Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE SOUTHERN SIJNTIV’". U published every Thursday IN COLUMBUS, GA, BY WILLIAM H. CH jIBERS > EDITOR AM) PKOf*’" 1 “ 1 *' l To whom all communications must irectL<l ,post paid. Office on Rtnulojf ,<vrtc? - Terms ol ‘ ription * °r c ?Py lw r. lvc mo :, lth3 N mm advance,* -*3 SS “ “ Six - “ “ - 150 zw Wiioro the is not P ;li,J d . u . rin j7 hc year, 15 cents will bf' :,r Sl % eyeiy month s delay. ’ No subscription/* k 0 lor lon than sir. months, and none o' ll ' l , :lIJ arrearatfea are paid, except at tu/' tlon of the proprietor. To Clubs. Fira coplea &lYe months, _ - - * •]<> 00 it %y- •[’), money from Clubs must In all cases ae ro n man v’’ lla *e3, or the price of a single subscription will bo forged. Kates of Advertising. q equaro, first insertion, - - - $1 09 “ Each subsequent insertion, - 50 A#oral deduction on these terms will be made in furor <7thoso wlio advertise by the year. Advertisements not specified as to time, will bo pub lished till forbid, and charged accordingly. \1 onthly Advertisements will be charged as now Ad vertisements at each insertion. Uegal Advertisements. N. B.—Sales of Lands, by Administrators, Ex ecutors, or Guardians,are required by law to beheld on the first Tuesday in the month, between the hours of 10 in tho forenoon, and 3 in the afternoon, at the Court House in tho county in which the land is situated. No tices of these sales must be given in a public gazette st xt v days previous to the day of sale. Sales of Negroes must be made at a public auction on the first Tuesday of the month, between the usual hours of sale, at the place of public sales in the county where the Letters Testamentary, of Administration or Guardianship,may have been granted, first giving sixty juts notice thereof in one of tho public gazettes of this •State, and at the door of tho Court House, where such sales are to he held. Notice for the sale of Personal property must he given in like manner forty days previous to the day of sale. Notice to the Debtors and Creditors of an estate must be published forty days. Notice that application will be made to the Court of Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must be published lor Four. MONTHS. Notice for leave to sell Negroes must be published for four months, before any order absolute shall bo made thereon by the Court. ( itations for Loiters of Administration, must be pub lished thirty days —for dismission from administration, uitnlhly six months —lor dismission liom Guardianship, FORTY DAYS. Rui.es for the foreclosure of a Mortgage must be pub lished monthi.v for four months-—for establishing lost papers, for the ruu, space of three months —lor com pelling titles from Executors or Administrators, where a Rond has been given by the deceased, the full space ot THREE MONTHS. Publications will always be continued according to those legal requirements, unless otherwise ordered. SOUTH MIN SENTINEL Job Office. H AVING received a now and extensive assortment of Job Material, we, are prepared to execute at this office, all orders for J( lit WORK, in a manner which ean not be excelled in the State, on very liberal terms, ami at the shortest notice. We feel confident of our ability to give, entire satisfac tion in every variety of Job Printing, including Hooks, Business Curds, Pamphlets, Bill Heads, (Circulars, Blanks of every description, Hand Bills, Bills of Lading, Posters, c^r. In short, all descriptions of Printing which can be ex ecuted at any olliee in the. country, will be turned out with elegance and despatch. County Surveyor. r |'MIF. undersigned informs his friends and the Planters 1 of Muscogee county, that be is prepared to make olKcial surveys in Muscogee county. Letters addressed to Post Office,Columbus, will meet with prompt atten tion. VVM. F. SERRKLL, County Surveyor. (Office over F.. Barnard &. Co.’s store, Broad .St. Columbus, Jail. 31,1850. 5 ly NOTICE. riMlFl firm name of “M. 11. Dessau, Agent,” is changed, J from this date, to M. 11. DESS All. Columbus. Feb. 7, 1850. 0 tt JAMES FORT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, HOLLY SPRINGS, MISS. July 4, 1850. 27 Gin Williams, Flewellen &. Williams, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, C O I.UMJIDS, G E Olt G IA. May 23, 1850. 21 Williams & Howard, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA. ED IT. K. HOWARD. CIIAS. J. WILLIAMS. April 4, 1850. 11 tl .1. IK LENNAItD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, T.VI.HOTTON, GA. WILL attend to business in Talbot and the adjacent counties. All business entrusted to ids Caro will meet vviilt prompt attention. April 4, 1850. 14 ly KING & WINNEMOItE, Commission Merchants, MOBILE, ALABAMA. Dec. 20,1849. {Mob. Trib.] 13 tl THIS PAPER IS MANUFACTURED BY* TITR Rock Island Factory, NEAR THIS CITY. Columbus, Feb. 23,1850. 9 ts Marble Works, llnst side Broad St. near the Market House, COLUMBUS, GA. H AVE constantl v on hand all kinds of Grave Stones Monuments, Tombs mid 7ablets, of American I rti,un and Irish Marble. Engraving and carving done on stone in the host possible manner; and all kinds of Granite Work at the shortest notice. JOHN H. MADDEN. P. S.—Plaistor of Paris and Cement, always on hand tor sale. Columbus, March 7, 1850. 10 ts NORTH CAROLINA Mutual Life Insurance Company. LOCATED AT RALEIGH. N. C. rpHE Charter of this company gives important advan- I tages to the assured, over most other companies. The husband ean insure his own life for the sole use and benefit of lus wife and children, free from any other claims. Persons who insure for life participate in the profits which are declared annually, and when the pre mium exceeds S3O. may pay one-halt in a note. Slaves are insured at two-thirds their value for one or five years. Applications for Risks niav be made to JOHN MUNN. Agent. Columbus, Ga. £ V” Office at Greenwood &. Co.’s Warehouse. Nov. 15,1849. ts W WTED. IA A AAA BAGS. Cash paid for clean cot I * *•* M *1 ’ ton or linen rags—l cents per pound, when delivered in quantities of 100 pounds or more : and 3s cents when delivered in small quantities. For old hemp, bagging, and pieces of rope, 14 cents, delivered niter at Rock Island Factory or at their store hi Co lumbus, in the South comer Room of Oglethorpe House. D. ADAMS, Secretary. Columbus, Feb. 28,1530. 