Newspaper Page Text
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.