DEBATE IN THE SENATE. _
‘Manna! Due. 22, 1845. '
REMARKS OF MR. HUNTINGTON.
On the Resolutions for the admission of Texas
into the Union, made in the Senate.
Ma. HUNTINGTON said, in substance, as fol-
lows :—I shall vote against these resolutions,
and I desire to assign, very briefly, the T935039
for this vote. I shall occupy a short time only
of the Senate, because I have,.n‘ot the disposi-
tion to prolong this discussion, and, if I had, I
have not the physical ability to indulge in it.—-
These resolut-ioiis will pass ; but I wish not
only to protest, in behalf of the Commonwealth
which I represent, and to record my vote
against their passage, but to state 'u'h_:/ I shall
do it.
My colleague, who‘ has just taken his seat,
has alluded to certain resolutions of the Legis-
lature of Connecticut, passed at its session in
May, 1845, strongly disapproving ofthe preliin-
ary measures adopted by Congress, at its last
session, for the admission of Texas, and con-
demning in the most decided terms his vote in
fiivor of them. My colleague says that he does
not intend to make any issue with the Legisla-
ture, but he was not aware that his vote was in
opposition to the known will of the people of
the State. In my opinion those resolutions do
speak the sentiments and feelings ofa very large .
portion of that people‘; and of this I think there
is the highest evidence. Previous‘ to the pas-
sage of the resolutions of the last Congress, the
citizens of Connecticut had made known their
views, in various ways,- upon the subject of the
admission of a foreign State into the nion.——
They were almost unanimously opposed to it.
After those resolutions had received the sam-
tion of Congress, the annual election was held
in the State and the members of the Legisla-
ture which adopted the resolutions referred to
by my colleague were chosen. It was that
Legislature which passed them, after delibera-
tion and full consideration, and, in the form of a
legislative act, repeated the views and wishes of
that Commonwealth, and in language plain and
unequivocal denounced the resolutions of the
last Congress, and pointedly condemned my
colleague for his views in their favor. In this
act of the Legislature the sentiments of the
great mass of the people of the State were de-
clared. The resolves—all of theni——were such
as those whom they represented expected and
desired should be adopted, and I have no doubt
that they express the settled convictions of a
large majority of the people of the State, when
they state that the vote of my colleague was in
opposition to the clearly expressed will of the
people of Connecticut, and that the resolutions
for which he voted are incompatible with the
spirit of the Declaration of Independence, with
"the compromise of the Federal Constitution,
and with the great purposes for which it is de-
clared by the people to have been ordained and
established.
My colleague says he was not altogether sat-
isfied with the resolutions proposed to be adopt-
ed by Congress, as they came from the House
0! Representat-ives—that they were objectiona-
ble; but, with the amendment proposed to be
adopted in the Senate, he voted for them. Yes,
sir, he did vote for them so amended, and yet
he knew perfectly well that the amendment left
the President at perfect liberty to act upon the
resolutions, independent of the amendment. It
was optional with him to subject the original
or the amended resolutions. I need not say
what was the general expectation and belief as
to which alternative the Executive would adopt,
but we now known he did get independently of
the amendment, as the resolutions authorized
him to do ; and my colleague voted for those
resolutions, considering them, before amend-
ment, as objectionable, and yet with the full
knowledge that the President was at liberty to
exercise his discretion whether he would or
would not submit to Texas the one or the other
of the alternative propositions contained in the
resolutions.
_ My colleague also said that there were no
instructions in terms given to him, and there-
fbre he supposed that he was at liberty, and
that it was intended he should be at liberty. to
exercise his own judgment in respect to the
matter. In erference to this subject, and to
others of like character, it is difficult for one to
perceive how any substantial distiiiction can be
made by those who believe in the doctrine of
instructions (which I do not) between those
cases in which precise and definite instructions
are given, and those in which, in other forms as
V clear and distinct, the, views and wishes of the
people of the State are declared and made
manifest; and why a public servant should pro-
fess to consider the former as binding upon him
and the latter as creating no such obligation.-
Indeed instruction in terms, and assuming a
distinct and definite form, may sometimes be
useless, inasmuch as it is not always the prac-
tice of some who believe in bi-ndinrg instructions
(of which number I am not one) to obey them,
unless they approvesof them. I have deemed
it proper to take this notice of the remarks of
my colleague which were connected with the
proceedings of the Legislature ; and I repeat
that those proceedings are, in my judgment,
fully and entirely warranted by the general feel-
ings and opinions of the citizens of Connecticut.
I now proceed to state my objections to the
resolutions now under consideration. They
declare that the consent of Texas has been giv-
en to the conditions and guaranties contained in
the first and second sections of the joint reso-
lutions approved March, 1, 1845, and that the
people of Texas have adopted a constitution and
erected a new State with a Republican form-of"
government; and therefore they provide that
Texas shall be and is one of the United States,
find admitted into the Uliion on an equal footing
with the original States, in all respects what-
ever; and that, until a new apportionment. is
made of Representatives in Congress, the State
of Texas shall choose two Representatives.
