The southern press. [volume], August 29, 1850, Image 2

About The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

THE SOUTHERN PRESS.
_ AUGUSt ?, 1850.
/uiL Y, 7 "V . ... TrT ~ ~7~: 7 $10 00
TBI-WEEKLY 5 00
WEEKLY, 2 00
SPEECH OF
Hon. H. MARSHALL, of Kentucky.
In the limine of Representalires, Thursday, August
15, 1850, on the President's Message, of
August 6. 1850, concerning Texas and New
Mexico.
The House having resolved itself into Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union,
and taken up for consideration the Civil and \
Diplomat it- Appropriation Bill?
Mr. MARSHALL Addressed the Cliair, iia fol- j
lows:
Mr. Chairman : The message received by the j
House of Representatives from the President of <
the United States in relation to the boundary l>e- j
tween Texas and New Mexico, has elicited so
much criticism and from so many quarters, that
I shall not repress my inclination to express the
view 1 entertain of the doctrines it presents, and
the legislation which it invites. 1 cannot regard
the power asserted by the message to i>e resident
in the Executive arm of this (government, us an
assumption in violation of the Constitution, because
1 have not understood the message itself
to claim so much as do some of the friends of its
author. I cannot sanction that construction of
the Constitution which draws to the I'resident
the power to use the army and navy, without the
warrant and direction of law, merely because lie
is clothed with the title of 44 commander of the
army and navy," and charged 44 to see that the
laws lie faithfully executed." One view of his
power requires no law to enable the President
o use the regular army 44 to execute the laws
if the Union." This view seems to bo preservitive,
at least, of the efficiency of the Executive;
but when wo reflect that " the government and
regulation of the land and naval forces" is expressly
confided to Congress by the Constitution,
and that our ancestors were especially jealous
of the retention of power by the Executive
Chief?indeed when we recur to the history of
the (institution, and the action of those statesmen
who gave impulse aud direction to our system,
we must repudiate and reject this construction.
The President derives his powers from the
Constitution. They areconfcrredon him directly
or as the delegated instrument to carry out
powers conferred originally on Congress. The
President has power to command the army and
navy, fur instance; Congress cannot deprive him
thereof, so long as Congress may think proper
to maintain an army or nary; but it by no means
ft>l lows that, having the command, be possesses
the power to direct either to exeute his own
pleasure. The commander can only use them
in oiteditnee to the lam. If this be nut the proper
construction, why was the law of 1807 enacted?
This conferred on the President the right to
use the land or naval forces whenever, by law,
he could call out the militia. This legislation
negatives the idea that the constitutional right
pre-existed, independent of legislation. The
power to call the militia into the service of the
U nited~8tatea is vested expressly in Congress,
by the Constitution, and the objects for which
they tnay bo so called are defined. (See 8th
section, art. 1st, of the Constitution.) "Congress
shall have power to provide for cnlling
forth a militia to excute the laws of the Union,
suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." At
thfc second Congress, the bill uto organize the
militia" being under consideration, the Senate
proposed an amendment in these words:
"Tlmt the President of the United States is
hereby authorized to call out the militia, orsuch
part thereof ns the exigence may, in his opinion,
require, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress
insurrections, and repel invasions."
Kut. flir PnmrrAafi wmilil nut rtfiau fhuf nmnnrl
incut .It was lost by n vote of 37 to 20; nntl
among those who retuaed the power I perceive
the names of Jauies Madison, Fisher Ames, HV
bridge Gerry, and Macqn. The debato upon
that proposition at that day, and by such men?
men familiar with the intent of the frainors of the
Constitution, is worth more than all the reasoning
we can hestow upon the meaning of the Constitution,
nt this day. A committee was immediately
raised, and in a few days a bill was reported
uto provide for calling out the militia to repel
invasions, suppress insurrections, and to execute
the laws of the Union." I have examined the
debate upon the passage of that law?the act of
1792.
The different sections of the act provide for the
different cases in which the power may be exerted.
The provisions indicate the wisdom of
our fathers, and their jealousy of the liberties of
the people. The first section provides for the
case of invasion. As this must proceed from an
external foe, the President is invested with the
discretion to judge of the necessity of action; and
with full power as to the amount of force to be
called, the time, and the exigency. 2d. To suppress
insurrection. As this must proceed from
an internal foe, the President is no( authorized to
make the call, except upon demand by the authority
of that State in which the insurrection
appears. He cannot move of his own accord.?
3d. To execute the laws of the Union: As this
power was to be exerted, iw aid only of the civil
potter, Congress was particularly cautious to place
as many limitations and restrictions upon it as were
at all consistent with the efficient exercise of it.?
1st. The duration of the use is limited?the power
ceases in the hands of the President at the expiration
of thirty days from the meeting of Congress.
2d. The object of the use is specified?it can only
be called into action " when the laws are opposed
or their execution obstructed by combinations too
powerfril to be suppressed by the ordinary course
of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in
the inarshls." So cautious was the second Congress,
that the President was not suffered to judge
in this case of the exigency which should awaken
this power in his hands into action. The law provided
that he could only call forth the militia when
the district judge notified him of the happening
of the contingency, and then he commenced by
proclamation to the insurgents or conspirators,
requiring them to desist from their unlawful proceedings,
by a time specified in his proclamation.
Such, Mr. Chairman, were the guards thrown
nrounii uiih nxmiuuc power in me earner anu
better days of the Republic. They teach us, beyond
the possibility of cavil, that the President
in to exercise this power only in aid of the civil
power, and after that has, in rain, exhausted effort
tv maintain and execute the laws ! What is the
power of the marshals thus to be exerted, before
the military force is resorted to? The power of
the sheriff. And this ? To summon the paste
romitatus, when necessary to execute process, to
suppress riots, to prevent breaches of the peace,
dec. That is the extreme exertion of the civil
power; where that ceases to be efficient, the resort
to force should be, and Metre the poicer of the President
commences
Tne President of the United States refers to the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as a lair which is to
be executed. Sir, this in most true. But how
executed ? By force of arms ? Do gentlemen
pretend that the President threatens the use of
' arms as a force to which lie will resort, instanter,
to compel the execution of this law, according to
his construction thereof, before any individual
right under the treaty shall have been assailed,
and before the civil authority shall have made an
effort to protect that right ? Do gentlemen pretend
to understand the President as declaring that
under the law of 1795, he will resort to the use of
a military force, beforfc the power of the marshal
?ImI1 have been exhausted ? Sir, he says no such
thing; on the contrary, a critical examination of
the message will prove that his allegation run,
yuatuor jtedibus, with the law. Mark his expression:
" These several enactments are now in full force;
so that, if the laics of the United States are opposed
or obstructed hp combinations too junrerful to be
suppressed by the judicial or civil authorities, it becomes
a case in which it is the duty of the President
to use the military, Ac.
