as soon as satisfactory information is acquired, that it has an established government in successful operation. The president states, in a message received in the Senate subsequent to the report, that he has adopted measures to obtain that information. There is, therefore, an entire consistency between the resolution of the committee, the message of the president, and the proposed amendment, and he hoped it would be agreed to.

The senator from South Carolina, actuated by very natural and proper feelings, would be glad to propose a stronger measure, one of immediate recognition, but feels restrained by the dictates of his sober judgment. I, too, Mr. President, would be most happy, if the state of our information, and the course of events, were such as to warrant the adoption of that stronger measure. But I do not concur in the opinion which has been expressed, that the actual independence of Texas, by the overthrow or expulsion of the armies of Mexico, is the only consideration which should guide us in deciding the question of recognition. There is another, scarcely of less importance, and that is, whether there is in Texas a civil government in successful operation, competent to sustain the relations of an independent power. This is the very point on which we want information and that respecting which the president is, we are given to understand, now endeavoring to obtain. And, surely, considering how recently Texas has adopted a Constitution of government, it is not unreasonable to wait a short time to see what its operation will be.

But there are other considerations which ought not to be overlooked by a wise and discreet government. We are told by the senator from South Carolina, that the vice-president of Texas is on his way to La Vera Cruz, to negotiate with the Mexican government a definitive treaty of peace between the two powers, and, consequently, an acknowledgment of the independence of Texas. This fact furnishes an additional motive on the part of the United States for forbearing, at present, to proceed to the formal acknowledgment of the independence of Texas. And how much more. glorious will it not be for Texas herself, by her own valor, to force from her enemy the first acknowledgment of her independence?

We ought to discriminate between Santa Anna-the blood-thirsty, vainboasting, military tyrant, who has met in his overthrow and captivity a merited fate--and the eight millions of Mexicans, over whom he was exercising military sway. We should not allow the feelings of just indig nation, which his conduct has excited, to transport us against the perhaps unoffending people whom he has controlled. We ought to recollect that Mexico is our neighbor, having conterminous territory; that as long as we both remain independent powers, we shall stand in that relation to her; that we are carrying on, by sea and by land, a commerce highly beneficial to both parties; and that it is the interest of both to cultivate the most amicable and harmonious intercourse. If we proceed precipitately, and prematurely, how will our conduct be regarded by Mexico? May we not lay the foundations of a lasting and injurious misunderstanding? If, indeed,

Mexico delays unreasonably the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas, and resolves on the prosecution of the war, I should be far from thinking that the United States ought to postpone to any distant day, the recognition of Texas, after the desired information is obtained. The senator from South Carolina has supposed it to be necessary to recognize Texas, in order to insure the execution of existing treaties with Mexico. So far as they affect Texas, she is as much bound by them, as if they had been negotiated under her express authority. For I suppose it to be incontestable, that a nation remains bound by all the treaties it has formed, however often it may think proper to change the form of its government; and that all the parts of a common nation also continue so bound, notwithstanding and after they shall have formed themselves into separate and independent

powers.

Then there are other considerations, which recommend us to act on full information, and with due deliberation. It is undeniable, that many citizens of the United States, impelled by a noble devotion to the cause of liberty, have rushed to the succor of Texas, and contributed to the achievement of her independence. This has been done without the sanction or authority of this government; but it nevertheless exposes us to unworthy imputations. It is known that European powers attribute to our Union unbounded ambition, and a desire of aggrandizing ourselves at the expense of our neighbors. The extensive acquisition of territory by the treaties of Louisiana and Florida, peaceful and upon a fair consideration as it was, is appealed to as sustaining the unfounded charge against us. Now, if, after Texas has declared her independence not quite four months ago, we should hasten to acknowledge it, considering the aid afforded by citizens of the United States, should we not give countenance to those imputations? Does not a just regard to our own character, as a wise, cautious, and dignified power, a just regard to the opinion of the people of Mexico, and a just regard to that of the impartial world, require that we should avoid all appearance of haste and precipitation? And when we have reason to suppose, that not a single hostile bayonet remains in Texas, and when the ceremony of recognition, performed now, or a few months hence, can be of no material consequence to her, is it not better for all parties that we should wait a little while longer?

The senator from South Carolina refers to the policy which has constantly guided our councils in regard to the acknowledgment of new powers, or new governments, and he has correctly stated it. But it would not be at all difficult, if it were proper to detain the Senate, to show an essential difference between the present instance and the cases of France, of Spanish America, and of Greece, to which he has adverted. There is an obvious difference in the duration of the new governments, and the degree of information which we possess about them.

