National Intelligencer. (Washington [D.C.]), Vol. 47, No. 6806, Ed. 1 Thursday, August 6, 1846 Page: 2 of 4
four pages : ill. ; page 24 x 19 in. Scanned from physical pages.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
SPEECH OF Mr. KAUFMAN,
OF TEXAS,
On the subject of the Mexican War.
House of Representatives, June 29, 1846.
The bill providing for the reduction of the tariff being
under consideration in Committee of the Whole on the state
of the Union—
Mr. KAUFMAN addressed the committee as follows:
Mr. Chairman : I congratulate the friends of the revenue
principle on the favorable auspices under which they have en-
tered upon the discussion of this bill. It is known to you
and the country that one of the favorite arguments of the
friends of the protective policy at the North has been, that it
would be suicidal in the United States to permit the introduc-
tion of British manufactures in this country, while England
closed her ports to our grain and breadstuffs. I his argument,
which has done more than all others beside to make a pro-
tective tariff popular with the farmers of the North, has been
lately silenced * for we have just received the gratifying intel-
ligence that the old and aristocratic corn laws of England
have been repealed, and that henceforth our fanners will find
a market for the products of their soil in ports hitherto closed
to them. To preserve that market, it is evidently our policy
to reciprocate, as far as we can, and to remove all restrictions
upon imports from abroad, so far as is not incompatible with
raising the revenue necessary to keep the wheels of the Fede-
ral Government in motion.
But, Mr. Chairman, fruitful and inviting as is the question
now Legitimately under consideration, and deeply interested
as my constituents are in its proper disposition, I do not now
propose to discuss it. In the wide range allowed to debate,
when the House has resolved itself into committee, another
question has been raised by members in their discussion of
this bill which demands my first and especial attention. I
allude, sir, to the Mexican war. While every patriot in the
land feels a deep and abiding interest in its vigorous prosecu-
tion and speedy and successful termination, yet opinions have
been advanced in this debate which peculiarly concern the
people whom I have the honor in part to represent on this
floor. In the hasty zeal of certain gentlemen to attack the
President for ordering the United States troops to march to
the Rio Grande, (the western boundary of Texas, as defined
by the constitution of my State,) they have struck a blow at
the integrity of her soil which I must attempt to parry, and
which, if their opinions were correct, would curtail the once
“ lone ” but now “ bright and particular star” of one-halfher
fair proportions.
I shall first endeavor to show, Mr. Chairman, that the Rio
Grande is rightfully the western boundary of the State of Texas 5
and, in the second place, that if it was a matter of doubt, yet,
under the circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the Pre-
sident to act as he has done, and protect every inch of soil
claimed by Texas in her fundamental law, and under her in-
dependent organization, from the pollution of foreign in-
vaders.
I confess, sir, that it sounded strange to my ears to hear
upon this floor the right of Texas questioned to the eastern
bank of the Rio Grande. With a residence of upwards of
nine years in that country, mingling in its legislative coun-
cils, and among its citizens, many of whom had on the
“tented field” contributed to her independence, I say to you
and to this committee that I have never heard her right ques-
tioned to the soil between the Nueces and Rio Grande, and
to have done so would have been considered treason to “the
Republic of Texas.” May it be owing to the fact they have
not had the benefit of that “bookish” information afforded
the Representatives here, or to those other facts, that they
have mingled in the fray which made Texas, throughout her
wide limits, sovereign and independent, and that they have
been accustomed to pay no regard to the expositions of Mexi-
can diplomacy, which claims, even at this day, the whole of
Texas to the Sabine ?
The honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Stephens)
thinks the Rio Grande “ ought to be ” the western boundary
of Texas ; and what he thinks ought be, I will endeavor to
show “is, and always has been,” the rightful boundary of
Texas.
That Texas extended to the Rio Grande, and belonged to
the United States previous to the transfer to Spain in 1819, I
presume will not be questioned * if it were, I could produce
in proof of it the concurring testimony of Jefferson, Madison,
Monroe, and indeed all our leading statesmen who have been
on the stage of political action from the purchase of Louisiana
in 1803 to the present day. Mr. John Quincy Adams, in a
letter to the Spanish Minister, Don Onis, dated March 12,
1818, says : “ The claim of France always did extend west-
‘ ward to the Rio Bravo. She always claimed the territory
‘ which you call Texas as being within the limits and form-
‘ ing a part of Louisiana.” He (Mr. Adams) goes on to re-
iterate a declaration made by Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney
in 1803, “that the claim of the United States to the bounda-
ry of the Rio Bravo was as clear as their right to the island
of New Orleans.” And again, on the 31st October, 1818,
Tip gave » H frv VW/rci xa aofnVil 1 cilpp/1 tba JOixitJ—
th'e'las't Presidential election, says : “ The United States ac-
quired a title to Texas, extending, as I believe, to the Rio
del Norte, by the treaty of Louisiana. They ceded and re-
linquished that title to Spain by the treaty of 1819, by which
the Sabine was substituted for the Rio del Norte, as our west-
ern boundary.” I might here also quote the declaration of the
celebrated British statesman, Mr. Huskisson, as to the west-
ern boundary of Texas : “Designs are entertained by the
people of the United States to get possession of the fertile and
extensive Mexican province of Texas. They look to all the
country between the Sabine and Bravo del Norte as a terri-
tory that must, ere long, belong to their Union.”—Speech,
May 30, 1830.
[The Rio Grande, Rio Bravo, and Del Norte, are different
names for the same river. ]
Enough has been read to show, conclusively, that the ancient
limits and boundary of Texas was the Rio Grande.* But this
country was ceded in 1819 to Spain. However binding this
treaty may have been considered by the United States, yet, its
being made without the consent of the people of Texas, it
was a palpable infraction of that provision of the Louisiana
treaty of 1803 which declared that “the inhabitants of the
ceded territory shall be incorporated into the United States,
and admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles
of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the
rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United
States ;” and, therefore, according to reason and authority,
null and void ; at least it was not binding, except by the
power of force, on the disfranchised citizens of Texas. Not
only did that people not consent to this surrender, but they
sent forth, at “ old and time-honored Nacogdoches,” an elo-
quent protest and remonstrance, (pronunciamento,) and de-
clared that they would not submit to be the subjects of the
priest-ridden monarchy of Spain, and they never did submit
to that degradation. That protest was in the name of all
Texas, throughout its ancient limits, and it is fully worthy of
being copied at length. It is as follows :
“ Declaration of the Independence of Texas.
“ The Louisiana Herald contains a copy of a Declaration,
issued on the 23d June, (1819,) by the Supreme Council of the
Republic of Texas. The following extracts contain all that
would be interesting to the American reader :
“The citizens of Texas have long indulged the hope that, in
the adjustment of the boundaries of the Spanish possessions in
America, and of the territories of the United States, they
should be included within the limits of the latter. The claims
of the United States, long and strenuously urged, encouraged
this hope. An expectation so flattering prevented any effec-
tual effort to throw off the yoke of Spanish authority, though
it could not restrain some unavailing rebellion against an odi-
ous tyranny. The recent treaty between Spain and the Uni-
ted States of America has dissipated an illusion too long fond-
ly cherished, and has roused the citizens of Texas from the
torpor in which a fancied security had lulled them. They
have seen themselves, by a convention to -which they •were no
party, literally abandoned to the dominion of the crown of
Spain, and left a prey, not only to impositions already intoli
rable, but to all those exactions which Spanish rapacitv is fe
tile in devising.