Again: when he puts the case of the Texas militia
you will perceive he says, " if within such
State or Territory they obstruct any law of the
United "States, either by power of arms or mere
power of numbers, constituting such a combination
a* is too powerful to be suppressed by the civil axMhoity,
the President has no option," Ac. Ajga in: j
bpeaking of a civil posse entering the Territory,
be anys, " and if this posse be too powerful to be resisted
by the loeat civil authority, such seizure or attempt
to Reire m to be prevented or (resisted," Ar.
ggggggf 111 II * ?m
Again: in speaking of the 9Ut article of the treaty,
j lie save, " and this supreme law being in fotee,
if it be obstructed or resisted bg n ti i f i 1111 11 too
i powerful to he suppressed by ^flli if authority, the
case is one which obliges the President,''&< . The
feature most prominent to the meaaage is q*ie indicative
of the senaa of the President that this
military power is only to be exerted in aid qftko
rivil power aud after the civil power shall have been
exhausted.
I agree with him that the treaty of Hidalgo is a
supreme loir, and that the Mexicans embraced by
that treaty are entitled to the benefits of the 9th
article thereof. But I do not agree with some
here that the Executive is to expound that law
aud enforce his construction bu force of arms.
I ajn asked, "if a New Mexican should be kidnapped
and carried into Texas to answer to a
i tiHrtf* nf k?vi..? ?,?U.~I - 1 -? '!? ' ?i?
n .<r> T.w.mtu II in w VI ICJlOfl, vviiai
course should be pursued ? The treaty in such
cjibp, would vindicate itself in the court of Texas,
by affording the protection it promises, through J
the instrumentality of the State court, so soon hm I
the Mexican identified himself as a person covered
by the treaty. The civil authority of the United
States extends over every State, and is present in
every State tribunal. '1 he treaty of Hidalgo is
h* much the law of Texas as it is the law of the
United States; and the Texas judge is required to
enforce it, brfore he will enforce any law of Texas
conflicting with it. But, should his decision be
adverse to the claimant under the tteaty, the right
of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States is reserved to the claimant, and he cannot
be deprived of his privilege under the treaty, by
the decision of any court in the length and broadth
of the land, so long as the Supreme Court remains.
If the treaty is a law, the Supreme Court
is always open for the enforcement of that law,
und its jurisdiction extends to the uttermost boundaries
of the Stales and Territories. In cases
arising under a treaty, it is certainly coextensive
with the uuthority of the Executive, under the
Constitution. I imagine, when the eiyoyment of
liberty and property was promised by the treaty
of Hidalgo, 110 more was meant than that the
means of redress for any infraction of, or invasion
of these enjoyments was guaranteed. The citizen
is assured the same privileges in almost every bill
of rights, yet no man ever dreutned that one, arrested,
could look for more than an appeal to the
civil tribunals for protection, and damages for an
invasion of his rights. I have shown that the
courts of the States afford this redress, should the
party be brought to trial in the States for any of
fence to which his privilege, under the treaty, is
properly pleadable in bar.
As the President is, by profession, a lawyer, I
am not willing to assume or suppose that his mind
excluded the consideration of this plain peaceful
remedy for the reclamation of invaned individual
right, or that his message contemplated the employment
of military force, in the supposed case,
until the legal remedy shall have been exhausted;
and that can only be exhausted, so as to justify
the employment of military force, when the mandate
of the Supreme Court of the United States,
protecting the right under the treaty, shall be resisted,
in a State, by the powerful combination
i denounced by the statute. It will be admitted that
this contingency is too remote to alarm our apprehensions
of any immediate collision, so long as
the Chief Magistrate shall use the army only in
aid of the civil power.
The question of Executive duty under the treaty
of Hidalgo is replete with difficulty, in the present
condition of New Mexico. Place what construction
you think proper upon the obligation of
the President to " see the laws faithfVilly executed,"
and his action must be subject to criticism
by those who wish to criticise. If the President
is obliged to see this " supreme law" executed,
" how far shall he proceed in discharging this duty
?" What is meant by the " protection in the
enjoyment of liberty, property, and religion," as
guaranteed by the treaty?- Suppose a New Mexican
to be ejected from his domicil by a mob, ur.d
beaten, shall the military commandant undertake
to restore him ? If so, he is as much obliged, by
the same laws, to restore him if, instead of a mob,
the trespassers were two of his neighbors. This
would resolve the military into a constabulary
force to preserve the peace between the New Mexicans,
and tlie officers into judges, whose time
would be mainly employed in hearing cases of
forcible entry and detainer, or cases of assault and
battery.
Now, nil will admit that the President's obligation
"hath not this extent." The President
cannot be present to execute these minutiaj of
the administration of justice ; and Congress will
scarcely consent that every corporal may carry
the treaty in his pooketto enable him, asasub< rdiiuitc
officer, to execute the. law. I ain aware,
sir, it uiay be replied to this view, that the protection
promised by the treaty relates not to tho ]
preservation of peace, &c., as between the inhabitants
themselves, but only between the in- j
habitants and other people?that it is a protection
to be extended over them as a community.
11 cannot so regard the rights arising under the
treaty, or the obligation of him to whom the
duty belongs of extending tho protection. Tbe
community is made up of individuals ; and the
idea of a guarantee to the whole, but not t* the
parts which constitute, in the aggregate, this
whole, is inadmissible. But when we look at
tho verbiage of the treuly, it is apparent that the
protection is a grant to individuals, aud not to a
community alone. Each man is entitled ns much
as all are entitled. If I err in this view, an invasion
of individual right, and not of n right common
to the whole, cannot make out a case in
which the guarantor is bound to resist. I undertake
to say, that the political rights of tho
community ceased with the treaty, and the individual
rights protected by the treaty alone remained.
Surely, that political entity, known
heretofore as New Mexico, no lonirer exists.
The United States may carve the territory acquired
by the treaty into States or Territories,
to suit the taste or the policy of Congress, without
violating any right now existing in the inhabitants
of said territory. Suppose it suited
our view of policy to attach New Mexico to
Texas, would an act to that effect violate the
treaty of Hidalgo ? Certainly not. The geographical
lines, wherever they were, which indicated
u New Mexico," are expunged, and with
them passed away the political existence of the
same State. 44 Mexicans, established in tho territory"
preserve their right to liberty, property,
and freedom of rel gion; but these are personal
rights belonging to each individual, and not to
them as a political community. Therefore, if
the duty of the President compels him to protect
those under the treaty, he must extend his
jurisdiction so as to perform the functions of
judge as well as executive. The want of law,
organizing civil government in the Territory,
is the real defect existing, and until this shall he
provided, no department of this Government can
properly perform its duty to that people.
This was clearly exhibited by Mr, Polk, in his
message to Congress of July, 22,1848, in which
the following remarkable passage occurs:
44 The war with Mexico having terminated, the
power of the. Executive to establish or to continue
tcmiwrrary civil governments over these. Territories,
which existed under the laws of nations, whilst I
they were regulated as conquered provinces in
our military occupation, has ceased. By their
cession to the United Stutes, Mexico no longer
has any power over them, and, until Congress
shall act, the inhabitants will he without any or.
i , dl 1 J I- - ? A!_
gantvti guicriirrteiu. ouuuiu uiey ihj iciiut mis
condition, confusion and anarchy will be likely to
prevail."
