The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 377
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
PUBLISHED BY BLAIR AND RIVES, AT ONE DOLLAR PER SESSION, IN ADVANCE.
28th Cong 1st Sess.
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1844.
Volume 13....No. 23.
[Continued from No. 22.]
pressed, to ripen into a future controversy between
the United States and Wisconsin. What the Sen-
ate gives, let it be done boldly. IF the law were
uncertain without it, the amendment would make it
certain. If it were certain already, the amendment,
after doubts had been expressed in the Senate,
would make it more certain and secure. He hoped
the Senate understood the question. It presented
the single inquiry, whether those who passed the
distribution act meant to abandon its equity and its
policy? Whether they intended to enlarge the do-
nations to new States and Teiritories, whilst the
other provisions of the law were suspended by the
excess of taxation? He desired to have that ques-
tion answered by yeas and nays. He asked for them,
and remarked that he had some other amendments
to offer.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. PORTER remarked that, the other day,
when he alluded to the 8tli section of the distribu-
tion act, it was for the purpose of calling the atten-
tion of the senator from New York [Mr. Tall-
madge] to it, presuming that he had overlooked it;
und not with a view of making any opposition to
the amendment proposed by the senator from North
Carolina. Since lie [Mr. Tallmadge] had exam-
ined into the matter, that senator had coincided with
him (Mr. P.) in opinion, that the 350,000 acres of
land proposed to he granted to the Territory of
Wisconsin should necessarily be deducted from the
500,000, pledged to that Territory under the distri-
bution act.
Mr. ARCHER suggested to the honorable gen-
tleman from North Carolina [Mr. Haywood] that
the time for the special order of the day—the Oregon
question—had arrived.
Mr. HAYWOOD observed that the bill was not
in his hands.
Mr. TALLMADGE hoped that, as the action of
the Senate had already been so long delayed upon
this bill, the question would be taken upon it, and
that it be disposed of
Mr ARCHER said that would interfere with the
purpose of the honorable stenator from New Jersey
in a way that he believed the courtesy of Senate
would not countenance.
Mr. TALLMADGE consented that the bill
should be passed over; and the further considera-
tion of it was accordingly postponed till to-morrow.
POST OFFICE BILL.
On motion by Mr. MERRICK, the bill reducing
the rates of postage, restricting the franking privi-
lege, and to prevent frauds in the revenues of the
Post Office Department, was taken up, and made the
special order of the day for Monday next.
THE OREGON QUESTION.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the res-
olution submitted by Mr. Semfle, in the following
words:
Resolved, That the President of the United States
be requested to give notice to the British govern-
ment that it is the desire of the government of the
United States to annul and abrogate the provisions
of the third article of the convention concluded be-
tween the government of the United States of Amer-
ica and his Britannic Majesty the King of the Uni-
ted Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the
20th October, 1818, and indefinitely continued by
the convention between the same parties, signed at
London the 6th August, 1827.
Mr. MILLER, after a few prefatory remarks,
said he had hoped that what had transpired since
the question was before the Senate would have led
all sides to the conclusion that it would be better
and wiser to postpone further discussion, until there
appeared a necessity for action. The question now
presented itself in two aspects—the first arising
from the resolution offered by the honorable senator
from Illinois, bearing on and affecting in a material
degree our foreign relations; and the second from
the bill reported by the honorable senator from Mis-
souri, which went for immediate occupation of the
Oregon, and in an equal degree affected our domes-
tic policy. One measure depended on the other—
she resolution being a pioneer or make-way for the
bill. He objected to the resolution^, as it appeared
to him an attempt to take the question wholly from
the treaty-making power, and, to settle it by the
premature action of the legislative body. This
was the open arid $volvfed reason given by the in-
troducer of the resolution, and thd goritleirien who
supported his views. They said they did not
wish to trust the rights and interests of the country
to negotiation; they were afraid of being* outwitted
or cheated by diplomacy; they were afraid that the
interests and honor of the country, as far as they
were involved in this question, would be neglected
or injured by leaving them where they were for the
last twenty or thirty years, in the guardianship of
of the executive, checked and regulated as that
executive was, by the very persons expressing sucli
apprehensions. It was as senators expressing a
doubt of themselves; for without the consent of that
body, no treaty could be effected.
A treaty was, he contended, in every sense more
desirable and more safe in this case, than any legis-
lative interference. Let it cotne before them in theft
executive capacity, and then no shadow could be
cast on the honor of thfc country, no sacrifice of the
interests of the people allowed; nor would one inch
of teritory be given up, except it seemed just and Equi-
table to two-thirds of their number. He deprecated
any legislative interference, and called on senators to
reflect on the awkward position they would be placed
in, if—when the matter which, in the course ofevents,
and judging from the past, he hoped would be re-
turned for their consideration in shape of a treaty—
they found themselves, by a former vote, restricted
in a manner from giving to it th:£t impartial and un-
prejudiced attention, which, as a matter of so great
importance, it would require. It was not a subject
that could be terminated in any other way than by
convention; and hence it was unwise and impolitic
to attempt, by any premature legislative interference,
to impede or obstruct its speedy settlement. He
looked on it as a simple question of boundary, and
not as one of general importance on which the na-
tional honor or interests rested. It was not a ques-
tion calling for the surrender of a single inch of ter-
ritory—it was merely to define the point to where
that territory extended. The controversy (if
any) was one relating to two or three degrees
of north lattitude; the value of which was at least
proverbial. The negotiation was not one that, in
any way, could effect the honor or interests of the
country. If allowed to proceed, it could only settle
the exact line of boundary, and establish a land
mark, showing the exact extent of our posses-
sions. He acknowledged the question to be, in
some respects, of importance; but in regard to extent,
it should be considered trifling indeed. The ne-
gotiating parties—England on one side, and Amer-
ica on the other—might be likened to two respecta-
ble farniei s, each possessing from one to two thousand
acres of land, and disputing as to their respective
boundaries being one or two feet north or south of a
certain tree. In this ease, if arbitration was shut
out, the farmers' men might quarrel; blood might be
split, life sacrificed, and the substanoe of both
wasted in the strife. So would it be between those
two great nations, if negotiation was prevented.