“The citizens of Texas would have proved themselves un-
worthy of the age in which they live, unworthy of their ances-
try, of the kindred Republics of the American continent, could
they have hesitated in this emergency what eourse to pursue.
Spurning the fetters of colonial vassalage, disdaining to sub-
mit to the most atrocious despotism that ever disgraced the an-
nals of Europe, they have resolved, under the blessings of
God, to be free. By this magnanimous resolution, to the
maintenance of which their lives and fortunes are pledged,
they secure to themselves an elective and representative gov-
ernment, equal laws, and the faithful administration of justice,
the right of conscience and religious liberty, the freedom of
the press, the advantages ol liberal education, and unrestricted
commercial intercourse ■with all the -world.
“Animated by a just confidence in the goodness of their
cause, and stimulated by the high object to be obtained by the
contest, they have prepared themselves unshrinkingly to meet
and firmly to sustain, any conflict in which this declaration
may involve them.
“Done at Nacogdoches, this twenty-third day of June, in
the year of our Lord 1819. JAMES LONG,
“ President of the Supreme Council.
“ Bis’le Tarin, Secretary. ”
* Note.—The following extracts from leading authorities
conclusively establish this position and silence all doubt:
“Texas is bounded east by Louisiana and southwest by the
Rio del Norte,” (Ac.
[Morse's Geogimphical Dictionary, edition 1821.
“Texas, province of Mexico, is bounded southwest by the
Rio Grande del Norte,” &c.
[Brooks's Universal Gazetteer, edition 1823.
“Texas, claimed by Spain as a part of the internal provin-
ces, and bounded west by the del Norte,” &c.
[ Worcester's Gazetteer, edition 1823.
“ Texas, province of Mexico, in the former provincias in-
temas, bounded southwest by the Rio Grande del Norte,” &c.
[Darby's Gazetteer, edition 1827.
“Texas, province of Mexico, bounded southwest by the
Rio Grande del Norte,” &c. *
[Davenport's Gazetteer, edition 1832.
7 hese are authorities from impartial geographers anterior to
the revolution which made Texas independent.
Surrendered and deserted by the American Government,
Texas, weak in numbers and influence, found herself, in
1821, a part of independent Mexico, and tor fifteen long years
she was the “ sport and victim of successive military revolu-
tions,” carried on at a far distant capital, without any consent
on her pait except that imposed by force. She was curtailed
of her ancient proportions and limits—other States encroach-
ing upon her, she was tied to the car of Coahuila, forming to-
gether the State of Coahuila and Texas, and denied, but pro-
mised, a separate existence * and when the promise was ask-
ed to be complied with, her commissioner was thrown into
prison for his presumption. All this was done at the city of
Mexico, and I admit that Texas was reduced in her limits to
the Nueces, but with no other binding force upon her than
that which power imposes. This arbitrary reduction and cur-
tailment of her limits is the foundation of all the modern de-
clamation as to the Nueces being the western boundary of
Texas. But Texas began to grow in strength and power, and
“the might that slumbered in a freeman’s arm” was even-
tually to be awakened, her long-lost rights vindicated, and her
ancient limits to be restored. As an evidence of her increase
in wealth and influence, I will here quote an extract from a
report made by General Almonte, who was sent to Texas by
Santa Anna in 1834 to reconnoitre the country pieparatory to
its being overrun and despoiled of the few vestiges of liberty
vet left it :
“ The state of that colony (Texas) is most flourishing,” says
Almonte. “ It bids fair to become the best portion of the
Mexican Confederation. Tranquillity reigned in all the settle-
ments, whose plantations and productions were rapidly increas-
ing ; no less than 5,500 bales ot cotton, ot 450 pounds each,
would be exported this year (1834) from the settlement of the
Brasos alone. A small steamboat was shortly expected at San
Filipe de Austin from New Orleans, for the transport in the
interior of passengers and goods, independently of many other
contemplated improvements, which would powerfully contri-
bute to the advancement of that prosperous colony.”'—Niles's
Register, November 29th, 1834, page 199.
The editor goes on to remark that “the accounts pretty
plainly show that Santa Anna is gathering up the elements of
a despotic power.” The prediction proved correct. He came
at the head of the flower of his army and the best appointed
troops of Mexico * and at San Jacinto, in 1836, the tale of
his disaster was told, and Texas, ancient Texas, was again
free. Santa Anna, who, it will be recollected, was then Pre-
sident of Texas and its virtual dictator, having destroyed the
Mexican States and erected a military despotism on their ruins,
was taken prisoner. All the powers of the Mexican Govern-
ment were centered in his person. He then, to save the honor
and lives of that portion of the army under General Filisola
their arms, ammunition, and public property from falling into
the hands of the Texans, and to restore himself and fellow -
prisoners tfb liberty, signed a treaty with the Government
Texas by which he agreed to acknowledge her independence,
and to the Rio Grande.
Article three provides that “the Mexican forces will eva-
cuate the Texan territory, and recross the Rio Grande."
Here is an acknowledgment that the east bank of the Rio
Grande is Texan territory. It is contended, however, that
Santa Anna, being a prisoner, the Mexican nation is not
bound by that treaty—a position which I shall endeavor to re-
fute. I am willing to admit that, if this treaty had been made
by Santa Anna for his own individual benefit, and the Mexi-
can nation had received no advantages from it, it would not
be binding upon that people. But if that nation received ad
vantages from the treaty—if they received a full consideration
for all the concessions made to Texas, (if concessions at ali
they were,) then she is morally bound by it. It is laid down
as a principle of municipal law that “if a man be legally im-
prisoned, and, either to procure his discharge or any other fair
account, seals a bond or deed, this is not by duress of impri-
sonment, and he is not at liberty to avoid it.”—[Coke’s Inst.
2d vol. p. 482.] Now, what was “the fair account” which
Santa Anna had in view and effected by this treaty ? The
honor, lives, liberty, and property of the Mexican army * and,
these being secured, can the nation of which he was the re-
presentative be permitted to “avoid” the treaty ? But this
treaty between the Mexican President and the Government
was afterwards revived between General Rusk, the comman-
der of the Texan forces, and General Filisola, second in com-
mand to Santa Anna, who never was a prisoner. What was
the view that he, (Filisola,) who knew the despotic and un-
limited powers with which Santa Anna was invested, took of
the matter ? This is an extract from his reply :
“ It becomes now my duty to take every necessary measure
to carry your last instructions into execution. This conven-
tion (the treaty) being duly drawn, with all formalities, and
bearing the signature and ratification of your excellency as
general-in-chief of the army of operations, which, jointly
with your quality as President of the Mexican Republic, leave
me neither right nor faculty of resisting your orders, my duty
is to obey and promptly put them in execution.”