9 ts TO KENT. r piLL the first day of January next. The old printing 1 office mom °l the “Muscogee Democrat ” Apply at this office. IS ts. f L Globe Hotel, MMS* BUENA VISTA, MARION CO., GA. BY J. WILLIAMS. March 14,1850. 11 ts 7ußt receTv Ei>r~ \ LARGE lot of Miscellaneous and School Books. Also a farce and beautiful assortment of Stationery fine Letter and Note Paper. Envelopes. Ac. PtGKAFFENRIED & ROBINSON April 18 VOL. I. SPEECH OF HON, A, H, STEPHENS, OF GEORGIA, In the House of Representatives, Friday, Au gust*.), 1850, on the President's Message'of August 0, 1850, concerning Texas and Neic Mexico. Tlio House being in committee of the W hole on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill for the fiscal year ending BOth of June, 1851, (Mr. Burt, of .South Car olina, being in the chair) — Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, addressed the •committee ns follows: Mr. Chairman: The most interesting of tho many interesting subjects which arc now pressing themselves upon the conside ration of this House and the country, in my opinion, is the message communicated a few days ago, by the President, to Congress, upon the subject of the Texas boundary', and tho difficulties and embarrassments attending that question, i hat message is now upon your table. It deserves our immediate con sideration, and demands wise, prudent and speedy action. 1 promise, therefore, in what i have to say r upon tl sis occasion, to confine myself to the general topics embraced in it; and it is a matter of regret to me, in the midst of so many disquieting and irritating causes which now distract and stir up the public mind, to see that we are likely to have new elements of strife amt contention, to excite and inflame those strong sectional feelings which for some time past have so unhappily existed among us. These elements are to be found in the message alluded to. The prin ciples assumed by the President in that pa per are, in my judgment, in several particu lars, uijsustainod by tho Constitution am! laws of the United .States, and dangerous in their tendencies, not only to the rights of the States, but to the liberties of the people.— I hey strike at the very foundation upon which the whole structure of our system of repre sentative republican government was reared, and upon which alone it can permanently stand. This, I know, is-strong language, but no stronger tiian tho truth requires to be spoken. There is no principle more essen tial to the preservation of our Government, than that the military, in time of peace, shall be subject to the civil power. The message is in opposition to this principle. The Pres ident informs us, that “by the Constitution of the United States, the President is constitu ted commander-in-chief of the army and na vy and the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. The constitution declares also that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and that he shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Union.” r J his, sir, is true. By tho Constitution the President is the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and the militia of the several Slates, when called into the actual service of the United States, and it is his duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. This is all true. But there is something else equally true, and that is, that in seeing that the laws are faithfully execu ted, he must himself act in subordination to law, and in conformity with the provisions of tho laws which point out the mode of their execution, And he can use the military to execute no law which contains no provi sions for its execution first by the courts. The President further asserts that “the Constitution of tho United States declares that ‘this Constitution, and the laws of the United Stales which shall be made in persu ance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the U nited States shall bo tho supreme law of the land.’ ” And then lie refers to the late treaty with Mexico, and, amongst other clauses, he refers particularly to the clause which guar antees to Mexicans who may remain in the ceded territory, protection in the free enjoy ment of their liberty and property, and secu rity in the free exercise of their religion, with out restriction. In this way he assumes that tho treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo is such a law as he is bound to see ‘faithfully executed’ in all its obligations. He further informs us that the State of Texas is about to extend her civil jurisdiction over a portion of country ly ing this side the Rio Grande, within the limits of the boundary of Texas as originally claimed and asserted by her, but which, in his opinion, belongs to the General Government and not to Texas, by virtue of the cession made by the late treaty. And without suggesting the slightest cause to apprehend that any of these rights of “liberty, property and religion,” guaranteed to Mexicans under the treaty, would he interfered with by the extension of tho civil jurisdiction of Texas over those of > them residing east of the Rio Grande, even if they were included in the terms of tho treaty, he tells us that he feels bound to re sist such extension of her jurisdiction by I Texas, and, if necessary, to repel il with the j military force of the Government at his con- j trol. By information received from Texas, ; no one can doubt that she intends to maintain ■ her