Where, then, he asked was the man, endowed with
a common share of wisdom, who, viewing the mas-
ter in this its proper light, would not use all means
not derogatory to the national honor, or injurious
to national interests, to bring it to a fair and
amicable terminus11 He could see _ no reason
for viewing with distrust or suspicion the trea-
ty-making power of this government; let it
be looked into, and nothing will appear to justify a
suspicion of foul dealing or careless action in regard
to the rights of people as settled at any time by the
treaty-making power. The honorable senator from
Illinois expressed himself afraid that, by negotia-
tion, we would lose our rights. Why _ afraid5
When we spoke of the possibility of matching our
strength and courage with others, of meeting the
enemy in the field, when the question was one of
physical force, of life and death,—then were we strong
enough to contend against the strongest nation on
the earth; but, when the controversy assumed an-
other shape—when mind met mind, and statesman
confronted statesman.—then, according to the doctrine
attempted to be inculcated by the supporters of this
resolution, wc quailed like cowards, and, through
very fear, gave up our rights. This, he contended,
was paying a poor compliment to the courage and
intelligence of our distinguished men, from Franklin
to the present day—a continuous link of talent and
patriotism, that for sagacity and honorable shrewd-
ness might vie with the statesmen of any nation on
the facc of the earth.
Mr. M. then commented on the state of the coun-
try at the time of President Harrison's inauguration
in respect to the northeastern boundary. Along
each side of the disputed line stood men armed with
the weapons of death ready to contest their titles.
In England, as in this country, the excitement be-
came intense; and the good and the wise of both
countries saw but one way of escaping from the
mass of serious difficulties that surrounded the ques-
tion. Excitement continued to increase, nntil at
last atl probability of an amicable arrangement was
almost given up as hopeless. Atthis point, how-
ever, the ambassador of peace arrived on our shore*
He was met in a proper spirit; and, from the firsi^
interview in Washington between the members of
the English and American cabinets, but a few short
months elapsed until peace was secured, without in-
fringement on the honor of either nation, and to the
satisfaction of the great bod)' of the people; and the
negotiation that effected that peace would over stand
a bright exanipte to th6 world of what could be done
in settling a matter iiitolving the rights and honor
of a nation, when proper sense and proper feeling
were brought to aia in the settlement- When that
treaty was under executive consideration in the Sen-
ate, a proposition was made by ail honorable sena-
tor from Maine—not now a member of this body—
to abandon the treaty, and to refer it to the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations, with certain instruc-'
lions.
Mr. TAPPAN rose to a question of order. What
passed in executive session could not be referred to
in open debate.
Mr. MILLER. The proposition alluded to was
published, and in the hands of all; it consequently
could be no breach of order to allude to it. That
proposition went on to recommend the President^ to
take possession of the whole country in dispute,
and, by doihg so, put an end to all negotiation; but,
when put to the Senate, it was supported by only
eight votes. The honorable senator from Mis-
souri, [Mr. Benton,]—the cause of whose absencc
from his seat he much regretted—though opposed
in that case, as in this, to all negotiation, yet when
the question was put home to him would not, nor
would those he acted with, (save the eight before
alluded to,) take on themselves the responsibility of
driving the country into a war.
Mr. ALLEN deemed it proper, as the honorable
senator from Missouri was not in his seat, to give
his impressions as to the reasons that influenced
that honorable senator in giving the vote he did on
the resolution read by the honorable senator from
New Jersey. That resolution was for taking pos-
session of the entire territory in dispute: but the sena-
tor from Missouri was only satisfied as to our right
up to what was termed the Dutch line, and therefore
could not vote for the resolution. He distinctly re-
membered the circumstance; for on that occasion, he
differed in opinion with his friend now absent, as he
(Mr. A.) went for taking the possession of the
whole.
He believed he was right in giving this explana-
tion of the honorable senator's reasons; but if he
was wrong, that gentleman, he hoped, would soon
be in his seat, and would then correct any error
which he, or the honorable senator from New-
Jersey, might have fallen into.
Mr. MILLER did not profess to give the reasons
which actuated the senator from Missouri. Ho
found his name in the journal among the nays; and
from that, took his authority. He did not say his
reasons were other than those stated by the senator
from Ohio.
He acknowledged the importance to every coun-
try of having a defined boundary line; and where it
was not, then the duty of government was to settle
it without loss of time; and that settlement,' he
contended, could be only by convention. This wax
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book 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 Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/377/: accessed April 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.