Filisola, in a statement made to his Government on his re-
turn to Mexico, said that the safety of his army entirely de-
pended on his complying with that treaty. And what does
Santa Anna say, in his manifesto to the Mexican Government,
after his liberation ? Hear him :
no hostile foot finding rest -within her territory for six or seven
years—an 1 Mexico herself refraining tor all that period from
J . - ... --J-LIthat
“I learned, at the arrival of General Woll, that at the first
news of mv misfortune the whole f Mexicani armv was thrown
Again :
“It was thus that I complied with his (Houston’s) wishes
by signing the order for a suspension of hostilities ; thus saving
the honor ot the Mexican army, and the lives of more than
five hundred (five thousand he might have said) Mexicans who
might otherwise have been placed in great jeopardy.” ’
And further he says :
“Now, by clearly analyzing both conventions, (alluding to
the secret and public ones,) it will be found that both had for
their object a suspension of hostilities in favor of our (the Mex-
ican) army, the delivery of the prisoners, (taken at San Jacin-
to,) as well as my own liberty, which I believed, though per-
haps erroneously, might prove beneficial to the former, as like-
wise to the nation and its cause.”
Such, sir, are the advantages which the Mexican nation re-
ceived at the hands of Texas, in consideration of relinquishing
her unjust claims to what I have previously shown were the
ancient limits of Texas; and “ out of their own mouths have
I condemned them.” And, to remove the least shadow of an
excuse for the Mexican people to refuse to acknowledge this
treaty, they, no doubt feeling a proper sentiment of gratitude
for the advantages gained by it on their part, subsequently, in
1841, elevated Santa Anna again to the supreme power. In
addition to the lives, liberty, and property of the Mexican
army, saved by this treaty, its honor, it is admitted, was also
preserved. For the protection of the three first, governments
are instituted amongst men ; and without the last, a nation
would sink into inefficiency and degradation. “ The glory
ot a nation is intimately connected with its powers ”
says Vattel in his excellent treatise on the Laws of Na-
tions, “ and, indeed, forms a considerable part of it. It is
this brilliant advantage that procures it the esteem of other na-
tiens, and renders it respectable to its neighbors. It is of great
advantage to a nation to establish its reputation and glory.”
And can it really be contended, Mr. Chairman, that all these
advantages are to accrue to Mexico by the forbearance, hu-
manity, and magnanimity of Texas, greater than her victorious
arms, without even Mexico being bound, as stipulated, to re-
cede from the “soil” of Texas, on which she had “ trespassed”
in an hour of our weakness ? Such a doctrine would shock
every principal of justice. In foro conscientise it cannot be
sustained, and to that forum all treaties must be .submitted. If
nations choose to disregard their treaties, there is no tribunal
to resort to to enforce them, except the arbitrament of the
sword. All independent nations are sovereigns, and no one
has a right to adjudicate for another. Texas has the right to
that boundary, and if not “peaceably” acknowledged, it must
be “ forcibly” vindicated. The advantages acquired by Texas
at San Jacinto over the Mexican army, (and would have ac-
quired but for the treaty, over Filisola and his men,) would
have enabled her to extort her independence from Mexico,
within the whole extent of her ancient limits. Although
Mexico has received her panic-stricken army and the public
property at the hands of Texan forbearance, yet she uniformly
refused to pay the price of their liberation, and the preserva-
tion of their endangered honor. If she had indignantly sent
her army back to Texas as unworthy of preservation, and had
forever repudiated her captured chief as having basely, and
without consideration, surrendered up a portion of her just
claims, and not again elevated him to po • er, then there might
have been some excuse for refusing to acknowledge the treaty,
but as they have not done so, there is no excuse whatever.
It is said, however, Mr. Chairman, that Texas violated the
treaty in regard to Santa Anna’s liberation. This is incorrect.
Every article of it was faithfully carried into execution. Ar-
ticle 10 provides as follows : “General Antonio Lopez de
k.anta Anna shall be sent to Vera Cruz as early as the Texan
Government may think proper." Santa Anna was in due
time sent by the Texan Government to Vera Cruz, and by
such a route and in such a manner as he himself publicly ad-
nutted was most consistent With his personal safety.
1 T’iH,n®W Pr0L,uce the highest Mexican testimony that the
people of Texas in 1844 were in the possession of the country
between the Nueces and Rio Grande, although their posses-
sion is styled a usurpation. General Woll, acting under ex-
press orders from the Mexican Government at Mier, June
20th, 1844, issued the following order :
“ 3. Every individual who may be found at the distance of
one league from the left bank of the Rio Bravo, will be regard-
ed as a favorer and accomplice of the usurpers of that part of
the national territory, and as a traitor to his country.”
Although the order did not embrace one league along the
Rio Grande, yet the declaration of usurpation or unlawful
possession by the Texans applies to the whole territory on
the east bank of the Rio Bravo. And well could Gen. Woll
say so. Although Vasquez and himself, in the year 1842,
had each crossed the Rio Grande and made attacks on the un-
protected town of San Antonio de Bexar, yet their retreat be-
fore the Texans was more rapid than their advance. They
re-m ossed the Rio Grande’ in such a manner as to give
eminent force and propriety to Mr. Webster’s declaration in
reply to Bocanegra. Speaking in his character of Secretary
of State in regard to Texas, July 8, 1842, more than three
months after Vasquez’s invasion and retreat, he says :
(Texas,) practically free and independent, acknowledged
as a political sovereignty by the principal Powers of the world—
,ny further attempt to re-establish her own authority over tin
territory—it cannot but be surprising to find Mr. Bocaneg--
complaining that, for that whole period, citizens of the United
States, or its Government, have been favoring the rebels ot
Texas, and supplying them with vessels, ammunition, and mo-
ney, as if the war for the reduction of the Province ot Texas
had been constantly prosecuted by Mexico, and her success pre-
vented by these influences from abroad.’
When Geneial Somerville, in 1842, marched into Laredo,
Ull the left bank of the Rio Grande, he met with no opposition
from any Mexican army ; and it was not until a portion of his
brave and gallant men, under the chivalric Gen. Fisher, went
to Mier, on the right bank, that they could get a fight. Indeed
the Texas Rangers, under the gallant Hays and McCullough,
have for years held undisputed sway over that territory, and
we have had such occupation of it as its condition and the
wants of our population permitted or required. No Mexican
forces have ever been stationed on the left, bank ; all their war
manifestoes are dated on the right. And, although it must be
admitted that we have never taken actual possession of Santa I e
and the friendship of the people there for American institutions
has been prevented from exhibiting itself by a few military ty-
rants, yet if, on account of its distance from the principle set-
tlements in Texas, or the exhausted condition of our finances,
we have not found it necessary or convenient to take posses-
sion of our estate, we must be shown the statute of limitations
which bars us before our right to it is questioned.
