A Biography of Henry Clay, the Senator from Kentucky / Containing Also, a Complete Report of All His Speeches; Selections From His Private Correspondence; Eulogies in the Senate and House; and a Poem, by George D. Prentice, Esq.

by Unknown

Well, then, there is the boundary question with Texas. Why, sir, at this very moment we learn through the public papers that Texas has sent her civil commissioners to Santa Fe, or into New Mexico, for the purpose of bringing them under her authority; and if you leave the Texas boundary question unsettled, and establish no government for Utah and New Mexico, I venture to say that, before we meet again next December, we shall hear of some civil commotion, perhaps the shedding of blood, in the contest between New Mexico and Texas with respect to the boundary; for, without meaning to express at this time, or at any time, any positive opinion on that question, we know that the people of Santa Fe are as much opposed to the government of Texas, and as much convinced that they do not belong to Texas, that they constitute no portion of the territory of Texas, as we know Texas to be earnest in asserting the contrary, and affirming her right to all the country from the mouth of the Rio Grande to its uppermost sources. Is it right, then, to leave these territories unprovided for? Is it right to leave this important questionof boundary between New Mexico and Texas unsettled, to produce possibly the fearful consequences to which I have adverted?

Sir, on these questions, I believe—though I do not recollect the exact state of the vote in committee—that there was no serious diversity of opinion. We all thought we should establish governments for them if we could; that, at any rate, we should make the attempt; and if we failed, after making the attempt, we should stand irreproachable for any voluntary abandonment or neglect of them on our part.

The next question which arose before the committee, after having agreed upon the proposal to be made to Texas for the settlement of the boundary between her and New Mexico, was the question of the union of these three measures in one bill. And upon that subject, sir, the same diversity of opinion which had developed itself in the senate displayed itself in the committee.

A senator, in his seat.—What of the amount to be paid to Texas?

Mr. Clay.—Ah! I am reminded that I have said nothing about the amount proposed to be given to Texas for the relinquishment of her title to the United States of the territory north of the proposed line. The committee, I hope, with the approbation of the senate, thought it best not to fill up that blank until the last moment, upon the final reading of the bill; that if it were inserted in the bill it would go out to the country, and might lead to improper speculation in the stock markets; and that therefore it was better to leave it out until the final passage of the bill.—When we arrive at that point, which I hope we shall do in a short time, I shall be most happy to propose the sum which has been thought of by the committee.

Sir, the committee recommended the union of these three measures. If the senator from Missouri will allow me the benefit of those two cannons pointed to this side of the house, (alluding to two volumes of Hatsel,) I will be much obliged to him. I believe the senator from Missouri has them on his table.

Mr. Benton.—They are in the secretary’s office.

Mr. Clay. The union of these three measures in one bill has been objected to, and has been already very much discussed in the senate. Out of respect to the senator from Missouri and to the senate, I feel myself called upon to give some answer to the argument which he addressed to the senate some days ago, to show that it was improper to connect them together. I must begin by stating what I understand to be parliamentary law in this country. It consists, in the first place, of the Constitution of the United States and of the rules adopted by the two houses of congress; and if you please, sir, Jefferson’s Manual, which has been respected as authority, and used, I believe, in most of the deliberative bodies in this country. Now, sir, either the senator from Missouri or myself totallymisunderstands what is meant by Hatsel in the use of the word ‘tacking.’ We have no such thing as tacking in the English sense of the term. Jefferson has no chapter in his Manual on this subject of tacking. Hatsel first. Tacking in England is this: By the constitution of England—or, in other words, by the practice of England, which makes her constitution—money bills, supply bills, bills of subsidy and aid of all kinds, are passed by the house of commons, sent to the house of lords, and the lords are obliged to take them word for word, without making any amendment whatever. They are sent in that shape to the crown, and the crown is obliged to take them without amendment at all. The practice of tacking in England is this: knowing that a money bill is obliged to be passed without any alteration or amendment in the lords, the commons in England frequently, when they have a public object or measure to carry out, tack that measure to a money bill, and send it to the house of lords. They know that the over-ruling necessity of the aristocracy and of the crown is such that they must, for the sake of the money granted to them, agree to that clause favorable perhaps to liberty, or to something else that is tacked on to it. The process of tacking in England is therefore objected to by the crown and by the aristocracy always. It is never objected to by the commons.—And according as the prevalence of the authority of the crown and the aristocracy, or of the public branch of the legislature takes place, the practice of tacking is resorted to. Hence the quotation read by the senator the other day from Chancellor Finch. The king always, and the lords always complain of it. Hatsel, in the very loose and very unsatisfactory work of his which I have often had occasion to refer to, complains of it; but the fact is, the process of tacking in England is favorable to liberty; it is favorable to the commons of England. It is never objected to by them, but it is always objected to by the crown and the aristocracy. Her Majesty would be glad to get the money without being obliged to make any concessions to her subjects; and the house of lords would be equally disposed with her Majesty to think it very wrong to be compelled to swallow the whole. They would be willing to take the money, but they would have to take along with it the clause which has been tacked on in favor of personal liberty or of some rights of the subjects.