I shall vote against these resolutions for the
same reasons which. induced me to vote against
the joint resolutions of the last Congress relat-v
i.ig to the admission of Texas. I believe that it
is both unconstitutional and highly inexpedient
to pass them. Whether—if the resolutions of
d "March, 1845, contained an express promise and
pledge, that upon the compliance by Texas
with the terms and conditions specified in them,
she should be admitted into the Union—this
Congress could refuse to fulfil that promise and
redeem that pledge, on the ground that those
resolutions were unconstitutional, is a question
I am not called upon, nor is it my purpose, to
consider. I find no occasion to enter into the in-
quiry, whether, in the case supposed, the reso-
lutions ought to be considered by Congress at
this session as having been constitutionally
adopted, because they received the sanction of
Congress at the preceding session, and are on
that account ‘to be treated here as valid and
binding. A Legislature may not have the pew-
er atone session to repudiate the grants or set
aside the executed contracts made at a previous
session, and yet there possibly may be cases (I
do not affirm there are or can be any such)
where a Legislature, at a subsequent session,
_ would be justified in treating acts passed ata
preceding one as void, on the ground of the want
of constitutional power to pass them. For ex-
ample : suppose the resolutions of March, 1845,
had provided that Texas might impose duties
on exports to replenish heintreasnry, or that all
from passing laws to prevent the exaction of the
duties in;the ope case, or to enforce the pay-
ment of them in the other? Such resolutions
would indeed be open palpable violations of the
Constitution, and yet perhaps not more so, in
the opinion of many, than the admission of a
foreign, independent nation’ in to the Union by an
act or resolution of Congress. If it be true that
Congress have no right now to agitate the ques-
tion of constitutional power, in regard to the
procepdings preparatory to the "admission of
Texas, because a previous Congress have dec_l-
ded it, would they have a right to consider it In
either of the cases which I have supposed ?—
And would they be compelled to admit Texas
into the Union, with the asserted right t°l*1."
duties on exports, and import f01.'elgD‘Hl8l'Clltln-
dise free of duty, because the fat]/I» 9/ _ (_707lé’""¢i°-9
has been pledged to give he!‘ ‘#115 Prlvllegea 91‘
this exemption '1 If, however, it should be said
that in_sucli cases the act of Congress is to be
treated as binding by a future Congress, until
set aside by the judicial tribunals of the nation
as being unconstitutional, it may be asked
whether the same principle would be applied
to unconstitutional acts of Congress, which can-
not be reaclied by those tribunals? If the reso-
lutions of March, 1845, had provided that the
State of Texas should have three Senators and
ten Representatives, and she should form a
constitution under such it stipulation and guaran-
ty, would they be binding on this (.‘¢ni_;r:-rss.
It_is difficult to perceive how the courts of
the United States could take cognizance of such
a case; and however clear it is, that such a
stipulation would be a violation of the constitu-
tion, is Congress without power to declare it to
be so? Must the act of the Legislature forever
bind all subsequent? And how can the consti-
tutionality of the resolutions of the last Congress.
ever be settled except by Congress? Can the
Supreme Court of the United States decide it?
If Texas be now admitted, is there any process
known to the law by which she can be compell-
ed to submit this constitutional question to the
judicial tribunals of the country and, if decided
against her, be ejected from the Union ? But
these are matters as to which I express no
opinion. I have merely thrown out these sug-
gestions, but not with the view of affiriiiiiig or
denying the power of Coiigrcss to act upon the
question of constitutioiial law to which refcrciice
has been made. I am under no necessity to
decide this question.
I consider the resolutions of the last Congress
as leaving open the whole subject of annexation
to the judgment and discretion of this Con-
gress. They contain no pledge of admission.-
They make no promise which would be violated
by our refusal to admit Texas. There is no
faith plighted to receive her as a State of the
Union. They give no pledge binding upon a
future Congress as to admission. They simply
assert that Congress “consents” that the people
of Texas may, if they please, with the consent
of the existing govcriinient adopt a republican
form of govcrnincnt, in order that Texas
may be admitted as one of the States of the
Union. This was the extent of these" resolu-
tions. Nothing was_ binding on Texas. She
was at liberty to adopt a Constitution, as she
pleased. She was required to give up the right
of sovereigiity. She was not, until the futuie
action of Congress was had upon the subject,
deprived of any property, or any power, right,
or franchise, which she enjoyed as an indepen-
dent Republic. Her old form of government.
was to remain until Congress should again act.