There is, Mr. Chairman, another ground of title to which
I might refer, and which must carry conviction to at least one
honorable member of this committee. It will be recollected
that during the Oregon discussion, while one gentleman based
our right to all that country on purchase, another on discove-
ry and occupation, and a third on contiguity, that the age^
and venerable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams)
epudiatecl all these grounds, and sent to the clerk, to be reat
Jhis ground of our title, the 26th, 27th, and 28th verses ot
the 1st chaDter of Genesis. Now, if that honorable gentleman
were in his* seat, I would ask him, with all good feeling, and
with that respect due to his age and his distinguished public
services, whether the doctrines of Genesis do not apply to the
Rio Grande as well as to Oregon * and whether he at least
would not concede that our title is good to the Rio Grande, as
he formerly contended, from documentary testimony, that the
title of the United States to the Rio Grande was as clear as to
the island of Orleans ?
But, Mr. Chairman, I must hasten to my second position,
and that is, to prove that the President, under the circum-
ces, was bound to pursue the course he did in sending the
army to the Rio Grande. By an act of the Texas Congress
in 1836, her western boundary was declared to be the Rio
Grande. By a provision of the present constitution of the
State of Texas all laws of the Republic of Texas were declar-
ed in force not inconsistent with the joint resolutions of an-
nexation or the constitution of the United States, it will not
be denied that each State has a right to form her own limits,
unless restricted by the United States. Now, how far is Texas
restricted in regard to this question of boundary ? The adjust-
ment of her boundary is to be settled by the United States with
all other Governments. Until that adjustment is effected, one
portion of the soil claimed by her is as much entitled to pro-
tection by the Executive of the United States as another; and
he would be recreant to his duty, and to the faith pledged to
Texas, were he not to do so. Can the President usurp the
dangerous power of saying himself how far the boundaries ol
a State are to be extended, and that here he will afford pro-
tection, and there none ? Or ought he to have submitted to
the humiliation and disgrace of haying our western boundary
dictated to him by Mexico, and pointed out with the superci-
lious air of a tyrannical master ? Were the rights, interest,
and honor of a sister of this glorious confederacy nothing, who
had submitted her boundaries to your negotiation ; and those
of Mexico all sacred, although she scorned your peace mis-1
sion as unworthy of her, and appealed to the law of force ?
And if the President were to think of such assumption of pow-1
er, or such degradation, amidst the conflicting claims of Mexi-
cans, he would not know where to draw the line. The Mexican
Minister, Mr. Pena y Pena, would drive him entirely out of
Texas ; while Ampudia, the chief in command at Matamoros,
only ordered General Taylor east of the Nueces. The former,
in his letter to Mr. Black, dated October 15, 1845, says :
“ The Mexican nation is deeply injured by the United States,
through the acts committed by them in the department of
Texas, which belongs to this nation."
I have just stated that General Ampudia ordered General
Taylor to retire to the east of the Nueces. This order is
dated April 12, 1846, twenty-two days after Mr. Slidell had
received his passports to return home. Ampudia says : “7
require you, in allform, and at the latest peremptory term of
twenty-four hours, to break up your camp, and retire to the
other bank of the Nueces river, while our Governments are
regulating the pending question of Texas /” Dated at Ma-
tamoros, 2 o'clock P. M., April 12, 1846. I wo o clock !
Very precise as to the hour. It seems that this valiant gene-
ral, who “ boils the heads of his Unfortunate victims in oil,”
was fearful that he would not have an opportunity of showing
his bravery against the Americans, and therefore gives a length
leaving Arista and the gallant Vega to bear the brunt* and
the next we hear of him, he basely and perfidiously charges
Arista with having betrayed the army which he (Ampudia)
had deserted. And he has since succeeded in having Arista
removed from the command, and ordered to Mexico. But
what was the reply of General Taylor to this redoubtable and
insolent hero ? Read it. It is the language of a brave old
soldier, and speaks volumes in defence of the Administration:
“ Headquarters Army of Occupation,
“ Camp near Matamoros, ( Texas,) April 12, 1846.
“ Senor AaiPudia : I have had the honor to receive your
note of this date, in winch you summon me to withdraw the
forces UndeP my command from their present position, and
beyond the river Nueces, until the pending question between
our Governments relative to the limits of Texas shall be
settled.
“ I need hardly advise you that, charged as I am, in only a
military capacity, with the performance of specific duties, I
cannot ent- r into a discussion of the international question in-
volved in the advance of the American army. You will, how-
ever, permit me to say that the Government of the United
States has constantly sought a settlement by negotiation of the
question of boundary that an envoy was dispatched to Mexi-
co for that purpose, and that, up to the most recent dates, said
envoy had not been received by the actual Mexican Govern-
ment, if indeed he has not t eceived his passports and left the
Republic. In the mean time I have been ordered to occupy
the country up to the left bank of the Rio Grande until the
boundary shall be definitively settled. In carrying out these
instructions I have carefully abstained from all acts of hostili-
ty, obeying, in this regard, not only the letter of my instruc-
tions, but the plain dictates of justice and humanity.”
But this adjustment was to be made by the (Government of
the United States, and I admit it was the duty of the Presi-
dent, as the head of the Goveinment, to use all lawful and
proper means for its peaceable adjustment. Has he done so ?
Notwithstanding the abrupt and insulting termination of Gen-
eral Almonte’s mission in March, 1845, immediately after the
passage by the United States of the annexation resolutions,
the President, deeply anxious that the acquisition of Texas
should be peaceable, proposes to the Mexican Government to
send “ an envoy from the United States entrusted with full
powers to adjust all the questions in dispute between the two
Governments.” He was answered through Mr. Black, our
Consul at Vera Cruz, on the 15th October, 1845, by that Go-
vernment, that “it was disposed to receive the commissioner
of the United States who may come to this capital with full
powers from his Government to settle the present dispute in a
peaceful, reasonable, and honorable manner.” “The Mexi-
can Government believing this invitation to be made in good
faith,” &c. The Hon. Mr. Slidell was sent, and rejected on
a quibble. It was said that the Mexican Government agreed
to receive a “ commissioner,” and not an “ envoy,” and that
it was only the present dispute that they were willing to set
tie, and not “all questions in dispute,” as proposed by the
United States. Now, it may be possible that their acceptance
of our proposition was made in the manner it was, in order to
serve as a hole to creep out of, should it be deemed necessary
by that Government* but that is hardly probable, and could
not for a moment be so understood by the United States * for
the Mexican Government receives our proposition as “made
in good faithand in the communication of Mr. Pena y
Pena to Mr. Black, of October 31st, 1845, he speaks of the
“ pending questions” as it was expressed and proposed by the
United States. After asking the United States to withdraw
its navy from Vera Cruz during the pendency of the negotia-
tions, he says : “ It would be an evidence of proceeding in
good faith and with sincerity towards the pacific arrangement
of the ‘ pending questions' between Mexico and the United
States. ” In this last communication just quoted all the ques-
tions are spoken of as matters of settlement by this commis-
sioner or envoy.
That the Mexican Government used the word “commis-
sioner” as synonymous with envoy, or minister, when they
agreed to receive “ the commissioner,” (proposed by the Uni-
ted States,) is conclusively proven by the correspondence
which took place.
