The Whig standard., 1844-06-12

Mr.. RIVES said he had proposition TO sub
ssmit to the Senate; bur, before doing so he de-
sired to state his views the general subject of
the Treaty. There had been many topics very
earnestly discussed in the course of the debate,
which, in his view of the subject, it was not
necessary to notice. Whatever may have been
the political motives which suggested this nego-
tiation in the first instance, or precipitated its
conclusion, "just forty days before the meeting
Of the Baltimore Convention" as the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. BENToN) had said, he did not
stand here to inquire into, to excuse, or to defend
them All the honorable Senator's suspicious in
that regard might be well founded, and yet it
would not in his estimation, furnish valid and
conclusive argument against the annexation Of
Texas, if that be, in ITSELF an object Of high
national expediency. So in relation 10 the con-
duct of the negotiation. There were circum-
stances in its inception, its progress, and its con-
summation, which he deeply regretted and could
sincerely wish had been otherwise. But these
things were past and irrevocable. We were not
called upon, in deciding upon the fate OF the
Ire ty, to pass vote of appreciation or censure
on the acts or motives Of the Administration
which negotiated il. The treaty itself was the
question now to be disposed Of by the action
of the Senate. @
In doing that wisely and Justly, the first in
quiry which presents itself is as to the character
and importance Of the object sought to be ac-
compli he'd by the treaty. 1t seemed to him
(said Mr.. RIvEs) impossible to look upon the map
of the country, and not to recognise at once the
vital importance Of the object to the unity and
safety, as we'll as The strength and power Of the
nation. The unfortunate alienation Of that por-
ton of our domain, by the treaty with Spain in
1919, had reversed the territorial position Of the
United States, and placed the weight Of the
American empire, extend ng in its northern belt
from sea to sea, as upon the point OF an inverted
cone. 1t cut off FIVE hundred miles of the solid
and extended base line, on the coast of the Gulf
of Mexico, on which the fabric OF our dominion
had firmly stood, and reduced our maritime bor-
der upon that sea, the American Mediterranean,
to narrow wedge from the mouths Of the Mis-
sissipp to the Cape of Florida. 1t tdismembered
the great valley of the Mississippi, which was
ours by the laws of God and man, and cut in
twain two of its noblest tributaries, the Red
river and the Arkansas. Finally, by curtailing
our southwestern limits to the Sabine and the
south bank of the Red river and the Arkansas, 1t
brought foreign power within few days march
of the great emporium Of the West, and opened
the way for hostile approach to the heart OF the
most vulnerable, as well as most fertile and val
uable portion Of our country.
Ihave said, Mr.. President, that this territory
had been ours by the laws of God and man. In
running my eye, yesterday, very hastily over a
highly interesting and authentic work. my at
tention was attracted by the charter, granted by
Louis XIV in 17l2 TO Crozat, of the right to
trade in Louisiana, where the limits of that
princely domain are described in general terms
as extending from the English settlements in
Carolina 10 Old and New Mexico, and particu-
larly as embracing sail the rirers achich faH
directly or indirectly into the 81. Louis" then the
name of the Mississippi river. The natural
extension of louisiana is thus defined by the
waters, both principal and tributary. OF the river
st. Louis, since called the Mississippi, and car
ries our right, by the fat OF Providence, to the
sources Of the r ed river and the Arkansas, which
were rudely truncated by the treaty of 1919, and
halt OF them thrown into foreign dominion.
But, sir, have not thought it necessary to look,
with any minuteness, into the grounds or the
history of our former title to Texas under the
purchase of Louisiana. 1t is sufficient for me
that all Of our great statesmen, who were con-
temporary with that transaction and the terrific
rial discussions which grew out Of it, have con-
sidered our former right TO Texas as an integral
part of Louisiana, above all serious question
Mr. jefferson Mr.. Madison, and Mr. Monroe
have left, in imperishable characters upon the
public archives of the country, their solemn con.
victon, that our title 10 the boundary OF the
. Rio del Norte was as unquestionahle as our right
to the Island OF Orleans. Mr. Adams very for
ClDly sustained tilc SdmC oPihiOi, ~ hio uAso'o
sions with the Spanish Minister in lSiS-I9;
and Mr. Clay, who bore patriotic and distin-
guished lead in The legislative discussions which
were consequent the treaty of 1919, has recent
ly in the able letter addressed by him to his coun-
trymen, renewed the expression OF his deliberate
and well-considered opinion that we had clear
title to the country between the Sabine and the
Rio del Norte, under the purchase Of Louisiana
from France.
How this most important and valuable do
main came to be surrendered TO Spain by the
treaty of 1919 is a mystery and enigma Ito say
no more) in our diplomatic history which has
not hitherto been solved. l trust the time will
come when we shall be enlightened on the sub
iect, wherever the blame may fall--if there be
Just cause for blame, Of which will not now
undertake to decide. That the sacrifice was not
stoddards Sketches historical and descriptive, Of
Lonssna.