Congress has not acted. For three years
Congress has been derelict to a known duty.
Now, when the President of the United States
calls again upon Congress to discharge that
duty, at least so far as to determine the line of
boundary between the State of Texas and this
"conquered province," shall Congress entertain
a discussion as to the powers of the President ?
Shall we halt to discuss that question ? Is that
to bo the stumbling-block in our way as to the
performance of our admitted duty i We nre told
that war?civil war?may bo tho consequence
of delay. If that bo true, it furnishes a reason
for the instant dispatch of this business. But
I will not urge it, because it does not operate
upon mc as my incentive. I have no fear
of any such result:
" 'lis the eye of childhood
That fears a painted devil."
j We shall hare no war, no struggle even, with
; Texas. If any such result were apprehended?if
I the President of tho United States could design
[ the use of military force before the civil authority
had exerted its legitimate functions,Congress has
within its own grasp tho means to restrain him.
Repeal the laws of 1795 and 1807, and though
.frmed battalions were on the parade, with flying
txojors and pedjng dritmn^ihey would at (ince dLsban
l. ?5<>t ifOro t'jtily djfti'H the rider week Iris
Wty w$rd stcflif by!Sne jcijib, than can Coiypcss
uontrolthc tfzecntWi by'the use of coaatinoiml
uhecks a} ouMBsposal. " Wo President can apurp
authority sucCMHsfully in alund of laws. Should
civil war uceur, therefod, it will be a War substantially
commanded by Congress. The President,
so far from usurping authority to determine
the case of Texas, explicitly avows his want of
power to make the determination. So far from
evincing a desire to exercise power, he explicitly
acknowledges his official obligation fo be guided
by the will of Congress. So far from attempting
to influence Congress to setth) the boundary
against Texas, he suggests the assent of Texas
as a requisite to the completion of the act. So
far form requesting us to turn a deaf ear to Texas,
he recommends, if we .consider her elaim good
... !.?# ..... ?,;<k i.?? fik...
a'/c/Hz i/i in *i (v iiunv n u .icinc wit.ii iici ui?t i*
ally, fairly, and honorably. All lie desires in,
that by performing our duty, we should enable
liini to avoid every chance of difficulty with
Texas. If Congress will admit the validity of
the claim of Texas to the Rio Grande, the President
abides the decision ; if Congress determines
to resist that claim, the President, as the
Executive head of the Federal Government, is
prepared to carry out our commands. All he I
desires on our part, is action?a determination j
or the case ; something by which be may dcfin-.{
itely understand where Texas ends and New
Mexico begins. There the treaty is to operate, |
and there he will exert whatever authority is i
confided to him bv law.
1 shall forbear further remark upon the message
itself, to dwell for a brief time upon our
duty in responding to its recommendation.?
What shall be established as?tlie boundary of
Texas is the mnteriul inquiry for the present?
the important problem to solve. In a speeeb
delivered by me in this Flail in April lust, 1 said:
441 will not agree to disintegrate Texas without
her free consent, and I advocate her claim to
the extent of bouudary claimed, (not occupied,)
at the commencement of the war. I am not inclined
to buy from her; yet, on a gonerul settlement
and a full footing up of the account, I
would interpose no objection to the money item
in favor of Texas?for the sake of pence and
national quiet. We should, at least, pay the
money to our own people, and no economy in a
matter of money can justify even the hazard of
disunion."
I now repeat this sentiment, after all the re- 1
flection I have been able to give to the subject. |
The adjustment of her boundary as proposed by i
the bill of an honorable Senator from Maryland, j
admits the necessity of an assent of Texns to j
the terms, and even if rejected by her, must add to
the strength of her title. I may vote for it; but,
sir, I shall cast that vote only when I can sec
that it is a means to lend to a general and satisfactory
settlement.
As to the right of Texns to the boundary of
the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source,
and thence by a due north line to the ancient
boundary between the United States and Spain,
I verily believe any hone9t jury, empannelled
between the Penobscot and the Rio Grande,would
give a verdict in favor of Texas against
the United States, upon the law and the testimony.
I anx unwilling, therefore, for this Government
to persist in clouding the title of
Texus, because I deem such conduct an example
of badfaith.
My opinion rests upon various grounds :
Texas was an independent Republic, claiming
this boundary by a legislative act defining her
limits, prior to the date of her annexation to the
United States. This Government could not determine
whether the claim was correct or other- j
wise. Texas might or might not have made it i
good. This Government pressed Texas to enter I
into the Union?nav, urged her so to do, with
the most ardent solicitations. And, through the
Minister of the United States, accredited to
Texas, in order to induce annexation, promised
and substantially pledged the public faith of this
Government to assert, this claim, for the benefit of |
Texas, to its full extent, against Mexico. I do |
not tocaii to say wo were pledged to maintain'
it, bat to advocate it and to succeed in establish- !
ing it, if possible. Under this state of fact, can
tiie United States Require the title of Mexico to
set it up in their own behalf ngainst Texas ? I
say no?emphatically, no !
Texas was not, in 1815, in the slightest danger
of a fuilure to maintain her independence.;?
It is useless to go back further to gather elements
for the determination of this question.?
Texas was independent, from the date of the j
Constitution of 1824, as much so as Kentucky I
is independent to-day. She was bound in the |
Mexican confederation by the Constitution only; j
and when a usurper destroyed that Constitution,
establishing on its wreck a centralized, consolidated
government, Texas declared in favor of
the Constitution, as she should have done; then
asserted her own independence, and on the glorious
field of, San Jacinto, maintained it. Her
revolution, as it is called, was right and holy
from the beginning, and rests upon the same
principles as that ?t 1776. He who denies the
justice of the one would have denied the propriety
of the other. Pending the war between
Mexico and Texas, the latter defined her limits,
by the net of 1836. The question remained,
whether she could maintain them. Her irvlependence
was secure; Mexico proffered an acknowledgement
thereof, and agreed to negotiate
with her as to limits, provided alio would no!
enter this Union. I ask my countrymen to look
at the proposition of Mexico to Texim. submitt ed |
through Mr. Elliott, the Britbh Minister, and
Baron Alleye do Cyprey, the French Miniate:-. :
Here it is:
M 1. Mexico consents to acknowledge the in- 1
dependence of Texasv
44 9 Tovns on/rncrwa tViirf. ?hr? will atirmlnti* in
the treaty not to annex herself, or become sub- j
ject to any country whatever.
" 3. Limits and other conditions to be matter
of arrangement in the final treaty.
" 4. Texas will be willing to remit disputed
points respecting torritory, and other matters, to
the arbitration of umpires."
These were forwarded from Mex ico to Texas,
with a letter, from which the following is an extract
r
Legation of France in Mexico,
Mexico, May 20, 18-15.