Mr. Pena y Pena, in his communication to the (Mexican)
council, dated December 11th, 1845, after Mr. Slidell pre-
sented himself and credentials, says : “I have the honor to
‘ submit to the council, through the medium of your excellen-
cy, the documents relative to the appointment of a commis-
sioner of the Government of the United States of America,
for the peaceable settlement of the questions at issue between
the two Republics.” Now, the “document,” or letter of cre-
dence of Mr. Slidell styles him “envoy extraordinary and
minister plenipotentiaryand yet he is styled by the Mexican
Secretary as commissioner, &c. In the same communication,
and same page, Mr. Pena y Pena says : “Mr. John Slidell
has arrived in this capital as commissioner of the United
States," &c., when, in fact, his commission styled him an
envoy, &c.
But what right had the Mexican Government to demand
separate settlement of the questions of dispute between us and
them ' If, in their opinion, the annexation was wrong, were
not their previous spoliations upon our commerce also wrong ;
and would not reason and justice say that they ought to be
settled together > But Mr. Slidell was rejected ! The min-
ister of peace was spumed ! The cup of American forbear-
ance was drains d to the very dregs ! And yet Mr. Polk, sti
relying on their “sober second thought,” did not recommend
a declaration of war ; but he immediately set about to defend
the soil of Texas, as he was bound to do, from the threatened
invasion. He had the army marched to a position on the
frontier, (the place for an army,) in order that if war came it
might not be in the heart of the settlements, interrupting and
stopping the peaceful and useful occupations of the farmer and
husbandman.
He sent the army to protect a county of the State of Texas,
which was represented in the Senate of the Republic of Texas,
in her Convention, and in the present Senate of the State of
Texas, by that able, enterprising, and useful pioneer, (Hon.
H. L. Kinney,) who has for years been a resident citizen ill
that portion of territory lying between the Nueces and Rio
Grande—a portion of country recognised as independent of
Mexico by the United States and the principal Powers of Eu -
rope. He believed it his duty to protect that portion of the
Congressional district represented on this floor by my honor-
able colleague, and a collectoral district unanimously (I be-
lieve) established by this Congress. Who, placed finder sim-
ilar circumstances with the President, could have or would
have acted differently ? Who would or could have de-
clined an issue literally forced upon him > An adjustment
would not be listened to by Mexico. The President’s oath,
then, bound him to see that the laws were faithfully executed,
to protect the country in all its parts, and to repel invasion if
attempted. “ And this extent hath his offence—no more.”
And here, Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the com-
mittee in noticing a remark which fell tne other day fiom an
honorable Representative fiom Ohio, (Mr. Sawyer.) He
charged the Texas Senators with voting to give away Oregon
north of 49°, after one of them had made a speech in favor of
54° 40'. As to the proceedings of the Senate in regard to
Oregon, they are yet veiled in secrecy, and I know not how
any member voted. But, as to the speech of ofi6 of those
honorable Senators, (Mr. Houston,) I will say, that if it is
in favor of 54° 40' it has escaped my attention. But, how-
ever the Texas Senators may have voted or spoken, I leel per-
fectly convinced that they acted in such a manner as they
deemed best calculated to promote the best interests and honor
of their country. Their patriotism is above suspicion or im-
peachment. They acted a most distinguished part in redeem-
ing an empire from the dominion ot alternate anarchy and
despotism, and consecrating it to the cause of freedom.
As to the question of Oregon, I have not been called on to
vote, and have not given it that critical examination which I
certainly should have done if required to exercise that respon-
sibility. But, whatever may be the present decision in regard
to Oregon north of 49°, its manifest and ultimate destiny is
incorporation into ofir Union. It is as certain to be ours as
that Texas is now part of the United fetates. The operation
of “the American multiplication table,” together with a little
“ masterly activity" on the part of the residents of the soil
when the struggle comes, will do the work. Indeed, I feel a
perfect conviction that the day is not far distant when not one
atom of kingly power will disgrace the North American con-
tinent. May that time speedily arrive ! is the prayer of every
true republican and friend of the rights of man.
One other matter. It has been charged, not on this floor,
but by some of the press opposed to the war, that tne people
of Texas have been backward in rallying to the standard so
gloriously planted and defended on the Rio Grande. This is
false. They have pressed to the field with ari enthusiasm
worthy of the cafise which called them ; and, when the hour
of battle comes, they will be behind none of their valiant com-
peers in “ deeds of noble daring.” They have noble piofieers
in the gallant and daring Walker and his Spartan band, and
they will not prove themselvbs unworthy to be their associates.
Texas has more than her full complement of 2,400 men in
the field, and some of them had to travel 700 miles by land
to reach the Rio Grande.
But to return from this digression. I trust I have shown
that the President has not exaggerated when he declared that
“ American blood had been shed on American soil," and that
it was produced by Mexico in her obstinate and faithless re-
fusal to negotiate with this Government, and sending her army
across the Rio Grande to Commence the attack. She has cho-
sen the alterna'ive of war instead of peace, and we have no
choice but to carry on the war or basely surrender our rights.
The wrongs of our citizens must be redressed, and the bound-
ary must be finally settled, or it will remain a never-ending
source of contention and discontent. Peace must be conquer-
ed by the sword. We must have “ indemnity for the past
and security for the future.” I have no hesitation in saying,
painful as is the reflection, that there is no safety but in a
vigorous and energetic prosecution of the war. If you stop
to negotiate, your human % will be construed into treachery
or cowardice. Your enemy will have time to recruit his broken
strength, and the resources of thte nation will be squandered
in inactivity and inglorious ease. It was Hannibal who loiter-
ed at Cannae after his splendid victory, and Rome was saved.
Let us profit by the warning voice of history. If the Mexi-
can Government were now to make us the most faithful pro-
mises, what security have you that they will be complied with ?
Where is Mexican faith ? It sleep#, in Goliad s grave ^—fgfL
----g-»f.UvtRv5B to be called to the field. You will thus
spend millions in going to and from the field of battle, and yet
your object will not be accomplished. From the refusal of
the Mexican Government to negotiate heretofore, I am perfectly
satisfied that there can be no adjustment of the questions in
dispute except at the “ cannon’s mouth.” The war must be
earned on until the people of Mexico see the folly of their
rulers, and compel them to measures of peace. The people
there are grossly deceived by tiieir leaders, arid nothing but
painful evidence to the contrary will make them open their
eyes to the deception. Would it be believed, sir, that, not-
withstanding the brilliant victories achieved by “Old Rough
and Ready ” on the ever-memorable fields of Palo Alto and
Resaca de la Palma, a Mexican officer at Tampico (A. Par-
rod) could have the hardihood to issue a proclamation in
which occurs the following language ?
The enemy (Americans) passed from the fort, favored by
the dense smoke of wood bn fife, which .protected them from
•or shot. Thus have oiir etieniies escaped i”
Thousands in Mexico, perhaps to this day, know no better.
