The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-06-12

ing and prominent objections which have been
urged, in this debate. against the instrumentation
of Texas to the Uni ed States With all the
respect entertain for the opinions Of honorable
Senators, ] have not been able tn see IN those
objections all the weight and rec they attach to
them. Yet there are considerations quite conclu-
sve to my mind against the ratification, at this
time, OF the Treaty before us. Mexico il neigh
boring and friendly, and what is more, aOsaker
Power. whom it is our duty to treat with every
proper consideration and regard | had hoped,
sir, that when the distinguished gentleman, who
now presdes over the Department of State, sue
ceeded to the duties of that office, that he would
have opened communications with Mexico, with
view TO propitiate her pride and conclliate her
interests, at the same time that he pursued the
negotiation with Texas. | took the liberty to
express these views to honorable Senator from
South Carolina, (Mr McDUFFIE,) whom do not
now see in his place, in the hope that he would
recommend them, by the greater weight OF his
opinion, IN quarter where well knew his opln.
ions always received with the high respect
they deserve believed, sir, that if this course
were pursued, Mexico would have been finally
propltiated to an arrangement, which, in many
aspects, her own interests well as those OF
the United States and Texas, seemed strongly to
recommend; and although such a course would
have necessarily involved delay of some months,
yet that consideraticn, in a public and national
view. was of no weight thought, compared with
the solid advantages Of more satisfactory and
harmonious adjustment of the question, in the
end.
II was obvious that the annexation of Texas to
the United States would, Of necessity, involve, on
its western aud northwestern frontier, question
of limits with Mexico. Here, then, was tair and
proper ground for previous adjustment with
Mexico, if there were any possibility of efecting
it, II was known that on that side OF her terri
tory Texas claimed an extent OF boundary which
iuterfered with actual settlements Of Mexico
within the limits of her ancient provinces. To
take possession under an adverse title thus d.
rectly conflicting with the well known and es-
tablshed limits of the Mexican provinces, with
out any previous proposition to designate the true
boundary by amicabe arrangement and common
consent, would seem to me 10 be a proceeding
wholly wanting in comfy, to say the least, justly
offensive to the pride Of Mexico, and contrary to
those moral and conventional rules of gond neigh.
borhocd which are binding alike on nations aud
individuals.
By the treaty before us Texas cedes to the
United States sail its Ter itories," to be held by
the United States in full property and sove-
reign,y." 1t appears from the documents laid
before US, that the "presenl boundaries" of Texas
are defined by an act of the Texan Congress OF
western and northwestern boundary the whole
course of the I" Rio Grande or Del Norte, from
its mouth to its source, and thence due north to
the AID deg. of north latitude" This boundary
includes Santa Fe and several other important
Mexican towns and settlements on the eastern
side of the Rio del Norte, aud embraces large
portions, as the Senator from Missouri Mr.
Benton) informs us, Of four Mexican provinces.
The very interesting work published in 1912, to
E a Hv rofn fndd rA1 H.
es Historical and Descriptive, of Louisiana) gives
from collaied ancient maps of the highest aulho-
rity the western boundary of Louisiana, which
should be Identical with that of Texas; and this
boundary is there described as running, with the
Rio del Norte, some hundreds of miles from its
mouth, till we come to the great Bend, where the
river turns suddenly to the west. and at that
point the boundary leaves the river, and strikes
and runs along with range of mountains called
the Merican Mountains, on the eastern side of
the Rio del Norte. forming the dividing ridge be-
tween its waters on the west and the sources of
the Red River, the Arkansas, and the other rribu-
taries of the Mississippi on the east. This, there
is every reason to believe, is the true and right
full boundary Of Texas.
Such being the case, can we, consistently
with the fairness and comfy due to coter-
mnous and friendly State, take possession of
Texas under a treaty of cession carrying our
limits into the heart Of the Mexican provinces,
and cutting off several of their most impnr-
tant towns and seltl mens, without previous
effort to adjust these conflicting boundaries
by amlcable arrangement with Mexico? | think
not. To the extent to which the boundary
claimed by Texas runs in upon the actual settle
ments OF Mexico, which have never been brought
IN any manner whatever, under the authority or
control of Texas, the title asserted by her is what
is called, in the language of English and Ameri-
can law, pretensed title; and by the principles
Of municipal law as adopted in all civilized coun-
tries, the purchase Of such title, between ndi-
vlduals, is considered and treated as an offence
against justice. The same principle of policy
and morals and fair dealing is applicable to the
transactions OF nations and demands, in my hum
BILE Judgment, in the present case. reasonable
and bona fde effort 10 cut off the Of future
litigation and controversy by an amcc BILE arrange
ment with Mexico, previous to consummaton of
the treaty Of cession.
There is another consideration to my mind not
less influential against the ratification of this
treatV linn ant Il