Mr. President: I am happy to be ablo to
announce to you that the Mexican Government,
after having obtained the authorization of the
two Chambers of Congress, has acceded to the
four preliminary articles, which the Secretary of
State of Texas had remitted to the Charge
d'AfTairea of France and England, near your
Government, The act of acceptation, clothed
with the necessary forms, will be handed by
Mr. Elliott to the Secretary of State of Texas,
and your Excellency will thence find yourself
in a condition to name commissioners to negotiate
with Mexico the definitive treaty of peace
between Mexico and Texas. *****
BARON ALLEYE DE CYPREY.
To. Mr. Anson Jonf.s,
President cf the Republic of Texas.
The resolutions of annexation had passed
the Congress of the United States, on the 1st
of March, 1845. The. second resolution contains
this clause:
" That the foregoing consent of Congress is
given upon the following conditions, and with
: the following guarantees, to wit:
1st. Said Str\tc to be formed subject to the ,
adjustment by this Government of nil questions '
of boundary that may arise icilh oIHt Governments.''
This is the material part of the conditions,
as upon the power granted in this quotation, j
the United States rely to hold the country oast
of the Rio Grande. Mr. A. J. Donelson was
despatched as Charge to Texas immediately.
Now, sir, it is most true that Texas asked to
1)0 admitted into the Union. She had applied
some year* previous, but her application bad
been formally withdrawn. The last movement
for annexation was voluntary on the part of the
United States, and the resolutions of annexation
were in fact an offer on our part to Texas. Mr.
Donelson arrived at Houston on the 28th of
March, 184A. From that point ho write* to the
American Secretary of State, "that the French
and Bfiliak ministers bad puindpjl hipi
I t)Mii Hflil of government, o|arui|[j>ropo?itteii:
of independence to 'l^wuw frptu UwljoyerniiMn
of K gland Frajjjite, and Mexico 01
ontyjfde, it the court of tM*, hdkl forth ifl?b>
peMtcnce ?b the baaia on whieh^^l'cxas coulc
nefOtiato a treaty of amity with Mexico; tin
United States on the other aide, advocate an
nexution to this Union, and independence, as tin
I policy which they desired Texas to pursue. I
is fashionable, in some quarters,to speak of an
nexation as a boon granted by this uovernmen
to Texas; but there never was a wider depar
ture from fact than such representation betrays
i Tli? United States courted Texas as an nrderu
' lover wodes his mistress. Permit mo, for i
moment, to reear to the language in which sh?
was addressed. It will refresh your recollee
I ..? *?._ i ,i... 0..11, a a...
uuii ui uiV UlUUF v> iui v> iiiuii iuu t. win ^luiuiiua
; trat ion pressed our suit. Mr. Buchanan, (Sec'
retary of State,) writing to Mr. Dotielson, imdei
date of April 'J8th, 1845, says:
"Under these eircumstaiicea, I need scarcely
urge you to press for immediate action. Tin
i executive government of Texas ought to be ap
j pealed to in the strongest terms for a prompt doI
cision. Delay may result in defeat; and yet 1
can feel but little apprehension that the sovereign
people of Texas?the conquerors of Sari
Jacinto?who have breathed the air und lisped
the accents of liberty from their infancy, will
consent to forever abandon their free, their native
land, and sink to the level of dependents on the
monarchy of Great Britain."
Strange language this, for one who is eonjirring
a boon! What an appeal! What urgent zeal
and hot haste appear in these instructions to our
minister, and with what power the Secretary
touches the chord to which every American bosom
is most apt at once to respond ! But the
American minister did not require such stimulants
to urge him onward. In a letter to Mr. Allen,
the Texan Secretary of State, under date of 31st
March, 1845, Mr. Uonelson submits the annexation
resolutions as passed by Congress, and says:
" It has been thought best by tne President of
the United States to rest the question of the joint
resolution as it came from the House of Representatives,
which contains propositions complete anil
ample, as an overture to Texas, and which, if adopted
by her, places the reunion of the two countries
beyond the possibility of defeat."
Mr. D. urges Texas not to delay on account of
the conditions?not to wait to discuss stipulations
?not to vary, in any manner, the propositions
submitted, lest delay should occur and other elements
enter to complicate the scheme, and finally
to baffle the plan of annexation. He says:
" The undersigned doubts not that there are objections
to the terms proposed, which, und r ordinary
circumstances, ought to be obviated before
a basis which admits them is adopted. But the
circumstances are not ordinary. *
If annexation should now be Jost, it may never
be recovered. A patriotic and intelligent people,
in pursuit of a measure of general utility, if tney
commit a partial mistake or inflict temporary injuries,
were never known to fhil in making the
proper reparation. If they have, in this instance,
made proposals ot union to 1 exas on terms which
deprive her of means which should be hers exclusively,
to enable them to pay the debt contracted
in the war of her independence, it has been accidental;
and no assurance from the undersigned
can be needed to give value to the anticipation that
such an error will be corrected whenever it is
communicated to the Government of the United
States."
The letter is long. It urges Texas not to attempt
any discussion of the terms, but
M To rely on that high sense of honor and magnanimity
which governs both the people and the
representatives of the United States, to secure to
her all that she can reasonably desire, to place her
on an emial footing with the other members of the
Union.
Now, sir, the foregoing passages refer to the
debts of Texas especially, und not to limits; but
it proves all I design by its introduction, to wit:
That the United States was the party to the transaction
of annexation most anxious for its consummation;
that the American minister was prodigal
with promises, and that this Government
Htands committed by these promises to persue an
honorable and magnanimous cousre towards
Texas.
Under date of April 12, 1845, this minister informs
Mr. Buchanan that President Jones was of
oi? in ion that the United States should have offered
Texas more liberal terms, but had consented to
oppose no obstacle to the submission of our terme
to the Congress and people of Texas. He says
"This determination of the President has elicited
fVom me a warm expression of my thanks
which I have assured him, will meet the lieartv
concurrence of the President of the United States.
* * "I take his conduct as conclusive evi
dence that, whilst he is faithful to his public du
ties as President of Texas, and is anxious to secure
her independence on the most favorabh
terms, he is as far as any one can be from seeking
to injure the United Slates or to thwart her policy."
Here is the fhll confession that annexation tea
the policy of the United Slates, and its failure, oi
any obstacle to it, was to be regarded "as an in
jury to im." Our minister thanks the Texan Pres
ident in the warmest terms for his consent to consider
the resolutions <f the American Congress. Le
us, then, hear no more of the relations of the par
ties, no more misrepresentation of the attitude o
Texas. Let us think justly and acknowledge tha
annexation was considered at the time, by the au
thorities of the United States, as a favor to ourselves
This fact bears most potently upon the course wi
should now pursue towards Texas. This ftic
should induce us to carry out all the promises w<
llpill mil tn ll Ar n 11 flin n irraoinon o ura nuirln
whether they are found " in the bond" or not.