civil authorities co-extensivc with the | boundary claimed by her. And we have the issue fairly presented, whether the President j has the rightful power, under the constitution and laws of the United States, as those laws now exist, to use the military power at his command against the authorities of Texas. I maintain that he has not. I meet tho question at tho threshold. It is ! one of the most important that has ever ■ arisen in this country, and its decision, if | force should bo resorted to, cannot fail to | mark an era in its history. I deny to the President the power he claims; and I assert that, under the constitution and laws, he has no power, in time of peace, “in seeing that j the laws are faithfully executed,” to resort to ! military force, except when their due exoeu i tion by the courts, the legally constituted tri | bunals for the administration of justice, may be illegally obstructed or resisted. This pro position I lay down distinctly, broadly and confidently. It is above the reach of assail ment, and beyond the power of refutation. And I maintain, further, that the very laws cited by the President, from which he claims ( the exercise of the extraordinary and unwar- I ranted power he does, sustains the proposi j tion. These very acts do not, in tho slightest j degree, confer the power which lie notifies to j C ongress and the country that he intends to j exercise under them. Now, sir, let us sec He dies the 2d sec tion of the act of Congress, of 1795, and the act of 3d March, 1807. But, perhaps, it would bo better to refer to the acts as he himself cites them. Here is what he says: “ 1 he second section of the act of the 28th of February, 1795, declares that whenever the laws ot tho United States shall lie op posed, or their execution obstructed, in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or the power vested in the mar shals, the President may call forth the militia, so tar as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. “By the act of March 3d, 1807, it Is pro vided that, in all cases of obstruction to the laws, cither ol the United States, or any in dividual State or Territory, where it is lawful lor the President to call forth tho militia for the purpose of causing the laws to l>c duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for tho same purpose, such part of the land or naval force of tho United States, as shall lie judged necessary.” iliese are the nets of Congress upon which he relies. The first, it will be perceiv ed, only authorize him in certain eases to call J out the militia; the second authorizes him, in all similar cases, to use the army and navy, if necessary. lie has, however, no authori ty, under either act, to use the army and navy, or to call out the militia, for the pur pose of aiding in the execution of the laws, except'in such cases as are provided for by the act ol 1795. And what are those cases? They are such as where the laws may be op posed on their execution, or obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or the power vested in the mar shals. ’i his is the only class of cases where the President is authorized to use the military force of the country to aid in the execution ot the laws of the United States. It is where the due course of law, through the courts, and by the marshals, is opposed and obstructed, or where the combinations in re sistance to law, “are too powerful to be sup pressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or tho power vested in the marshals.” Now, sir, is there any such case, or is there likely to lie any such case, in the territory over which Texas is about to establish her jurisdiction? Is there any law, any act of Congress, in force there, which cannot be executed in the ordinary course of judicial proceeding? No one will assert that there is either any law or “judicial proceeding” authorized by law in that country, known to your statute book. You have passed no law lor the country, even on the supposition that it rightfully belongs to you, and not to Texas. If the country belongs to the United States by conquest, as tho President says, then its Government devolves upon Congress. But Congress, as yet, has provided no govern ment for it. They hare given the people there no law defining rights, or courts, for the redress of wrongs. But tho president says that tho treaty is a law, and that lie is bound to protect the rights which it secures. But, sir, 1 deny that the obligations of this treaty, or any treaty, weighty as they may be, which require legislation for their proper execution and fulfilment, can lie discharged and performed by the President, unless lie be first empowered by the necessary laws. I grant that this Government, by the ratification ot this treaty, assumed obligations towards certain Mexicans which ought in good faith to be observed. But it does not follow that the President is to assume the discharge of these obligations himself. Tho same treaty put us under the obligation to pay the Gov ernment of Mexico twelve millions of dol lars—that was as much the law of the land as the guaranty of rights now under con sideration ; and yet the President, I presume, would not dare to put his hand into the Trea sury, and pay what is due under that stipula tion, without the authority of an act of ap propriation. In our treaty with Great Britain, in 1815, establishing, to some extent, a re ciprocity in trade, it was provided, that goods and merchandize, and products coining from certain British possessions, should be admitted into our ports upon as good terms as those wo extended to the most favored nations bringing like products. This stipulation was as much the law of the land as the obligations to these Mexicans ; and yet it required an act of Con gress to carry it into effect, and secure the rights under it—that is, to accommodate tho commercial laws of tho country to