She is now, and will continue to be, until the
resolution now under consideration assume the
form of law, a nation, a sovereign nation, inde-
pendent of us, owing us no allegiance, and gov-
erned by her own laws, and subject to the per-
formance of no obligation to us as a State of the
Union. She is now acting under the goverii-
merit established by the Republic of Tcxas—
collecting inipost duties of us, as foreigners, and
demanding them even on the provisions (as it
has been said) sent within her limits to support
the troops of the United States which have
been ordered there for her defence. The reso-
lutions simply authorized her, under certain
conditions-, to organize‘ a State Government.—-
They did not promise her admission into the
Union. But I shall forbcar to go at large into
the construction of these resolves on this point.
At the last session, in the remarks which I had
the honor to submit to the Senate, I stated that,
in my judgment, the whole question of annex-
ation would be open to the decision of them
next Congress. I gave my reasons at large for
this opinion. They have gone to my constitu-
ents and to the country, and‘, whether well
founded or otherwise, I have no occasion or de-
sire to repeat them.
Believing therefore, as I do, that the resolu-
tions were not intended to be, and are not, bind-
ing on this Congress, I oppose the admission of
Texas now, as I then opposed the preliminary
steps for her admission. Siir. is NOT HERE IN
A CONSTITUTIONAL war roii ADMlSSION,.AND,
ir SHE was, IT wouno BE HIGHLY lNEXPEDl-
i-:N'r T0 Anisirr HER.
But I shall not take up the tifne of the Sen-
ate in stating at large the reasons of my opposi-
tion to the resolutions of the last Congi'ess.—
They, too, are before the people of my own
State; and, if any remarks of mine in this
Chamber may be supposed to be read by citizens
of other parts of the country, they are before
them also. These reasons governed my vote
then; they (among others) will govern it now.
I shall vote against the resolutions because,
in my judgment, there is a provision in the
constitution of Texas which Congress ought not
to sea'ntion—one which, in its spirit, is aiiti-re-
publican, wholly unnecessary, and calculated,
under circumstances which may exist, to pro-
duce dangerous results, and subvensive of the
compromise of the constitution. I refer to the
1st section of the 8th article. which provides
that “the Legislature shall have no power to
pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without
the consent of their owners." “They shall
foreign goods might be admitted into her ports
free of duty, would the Congress be restrained
have no power to prevent cniigrants to this
State from bringing with theiii such persons as
are deemed slaves by the laws of any of the
United States, so long as any person of the same
age‘ or description shall be continued in slavery
by the laws of this St'zitc‘."’ A provision in the
constitution of Florida somewhat similar to this,
furnished It sufficient reason to induce me to
Speflk and Vote against her admission into the
Union. By this organic law of Texas the eman-
cipation of the slaves is virtually placed out of
the power 0_/‘ the State. I \\'i]] not say 11 Con.
ventioii of her people regularly culled might;
not change this feature in her constitution, and
an amendment to her constitution might alirogate
it; but when I consider how dillicult, if not ini-
possiblc, it is to organize such :1 Convention, and»
especially for such a purpose, and when I look
at the provision relating to ainendineiit—article
7th. section 37th, which declares that “the Log-
islature, whenever two-thirds of each I-louse
shall deem it necessary, may propose amend.
ment.s"—-that these are to be submitted to the
people, and if a majority of all the citizens‘ of
all the State, voting for Representatives, at the
then succeeding election of Representatives,"
shall have voted in favor of the proposed amend-
ments, and two-thirds of each House of the then
next Legislature shall, after such election, and
before another, ratify the same by yeas "and nays,
then they are ‘to be valid as paits of the consti-
tution: provided, that they shall. have been read
.on three several days in each House. It seems
to me quite clear that this provision must and
will remain permanent. Now, I consider this
-most serious objections. It is virtually perpet-
A
uating slavery in Texas. It, in effect, takes
away from the State the power of acting on a
most important subject. If a considerable ma-
jority of the people should desire to abolish
slavery in Texas; if, in their judgment, cir-
cumstances imperiously demand it; if the con-
dition in which they may happen to be placed
require it; if any number less than two-thirds
of the members of two successive Legislatures
should deem it to be necessary in order to pro-
mote the interests of the State, that the Legis-
lature should authorize emancipation, still the
State would be powerless to act on this subject.
4‘T
clause in the Constitution of Texas open to the
unsurmountable, and would of itself be sulficient
to require of me to oppose these resolutions.
Ishall vote against these resolutions, designed
to consummate the annexation of Texas to the
Union, not only because her constitution inhib-
its the Legislature (for _all practical purposes)
from abolishing slavery in the State, but it_ ex-
tends the prohibition to that part of Texas north
of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, known
as the Missouri compromise line, which is con-
trary to one of the conditions specified in the
resolutions of the last Congress, which is, that
—u :'§
support of Mr. Jefl'ei'soii’s and Mr. Mad-
ison's measures. The gentlemai_i.-remin-
ded him of the Knight in Don Quixote,
who insisted u on lashing the Squire for
the ‘sake of
venerated Massachusetts, but he was not-
responsible for.-all the acts of the State.