On the 15th of April, 1845, the President o
Texas issued his proclamation for an extraordina
ry session of Congress on the 16th of June, 1845
Before Congress meet, Mr. Donelson writes t<
Mr. Buchanan, under date of May 6:
" I consider the question settled so far as Texai
is concerned." * # * #
Mr. Donelson, in this letter, suggests the wisl
of Texas that the United States should at one
move troops to the Western part of Texas to repe
any invasion by Mexico pending the session o
the convention, which was called for the 4th o
July, 1845. Our Government answers this sug
gestion by assuring Texas that so soon as th
existing government and the convention of the peopl
I of lYxas shall have accepted the terms submitted fo
her admission into the Union, she will receive prolec
lion from the army of the United States agains
the attacks of any foreign power." That assur
ance was not likely, however, to meet the exac
state of the case expected. When Mr. Elliot
submitted " the preliminary articles" from Mex
ico, that power, at the same time commenced th
! organization and concentration of a heavy armei
force upon the Rio Grande. The use of this fore
depended upon contingencies. If the Texan con
! vention accepted the terms of the United States
and rejected those offered by Mexico, either i
i declaration of war against the United States wa
to follow, or an invasion of Texas. As the cours
of Texas would be fairly indicated by the deter
mination of the Texas Congress, it was appre
hended that before the convention assembled, o
before its final action, this Mexican army migh
pass the Rio Grande and occupy the country I
the AWces; so that, at the moment when th
United States acquired an interest by the accept
ance of her terms by Texas, the disputed coum'r
| would be in the possession qf Mexico, and thus Tex a
would lose so much, or the United States woul
j be compelled to taxc me initiative to wrest it
continued posses-ion from Mexico. Mr. Done
I son said, tnen, (June 4, 1845:)
" I look upon war as inevitable?a war dictate
j by the British minister here for the purpose c
\ defeating annexation, and intended, at all errtU
! to deprive both Texas and the United States c
| all claim to the country between the Nueces an
J the Rio Grande; at the time the right of Texas t
j the protection of the United States arises undf
I the contingency anticipated by you at the date c
i your last despatch."
Mr. Donelson suggests the selection then of th
j officer who is to be in charge of military affairs i
' that quarter, and hia despatches about this perio
all look to the. occupation of the Rio Grande countri
For instance?
" I would remark that the route for the fnfrantr
and artillery in our service, trhich may bt thongl
necessary on the Rio Grande, should be by watei
not by land."
Again :
"I adverted in my last despatch to thepresenc
i of Commodore Stockton's squadron here, and to
rumor that he had sailed to Brazos Santiago, t
co-operate with General Sherman, of the Texa
! militia, in defending the occupation on the R>
Grande," t{c.?See despatch, June 2, 1845.)
Again :
"If Mexico takes possession of the countr
between the *Wucet, and the Rio Grande, or com*
I still further east wilhio the Texan territory, b<
fore a convention can express the requisite ratif
cation of our proposals, are the United States t
? eland sulland see the country thus invaded, witiuwt
i interposing protection,'"
t The idfusageof P^idem Joi?e? to theTcxau
. Congresti, Dimn the promise# and views repeated
to Texas. 1J resiflknt #a r? :
: " AlthtMigh tjte leit?s #pt'race(J in the resolutions
of tjpe United States Congress, may at $rst
1 have appeared less fhvorubie than was desirable
- for Texas the very liberal any magnanious views en5
Urtamed by the President of the United States tot
wards Texas, and the promises made through the rep.
resentative of that country in regard to future adrant
tages to be extended to her, if she consents to the proposed
union, render those terms much more acceptable
than they otherwise would have been."
J It will be recollected that Mr. Donelaon possessed
peculiar influence with Texas, at the open1
ine of the extraordinary session of Congress. He
i did not scruple to suggest what should be done,
- and what left undone; indeed, his despatch to Mr.
. Allen (the Secretary of Texas,) contains a syllaIiiir
nf t h p nrn^ppilnitrup ? vn*><at*<il nf hk?
. (See letter of Mr. Donelson to Mr. Allen, dated
June 13, 1845.) Congress met, and by a unanimous
vote acceded to our proposals, and rejected
those offered hv Mexico. Commenting on these
; proceedings, Mr. Donelson says to Mr. Buchan
an, in a letter dated July 2, 1845 :
"This Government left for treaty arrangement
[ the boundary question in the propositions for
. u treaty of definitive peace. * * * It appeared
! to me wiser to look for some advantage from the
I assailing movement threatened by Mexico, than
i to risk the passage of such a law as Congress were
disposed to pass, over the veto of the President, putting
the Texas force under the command of the
Major General, the effect of which would have
been the immediate expulsion of all Mexican sol'
diers found on the east bank of the Rio Grande.?
If by such law the whole of the Texan claim, in respcet
of limits, could have been taken out of dispute,
its passage would jmve been insisted upon; but as
there would have remained all the Santa Fe region, it
occurs to me well enough that the subject is left
open."
Now, sir, here is an explicit avowal that Mr.
Donelson'8 suggestions prevented the Texas Congress
from passing an act to drive the Mexicans
, beyond the Rio Grande, and his statement, that
because " the Santa Fe region would probably remain"
unadjusted, they did desist. Can any man
read this declaration without arriving at the conclusion,
that Texas intended to assert her claim to
the Santa Fe region ? Does not our minister [
assert that Congress desisted fVom undertaking the
expulsion of the Mexicans from the country between
the Nueces and the Rio Grande, only because
their means were not sufficiently extentive
to operate also in the Santa Fe region, and thus to
settle the question of limits at one blow ? Can any
one believe that, in the then existing state of the
case, had the American minister hinted even that
this Government would abandon the Texas claim
to " the Santa. Fe region,"annexation would have
been consummated.' Independence was secure;
nationality was guaranteed; promises of an honorable,
liberenl, magnanimous course on our part
were freely, made to secure the success of our policy.
Shall we now forfeit these pledges ?
Mr. Donelson says, in his despatch of July 11,
1845 :
"The Congress of Texas would have passed a resolution
with as much unanimity as they did the
acceptance of our joint resolution, affirming the \
claim to the Rio Grande, and so it is probable ,
would the convention now sitting, if they had ,
deemed it expedient in this manner to manifest J
their disapprobation of the treaty proposed by (
President Jones."
|
He then dwells 011 the circumstances which 1
made it inexpedient, in his judgment, to attempt a <
forcible occupation of the Rio Grade, among !
which stands prominent the effect of such a move- '
ment on the Mexican inhabitants resident on this 1
side of the river; and then he adds : 1
"Whereas Texas, by remaining passive, had an 1
effectual shield in the aversion of the Mexican I
people to war, and is gradually strengthening her \
ability to introduce by peaceable means, Iter authority J
as far up the Rio Grande as she may please."
This letter contains two important facts. 1st. 1
It recites the boundary of Texas as she claimed it,
bringing notice home to us at the very moment of an
nexation, that she insisted on the boundary of the '
Rio Grande from its mouth to its source. 2d. '
That the forboarance of the Convention, and the (
Congress to assert this boundary by the instant ^
application of force, resulted from the persuasion of
our minister, whose reasons for this advice are set forth I
at large, lie concludes his observations thus?
and I request the members of the committee to
1 dwell upon the significance, the importance, aye
the conclusiveness of these promises in the state
: of the cane now existing.