suit the stipulations of tho treaty. The President could not have enforced the rights secured to British subjects under that treaty by an ex ecutive order; neither can the present Presi dent fulfil the existing obligation to pay Mexi co the balance of what is due her of the twelve millions without the concurrence of Congress. No idea could be more erroneous than to suppose, because a treaty is the law of the land, that the President can, of himself, as sume the fulfilment of its obligations when these obligations do not rest upon him alone, but upon the Government in all its depart ments—legislative, judicial and executive. And that is the case now before ns. The ob ligations of this treaty as to to the rights of “ liberty, property and religion,” on the part of the. Mexicans, rest not upon the President alone, but upon the Government of the United States —the law-making, the law-expounding, and the law-executing powers conjointly. The law-making power must first speak. Laws defining rights and wrongs must be first pass ed. Courts must be instituted to expound those laws, and marshals must be duly ap pointed to execute their mandates. And if | the execution of the laws thus passed be op posed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary coarse of judicial proceedings thus established, then, and not till then, would the President be justified, j under existing laws, to resort to the military force for the protection of the rights secured ‘by that article of the treaty. By the Con stitution of the United States, it is expressly : provided, that cases arising under treaties ) shall be determined by the judiciary. The military, in this country, by no law in your j statute book, can be called out in time of peace, but in aid of the execution of laws in , the channels of tho courts, or in assistance of the marshal in the discharge of powers vested in them by law. If the President, therefore, shall, in the contingency he appre- I heads, use the military forces at his command against the authorities of Texas, it will be ( without authority of law, a daring usurpation COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1850. of power, and a gross violation of the Con stitution of the United States. Mr. Chairman, one ot the surest safeguards of public liberty is, that in time of peace the military shall be subordinate to the civil au thority. And one of tho gravest charges brought against the King of England, in that long list of abuses of power enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, and which lost him the American Colonies, was that of quartering troops in tho colonies without the consent of the Legislatures, and of render ing “ the military independent of, and superior to, tho civil power.” .Sir, this principle dates back anterior even to that. It constitutes the soul and spirit of Magna Charta itself. Tho old barons of England, at Runnymede, in 1215, achieved for themselves, their nation, and mankind, no greater or more important principle than that which compelled King John to grant that in all time to come within his realm— “ Null its liber homo capiatur, rcl impriso netur,aut dissaisialur,aut ullagclur,aul exule- Lur, aid aliquo modo dcslrualur; ncc super cum ibimus, ncc super cum mittimus, nisi per legale judicium suorum, parium vcl per legem terras.” “ No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit, him to prison, excepting by the loyal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of “ the land.” This principle has remained unshaken in England for upwards of six hundred years. Our ancestors brought it with them to this western continent. The framers of our Con stitution reproduced it, somewhat modified in form, but tho same in spirit and substance, in that great charter of power, by which every officer of this government is limited and controlled. The lif'th article of the Constitution ol the United States provides that— “ No person shall bo deprived of life, liber ty or property, without due process of law.” The sixth article is in these words: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused I shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of tho State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district, shall have been previously ascertained, by law, and to be in formed oi the nature and cause of tho accusa tion ; to bo confronted with the witnesses against him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his iavor ; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.” Now, sir, 1 ask if a man can be rightfully shot down by an armed soldiery in pursuance of an Executive order, for doing what he could not be even indicted and tried for doing, much less convicted of any offence for doing, by any court or code known to the laws of tho land ? Can the President rightfully or der the army to shoot citizens of the country in time of peace, who are guilty of no crime, or a violation of no law ? Can a man, in this country, by an order from tho Chief Magis trate, be deprived of his life in time of peace, “without duo process of law ?” Where there is no law there can be no transgression. You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that I am only considering this question as it now stands—[ have, as yet, said nothing about what would be the condition of things if Con gress should undertake to establish a govern ment for New Mexico this side the Rio Grande. If courts should bo established there, and if laws should be passed, prescrib ing the manner of determining, by judicial proceedings, tho rights of Mexicans residing there, under the treaty, and clothing the Pres ident with power to call to the aid of the civ il authorities the military force in case the ex ecution of such laws should be resisted, that would present a very different question from the one now before us. The President has not invoked our aid, nor