Sir, I had intended to go into the details of this subject, by way of answer to the honorable senator; but, really, I think it is hardly necessary. You find in the third volume of Hatsel that he has a chapter on the subject of bills tacked to bills of supply. I repeat, sir, that we have no such thing as that tacking process in this country. And why? Because, although tax bills and other bills originate in the house of representatives, and by the Constitution are required to originate there, the senate have a right to amend, to strike out any clause, to reduce the tax, or to make any additions or amendment which they please. The senate is under no such restraint as is the house of lords in England. Hence we have no such thingas tacking, in the English parliamentary sense of the term. But tacking, even in England, is confined to what are considered incongruous measures. Now, sir, the question is, whether there is any incongruity in these measures: a bill for the admission of California: a bill establishing a territorial government in Utah; a bill establishing a territorial government for New Mexico: and what is indispensable, if we give her a government, a bill providing what shall be her boundary, provided Texas shall accede to the liberal proposal made to her? Is there any thing, I ask, incongruous in all this? Where is it? What is the incongruity? What is the indignity? for I have heard time after time that it is undignified, or that it is ill-treating California, to attach her to those portions of territory acquired from Mexico, included in Utah and New Mexico. What is the indignity? I admit that in general, for the sake of simplicity of business, it is better not to make any one bill complex, or even to embrace too great a variety of subjects of a congruous nature. But that rests in the sound discretion of congress. It rests in the pleasure of congress. Sir, it has been said that California has set us a very good example, by providing by her constitution that no two subjects are to be united in the same bill. Louisiana has done the same thing in her constitution. Ask the senator from Louisiana, or ask an honorable member of that legislature, who has just arrived here from Baton Rouge, and they will tell you to what vast inconvenience legislative action is exposed, in consequence of this constitutional restriction. What are incongruous subjects, what are distinct subjects, is a matter not always absolutely certain. If any thing which is thought incongruous is incorporated in a bill in that legislature, it is sent to the judiciary, and if the judiciary thinks the subjects are incongruous, the law cannot be constitutional, because, in the opinion of the judges, it was in violation of the constitution, which declared that the legislature should pass only congruous bills. I have been told, and the senator from Louisiana can state whether I have been correctly informed or not, that in two or three instances laws which have been passed by the legislature of Louisiana have been declared unconstitutional, in consequence of this constitutional restriction upon legislative action, and the courts would not enforce them.

I have stated what I think I ought to satisfy every body without dwelling upon it further. Now, sir, I will show you what has been done by congress from time to time in the annexation of different subjects in the same bill. Here, sir, is volume second, page 396, chapter five, of The United States Statutes at Large, in which I find ‘An act to regulate and fix compensation for clerks, and to authorize the laying out of public roads, and for other purposes.’—The very title shows the incongruity of the subjects treated of. You will find in volume four, page 125, chapter 83, ‘An act to extend the time for the settlement of private land claims in the territory of Florida, to provide for the preservation of the public archives in saidterritory, and for the relief of John Johnson.’ [Laughter.] Here the name of the individual came last, but I have a case before me in which the individual came first. It is to be found in the Statutes at Large, private acts, volume six, page 813, chapter 89, entitled ‘An act for the relief of Chastelain and Pouvert, and for other purposes.’ And what do you suppose those other purposes to have been? About fifty appropriations for a variety of subjects which can be supposed to arise under such a government as ours. Will my friend read the extract for me?