"But whilst from such views I encouraged 110
, aggressive movements on the part of Texas to
' take forcible possession of the Rio Grande, I hate,
' neverthelesas, omitted no opportunity of satisfying
- all parties here, that the United States would, in
- good faith, maintain the claim, and that I had
every reason to believe they would do so succeosJ
fully-"
f Texas, trusting to our promises, took no action
making the maintenance of the Rio Grade, in its
s whole extent, a sine qua tion to her acceptance of
r our terms; nevertheless, in honor we are as much
- bound, by the assurances of our minister under
- the circumstances, as though it had been the sine
- qua non. But the committal of the Government
t of the United States does not alone rest upon the
* loaf i i\\ ontr I Vi 11 iro noToi-tmrl fn T ctlinll nnf /lurnli
f upon the instructions to Mr. Slidell, Commist
sioner to Mexico, longer than to remark, that the
* argument was suggested to him, in detail, on
* which to rest the propriety of a surrender by
? Mexico of all claim east of the Rio Grunde. Mr.
* Buchanan asserts therein the claim of Texas diss
tinctly :
? " A great portion of New Mexico being on this
side of the Rio Grande, and included within the
f limitsalready claimed by Texas, it may hereafter,
- should it remain a Mexican province, become a
* subject of dispute," &c.
3 These instructions presented, as our ultimatum,
the establishment of the line " defined as a bound9
ary by the act of the Confpress of Texas, December
19, 1836." No suggestion was mnde of any
1 design to accept less than the boundary of the Rio
e Orande.
' We pass now to another point in the testimony;
f I mean the recognition of the existence of war
' with Mexico?the official declaration that " Ame*
rican blood had been shed on American soil."
* Blood had been shed on the Rio Grande, and une
less that soil was the soil of Texas, the declar
ration was false, and the war which followed
* was the bloodiest murder in the book of time."
1 That declaration was official, and the act of Con'*
gress that followed was the sealing of the title of
;t Texas under the sanction of an oath by the Cont
gress of the United States. How are we to re
Neve this Government from the force of the re?
mark ? I call upon the Democrats to repudiate
d the name of Polk, or to stand by this declaration.
e You will remember the language of the Presi
dent of the United States in his message of May
'? 11, 1846. He says, in justification of this Gov9
ernment, and in explication of our conduct:
9 ? Meanwhile Texas, by the final action of our
e Congre s, had beccome an intergral part of our
Union. The Congress of Texas, by its act of
December 19, 1836, had declared the Rio del Norte
r to be the boundary of that Republic. Its jurisdicd
tion had been extended and exercised beyond the
0 Nuetes. The country between that river and the
e DelNorte had been represented in the Congress
* and Convention of Texas, had taken part in the act
y of annexation itself, and is now included in one of
8 our congressional districts. Our own Congress
d had, with great unanimity, by the act approved
9 December 31, 1845, recognized thecountry beyond
I" the Nueces as part of our territory, by including
it within our revenue system;and a revenue officer,
d to reside within that district, has been appointed
if by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
t -ft Wfimp. f!u?rf>rnrp. nf limpntupfMsitv tn nrnvlflo
>f for the defence of this portion of our country. Acd
cordingly, on the l.'lth of January last, iiratruco
tions were issued to the general in command to
;r occupy the left hank of the Del Norte. This |
>f river?which is the southwestern boundary of the |
Stale of Texas?is an exposed frontier."
e #
" Alluding to the attack on Thornton, he says :
d "But now, after, reiterated menaces, Mexico
I' has passed the boundary of the United States, j
has i.traded our territory, and shed American blood |
y upon American soil. She has proclaimed that
it hostilities have commenced, and that the two na- i
, tions are at war."
This, sir, was the official annunciation of the
war, so that we drew the sword proclaiming that
e the Rio Grande was the southwestern boundary ;
a of the State of Texas; that an invasion ofthecouno
try on this side was an invasion of our territory;
n and that the first blood which flowed was " Amerio
ican blood shed upon American soil." And this
declaration was endorsed by a solemn vote of this
House, on the 11th May, 1846, of 174 to 14.?
y Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentlemen on the
>s other side of this Chamber how, in any sense,
?- this dsclaratian can be maintained, unless they
i- reiternte that the Rio del .X'orte is the southwestern
O boundary of the State of Texas and is so by force
V
t^g act of J836, ctied by the President in the mes4|6
wlk|e)i I h*?e ((UotedM
It matrie replied tofj#i:s argument, that Mr.
Pdlc'a (fail" ration was arraigned for falsity at the
title of IU) utterance, anf that is not binding upou
m Gofiriimeiu of the United States. 1 have
ppDved |iwt prior to annexation this Government,
tMough Iter minister at the court of Texas, held
forth the promise to assert thin claim, and lliat the
war was proaecuted by the Government on the
strength df this usseriion by the President. It is
true that some protested, and some resisted, but
Congress, in its official capacity stands upon the
record committed to the declaration that war existed
by the act of Mexico, and that American
i-i i ....... .i....i A .?:i
every Democrat was so committed, and 1 hszad
little in asserting that, unwilling though they may
have been to assume the position, every Jffctg understood
that declaration at the. time, to commit the
Government to the assertion of the Rio Grande as the
true boundary of Texas, according to her act of 1836.
He who wilt read the debated of that day will be
compelled to this conclusion. I will not multiply
extracts; but to show the understanding which
gentlemen in Congrats friendly to the Administration
had of the effect of our governmental action
and its designs, I beg to quote front a speech made
by the honorable member from Baltimore, [Mr.
McLane,] on the 10th July, 1848:
"The Rio Grande, he repeutfd, had been
throughout recognized as the rightful boundary of
Texas, and the temporary occupation of such portions
of Texas where the Mexicans held poswesaion
at the commencement of the wur and where
they were reduced to submission, was justified by
the luws of war and necessity; and he said, that
neither this temporary and martial possession, nor
the concession that Texas had never held actual
possession, could be regarded as a violation
of her State sovereignty, or an impeachment of
her claim to the Rio Grunde usher western boundary."
Again he said:
" These instructions recognize that certain portions
of the country on the east side of the river
had never been reduced to possession by Texas,
and hence the necessity to negotiate in time of
peace for the cession of those portions of the
country east of the river, that Texas may have secured
to her her declared and rightftil boundary;
or in war, to conquer and hold possession of them
until the jurisdiction and actual possession of them
ran be maintained by the State sovereignty of
Texas. And the maintenance of the Rio Grande
was an ultimatuih in these instructions, to obtain
which, without war, this Government agreed, in
these instructions, to assume the claims of our
citizens against Mexico, in consideration of the
grounds conceded, favorable to Mexico, in regard
to certain portions of the disputed country east of
the Rio Grande, above the Paao."