asked us to pass any laws that may be necessary to execute that article of the treaty, or to enable him to do it efficiently and rightfully, nor has he even ask ed us to pass any law to enable him to use tho military force of the country for that pur pose. Ho has simply announced what he in tends to do in certain contingencies, without authority of law. If a proposition was before us to pass a law authorizing the President to resist the au thority of Texas in extending her jurisdic tion in that part of the country to which ref erence has been made, that would present the question whether there is any constitutional power in the General Government to coerce one of the States of the Union. This is a question Ido not now wish to discuss. It is not now before us. If a bill be brought in to confer this power on tho President, then I shall meet it. That was the distinct question presented in 1833 between this Government and the State of South Carolina. The posi tion assumed by Mr. Fillmore is far outside of that assumed by General Jackson. Gen eral Jackson seems never to have dreamed of relying on the acts of 1795 and 1807, al though there would have been much more reason for his doing so in that case, than the present Chief Magistrate, in the case now be fore us. For, in South Carolina, there were j revenue and judiciary laws in force. And in case their execution had been obstructed, there would have been much more justifiable ground for calling out the military force than there is in this case, when there is no law to obstruct, and no judiciary to appeal to, in the first instance. But General Jackson j came to Congress with a message, and asked j an amendment of the laws providing for the collection of the revenue, to meet the emer gency created by the ordinance and laws of South Carolina. And he further asked an amendment of the acts of 1795 and 1807, so ns to give him full power to call to his aid the military forces of the country in case the ju diciary should prove unable to execute the j amended laws by reason of resistance to its process or judgments In accordance with his views, the act (well known as the force j bill) was passed, which expired by its own limitation in twelve months from its date. The constitutionality of that act was very much questioned by many at that time. But ; that is not the matter I am now discussing. | It is not even whether General Jackson, with- I out that act, could have exercised all the 1 powers it conferred on him ; but it is, wheth ’ er the President shall make his own judg ; ment of the rights of a treaty, without any ju ’ dicial investigation, tho law of the land, and ! use the military force to carry that private j judgment of bis into execution. It is simply, j whether we are to be under military rule or a ■ government of laws. The President says that the question of Texas boundary is one that he cannot decide. In this opinion I fully concur. This is a mat ter he has no more power to decido than you or I. And until it is determined by agreement between this Government and Tex as, or by judicial proceedings, it is beyond his province to give even an opinion one way or tho other. But how lie can assume to say that the Mexicans on this side the Rio Grande are not within those limits over which Texas can rightfully extend her civil jurisdiction, without at the same time undertaking to de cide the question of boundary, I cannot un derstand. These two positions of tho Presi dent, to mv mind, are irreconcilable. If any man can show how he can say to Texas, “thus far you may go, and no further,” without de ciding the question of her boundary, I should like to hear him. That is certainly a decision, and a most emphatic decision, of the question. It is a decision in the last resort to be execu ted by force. And, moreover, it is an Exec utive decision, without color of authority. Nothing also can be made of it. As to the position that the United States troops were left in {lie territory at the termin ation of the war, aiid that it is the duty of the President, as commander-in-chief, to keep them there and to hold possession of the coun try with them against any interference on the part of Texas, until the boundary lie settled, I do not consider that it rises to that dignity which would justify an argument to answer it. If the country belongs to the United States by conquest, its Government devolves upon Congress. And if any laws be necessary to defend it, and secure it, it is the duty of the President to apply to tho law-making power for authority to do so. And until Congress makes some disposition of it, or gives him au thority to hold it by force, he has no right or power to do it. Until Congress speaks, he has no authority to defend by force the milita ry possession of the United States of any portion of their late acquisitions from Mexi co. How has it been in California ? There wo have seen this possession, which it is said he is bound to defend, entirely abandoned; and the whole country taken possession of by people coming from all countries, and speak ing all languages, who have appropriated it to themselves, and who have set up a govern ment for themselves, which we are called up on to recognize and sanction. Now, if it be tho duty of the President to defend, by force, military possession of New Mexico, this side the Rio Grande, against tho authorities of Texas, until the boundary be settled, why is it not also his duty to defend, in like manner, tho military possession of California until Congress shall make some disposition of it ? ’Flio case of California is much stronger in every point of view than that of New Mexico this side the Rio Grande. For I have shown that the President cannot interfere there with out the virtual decision of tho question of Te xas boundary, which he admits that he lias no right to decide. I now go further; and I maintain that if