Here Mr. Adam’s eye kindled with fire,
and he pointed his finger over -the way;
to Mr. Rhett, and said, I am glad to .say'
that it is more from igno:-ance than maligm'-
t1.
and ordered printed.
l in the “State or Suites to be formed out of the
Mr. Culver of N ,' Y. p|'_e__BenledfI'-.¢0l_)'lIl-e.l'_
report. They were both laid oirthe table,
Mr. Yancey of Ala. then spoke" on mg;
is beloved Dulcina. He'_0i-egon question,-the}-louse,havi'ng.- goo.
into Committee of the Wholegg. I-le __\3w_gg
very severe upon Mr. Preston. _King?.,,_o_f
New York, and eloquent in dcffénqe of ME."
Calhoun, who was present iii’:"‘t‘licj' 'Hb'ii'fsiéZ'
He said that the English arrowi sb'iSt’frdi'i'i'
a New York bow though aiinéd--ever'5so"
Wrig/itly, would fall at his 7feet,- and--he
Mr. Rliett then took up the W'estei-n and would vscorn them»-as the miserable insecur-
In short. for all Practical Pui'p0Ses connected l said f6I'1'lt°")'v “(Mb .01‘ said Missouri .c°mpmm'
with emancipation, the State has deprived it-lise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (ex-
self of the power of acting, and the owners of cept for crime) shall be_pi'ohibited.:’ The whole
slaves are the sole judges whether slavery is to of the territory,_ which is propci'lyi_ncludcd with-
continue, or whetlierit. maybe abolished. This I in, and of right belongs to Texas, is to be erec-
is not in accordance with the general feelingited into ii new State. No other State (‘.1111 be
throughout the country. It is, in its nature, op- formed from it witl‘ioiit the consent of '1 exas 3
posed to the genius and nature of its institutions. and the coiistitutioii wliichlias been subniitted
It is a new principle introduced into, and made to us deprives the State, through its Legisla-
a part of, the organic law of a State,and which,
ought not to be tolerated, because it is not only
novel, but dangerous and anti-republican. The
State is sliorn by it of important, and, as the
case may be, of necessary powers, and the in-
stitution of slavery made perpetual, it may be,
in opposition both to its wishes and its interests.
I have on more than one Occasion, in my place
here, declared that no one will go further than
I will, to sustain the guarantees and comprom-
ise of the constitution as they now exist. And
I speak not for myself only, but for the Com-
monwealth I represent: but neither I nor
her citizens are bound to go beyond them, and
further in relation to this subject they will not
go. In connexion with what I have already
said, it will not escape the notice of the Senate
that the same restriction as to emancipation
which is imposed on the Legislature, in respect.‘
to the slaves of those who are now citizens of
Texas, applies to slaves who are “bona-/ids
property” of emigrants to the State. The lan-
guage of this provision _ is somewhat peculiar.
I will not say, for I do not know, that there was
any attempt to use language which might be
considered of doubtful interpretation; but it is
quite manifest that the phrascology, viewing it
most favorably, is equivocal : “The Legislature
‘sliall have no power to prevent emigrants to
‘this State from bringing with them sncli per-
‘sons as are deemed slaves by the laws of anyof
‘the United States, so long as any persons of
‘the same a go or description shall be continued ‘
‘in slavery by the laws of this State : provided
‘that such slave be the bona fitlc property of
‘such einigraiits.”
“Eiiiigrunts to this State,” is the expression.
“"110 are eiiiigriiiits ? Are they citizens of the
United States only? or are they foreigners al-
so ? If a- planter removes from Cuba to Texas,
is he not an immigrant into Texas ? and if his
slates are bona fide his, and would be deemed
slaves by the laws of any of the United States,
and persons of the same age and description are
continued in slavery by the laws of Texas,would
the Legislature have power to prevent such
iiiimigriition ‘.7 If not, then the clause ought not
to receive the sanction of Congress, because in
such case it would justify the importation ofslavcs
from a foreign cou.ntr_1/. If, however, there was
no intention to admit slaves from other nations
into Texas, it is evident their iminigration from
other States is not only encouraged but practi-
cally guarantied. It was not enough, in the
view of the‘ Cbnveiitioii, to prevent cmancipa-
tion, b_1/a law ofthe State, of the slaves of their
own citizens, but of all such who might come
with their owners from other states. I cannot
vote for the admission of a state into the Union
whose constitution thus ciirtails what has been
insisted, is the legitimate authority of the state,
acting by its Legislature. The same spirit of
inhibition to the action ofthe Legislature is inan-
ifestcd in another part of the constitution. In
the first section of the Bill of Rights, article 1,
it is declared that the people “have at all times
‘the unaliciible right to alter, rq/‘o-rm or abolish.
