The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-06-25


Der 5th 1885, and she refused, her sovereign
right, 10 enter into the new government See tie
decree, kennedy, Ill, 49, OH She on'inued DO
ring 1925 to contend mAniuly against the usup r,
add TO sustain her independent rights I'LL the final VIC
tory of San Jacinto in April (26th) 1886, crowned
| her efforts.
| Her constitution-early as March llth 1927, and
while in the contederaey with Mexico-used this
emphatic language Texas sis free and indie pend ut
of the other United Mexican States, and of every
other foreign power and dominion" (See Ken
| nedy's H. 4i1 p App And again: After stating
that she has Joined the coniederacy for certain spec
fed purposes the constitution declares that, for all
others, Texas "retans its liberty Independence, and
Sovereignty
| What Justlhable pretenee, then, has there been
since for Mexico TO attempt TO dragon separate
\ and independent state into new form Of govern
men, or into subsection 10 her tyranny? What
right of Mexico has she violated The wrong is
the other side; and il is Mexico, to whom she
neither duties nor allegiance, that usurping con
troll over her affairs not justifable either by sound
| principles of constitutional law, or the great a4ioms
! on which the right of our States and their PEG
J Pile rest.
| Let ii be remembered, ALSO that Texas, beside
being an independent sovereign State since the
original revolution IN 1921 and the first Mexican
constitution OF 1924, had entirely separated from the
| coniederacy when il dissolved in 1885, as she
had right TO- 10 two years before the independ
| enee OF Mexico herself was acknowledged by SPAN
| in December, 1886.
|
year AFTER at San Jacnto, resisted Mexican oceupa-
| ton and control and hence may not have been III
cluded in SPANS recognition Of Mexico alone
Bring these facts home to our own system OF gov.
eminent Look at the anaiogies and rights. Read
the eoquen, and indignant remonstrances Of Texas
against the assumed authority oyeg tyr, IN her new
declaration Of independence, aud new constitution
in 1886 and our hearts cannot but burn within OF the
than Baitish dctation aud oppression which
claimed and attempted to be exercised her; and
cause of just exists at all, it is on the part
of Texas, and against Mexico, rather than the le-
| verse.
But if any consider this view Of the in some
| respects not tenabe, we invite their attention to
other aspect of the subject, which strengthens much
the right OF Texas to make their cession, and be
ceived into the Union, and enjoy all its benefits,
proposed by this treaty.
! When purchased Texas within the limits Of
Louisiana in 1903, engaged, by treaty with
France, TO perform the solemn duties set in the
Sd article, lst Laws, p. 1876.
| "TLe inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be
Incorporated in the Union Of the United States and
admitted as soon possible, according to the princ
piles Of the federal constitution all the rights ad
vantages, aud mmunes of citizens of the United
States; aud, in the time, they shall be main
tanned and protected in the free endowment of their
| liberty, property and the religion which they pro-
| fess'
| Now if any of the people Of Texas reside ter
rory then within the boundaries of Louisiana this
|
released from it, those people have relnqushed
it, and do not desire its fuflment
| concede that may have done acts which bar
or estop us, both morally and politically, from max
ing any further iightiul claim them against their
consent but have they ever become constitutonaly
Invested OF their RICH, under that treaty pr, vision
have already proved that the territory of Texas
was geographically within the limits Of Louisiana,
and whatever may be her present true boundaries, il
is well known that the people of Texas, now ask
ing admission, reside that part of her territory
conceded by all not to be west or north of her old
lImi
The obligation imposed in 1903 then how
have we become exonerated from it In no way |
apprehend, unless by the treaty made with Spain in
1919, cedIng all our territory west Of the Sabine, and
thus cedlng away Texas herself To understand
the preci,e character of hat treaty, is sary
notice that 1t was not, macy have hastily supposed
treaty merely defining, with particularly, limits be-
fore general and uncertain, between contiguous
| tons.
! But, turning 10 the third article C Laws Gle
it will be that, after describing line NORTH
| from the mouth Of the Sabine, and then northwest
and west TO the South Sea- the United States here
| by CEDE to his Catholic Majesty, and RENOUNCE
forever all theH rights, claims, and professions, to
the territories lying ives, and south of the above de-
| scrbed line and in Ike manner his Catholic ma jes-
! ty cedes TO the said United States all his rights
claims and preiensons to any territoI les east and
north OF the said line and for himself his heirs and
successors, renounces all claims TO the said terrific
ries iorever.n
Besides fixing some boundaries before doubtful,
the treaty Of 1919 thus manifestly of cessOn
as much so, on our part, of Texas the part
Spain OF the Flordas, the language beirg used
in both The territory then being yely large,
and lis inhabitants several thousands, II neither
constitutional right TO cede them away, and de-
prve them OF their clams TO be admitted into our
Union under the Louisiana treaty, without first qsk
ing and obtaining their consent. Neither oil these
was done and whatever acts they have since passed,
under supposit on that their claim had by been
legally extinguished, to iniure or debar them
IN forum oonsoi nG-in sound morals or Just priGCi.
pIes--irom now requesting. as they virtually do by
this treaty, reunion and admission TO all the priv.
cges before stipulated to be allowed them. 1hes,
positions are so important 10 justify furthe
proofs that the treaty Of 1919 was then REGARDED a
both sides as one of cesson. The message OF NJ.
| Monroe, IN December, 1919, says eve had crurl
uaiuabie territory" And MIR Clay, in 1920 decllr.-
that we unadyisedly oEDED the country west of tur
Sabine 10 the Rio del Norte. So Mr.. Adams before
| The rathcations were completed, MAY 81, l-2U
State Papers, 6Si ~ says Of the United States then
| right Of territory was, yet H. TO the Rio del
Norte," and On February, 1921 "these concession,
on the part OF the United States great and tr
| treaty was treaty of " mutual oessions." state
| Papers IO3 j IN the words of Don Onis, II wa
| Treaty OF rhcH,ses of Florida for Texas coun.
Try more extensive, fertile, and valuable.
lbe pr"pnety OF that exchange or cession is very
different question and however proper most oI 81
may, as early as 1876, have seemed unsuitable 10 ono
House OF Congress, and the whole of II advisable o.
all Of the other House, and the President in 1917
yet with the knowlcdge now possess Of the vsIu.
| Of Texas, and the land ceded on the sources OF
Red river and the Arkansas as well az Of the bette
terms which might yrobab have been procured %
| sam, the ce.-ion much To be regretted
| But before complaining too severely e those who
participated IN the making OF the treaty, and IN .,
ratification, by having obliged not only TO pay five
millions OF dollars for F.orida--a country that Il,
been called mere sand banks and swamps- btt 10
eede the whole Of Texas, larger and richer than three
fiorIdss II may be well to adver, to one or two con
siderations. The title OF what we ceded was cor.