Texas should be resisted by tho Mexicans in this portion of the territory lying within her prescribed limits, and should apply to the President for assistance to put down that re sistance wliilo this question of boundary is unsettled, he would be bound, under tho Con stitution, and law of 1795, to afford the ne cessary assistance. I read from tho first sec tion of that act: “And in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall bo lawful for the President of tho United States, ou application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legisla ture cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of tho militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.” These people, it is well known, reside with in the limits of Texas, according to the boun daries prescribed by her own laws. The law of boundary of that State the President is as much bound to respect and have enforc ed as any other law of Texas, or any other State, or any law of the United States, unless it be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or some law or treaty of the United States. I repeat, sir, the President is as much bound to regard all constitutional laws of tho respective States as he is the laws of the United States. And if called upon in pursuance of the act of 1795, just read, he is as much bound to assist a State in putting down resistance to the execution of any of her constitutional laws, as ho is to see to the execution of the laws of tho United States. And, as it is a question which he cannot de cide, he is bound to regard the laws of Tex as, whether defining her boundary or extend ing her jurisdiction, as valid, unless it come* in conflict with the Constitution, or some law or treaty of the United States. Now, sir, is there anything in this law of Texas inconsis tent with the late treaty with Mexico ? I do not intend now to go into a discus sion of the Texas boundary. I did this a few days ago, and I do not now wash to repeat what I then said. I will barely enumerate some of the points. You and this House will recollect that I do not consider the question now as it stood before the war. Texas, as an independent State, was annexed and ad mitted into the Union with such territorial limits as rightfully belonged to her at that time. Her rights were founded altogether upon the right of successful revolution, and their extent, in my opinion then, was to the limits over which she had established her ju risdiction. Her limits were such as she had successfully marked by the sword. I did not then believe, nor do I now believe, that she had thus established her jurisdiction to the ex tent of her claim. But the settlement of her boundary with Mexico was reserved for this Government And this Government, without waiting for peaceful negotiation, proceeded, by force of arms, to assert her rights to the extent of her claim. The then President, Mr. Polk, maintained that her proper boundary rightfully extended to the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source ; and this position was maintained in the act declaring war, by large majorities in both branches of Congress. It did not receive my vote, for I did not believe litto be true. But it received the sanction of i this Government in both the Executive and j legislative departments. The Government of i the United .States, therefore, I consider to be fully committed on this point. I nless we are disposed to disregard the public faith most sol j emnly plighted, we are, in my opinion, es topped bv the record. It was upon the as , sertion of these rights of Texas to the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, that the i war was declared. It was in vindication of j the rights of Texas to extend her jurisdiction, under her laws and constitution, to the limits ol her territorial claim, that the annv was or dered to take a position on tho east bank of the Rio Grande. Tho war was tho conse quence. And now, I ask, if there is anythin'? in the treaty that was made at the end of the war inconsistent with those laws of Texas which tho war was commenced to enforce? So far from it, the treaty affirms the boundary to be tho Rio Grande up to the corner of New Mexico on the other side of the Rio Grande —then turning westward—leaving to Texas, without the slightest restriction, all the terri tory claimed by her. And, moreover, the treaty has a map accompanying it, which is made part of it, and in which the boundary of Texas is clearly and distinctly set forth, as running with the Rio Grande from its mouth to its source. So far, then, from this treaty containing anything inconsistent with tho pre vious laws of Texas defining and asserting her rights, it does seem to mo, upon all the rules of just and fair construction, to affirm and fully establish thoso rights, and utterly to deprive this Government of all pretext of questioning them, except by bold, open and infamous repudiation. Mr. Moore inquired whether the resolu tions of annexation did not leave it to the General Government to determine tho boun dary of Texas ? Mr. Stephens. The resolutions of an nexation conferred upon the General Govern ment the power to settle this question of boundary with Mexico. They give this Government authority or power over the sub ject for no other object, and to no further ex tent. This Government bad no jurisdiction over the matter but with Mexico. She had no power to say to Texas that her limits should be restricted, but in treating with Mex ico there is no clause restricting them. Os course she has no power to restrict them now. Rut, to present the subject to the gentleman in a clearer view, suppose that Mexico had never questioned the right of Texas to the Rio Grande, could this Government ever have done so ? Would wo not havo been bound to maintain her jurisdiction to the ex tent of her limits prescribed by her laws, and to have put down any