‘their form of governinent, in such manner as
‘they may think expedient :” and in the 22d
section of the same article it is provided that.“to
‘guard against transgressions of the high powers
‘herein delegated, we declare that every thing
‘in this ‘Bill of Rights,’ is excepted out of the
‘general powers of the government, and shall
‘ever remain inviolatc; and all laws contrary
‘hereto shall be void.” This provision excludes
the Legislature from exerting any power to pre-
vent the people from changing their form ofgov-
ernment, and this Congress, by receiving Tex-
as into the Union with such constitutional pro-
vision, would seem, by application at least, to
acknowledge her right to change her form of
government, “in. sucha manner as" she “may
think e.rpealient."
It may be true that such provisions are to
be found in the constitutions of some of the
states, (although I have not examined them with
this object,) made while‘ they were independent
States; and it is possible“ they may have been
introduced into some which have been framed
since, but after their admission into the Union :
but it is certainly novel that a State, about to
come into the Union, should make it a part of
her fundamental law that the people may change
their form of government and make it what
they please, ‘(a monarchy, for example.) and
that Congress should be asked to receive such
a State, with a constitution containing such ii
clause, as a constitution securing a republican
form of government. It would seem‘ that the
convention of Texas intended to reserve, not
the power, in arevolutionary spirit, to secede
from the Union, if she could succedo in ef-
fecting it, after changinglier form of govermiient,
but to have it constitutionally, or at least with
the implied assent of Congress, whenever she
should deem some other form than a republi-
can form of government most expedient for her
people‘. I refer to this part of the constitution,
however, not to insist upon it as a ground of ob-
jection-——-for I think, notwitlistanding tliisclanse,
Congress would have the power, and it would
be its duty, to hold Texas to her constitutional
duties, as a member of this Union, with a re-
publican form of govei-nment—but to exhibit the
very unusual restrictions imposed upon the Leg-
islature of Texas.
I shall vote against these resolutions for an-
other reason, and one which has already been
suggested in this debate. I consider theadmis-
sion of Texas upon the terms and considerthe con-
ditions specified in the act of March, ’-45, as pro-
ducing an unjust and unreasonable inequality in
the representation of the free and of the slave
States. It introduces aforeign nation into our
Union with all the privileges of the slave States.
under our present constitution, as to representa-
tion in the House of Repi'esentatives,giving her
a decided advantage in respect to political pow-
er, over the free States. The constitution does
not require this surrender, on the part of the
free States, of another portion of tlieirjust pow-
er in the councils of t.lie nation. No principle
of justice or honor requires it; and, represen-
ting as I do one of those States, I can never con-
sent to such a surrender. \Vhile the people of
Connecticut will rally around and support the
constitution as it is, with all its compromises and
guaranties, they will do no act, nor would they
justify one in doing an act as their representa-
tive, which would make this representative in
equality greater and greater, by the introduction
successively of four more slave States, to be
carved out of the State of Texas. But I will
not enlarge upon this.‘ Ithas already been ex-
.ture, of abolishing slavery in any portion of the
‘present territory of Texas.
It substantially
_ guaranties to sluvelioldcrs who noware,orlierc-
'after may become, citizens of Texas now inclu-
lded within her rightful limits; and the Sen-
late is asked to admit her ‘into the Union with
such a constitutional provision, and to sanction
it by consenting to her admission. I cannot
;comply with such a request. I cannot agree to
la. proposition which is at varience with the spir-
‘ it of the resolution of the last session, and which
. it seems to me, will virtually continue the insti-
ltution of slavery in every partof Texas, or which,
but least, will forever prevent the formation of II
Tfree State within any part of its present limits,
and that, too, with the license mid approbation of
' Congress. _ _ _
I shall vote against these resolutions because
Ethcy allow Texas to have two Representatives
‘in the House of Representatives, which, in my
ljudgment, is contrary.as well to the letter as
the spirit of our constitution. So far as anyev-
idcnce (none within my recollection) has come
to my knowledge of the amount of her popula-
ltion, the number might as well been twenty as
jtwo. It would seem to be an arbitrai_'y number,
‘and, unless her fcderal.n,iiinl)ers justity, it is un-
leqiial and tlierefore unjust. It was necessary
.wlien the people of the United States made the
New York Locofocos and handled them
pretty roughly.‘|- -
There had been talk of rumors of games,
&c. He, too, had heard of rumors, and
he would mention some of them. Hcrel
Mr. Douglass of lll. wished to explain, but_
Mr. Rhett refused to waste his time. It’
was rumored that the VVest wished _to,
plunge this country into war in a species
of political gambling with the lives, liber-
ty and blood of the people to make a Wes-
tern man next President.
lt was rumored, too, that the New
York section of the party now in power
wished to take vengeance on the Smith
for having defeated their candidate at Bal-
timore, and therefore they would deluge
this country in blood to clothe their favo-
rite in imperial purple.