The ignorance of that people and their inability to read, the
scarcity of newspapers, and those that are there being under
the control of corrupt leaders, who blind the people to their
real situation for their own selfish purposes, are the lamentable
causes of this lack of correct inforhlatidn. Besides, the pre-
judices of the Mexican people against the United States have
been artfully inflamed to the highest pitch. The Administra-
tion in power agreed to acknowledge the independence of
Texas if she would not annex herself to the United States.
It was not Texas that she cared abdul, bul only that the Uni-
ted States might not get it. And this act of President Her-
rera’s created no outbreak in Mexico against him, but it was
only after they found that he agreed to receive a mission of
peace from the Government of the United States that a revo-
lution took place, and he was hurled from his place by one
\frhoSC chiefest recommendation to civil power was his “ eternal
and uncompromising hostility ” to the United States. Al-
though our Government was the first to welcome Mexico in
the sisterhood of nations, yet that is all forgotten in thb pre-
sent deadly strife. It has been truly said that when quarrels
take place between neighbors or relatives they are attended
with much more bitterness than among strangers. This is the
lamentable state of out relations with Mexic% and they are
facts which must be looked full in the face and met. They
must have their influence in the policy that is pursued in re-
gard to this war. I would not indicate what should be receiv-
ed as satisfaction in the settlement of this controversy. The
people whom I have the honor to represent upon this floor have
the most perfect confidence in the integrity* patriotism* and
ability of the President, and they feel that the ifitercsts and
honor bf the country arts safe iii his hands. Me has “kept
the faith ” with them and with the people of the Union ; and,
Whatever others may have said or done in slander of our tide
to every inch of soil within the ancient limits of Texas, they
have met with no approbation or sympathy from him.
TWENTY-NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION.
Wednesday, August 5, 1846.
IN SENATE.
Resolutions were introduced by Messrs. HANNEGAN
and BREESE, relative to certain allowances tube made to per-
sons connected with the Senate for long, faithful, and ardu-
ous service during the present protracted session ; which were
concurred in.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
By Mr. EVANS, from the Committee on Finance : An
adverse report on the petition of Edwin Bartlett; which was
ordered to be printed.
By Mr. CAMERON, from the Committee on Patents :
House bill declaratory of the powers and legalizing certain acts
of the Chief Clerk bf the Patent Office, with amendments *
which were ordered to be printed.
By Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, from the Committee on
Pensions : Asking to be discharged from the further consider-
ation of the petition of the citizens of New Hampshire, ask-
ing that pensions may be granted to the soldiers in the late
war with Great Britaim
Also, from the same committee : House bill for the relief
of Silas Waterman, of the County of Washington, Vermont,
Without amendment, and recommending that it be postponed
indefinitely * which was concurred in.
On motion of Mi. JOHNSON, of Louisiana,
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy cause to be com-
pleted an exact survey of the South Pass ot the Mississippi and
the adjacent waters of tlie great bay of Barataria, with an ex-
amination of the character of the niarsh land separating these
waters between the pilot station near the bar and the Bayou
Bull, as marked on the topographical chart, (Senate document,
1st session, 26th Congress, No. 463,) in order to ascertain the
nracticability of excavating a ship canal of not less than thirty
K fi • 1 n___A.1___to fOTTon fotlmmc:
breakwater * also, that he report upon the effect which the lo-
cation of a navy yard and ship canal there would hare in
strengthening or otherwise the defences ot the Mississippi
river ; and that the result of said survey and examination be
laid before Congress at the commencement ot the next session.
On motion of Mr. HANNEGAN, the joint resolution from
the House for the relief of Zeth M. Leavenworth was con-
sidered in Committee of the Whole, and, after having been
explained by Mr. H., was ordered to a third reading, and
was subsequently, by unanimous consent, read a third time
anMr>a ASHLEY moved to proceed to the consideration of the
bill to establish a permanent general pre-emption system in
favor of settlers on the public lands. Mr. A. characterized
this bill as one of great importance, and calculated to bring
large sums into the Treasury of the United States.
The question having been put by the Presiding Officer,
there were for taking up the bill: Ayes 12. _
The PRESIDING OFFICER. “ The motion is evidently
n°The bill to remit the duties which have been paid or have
accrued upon the importation of railroad iron in certain cases
was read a third time. muwaniv
[This bill was so amended, on motion of Mr. JOCAfeUlN,
of Louisiana, as to remit the duties to the West Feliciana
Railroad Company upon rails imported into New Orleans,
and which were afterwards sunk and lost on the passage from
that point to Bayou Sarah, and to cancel the bonds given by
said company, provided it is made to appear to the satisfac-
tion of the Secretary of the Treasury that said iron was so
lost. The bill was also further amended by Mr. JOHJNSOA
so as to allow the Mexican GulfRailroad Company, upon the
outstanding bonds given by said company on the importation
of railroad iron, an amount equal to all the duties upon cer-
tain railroad iron imported by the Nashville Railroad Com-
pany, and laid down by said Mexican G ulf Railroad Company
within three years from the period of importation, &c ]
Mr. ATHERTON opposed the passage of the bill, on the
ground that the bill was not sufficiently guarded, but really
appeared to him free from all wholesome restrictions.
After some further remarks froni Senators, the question was
taken by yeas and nays on the passage of the bill, and decid-
ed in the affirmative : Yeas 26, nays 20.
Mr. BREESE moved to postpone the prior orders, with
view to take up the bill from the House of Representatives to
establish an additional land office in Iowa.
Mr. B. was here reminded that the bill was a House bill,
and that the true course to pursue would be to take up first
the Senate bills. . . , . * .
The question having been taken on Mr. Breese s motion,
it was decided in the negative by a large majority.
Mr. WESTCOTT then moved to take up the bill from the
House “ to enable the people of Wisconsin Territory to form
a constitution and State Government, and for the admission ot
such State into the Union *” which motion was agreed to.
’ " was or-
isiana, Johnson, of Maryland, Mangum, Miller, Morehead,
Niles, Phelps, Sevier, Simmons, Upham, Webster, and
Woodbridge—26.
NAYS—Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atherton, Bagby, Benton,
Bright, Calhoun, Chalmers, Dickinson, Dix, Lewis, MeDut-
fie, Semple, Speight, Sturgeon, Turney, and Yulee 17.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, moved to amend the bill by
inserting an appropriation of $100,000 for the building of a
custom-house at New Orleans; but the motion was lost with-
out a count.
Mr. SEVIER moved to amend the bill by inserting an ap-
propriation of $8,000 for the improvement, as the Reporter un-
derstood it, of the navigation at the mouth of the Arkansas;
which amendment was agreed to. .
Mr. LEWIS moved to amend the bill by inserting an ap-
propriation to pay Horatio Greenough $8,000 for a group of
statuary * which was agreed to.
Mr. SPEIGHT moved to amend the bill by inserting an
item to pay for certain clerk hire from August, 1845, to xYu-
gust, 1846, in the Second Auditor’s Office.
Mr. EVANS would say nothing against the item save that
the Second Auditor had no authority to employ a clerk with-
out the express provision of law. He would not offer any objec-
tion to the appropriation * he presumed it must be paid * but
he should like to know when the practice was to be dispensed
with.
Several voices. “Never! Never.