insurrection against her laws within those limits ? The only con testing party Texas liad was Mexico; and when Mexico ceased the contest, Texas and the United States stood towards each other just as they would have stood if no contest had ever arisen, unless in making the treaty which terminated tho contest, and where the United States only had jurisdiction, some re striction was imposed upon Texas. If such restriction had been inserted in the treaty, of courso Texas would havo been bound by it; for this Government had the power in that way to take jurisdiction over it, but in no other way. And as the treaty does not con tain any such restriction, and as Mexico is no longer contesting, I maintain that Texas and the United States stand towards each other upon this subject now just as they would have stood if the war had never been waged, and Mexico had never disputed her claim. Tho gentleman, I trust, understands me, and feels fully answered. Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, asked If it was not competent for Mexico to assign her interest in the disputed territory to the Uni ted States, and whether tho United States, under tho treaty, was not the assigneo of that interest ? Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, continued.— No, sir. In the articles of union between Texas and the United States, or the resolu tions of annexation, Texas gave this Govern ment no power to become tho assigneo of Mexico. Tho only power conferred was to extinguish the outstanding claim. This Gov ernment assumed the character of an umpire. She had power to settle tho dispute as a dis interested person, but not to become a party to tho controversy. She had no power to purchase the outstanding claim, and to be come the assigneo thereof. And if she had so purchased it, her rights would have been invalid, and tho purchase would havo inured immediately, according to the well-settled principles of law, to Texas, her cestui qui trust. Rut, sir, tho treaty shows that she did not attempt to take an assignment of tho in terest of Mexico in the disputed territory, and to put herself in tho shoes of Mexico in this matter. There are no such words, no such clause, no such intent to be found from the beginning to tho end of that treaty, and no such construction can bo put upon it without committing as great an outrage upon the En glish language as some men seem disposed to commit upon what I now consider to be the indisputable constitutional rights of Texas. These rights have, in my judgment, been thus indisputably established by the action of this Government. Ido not intend now to speak of the policy which governed the public coun sels at that time. It is known that I opposed it to the utmost of my ability. But what was done then cannot he undone now. We have heard a great deal for some years past of the odium of repudiation. And, strange to say, the very men who have been loudest in their denunciation against particular States who failed for a time to fulfil their public engage ments, are now the loudest in their clamors for a total disregard of the pledged faith of the Union. These are the men, also, who are pleased to assume to themselves the title of conservatives. Sir, if I know anything of conservatism, it is that principle which sustains the suprema cy of tho law, which maintains the l ights of all parties under the law, and which never abandons the public faith when once consti- j tutionallv given. This is the nature of my ! conservatism. And could a more shameless spectacle be presented to the civilized world than for this Government, after having gone j to war with Mexico for contending that the rights of Texas did not extend to the Rio j Grande, and after spending all the blood and treasure which was wasted in that war, to ; turn round and commence another equally ; bloody and much more unnatural conflict against Texas for asserting that her rightful j boundary docs extend to that limit ? This is the disgrace, scandal and infamy which some of you, who call yourselves conservatives, \ would bring upon your country. I belong to no snch class of men. I am for abiding for the order of things as I find them constitu tionally existing, until they he constitutional ly changed. If they get too had to he borne without hope of redress, then I shall be for revolution. Rut having been led to say more upon this subject of the boundary of Texas than I in tended, in consequence of the interruptions, I return to the point I was upon. And I again repeat, that if the President should be called upon by Texas to put down illegal re sistance to her authorities within her limits, he would he bound to regard the law of Tex as, defining her boundary, as the law of tho laud on this subject, until it he displaced or invalidated by eomo superior law. The trea- I ty would have been such superior law if it had done it. But it did not. A law of Con gress, with the consent of Texas, would bo such a law; hut none such is in extetefice. Whether a law of Congress alone, without tho consent of Texas, would ho such a law, is not now before us. It will be time enough to discuss that question when it arises. All . that wo now havo before us, is the message announcing tho opinion of the Executive that it is a question that he cannot decide ; but that, until it is decided by competent author ity, he will use force to prevent the extension of the jurisdiction of Texas over territory ly ing within her limits as prescribed by her laws, notwithstanding those laws are not in consistent or in conflict with any superior law; and that he will do this without asking any authority from Congress in addition to that conferred upon him by the acts of 1795 and 1807. I lravo shown conclusively, I think, that thoso acts confer no such authori ty on him. And now, in conclusion, on this branch of the subject, I assert, that if ho at tempts thus, by