The Senate, without the co-operation of the executive in some way, is incompetent to recognize Texas. The president tells us, in his message,

that he has adopted measures to acquire necessary information to guide his judgment. We also want it. He can not be justly accused of having delayed unreasonably to act. There is ground to believe, not only that Texas is independent, but that it has a government in practical operation. I sincerely hope it has, and that it has laid, on deep foundations, perfect securities for liberty, law, and order. In the mean time, every prudential consideration seems to me to require, that we should stop with the resolution and proposed amendment. Such appears to be the deliberate judgment of the senator himself. I sincerely, I most anxiously hope, that the desired information will be soon obtained by the executive; and that the feelings and wishes for the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas, which so generally prevail among our constituents, may be speedily gratified.

[After some further debate, the resolution was agreed to by a unanimous vote.]

ON THE EXPUNGING RESOLUTION.

IN SENATE, JANUARY 16, 1837.

[ON the 28th of March, 1834, the Senate of the United States adopted, by a vote of twenty-six to twenty, the following resolution, which had been offered by Mr. Clay :

Resolved, that the president, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed to himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.

In February, 1835, at the second session of the same Congress, Mr. Benton, of Missouri, brought in a resolution to expunge the above-cited resolution from the journals of the Senate, which was lost by the decisive vote of thirty-nine to seven. But the Senate of the next, the Twenty-fourth Congress, was composed of a majority of Jackson men, when Mr. Benton again brought forward his expunging resolution.

Except as this resolution proposed to avenge General Jackson for the censure of Mr. Clay's resolution of 1834, nothing could be more absurd; for it only contributed to make the latter more notorious in all future history. While the journal itself still bears the record, the expunging lines make that, too, all the more remarkable. The Constitution requires that each House of Congress shall keep a journal of its proceedings. Mr. Benton's resolution, therefore, called upon the Senate to violate this part of fundamental law, if it were possible to blot out the record. But that was no matter in those violent times, when the Constitution and laws were little regarded, if they stood in the way of the will of General Jackson. Mr. Benton's resolution was carried, and the journal of the Senate of the United States will forever bear the marks of the expunging lines-with what credit to the majority of that body who decreed it, we will not undertake to say. No true American can ever look upon it without having his face suffused with the blush of shame. Even if the resolution of Mr. Clay in 1834 had been untrue, or unjust,

or uncalled for, or in any manner improper, it would have been no justification of the expunging resolution, nor even of a counter-resolution at this distance of time, and when General Jackson was in a full career of popular triumph. Such a thing done for him, in such circumstances, would have been in bad taste. But in every aspect of the expunging resolution, and in all its relations, it was a barbarity, an unheard-of transaction in the legislative annals of civilized society, and can only be accounted for on the hypothesis, that General Jackson's passions and love of revenge forced his political friends in the Senate to do it; that it was virtually an order from him, and that they did not dare to disobey it ;-so complete was his ascendancy over them; all which proves that Mr. Clay was right. This hypothesis is probably the true historical interpretation of the affair. As Mr. Jefferson said to Mr. Webster in 1824, as cited in a former editorial: "He," General Jackson, "is the most unfit man I know of for such a place (president). His passions are terrible. He is a dangerous man." Doubtless those senators understood that they must do this thing on pain of the president's displeasure. What else could account for so barbarous an act? And, on this hypothesis, what is the spectacle presented? The head of one co-ordinate department of the government, marches unbidden into the chamber of another co-ordinate branch, seizes its journals, and blots out a record that is displeasing to him! And that record, too, was entered in obedience to the mandate of the Constitution!]

CONSIDERING that I was the mover of the resolution of March, 1834, and the consequent relation in which I stood to the majority of the Senate by whose vote it was adopted, I feel it to be my duty to say something on this expunging resolution, and I always have intended to do so when I should be persuaded that there existed a settled purpose of pressing it to a final decision. But it was so taken up and put down at the last session -taken up one day, when a speech was prepared for delivery, and put down when it was pronounced that I really doubted whether there existed any serious intention of ever putting it to the vote. At the very close of the last session, it will be recollected that the resolution came up, and in several quarters of the Senate a disposition was manifested to come to a definitive decision. On that occasion, I offered to waive my right to address the Senate, and silently to vote upon the resolution; but it was again laid upon the table, and laid there forever, as the country supposed, and as I believed. It is, however, now revived; and sundry changes having taken place in the members of this body, it would seem that the present design is to bring the resolution to an absolute conclusion.