The question being taken on the amendment, it was
aSMid NILES moved to amend the bill by inserting a clause
that the proceeds of the Magnetic Telegraph should be placed
in the Treasury of the United States for the benefit of the Post
Office Department.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was here reported to the Senate, as amended, and
the question being on concurring in the amendments as
^Mr! DICKINSON rose to say that he would desire to have
the yeas and nays on concurring in certain amendments made
in Committee of the Whole.
Cries from the left of the chamber, “ Name your excep-
tions !”
DICKINSON desired to name as exceptions the
amendments relating to the claims of Massachusetts and Vir-
ginia, and also the amendments relating to appropriations for
marine hospitals.
Cries on the left, “The yeas and nays have already been
taken on the amendment relating to the Massachusetts claims.
Surely the Senator does not want to repeat them !”
Mr. DICKINSON would waive them in that particular
se. ,
The yeas and nays were then taken on concurring in tne
amendment relating to the appropriation for the payment o
the claim of Virginia, and decided as follows :
YEAS—Messrs. Archer, Ashley, Bagby, Berrien, Breese,
Calhoun, Cass, Chalmers, JohnM. Clayton, Corwin, Critten-
den, Davis, Greene, Ilannegan, Jarnagin Johnson, ot Louis-
iana, McDuffie, Mangum, Miller, Morehead, Niles Rusk,
Sevier, Simmous, Speight, Webster, Westcott, and Woo
bl NAYS—Messrs. Allen, Atchison, Atherton, Benton, Bright,
Thomas Clayton, Dickinson, Dix, Fairfield, Houston, Lewis,
Pearce, Phelps, Semple, Sturgeon, Turney, Upham, and
Yulee—18.
The question was then taken on concurring in the amend-
ment relating to the marine hospitals, and decided m the affir-
mative : Yeas 35, nays 12.
Mr. BENTON renewed his motion in Senate to insert an
appropriation of three hundred and sixty-one thousand dollars
foi the payment of the fourth and fifth instalments of the Mex-
ican indemnities. , , ., ,
This motion led to a long discussion, in which Messrs.
BENTON, JOHNSON, of Maryland, EVANS, and others
participated * when the question being taken, the vote stood
as follows :
YEAS—Messrs. Ashley, Atchison, Barrow, Benton, Breese,
ihn M. Clavton, Crittenden, Dickinson, Dix, Greene, Han-
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be misunderstood ? would
not have this war carried oil d moment longer than is neces-
sary to Its successful termination. I have a feeling for our
neighbors more akin to sympathy than hatred or vengeance.
It is to prevent further and greater evils between us hereafter
that would make me desire demonstrations of ottr power fur-
ther in the interior. But whenever it can cease with some
toletable certainty of permanency, let it be done. The Pre-
sident, in the same spirit which actuated him in sending a
Minister there, has said that he will be happy to receive pro-
posals of peace from that Government whenever offered, and
that he will even tender the olive branch whenever assured
that it wifi be received * and I honor him for the declaration.
How does this put to flight all the charges of his having
brought the country unnecessarily and intentionally into a
war ? With that declaration, safely, prudently, but not pre-
maturely carried out, the people will rest content.
Although I fear, Mr. Chairman, that I have said but little
to interest the Committee, and to repay them for their polite
and courteous attention, yet I can claim the credit at least of
giving variety to the debate, by examining a question which,
although it has been agitated before during the progress of this
bill, is at least new in this day’s discussion.
MEDICAL NOTICE.
TYR. ALFRED H. LEE tenders his professional services to
JLJ the residents of Washington and its adjoining counties.
Office on H street, near 7lh. july 24—eo2w
On Saturday, 8th August,
ALEXANDRIA LOTTERY, No 31,
Will be drawn.
SPLENDID SCHEME.
4 Capitals of $25,000,
1 of $10,000, 1 of $8,000, 1 of $6,000, 1 of$5,153,
2 prizes of........$4,000 I 50prize of... ..$1,000
4 do ...........2,000 I 50 do........ 500
&c. &c. &.c.
Ticket$15—Halves$7 50—Quarters$3 75—Eighths$1 87j.
For sale by
J. G. GREGORY & CO., Managers.
Next door east of National Hotel, Washington’
aug 3—dift.ffd&cp
CIVIL AND DIPLOMATIC BILL.
On motion of Mr. LEWIS, the Senate proceeded to the
consideration of the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill *
when—
Mr. HUNTINGTON moved an amendment to the bill by
inserting an appropriation of $5,000, as the Reporter under-
stood it* to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to place buoys
where most needed.
This amendment was opposed by Mr. LEWIS on the
ground that the bill before them was not a lighthouse bill.
After some further remarks from Messrs. HUNTINGTON,
J. M. CLAYTON, DAVIS, and others in favor of the pro-
position—
Mr. BREESE moved to amend the amendment by insert-
ing $10,000 for a lighthouse and improvement of the liaibor
at Columbia river.
Mr. DIX said he was willing to go for one-half the expense
of the lighthouse * at which remark there was a general laugh.
Mr. LEWIS thought the whole proceeding wild and irre-
gular, and he hoped it would be the last attempt to load down
the bill in that unnatural, and, he might add, improper manner.
The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. Breese,
and it was rejected.
The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Hunting-
ton, it was adopted.
A vast number of arriendments were here sent to the Chair,
of which the Reporter gives such only as met his ear with any
degree of accuracy amid the confusion that prevailed.
Mr. EVANS moved to amend the bill by inserting ari ap-
propriation for an additional appraiser inthecity of New York.
Mr. E. explained briefly the necessity of this amendment, and
it was adopted.
An amendment was offered by Mr. BAGBY, the purport
of which the Reporter coiiid not hear, but it Was agreed to.
Mr. CASS moved to amend the bill by inserting an item in
relation, as the Reporter understood it* to certain surveys ;
Which was adopted;
An amendment was offered by Mr. DIX to refund to James
Buchanan, British Consul, certain moneys expended by him
in relation to an American slaver captured and sent into the
port of New York by British cruisers ; which amendment was
agreed id. ...
A motion was here made, c'tiriiirig from the Committee on
Commerce, to insert an item of $22,000 for the completion of
the marine hospital at New Orleans, and $7,000 lor furnish-
ing the same.
Mr. LEWIS here called on the friends of the bill to stand
by it, and not suffer it to be clogged with amendments of this
kifid.
Mr. HUNTINGTON dwelt on the importance of this ap-
propriation for the comfort and safety of seamen, to say no-
thing of its healthful tendency towards the commerce of the
country.
Mr. DIX advocated the amendment as one very important,
and insisting that the hospital at New Orleans was one more
required than any where else iii the Whole Union.
Mr. DAVIS advocated it as imperiously called for.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, insisted that under the pre-
sent system more was paid for rent of a place to take care of
sick mariners, than the whole appropriation would amount to.
The question having been taken, the amendment was
adopted.
Mr. YULEE moved to amend the bill by inserting an item
of $$,000, for paying deficiencies connected with the territorial
management of Florida * which, after receiving the support of
Mr. WESTCOTT, was disagreed to.