force, to arrest tho legal au thorities of Texas, it will he a gross usurpa tion of powor which should be resisted. And if you wish to know what I mean by resistance, or how I mean it should bo resist ed, I say distinctly, it should be resisted by arms, as lawless force always should be re sisted, I cannot speak for Texas —I have nO’ au thority to* speak for her—she has men upon this floor who Can speak for her. Rut I haver mistaken the character of her people if tho spirit exhibited at tho Alamo and St. Jacin to would submit tamely to such wanton wrong, The rights and duty of Texas,, to inv mind, aro clear. If tho question he not set tled, she should extend her jurisdiction over this territory—she should pass all laws ne cessary to command obedience to her sover eignty within her limits. And if the execution of those laws should he opposed by force, either on the part of the people residing in the disaffected section or tho army of the United States, sho should meet force with force, let the consequences ho what they may. And no man need delude himself with the opinion, that in such a con flict Texas would ho alone. I have lately ex pressed tho opinion, that “the first Federal gun that shall be fired against the people of Texas, without the authority of law, will be a signal for the freemen from the Delaware to the Rio Grande to rally to the rescue.” And I repeat tho sentiment here (his day. The clangor of battle at Concord, Lexington,- and Bunker Hill, did not more magically arouse every friend of his country, from Massachu setts to Georgia, in the time of colonial wrongs, than the first roar of Federal artille ry, in such a cause, at Santa Fe, will start to arms, at this time, every true-hearted mart south of Mason and Dixon’s line. The for mer Was the beginning of ono Revolution, and it will he well for those to whom the des tinies of this Republic arc now committed, to take care that the latter may not he the com mencement of another. The people m the s’avehohling States of this Union cannot mistake this question. They understand perfectly well that nothing would ever have been heard of this doctrine, of its being the duty of the President to main tain the possession of the United States over this country against Texas, if it had not been that Texas is a slave State. Wo have heard nothing of it in California, or Utah, or New Mexico, tho other side of the Rio Grande, Wo have heard nothing of the obligations of the treaty securing “life, liberty, and religion” to those Mexicans who have fallen within tho dominions of the Mormons, or who have be come a prey to the savages that roam over the immense tracts of country between’ tho Del Norte and the Pacific. No, sir; we havo heard nothing of these obligations of the trea ty, and this doctrine of holding possession by force, without the authority of law, saving in that comparatively small portion of the terri tory lying east of the Rio Grande, which falls within the prescribed limits of Texas, “Lib erty, property, and religion” stand in no need of protection amongst the mixed and motley herd who have flocked to California from all nations and climes—theso sacred rights aro perfectly safe amongst Mormons and sava ges. It is only in slaveholding Texas that they need protection. Now, sir, I say there is no mistaking the issue. And, I tell you, the people of the South will meet it, and they will meet it as freemen “who know their rights, and knowing them, dare maintain them,” Mr. Chairman, It gives me no pleasure to speak in this language. Ido not wish to ho understood as picturing a state of things which would afford me any gratification to behold. lam hut proclaiming disagreeable truths, which public duty requires me to ut ter, lam not insensible to the consequences which would inevitably ensue from such a collision, I am, therefore, as anxious as any man can ho to avert thorn if possible; hut they can never be averted by the policy of this message. I have for a long time looked upon this question of Texas boundary ns tho most embarrassing one before us, and I feel no hesitancy in saying, that I am in favor of a speedy and amicable adjustment of it. I am also for a settlement of all tho other causes of irritation and agitation in the coun try, which now so painfully disturb and dis tract the public mind, as well as the public councils. Rut it is important that we do not deceive ourselves on these questions. I in tend, therefore, to speak plainly and distinct ly to you and the country.’ When we talk of an amicable adjustment, wo may as Well un derstand clearly what we mean by It. Tho President, in his message, notwithstanding this threat of force, urges upon Congress tho settlement of these matters of contention and strife; that part of the message meets my cordial approval. But how are they to be amicably’ settled ? This brings us directly to the principles which must govern our actions— to tho basis upon which we are to agree, I shall give you mine candidly and frankly'. So far as the boundary of Texas is concern ed, I am willing to settle that upon the plan suggested by the President, provided we can agree upon the terms of disposing of the oth er sectional difficulties. We hear a great deal about settlement, adjustment, compro mise, harmony and union. Now, T ani for alt these. lam no enemy to the Union. And those of this House who know much of me, know full well that I mean exactly what I say, I repeat, I am no enemy to the Union—and I am for its preservation and its perpetuation, if it can he done on principles of equality and justice. Attatehment to the Union with mo and with the South generally, I think, is a sen timent of patriotism—it grows out of the re collections of the past, the glories of the pre sent, and the hopes of the future. It arises from no base calculation of dollars and cents But 1 tell gentlemen of the North, it is sot No. 30.