The South would not be wanting in
Patriotism whenever danger came. lfwar
did come the South would be found in the
thickest of the battle. But he protested
against a war ofagression. Every Repub-
lic that has gone for foreign aggrandize-
ment has fallen. He did not wish a
similar fate for this Government. The
West might well clamor for war. They
were never to see a British soldier in their
part of the country while the sea-board
would have to bear all the loss. Still he
did not doubt the patriotism of the ‘Vest.
He did not believe Negotiation at an
end—He was not for war till that war be-
present constitution, that every State, each of
which was iiidcpeiidcnt, should have least
one Representative : but in the adinis-s:on of
new States, the rule specified in the COllSl37tll-
came imperative for National Honor.
Mr. Sims of Mo. went for all Oregon or
noiie—-nmv or never.
tion is to govern, and such has been the practice.
In the appointment of its Representatives, a
State is to be subject to the ratio prescribed by
law. In no other mode can the provision of that
instrunieiit, in this particular be carried out.
' In the abscencc of evidence known to me,
sufficient. to satisfy me that Texas has a pop-
ulation wliicli, applying the existing ratio, would
Mr. Hilliard of Ala. having obtained the
floor, the House adjourned.
'I'ui:si)«i', Jan. 6
In the Senate there was little done by
this body do-day. They have literally
notliiiig before them. After some unim-
give her two Representatives, I cannot sanction,
by my votc,her admission on these unequal terms.
If she is to be placed on any other footing than
that; of equality with the other States of the
Union, which are subject to the ratio prescribed
by law, no more than one Representative should
be allotted to her in the election of Reprc.'-:ciita-
tives to Congi-ess. If the number of votes re-
cently given in Texas on the question of annex-
ation, and on the adoption of the constitution, be
any just criterion by which her present popula-
tion is to be estimated, she is far from being en-
titled to come into the Union at all, even with
one Representative, for want of the requisite
federal numbers; for it appears tliattliere were
only about 4,400 votes given on either of the
prcccding matters submitted to the people of
Texas—and a government which does not know
how much oflicr public lands has been legally
granted, and of course is ignorant of the quanti-
ty, if any, which remains subject to her control,
and is also ignorant of the amount of her public
debt, cannot. be expected to furnish very full cv-
portant business, they went inty Executive
session.
In the House, Mr. Haralson's Resolu-
tions for raising two Regiments of Rifle-
iiien was referred to the Committee of the
Whole. It was upon this that Mr. Adams
made his speech on Friday last.
Mr. McConnell of Ala. moved a series of
Resolutions for the annexation of Ireland
to this Country ! No action was taken
upon them, but they were read from the
Clerk’s desk. ‘
Mr. P. King ofN. Y. made some explan-
ation of his speech. He as -cried that
there was stiong ground for belieftliat Mr.
Calhoun had promised to surrender part of
Oregon to England, if England withdrew
her opposition to the Annexation of Texas.
Mr. Rhett said that if rumor had said
that Mr. Calhoun had openly made this
bargain or stipulation, it w:.s false.
idence of the number of her people. If, howev-
er, she is to be admitted as a State ofthe Union,
she is entitled to one Representative only, and
to one should she be limited. The resolutions
allow her two, and I cannot vote for them.
I have thus, Mr, President, very brietlystated
some of the reasons which will govern me iiii
Mr. Hilliard, of Ala. having the floor
éffom yesterday made a very eloquent and
{able speech on the Oregon Question, in-
sisiing on the whole of it and for immedi-
‘ate action. He proposed to amend the
Resolution of the Committee on Foreign
that crawled there. A i .. . _
Mr. C. B. Smith of la. spoke against
the notice, and made some pl_ayl_u!reiria_i-i‘(p_ _
in reply to the speech of Mr. Baker oflll.
A great many members w'e'_ife upzfortlic
floor when Mr. Smith had”‘concluded.-__—-
The floor was given to Mr. Cobb of Geo.
The Committee then rose and the House‘:
adjourned. A ._
THURSDAY, Jan. 8,
Executive Sessions. _ W .
Mr. Allen gave notive today of an
amendment to his bill for terininating the
Joint Occupancy, making1'tlie. action of
President. After being in session a short
time the Senate went into. Secret Session.
After the opening of the:House, Reports
were called from the several Committees.
The Committee on the Military report-
ed a bill re-establishing the__ot'lice of Second
lnspector-General of the army. Passed.
The Committee of \Vays and Means re-
ported the usna' appropriation bills for the
Army and Navy, Indian Department, and
Diplomatic Expenses for the year ending
June 30, 13-17. ~
The Committee of \Vays and Means re-
ported a resolution calling upon the Sec-
retary of \Var for information relative to
Mineral land leases.
The New York Branch Mint question
was reported to the Committee of Ways
and Means. v ' =
After some other less important trans-
actions the House went into Committee
of tlie Vlfliole on the Oregon Question.
