ; for such a line as the Committee propose, not a copper. 
 
 The Committee can find no excuse in my oiferfor theirs. " And here I address myself most es- 
 pecially to that member of the Committee (Mr. Cooper, of Pennsylvania) who seems to have be- 
 come its organ at this point ; and I say to him, and through him to the Committee, there is nothing 
 in the one to justify the other. The two offers are as different as the two extracts from that sar- 
 saparilla root — " Heaven wide apart, and infinitely dissimilar, and not alike in any two par- 
 ticular*, and having no two qualities in common." One begins twenty miles, in a straight line, 
 above El Paso — the other three hundred miles in a straight line below it. One is latitudinal — 
 the other longitudinal. One runs east — the other north. One cuts New Mexico in two — the 
 other goes round her. One cedes seventy thousand square miles of New Mexico to Texas — the 
 other cedes nothing to her. One accepts the remainder of New Mexico as a cession from Tex- 
 as — the other holds her as a cession from the Republic of Mexico. One conforms to ancient title 3 
 present possession, and geographical affinities — the other violates all these conditions. One raises 
 the slave question, and in its double aspect of actual extension of slavery into one half of New 
 Mexico, and its implied legal existence in the other half — the other avoids both these questions 
 by leaving both New Mexico and Texas just as they are. One admits the Texan laws and con- 
 stitution to be in force in all New Mexico east of the Rio Grande — the other asserts the Mexican 
 law to be in force there. These are some of the points of difference between my offer and the 
 Committee's, and which I will thank the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cooper) to recollect 
 the next time he speaks on the subject, and credit the differences on the right side of the account. 
 •But there is another difference, and of another kind, between the two offers, and which may be 
 fully developed when we come to the work of filling up that coy and sensitive blank, upon which 
 the Committee are so dumb, and the knowing ones so knowing. My offer affects no other bill, 
 or measure. It is in a bill by itself. It is a Texas bill, and confined to Texas. The money it 
 proposes carries no influence, good or bad, to any other bill or measure — has no effect on the life 
 or death of California, or the two territories. It carries no votes, for or against them — excites no 
 stock-jobbing interest, for or against them. It is a parliamentary bill, confined to its own subject, 
 unmixed with any question, claiming decision on its own merits alone, and leaving all other bills 
 to be decided, in like manner, upon their own merits. This is a particular difference between 
 ihe Committee's bill and mine, in addition to all the other differences between them, and which; 
 at the proper time, I shall more fully develop : and, in the mean time, must remind the Senator 
 from Pennsylvania not to overlook these differences when he comes again to fortify his intended 
 vote for sacrificing New Mexico by a reference to my bill for saving her. 
 
 The committee, as a justification for ceding the one-half of New Mexico to Texas, and then 
 purchasing the other half from her, argue that it is the only way to prevent Texas from swallow- 
 ing her all up. This was a great mistake in law, and a further mistake in fact, in supposing 
 that the President — the then President, General Taylor — would not do his duty. There were 
 three ways to save New Mexico without giving up any part of her to Texas. First, for the 
 United States to occupy her as she was on the day of her cession by the Republic of Mexico j 
 secondly, by a suit in the Supreme Court ; thirdly, by offering a fair compact, based upon the 
 true boundary. By either of these three ways New Mexico could be saved ; and the late Presi- 
 dent, in a message before his death, let us know that he would do his duty, and maintain the 
 possession until the question of title should be decided by the competent authority. This is his 
 message : 
 
 " I have already, in a former message, referred to the fact that the boundary between Texas and New Mexico is dis- 
 puted. I have now to state that information has been recently received that a certain Robert S. Neighbors, styling 
 lumself commissioner of the State of Texas, has proceeded to Santa Ye with the view of organizing counties in that 
 district, under the authority of Texas. While I have no power to decide the question of boundary, and no desire to 
 interfere with it as a question of til In, ] have to observe that the possession of tli" territory into which it appears that 
 Mr. Neighbors has thus gone, was actually acquired by the United Stales from Mexiwij and hiis sjn • been h M by the 
 United States, and, in ray opinion, ought so to remain until the question of boundary shail have b n ermined by 
 some competent authority. Meanwhile, I think there is no reason for seriously apprehending tint! Texas will practical 
 Iv interfere with the possession of the United States." 
 
 This is the message of the late President, and it is the law and the prophets, brief and simple, 
 but true and wise, and putting to Hight the main argument for the dismemberment of New Mex- 
 ico. He tells you that he will maintain the possession, such as it was when the United States 
 received it, until the question of boundary should be decided by the competent authorities. This 
 is enough for us. We are in posession, and have only to retain it. These were the resolves of the 
 late President, and there is no dispute about them. He spoke for himself, and his words will 
 stand, a monument to his memory — a monument to his judgment to see the right, and to his firm- 
 ness in maintainin« it. It was his last message, and the symbol of his character — brief, plain, 
 
honest, wise, firm, and to the point. It was worthy to be the last message of General Taylor ; 
 and will go into the heads and hearts of the people, and will remain on the memory of his country 
 longer than graven words can remain upon stone ^r brass. I make no allusion to the present Presi- 
 dent. It would be unparliamentary and indecorous to do so. He has sent us no message. But 
 we are bound to believe that he will do his duty, as he understands it, and at all events we have 
 no right to act upon a contrary supposition — to suppose that the President will not maintain the 
 ;;ttitude of his predecessor, and thereby make it necessary for Congress to do something in his 
 place. 
 