Mr. ARCHER here moved to insert an amendment appro-
priating to the State of Virginia $64,000, as the Reporter un-
derstood it, for sums due from the United States to said State.
Mr. EVANS expressed his regret that the amendment had
been offered * he thought it neither the place nor the occasion
to do so ; the same motion had been made last year, which he
had felt it his duly to resist. He thought it not suited to an
appropriation bill.
Mr. ARCHER defended his proposition with some zeal.
Mr. DAVIS said he should feel bound to offer an amend-
ment to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, (Mr.
Ajichf.r,) by inserting an item of $250,000, or such sum as
may be reported to be due to Massachusetts.
Mr. ARCHER hoped that the claim of Virginia would rest
on its own merits, without having attached to it any foreign or
extraneous matter.
Mr. DAVIS would not press it, being perfectly willing that
the claim of Massachusetts should rest on its own merits.
The question was taken on agreeing to the amendment of
Mr. Archer, and decided in the affirmative.
The question then recurred on the proposition of Mr. Davis,
and after a brief colloquy, in which Messrs. LEM IS,
EVANS, WEBSTER, DAVIS, SPEIGHT, and others
participated—
Mr. LE WIS demanded the yeas and nays, and the ques
tion was decided in the affirmative, as follows :
YEAS—Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Berrien, Cilley, JohnM.
Clayton, Thomas Clayton, Corwin, Crittenden, Davis, Evans,
Fairfield, Greene, Huntington, Jarnagin, Johnson, of Lou-
liiciL j xauuj at
AYS—Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Berrien, Bright, Calhoun,
Cass, Chalmers, Cilley, Thomas Clayton, Davis Evans Fair-
field, Huntington, Lewis, McDuffie, Miller, Phelps, Sevier,
Speight, Sturgeon, Turney, Upham, and Yulee 3.
So the motion was lost.
Mr. BENTON then moved the same amendment virtually,
with a provision that the claimants should agree to take scrip,
payable within five years, and bearing an interest of five per
centum. , , ,
On this question the yeas and nays weie demanded, and the
result was as follows :
YEAS—Messrs. Archer, Ashley, Atchison, Bagby, Bai-
row, Benton, Breese, John M. Clayton, Crittenden Dickin-
son, Dix, Greene, Hannegan, Houston, Jarnag.n, Johnson, ot
Louisiana, Johnson, Of Maryland* Mangum, Morehead, Niles,
Phelps, Rusk, Semple, Simmons, Westcott, and Y\ood-
NA.YS—Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Berrien, Bright, Calhoun,
Cameron, Cass, Chalmers, Cilley, Thomas Clayton, Davis,
Evans, Fairfield, Huntington, Lewis, McDuffie, Miller, Sevier,
o t ' c.' - * uin vtrprin. TVirnev- Unham. and Yulee—23.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, here renewed his motion in
the Senate to insert an item appropriating $100,000 for the
erection of a custom-house in the city of New Orleans.
Mr. J. enforced the proposition With much zeal and earnest-
ness, declaring it to be one of the most important items in the
whole bill.
The question having been put, it was announced ayes 18,
noes 18 ; when, another Senator rising and desiring to be
counted, the question was decided in the negative.
Mr. JOHNSON contended for some time that there was
a miscount* and yielded at last seemingly with great reluct-
ance to the decision of the Chair.
Mr. McDUFFIE renewed the motion in Senate to amend
the bill by inserting an item of $4,500 for an outfit to Arthur
Middieton, Esq., who acted as Charge d’Affaires at Madrid,
and showing that Mr. M. was clearly entitled to the amount
from many precedents that could be established from the re-
cords.
\ [The question having been taken, the voted stood : Yeas
19, nays 20.
So the motion was lost.
Mr. CAMERON renewed in Senate the amendment ap-
propriating $40,000 for the erection of a dry-dock in the city
of Philadelphia.
Mr. ALLEN rose to inquire of the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Finance whether he had any adequate idea of the
amount which had been added to the bill by the amendments ?
Mr. LEWIS was understood to say that it would take a
pretty good accountant to keep pace with the appropriations *
but he was inclined to believe there were somewhere about a
million of dollars added.
The question was taken on Mr. Cameron’s proposition,
and it was rejected : Yeas 13, nays 29.
Mr. ATCHISON rose to move a reconsideration of the
vote giving an outfit to an individual, he did not recollect the
name, the Charge d’Affaires at Mexico.
[Cries of “ The bill is now on its third reading, and can-
not be amended.]
Mr. ATCHISON. Well, then, so be it* I desired to do
my duty*
The bill was read a third time * when there were cries of
“ Read it now * let it be passed.”
Mr. CALHOUN suggested to the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Finance that it would be as well to defer the pas-
sage of the bill till to-morrow, as there were so many and
such Various amendments that it was almost impossible to
know what they were, in so hurried a state of the proceedings.
Tlie Cries still continuing, “ Let the bill be passed.”
The question was put by the Chair, “ Shall the bill pass ?”
and it was decided in the affirmative.
WESTERN RIVERS.
Mr. CRITTENDEN moved for leave to introduce a bill
for the improvement of the navigation of the rivers Ohio,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Arkansas.
Leave being granted, it was read a first time * and after a
brief colloquial discussion by Messrs. BENTON, CASS,
BAGBY, CRITTENDEN, JOHN M. CLAYTON, and
SPEIGHT, its second reading was deferred.
Mr. DIX moved to take up the bill relating to pilots. The
motion did not prevail.
MILITARY ACADEMY.
On motion of Mr. LEWIS, the Senate took up for consi-
deration the bill making appropriations for the support of the
Military Academy, which had been reported from the Com-
mittee on Finance with amendments. The amendments were
concurred in, and the bill was ordered to a third reading.
The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of Execu-
tive business * and, after some time spent therein, adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The amendments of the Senate to the naval appropriation
bill were read and committed.
Sundry bills from the Senate were.read and referred, as fol-
lows :
The bill to establish an additional land office in the northern
part of the State of Michigan, and for the sale of the mineral
lands in Michigan and Wisconsin. Referred to the Commit-
tee on Public Lands.
The bill to provide for the confirmation of certain settlement
claims in the Greensburg land district in Louisiana.
When this bill received its second reading, Mr. MORSE,
of Louisiana, explained its provisions and the necessity of act-
ing upon it as early as possible, and moved that it be read a
third time and put on its passage.
No opposition being made, the bill was read the third time
and passed, and returned to the Senate.
THE LAND BILL.
The amendments of the Senate to the amendments of the
House to the Senate bill to reduce and graduate the price of
public lands to actual settlers, were taken up and read.
Mr. McCLERNAND explained the nature of the amemd-
ments, and moved the previous question.
Mr. BRODHEAD moved that the bill be laid on the table.
Mr. McCLERNAND moved a call of the House. The
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
National Intelligencer. (Washington [D.C.]), Vol. 47, No. 6806, Ed. 1 Thursday, August 6, 1846, newspaper, August 6, 1846; Washington, District of Columbia. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1025074/m1/2/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; .