Mr. Cobb of Georgia, however, having
the floor, addressed the House in favor of
the notice. He is a member of the Com-
miitee on Foreign Relations.
He was followed by Mr. Clernand of Ill.
on the same side.
The Committee tlien rose, Mr. Giles of
Md. having the floor, and the House adj._
FRIDAY, Jan. 9.
The Senate did not sit. to-day, having adjourn-'
ed over from yesterday till Monday.
The House spent the morning hour in receiv-
ing reports, notices of bills, &c. " _
Mr. McConnell gavenotice of -his intention to
introduce a bill to repeal the black Tariff of '42.
hlr. Culver, of N. Y., gave notice of a bill to
be introduced by him on some future occasion
for the prospective abolition of Slavery in the
District of Columbia. '
Mr. McConnell gave notice of a motion__ to
grant every white man 160 acres of land who
may be willing to work it. ‘ f
Mr. J. Q. Adams gave notice of a billto abol-
ish Custom House oaths:and also to abolish cap.-
ital punishment under the U. S. Laws. _
The Committee of \Vays and Means report-'
ed a bill making appropriations for Revolutionary
and N uvy Pensions.
Mr— Bowlin of Mo. introduced a bill to estab-
lish a Territorial Government over Oregon.‘
Mr. I-loge of Ill. introduced a bill for the im-
provement of the Mississippi River. ,
After some other bnsiiicss of "this kind, the
House resolved itself into a Committee of the”
VV hole.
The Senate spends most of its time in".
Congress final wiiliout the action of the"
the vote wliichl shall give against the passage Affairs by making it read that the Presi-
ofthese resolutions. I will not, indeed I have dent be empowered to give notice of the
not strength to go further. The resolutions will ,,._.,.mi,,,,,;0n of joint occupancy “vlicnm.-er
certainly pass—aiid in what I have said, I have he Sm“ deem ,he public safety demands.
expressed the opinions of a large portion of thci The House the" voted on we mmion ,0
people of Connecticut. I have endeavored to‘ . ‘h fi J
discharge my duty to them, and to the country - make ll‘ ‘be “Id” 0f ‘he day lb" 9 I‘
as iin American Senator, and now take leave of M0"d3)' lfl _Fel"'U=1|'__Y - Yeas 102. Nays 83-
tfio subject, Not two-thirds, so it was not referred.
_ .. The House then went into Committee
CONGRESSIONAL. of the Whole, Mr. Tibbatts of Ky. in the
llloxmv Jan. 5.
Chair.
Mr. Bowlin of Mo. spoke liis hour in
The Senate was only about lialfan hour‘
in session to-day. There was very little
favor‘ of the Notice.
Mr. Yancey having obtained the floor
business transacted. the House adjourned’
Mr. Niles reported a Joint Resolution “”"”""‘"""’ 'l‘"'' 7’
feoulnting the Printing of Congress, and In the Senate, Mr. Calhoun rose and
also a bill to eslublishopost-routes to Tex- asked 10 be 830"-‘ed fwm serving 95 Cllillf‘
as. The Senate then adjourned. man of the Committee on Finance, which
In the House, after the Journal was_\vas granted, and Mr. Speight, of Missis-
read, Mr. C. J. lngcrsoll, Chairman of the islppls flllpfllnled his 5‘9_‘“l-
Committee on Foreign Relations, repoi-tedl 'l he bill f0l‘ raising regiments Of mom?‘
a resolution advising the President to give ' led Tlflemen “'35 wk?“ “P. and amended-
the notice to Great Britain of the termi-‘S0 11810 8pp|'0P|‘i8l€ $75,000 I01‘ eflUlP'
nation of the Joint Commercial Occupa-ments; $3000 for each stoc -ade fort; and
tion. He moved that it be made the Spe- :$‘.’.O0O for the purchase from the Indians
cial Order of the Day for the first Monday ‘Of Sites f0? the f0|'t- Ordered f0l' 8 third
of February. rending- O
Mr. Davis of Ky. read a minority i'e- Mr. Benton declared the bill essentially
port, declai-ing:that this House has noth- :8 pence m88SllI'e- _
ing to do with it. That the subject is al The Senate then took up the bill to es-
proper one for _the action ofthe President tablisli forts in Texas,.and had it under
imd the '1‘,-eoty mojoi-ity of the Senate. lconsideration when this report closed.
A motion was made to make it the or-E Mr. Webster has returned from the
der of the day to-morrow. ;East, and resumed his seat in the Senate.