Mr. Chairman, it cannot be disguised that the
same understanding of the course of the Government?the
same justification of its action?the
same knowledge of its designs pervaded the Democratic
side of this Chamber, at the declaration of
war, during the continuance of the .war, and at
the treaty of peace. Again I repent, how can
gentlemen on tne other side of this Chamber now
Jeny the right of Texas to the Rio Grand", from
its mouth to its source, as its boundary? How
;an they hesitate freely to accord to her all that
ice fought to secure to her? But the evidence does
not stop here. True it is, General Kearny enered
Santa Fe, and established temporary civil
government in New Mexico. But it is also true,
:hat when called upon for an explanation of the
lesign of the United States in this procedure,
rexas was assured by our public authorities, that
hese acts were not only understood to be consistent
<oith, but in aid qf the claims of Texas. Congress was
jxpressly informed by the President of the United
States in his message, that he had so stated to
rexas. I will forbear further quotations, as they
will unnecessarily extend these remarks. Our own
irchives abound with proof against us. The instructions
to Mr. Trial, the reprimand of that
gentleman for indulging the idea that this Government
would hear of less than the boundary of the
Rio Grande in its whole extent, are familiar to all.
1'hey show conclusively the view of the Government
when treating for peace. Throughout, the
ietermination was evinced to comply with the
promises of Mr. Dpnelson, to maintain the claim
nf Texas to h??r boundary, 41 according to her
own statute of limits."
Now, Mr. Chairman, some hold the doctrine
that the claim of Texas is good as high as El Paso
but not good as high as Santa Pc. Upon what
ground can such an assumption be maintained?
Tamaulipas extended over the Rio Grande at its
mouth. General Taylor found the Mexicans in
undisturbed possession, from the little Colorado,
which is fifty miles this side of the Rio Grande.
The same statute oflimits applies to that country
as to the country 41 above tlie Paso-," the same
inference existed, the same want of actual possession
by Texas. The same treaty applies to
both. How can we. derive from these data one
conclusion for the Lower Rio Grande anil another
for the Upper Rio Grande! Shall we spill blood
to establish one corner of the survey of Texas,
depending on certain data for our justification,
and establish her line as far as El Paso; but,
upon the same data, refuse to establish it for the
balance of the distance, to her second corner? Sir,
there is not a farmer in the land who will fail to
detect this inconsistency in our course. But again,
the United States was intrusted by Texas with
the power of settling questions of boundary that
miglit arise; but then, their interests were identical,
and the United States gained ull that Texas
cn vprl nnur (hp TTnifPtl StnfPK umkIiph (n lnnkp
their gain the loss of Texas, and, of course, to
assert an antagonistical interest. Can this he done?
[t is a principle of equity, well established, that
the trustee cannot make profit from the trust
fund, at the expense of the Cestui qui trust. Courts
have, for centuries, declared that the fiduciary
shall not speculate upon the fund which is confided
to his hands for the benefit of a third party.
Measured by these maxims of equity, the assertion
of the claim of the United States to the country
east of the Rio Grande must insure the condemnation
of our Government in the eyes of all Christendom.
The war was unholy, or, now we are
about to attempt to bully Texas out of that which
we foughtto win, under the pretence that we meant
to insure it to her. We fight Mexico upon a state
of fact at the mouth of the Rio Grande, and we
propose to fight Texas upon the same state of fact
at tne source of the Rio Grande. We annihilate
New Mexico, trampling her into nonentity, with
the iron heel of the conqueror; but when we desire
to use her ns a means to promote her other
views, her powerless and defenceless form is paraded
to the view, while we appeal in her behalf
to ourselves for sympathy and for justice !
But it will be said to us, as was said to the
Pharisees of old, "Ye make clean the outside of
the cup and the platter, but within they are full of
extortion and excess."
"Ye are like unto whitened sepulchres, which
indeed appear jbeautiful outward, but are within
full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto
men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Equity and justice apply the same maxims to
men and to nations. The United States cannot
wrest from Texas the country this side of the Rio 1
Grande, without falsifying their post professions,
and standing self-condemned by their own con
uuci. l win iiui oe panicrp oihmtiw, a win nwi,
as an American, bo make up the final record for
history. If Texas desires to hold the country,
it is hers, as against us. We neither have title nor
color of claim independent of her claim.
That New Mexico lias been annihilated no man
can doubt. She fell by conquest, and thnt conquest
inures to the benefit of Texas. If we desire
to retrace our steps, if we desire to revivify
New Mexico, and, as nn atonement for her injuries
in the past, to educate her people for the enjoyment
or civil and religious liberty, let us not
commence the laudable enterprise by playing the
brnggarl with Texas, and by seizing territory with
a strong hand that we cannot hold by right. If the
United States were to file a bill in equity against I
Texas to compel the delivery of the Rio Grande]
country to our civil agent, upon the facts connected
with annexation, the war, the occupation, dec., is
there a chancellor in the world who would not dismiss
the bill, under the maxim that he who seeks
equity must come with clean hands J I say there
is not; and I am not willing to seize what equity
would refuse to give.
Sir, we should have no struggle with Texas.?
The resistance to her clnim is but ministration to
fnnatism. If the question of slavery did not enter
into the calculation, we would not halt a moment
in yielding to her demand. To that fanaticism,so
help me Heaven, I will never bow. 1 will never
consent to commit a wrong upon a State of this
Union to add to the power of that current which
already threatens to overwhelm us. Whenever I
see that peace is to be restored, justice to be administered,
and the rights of my people are to be
respected, 1 will consent to buy, ifi exas will consent
to sell; but without that consent, I say, let
her banner be placed on the banks of the Rio
Grande, to flout forever.
I do not mean to counsel violence on the part of
Texas, but 1 do mean to counsel this Congress mot
to make an issue with Texas, on the hypothesis
1 that we have a right, to some part of the country
i East of ^the ii 10 Grande. That taaue luuat condemn
this Oovernnrerrt. if we w tali to purchase
I from Texas, let us aay no, and offer her such terms
| aa may be fair and equitable. Thus we ehail carry
into effect the President's recommendation.
: PROFESSOR WEBSTER?aw PRESENT
I CONDITION?ANOTHER CONFESSION?
HIS FAMILY, dU*.
Boston, August 26.
Friday nextfwill seal the fate of John White
! Webster. He fullv realises hill romiifirtn unit
: does not niurtnur that the day for hia execution is
j ho near at hand. He considers that the law of
capital punishment is right, and ihj^ he is justly a
subject of that law. He is kept closely confined,
| and no one is allowed to visit him beside the officers
of the jail, except his own spiritual advisers
! front Cambridge. There is now very little if any
| fear that he will commit suicide. No regular
guard has been placet! over him more than that
over other persons in the jail, and I am informed
that there will not be, aa wus in cose of Peurson,
who was lately executed at East Cambridge. In
the latter case, a razor wus found in the prison r's
hat about u week before his execution. He acknowledged
to the Sheriff that it was placed there
by a relative, whose name we do not desire now
to make public, with the request that he (Pearson)
would destroy his owu life.
