The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-06-27

A recognition OF Independence OF another power
standing alone, obliges our courts To treat tsu TO-
and TO give them aud their citizens all risne. y Pso
perty and jurisdiction and sovereignty, as IN any
other ease. II is de turs well as de Jaeo' IN 'no
most critical and solemn forum Of another pauon'-
Kent, rs
Yet some senators, after all, seem to ihink IL ou,
armed lasurreei,oa" or, as Russia depomihn'eo
tho Independence of Mexico and South America
but +" criminal combinations OF sedtious SUBJECTS
against their legitimate kngs But II is oether the
American side Of the question: nor that espou'ed ny
Mr. Webster himself
Mexico (says he) may have chosen to consider,
and may still choose to consider, Texas as having
been, al all times since 1885, and as sun continuing
a rebellious province but The world mas been oo-
liz, TO take a very different view OF the matter
as And it must be added that the constitution, Puo
iic Treaties and the laws, obge the President to re-
gard Texas an independent State, ana us teif'o
~ us no part Of the territory of Mexico-(See Let
ter Of july l642)
Nor is this merely theoretical. On two occasions
we H. ye practically recognised the power OF the dc
tacio governments the west OF US to be dc Je so
TO make permanent compacts win US concernihg
the boundaries of their territory, long before they
were acknowledged sovereign by the parent coun-
try. go
Thus, 18th January, 1928, completed with
Mexico a treaty regulating the limit OF the territory
contiguous 10 US, without asking the consent OF
Spain, though she then made urgent claim to Mexi-
co, thOubh ue IatteT hau DecH INDEPENDENT put Sc
years, and though her separate sovereignty had
not hen been acknowledged by Spain, and II was not
ill 1886.
So, again, in 1888, April %, we made similar
treaty of limits with Texas, as to her territory, with
out consulting Mexico, aud when her de jure rights
were as much in question now. Some have ask,
il the right to cede was clear in 1897 well now,
why the proposal then was not accepted? Simply,
because the danger Of war then greater, and the
hope of permanent independence was less.
The character and prospects OF the war with
Mexico in 1887 were very different from the condi-
ion Of things now; and exposure much greater
then to be involved in difficulty of taking cession
so soon after one great invasion, and amidst the
prospect of another, and without any long abandon
meni, as now, OF regular war on Texas for many
years.
The Government Of Texas was then also, less
settled less firm less kelly TO be permanent less
rpened less recognised by all Christie ndon and her
claims less the sympathies and interference Of 9TH
er friendly powers by alliances cessions, TO put
end to barbarous maraudngs, as we'll as oppression
and the authority Of Mexico wss less to enforce any
prelensions over a territory much longer ndepen
dent acknowledged by Others, matured in her insti-
tutions, and by the lapse of time, enancpated from
her vain efforts at control The statute of limat ons
bars most debts and claims in five six years and
much more than that has elapsed here.
The whole real diffic uty resolves itself into one,
not of right to sell cede the part, and
we to buy on the other, but one to the just and
probable consequences of the Transaction consdern,
the relations actually existing between Mexico and
Texas, whether beligeran or not and II belgerani,
whether justly so not. II follows, them that if
an independent sovereignty Texas can cede rightful-
ly her whole territory, as well as part, and unite
her Government, well territory, with US, if she
pIeases. Such acts are done constantly in Europe,
and here, both in Republican confeders cies and mon
arches, as before shown and Vatle cited by the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Breese j Iecosnise the
principle fully.
Having discussed the right 10 receive and the
right to cede Texas, the next question is, whe her,
duty, The tresty for the annexation ought not to
be ratified. Are the reasons for 1t not ample, and
our duty cear' The presumption certainly would
be that, unless strong public objections exist, no
tIon would decline the offer of large addition to
its territory, population, and power. More especi-
ally does such presumption arise, when the terri
tory is contiguous, and convenient if not necessary
has been long sought for under three four different
ad Dinstrations is governed by institutions and
laws similar to our own, and inhabited by people,
most Of whom have Ike origin, education and re-
giou with ourselves; and concentrate their afiec-
lions and wishes reunion with the great national
family from which they sprang.
To be continued