 Mr. President, we are a government of divided powers — legislative, executive, and judicial — 
 and no one department has a right to assume that another department will not do its duty, and 
 thereupon assume those duties itself, or do something that it ought not to do, on the supposition 
 that the other departments will do nothing. Such assumptions and interferences are the bane of 
 all government, and the excuse for much wrong. We have seen how mistaken it was to assume 
 such a thing of the late President — it was to suppose that he would not do his duty in maintaining 
 the possession of New Mexico — and make that supposition our excuse for giving her away. It may 
 be equals mistaken to make the same supposition of his successor ; but I will not suppose one 
 way or the other. I rest on the principle of parliamentary law and decorum, and will not sup- 
 or presume, a delinquency of duty on the part of any other department of the Government ; 
 and, rising above all party feelings, shall hold myself ready in the case of President Fillmore, as 
 in that of President Taylor, to sustain him in the full execution of all his constitutional duties 
 when I believe him to be right. 
 
 The late President, in that same messag°, informed Congress that he saw no reason to appre- 
 hend that Texas would practically interfere with the possession of the United States. The ex- 
 pression was honorable to him. It was as much as to say that he did not believe that Texas 
 would commit a breach of law and order, and set an example of violence and bloodshed in the 
 assertion of a contested claim. I do not know whether circumstances had occurred to induce 
 him to qualify that opinion, but I. join him in it ; and if, unfortunately, it should turn out to be a 
 mistake, and Texas troops should be marched upon New Mexico, I have my future course to 
 rind in my past conduct, and to do by the Texas authorities what I did by the Missouri authori- 
 ties, in n similar case, a few years ago. And here I touch a point which I have never made pub- 
 lic in relation to my own conduct, and that of my then colleagues in the boundary dispute be- 
 tween the State of Missouri and the Territory of Iowa. Every body knows of the dispute, and 
 how the two Governors levied troops, marched battalions, and prepared to fight battles ; but no 
 one knows how these warlike preparations were stopped. I will tell you how it was done. 
 When the Missouri delegation here heard that their Governor was marching troops upon Iowa, 
 they got together, consulted on the case, and addressed a private letter to the Governor to let 
 him know that they could not support him in such a movement, and recommending the cessation 
 <>I military and the commencement of judicial proceedings. The advice, or something else, 
 prevailed ; military operations stopped, judicial proceedings b^gan, Missouri lost the land, but 
 gained the honor of submitting to the laws of the land. 
 
 Dr. Linn, whose brother and nephew sit on my left, (Mr. Dodge, of Wisconsin, and Mr. Dodge, 
 of Iowa,) was then my colleague in the Senate, ex-Governor Miller and Mr. Edwards our col- 
 leagues in the House of Representatives. We were friends together. We united in the letter ; 
 and, satisfied with its effect, never told what we had done ; nor should I now tell it, except to give 
 the example of Missouri in a case similar to that of Texas, and to show in my past conduct what 
 may be my future conduct if troops are marched upon New Mexico. The Senator from Iowa, 
 nephew of Dr. Linn, (Mr. Augustus Dodge,) was then a Delegate from Iowa, and knew all about 
 nur conduct, except the letter. I am for law, and order, and the support of the constituted authori- 
 ties — fordoing my own duty, in my own sphere, and leaving it to the Executive and the Judiciary 
 to do theirs in their spheres. 
 
 I return to my motion — the motion to strike out the committee's line, which begins twenty miles 
 above El Paso, and to insert the one which I propose, and which begins three hundred miles be- 
 low that point, lithe line I propose is adopted, we shall save all New Mexico, get the surplus 
 •erritory to which Texas has a rightful claim, and have a justifiable cause lor paying her a good 
 ■ ; money, [fthe committee's line is adopted there will be no justification for paying Texas 
 a cent ; and upon the question of these two lines, naked .''ml nparl from ;i!l other questions,! now 
 w ish the vote of the Senate, and ask the yeas and m 
 
 The yea and nays were ordered. 
 
 PD 2.8 3 
 

 "*<? 
 
 
 
 CT 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 °. ^ 
 
 
 ^ * 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^9 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^cr 
 
 r o V 
 
 *°V 
 
 *> 
 
 
 4 CU 
 °^ *»"° A ^. 8(1 <V °^ 
 
 V" A 
 
 4? .v^BX*. ^j : 
 
 
 ^. s 
 
 »°"V 
 
 
 <^r> A 
 
 
 A 
 
 ^. 
 
 JAW A * 
 
 ■• »* A <, *' .. ** <G V 
 
 r oK 
 
 r oK 
 
 V a < * O. 
 
 \> 
 
 v . 
 
 
 A 
 
 ^^ 
 
 *°-v 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
m 
 
 
 *b^ 
 
 sO 
 
 > ^ 
 
 
 
 >* 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ;5 J ^ 
 
 0" s~ 
 
 
 c, vP 
 
 ■•' *° , \ * 
 
 I "%^ 32084 ^c .fMV/V "^rf* °< 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 898 066 9 #