Mr. Giddings of Ohio made a speech in! In the HOUSE, Mr. Rhett made an ex-
favor of the notice. He was very severe pli\l1=Itl0n Of his charge that Mb -I- Q- A(l°
upon the gentleman who voted to acquire ams had opposed the last war, and read
and have territory in ‘runs and su|-render‘l.|_'Ol”|'l Mr. A’s. published sentiments at the
the free territory in Oregon. He expres-itlmth
sed his opinion that Mr. Polk would yetr M|'- Adams rose, and replied at muzb
beg,-fly his party on this question. ,length, and with stri--ing severity. He
Mi-, Rhett of SC, took tho floor, and gave a most interesting history: of his
made a strong speech against the washlwhole course; in relation to the last war,
measures now precipitated by the -—Wai-libccause he wished the arbitration to be left
party in Congress. He had voted this with Alexander of Russia, then was Madi-
mofning in Committee agaipst the Rgsc SOD and llls cabinet, that accepted that
oiutioii for the Notice, ‘-“ arbitration and the Congress which had
He said no war but offensive --war would , 8Upported:Madison in what he did.——
be justifiable. If we go to war about Or-;Mr Adams sarcasms upon Mr. Rhett were
egon, we can never get it till we vp_pquish'teri'ible, and had an eclectric effect upon
England on every sea and continent}? the House-
Mr. Rhett made some allusions Mr.
Adams-—that he was opposed to the last
war.
. Mr. Adams asked if the gentlemen
charged him with opposing the last war.
Mr. Rhett.—l do.
Mr. Adams.—-'-Then the gentleman is
mistaken—— (Laughter-.) .
Mr. Rhett reiterated his opinion.
M r. Adams said that the gentleman from
S. C. might not know the history of one
so humble as liimself,-but he should not
misrepresent him. ~ He was appointed
hausted. This objection, in my judgment, is‘,
ylllinistcr to Russia by ‘Mr. Madison for his
Mr. Rhett made a rejoinder as good as
could be expected under the circumstan-
ces, and which commanded very general
attention. _ ,
Mr. Holmes of S. C. introduced a res-
olution autliorizing the erection of the
Washington Monument on the Public
Grounds in the Washington City. Road
three times and passed. I’
Mr. Hamlin of Me. from the Committee
on Elections, of which he is Chairman,
reported a resolution’ taking the‘ seat from
Mr. Cabell, the sitting Member from Flor-
Mr. Giles of Md. addressed the,Qo'1ii-
mittce in favor of tho Natives. ‘
ed by Dir. Levin of Pa. on the same side.--
Nothing remarkable in either of the speeches.
Mr. R. M. T. Hunter of Va. obtained the
floor. The Committee rose and the House
adjourned. '
SATURDAY, Jan. 10.
In the House a bill was reported to regulate
appointments and promotions in the Revenue
service. Some inquiries were inovod as to the
condition of our Navy. - ..
Mr. Hudson of Mass. brought to the notice
of the House an article in “the Union,” reply-
ing to Mr. H's. complaint that the Messages
were not furnished in season by the Printers.
The article, which is signed by Mr. Heiss, was
sent to the Chair and read.
Mr. G. Davis moved to dismiss Mr. Heiss, as
Printer, on the ground that the article was dis-
respectful to the House, or one of its members.
The Speaker decided that the motion was in
order, as a question ofprivilcge. The ‘decision
was objected to, but sustained. «
Mr. G. Davis then commenced speaking.
Mr. McConnell here became boisterous, and
said if Mr. D. volunteered for Mr. Hudson, it
was a dirty business, and in dirty hands.
The Chair called loudly to order.
Mr. Davis said he had nothing to say to a
drunken blackguard. ‘
The Chair again called to order.
riidcncss into which he had been in the excite-
ment of the moment led.
Finally, the subject was laid on the table till
Monday. .
The Oregon notice was further discussed in
Committee.
Mr. R. M. T. Hunter, of V irginia made a
capital speech in opposition to the notice, and
Mr. A. Kennedy against it. - -
Tiii: Coimsi: or Ma. ADAMS.——0n this
subject the Boston Atlas says :
“\Ve regret to be compelled to say that
momentous question-—momentous only
because it may possibly involve our coun-
community ; and that the deepest regret
is expressed, in quarters where the highest
his sense of duty should have led him _to
a course so likely to be mischeyions in ‘Its
results, and so entirely at "'_1“’“‘"_°e “’"_l‘
the feeling and opinions of his friends in
his own State.” .
cogflagration at Rome, JV‘. Y.—A fire
broke out in the town of Rome, on Tues-
day morning the 6th inst. which laid thirty
buildings in ashes, and destroyed a con-
siderable amount of ‘property. ‘The ex-
tent of the conflagration was owing to the
inefliciency of the Fire Department.
.N'am'ga!i'on Still 0pen.—The steamboat
Utica has been playing daily between
Newburgh and New York for the past ten.
ids, and giving it to Mr. Brockcnbrougli.
days.
He'was follow-= . .
Mr. Davis asked pardon of the Chair_ for the A
the course taken by Mr. Adams, on this '-
try in war—is not responded to by tllil ..
regard is entertained for Mr. Adams, that ‘
___*‘
Norwalk Chronicler