Dr. Webster is said to be quite a connisieur in
the matter of tuking life. While in England some
twenty years ago he was in the constant habit of
attending executions At that time a large number
of crimes were punishable with death, and I
am told by a distinguished government officer, that
cases were so frequent that on every Friday one
or more persons were sure to be executed in London.
It is said that Professor Webster did not
miss a single case, during his stay in London.
He was thoroughly conversant with the various
modes of producing death. He has frequently
expressed his opinion that hanging by the neck
will produce the easiest death. Itis quickest, and
is productive of the least pain. Tlie (bet that
Professor Webster possesses this knowledge
leads people to believe that he will die by the rope
and no other means. Touching that matter, ha
could easily hang himself in his cell if so desired.
He has freely acknowledged to Sheriff Eveleth
that he attempted to destroy his own life by tak-.
ing strichnine in the coach going from hia own
home to the jail on the night of his arrest. He
also acknowledges that the dose was too powerAil
to destroy life; and, furthermore, ihat in consequence
of taking it he suffered more pain than a
sufficient "death dose" would have created.
He expresses a very strong desire that his family
shall not know when he is to be executed.
Strange as it may seem, I am assured by a visiter
of the family, that as yet they do not know. They
have changed one of the days on which they formerly
visited him from Friday to Thursday, in
order to escape the annoyance of certain people
who got in the habit of crowding the coach which
they usually took passage in the city, for no other
purpose than to gaze at them. This change will
make their last visit come on Thui ailay next, the
day before his death. Dr. Webster desires that they
may be allowed to visit him the same day as any
other, and to go away the same, without knowing
that it in the last time they will see him.
Some of the friends of the family think differently,
and are of the opinion that they should be informed
of the day of execution. In answer to
this, Dr. Webster assures the persons who be
lieve this, that his family do not wish to know the
day, but desire, on the contrary, to be kept in ignorance
of the time.
Dr. Lowell of this city and several other clergymen,
visit Mrs. Webster and her daughter.
Aside from this, they receive no company, neither
do they visit any. They read no papers except
those sent them from the Jail by Professor Webster.
Means have been taken to slop all communications
upon the subject of the execution with
the domestics of Mr. Webster's family.
The story that the subsctiption has been started
to raise $20,000 for the family, headed by Mrs.
George Turkman, wife of ihe murdered man, is
all a hoax. After AVebster's death such a paper
may probably be put in circulation.
A gentleman of our acquaintace?Mr. S.?visited
the Professor about a week since, and on coming
out of his cell, took his final leave of him.?
The Professor took S. by the hand, and asked him
if he went tochurch. " Yes," was theanswer.?
"Where do you go?" asked the Professor. S.
replied that he went to hear Theodore Parker.?
" Ah,,' said Professor Webster, " I am sorry for
that, that so good a man as you should go to Mr.
Parker's meeting : though he is a learned and
good man, yet I think he is too fast!" " I seek
truth and go where I think I can hear the most of
it in the best form; I may err, however," was the
reply of our friend, who bade a final farewell to
the prisoner ana left.
There is no doubt that the statement is true
which was published in the Tribune yesterday,
that Webster has made another confession, acknowledging
that the killing was premeditated.
It will be made public after his death. 1 think 1
shall be able to satisfy the readers of the Tribune
in my next, that some of Dr. Parkman's papers
were taken from his clothing before they were
bumed, beside those mentioned in his confession,
which fastens upon him another falsehood.
People in the vicinity of the jail have already
began to let places at their* windows at $10 per
head.
The Webster trial is soon to be published in a
new form, by George Bemis, esq., the junior
counsel for the government on the trial. It will
make a royal octavo of 800 pages, and wiil be the
only complete report of the trial published. It
wi.l contain about ninety more pages of the evidence
than the full report of Dr. Stone, a report
which unquestionably contains more serious errors
than any ever published. Little & Brown
are to be the publishers. This work will contain
cuts of Dr. Webster and the Medical College,
and a foe simile of the Cambridge letter, which
Professor Webster acknowledges he wrote.?Cor.
V. Y. Tribune.
The Smithsonian Institute.?We make the
following extracts from a sketch in the City Directory
for 1850, which appears to have been prepared
with considerable oare:
"The Smithsonian Institution derives its name
and endowment from James Smithson, esq., of
England. Mr. Smithson, was a son of the first
Duke of Northumberland. He was educated at
Oxford, where he distinguished himself by his
scientific attainments. In 1787, the year after
taking his master's degree, he was elected a Fellow
of the Royal Society. To the " philosophical
transactions," he contributed at different times,
eight valuable papers. He had no fixed residence,
and formed no family ties. The last years of his
li!e were spent on the continent. He died at
Genoa, June 27,18^. From the property he received
from his mother, and the ample annuity
allowed him by his father, his frugality enabled
him to accumulate a fortune, which at the time of
his death, amounted to 120,000 pounds sterling.
By his will, he directed that the income of this
property (after deducting some smull annuities)
should be paid to his nephew, Henry James Hungerford,
during his life, and that the property
should descend to his children, if he had any, absolutely
and forever. "In case of the death of
my said nephew without leaving a child or children,
or of the death of the cnild or children
he may have hud under the age of 21 years, or intestate,
I then bequeath the whole of my property,
(subject to an annuity, &c.,) to the United
States of America, to found at Washington, under
the name of the Smithsonian Institute, an establishment
for the increase and diffusion of
knowledge among men."
Such are the words of the will, and the only
words of Smithson which have come to us relating
to this remarkable bequeit. Young Hungered,,!
.\,*A M r... .U? r.,u T ,o..r ...1.1
iuim UIV.U ui i. iw, vr?i Hit uui 1/1 ./Ullf, loot)) Will '
out issue. The event thus occurred in which the
clnim of the United States attached. The Hon.
Richard Rush, of Philadelphia, appointed agent
for the United States, recovered the fund in
1838, amounting to $515,lift. The act establishing
the Smithsonian Institute, was passed
10th August, 1846. The cost of the building is
limited (i*ith furniture, grading, the grounds,
Ac.,) to $050,000. This will he taken mostly
from the income of the original building funds, so
as to save $150,000 of the building fund, which
when added to the original fund will make $675,000,
} ielding nearly $40,0(H) per annum. This income,
wttli all sums received from other sources,
is to be permanently and equally divided betwern
two great methods of increasing and diffusing
knowledge?-the first by publications, researches,
and lectures, the second by collections in literature
and art. The building is in the late Norman
or Lombard style. It consists of a centre and two
wings, united by connecting ranges. Its extreme
length is 447 feet, and its greatest breadth 132
fret. It is adorned bv 9 towers, the highe.st of
which is 115 feet. The central portion of the
building contains on the first floor a Library, 134
feet by 50?divided into alcoves which are crossed
by galleries, and a Hall for Philosophical Apparatus,
61 feet by 50. In the East Wing are lecture
rooms, work shops, offices, Ac. In the Western
Wing galleries of art, one of which will be
a reading room." Ac.