The Arkansas banner., 1844-07-24


 United States, and admitted as soon ds poss'- 67s, according to the principles of the federal
 constitution, to all the rights, advantages and firnupities of citizens of the United States and. in the mean time, they shall be maih-
 tained and protected in the free enjoyment 0t
 their liberty, property, and the religion "liloH
 Now if any of the people of Texas reside
 on territory then within the boundaries oi 1 Louisiana. this obligation remains in full
 force, unless France has released us from 1t,
 or those people have relinquished 1t, and do not now desire its iulhlmeat.
 Iconcedethat we may have done acts which
 bar or estop us, both morally and politically, l from making any further righfu1 claim over
 them against their consent; but have they ever become constitutonally diyested ol their
 right under that treaty provision?
 1 have already proyed that the territory of l Texas was geographically within the limits ] of Louisiana, and whatever may be her pre-
 sent true boundaries, it is well known that
 the people of Texas, now asking admission,
 reside on that part of her territory conceded
 by all not to be west or north of her old li-
 mits
 The obligation imposed on us in 1903,
 then-how have we become eXonerated from it? In no way, 1 apprehend. unless by the
 treaty made with Spain in 1919, ceding all
 our territory west of the Sabine, and thus
 ceding away Texas herself To understand
 the precise character of that treaty, it is ne-
 cessary to notice that it was not as many
 have supposed, treaty merely defining, with
 particularity, limits before general and uncer-
 tain, between contiguous nations.
 But, turning to the third article, G Laws, 616,l 1t will be seen that, after describing a line north from the mouth of the Sabine, and
 then northwest and west to the South Sea, .tthe United States hereby CEDE to his Cath
 ollie Majesty, and RENOUNCE forever all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of.the above described line; and in like manner his Catho- lie Majesty eEDEs to the United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territo- ries east and north of the said line; and for himself his heirs, and his successors, renoun- ees all claims to tue said territories foreyer.o
 Besides fixing some boundaries before doubtful, the treaty of 1919 was thus mani festly one of cession; as much so, on our part, of Texas, as on the part of Spain, of the Florldas, the same language being used in both cases. The territory, then, being very large, and its inhabitants several thousands, it was neither constitutional nor right to cede them away, and deprive them of their claims to be admitted into our Union under the Louisiana treaty, without first asking and obtaining their consent Neither of these was done; and whatever acts they have since passed, under a supposition that their claim had by Us been legally extinguished, are. not 10 iniure or de- bar them ja forum c0t5eieHti@-ins sound mo- rals or just principles-from now requesting, as they virtually do by this treaty, a reunion and admission to all the privileges before stip- ulated 10 be allowed them. These positions are so important as 10 justify some other that the treaty of 1919 was then regarded on both sides as one of eession. The message of Mr. Monroe, in December, 1919, says i've had eEpED tal4ab7e territargo And Mr Clay in 1920, delares that We unadeisealy eEpED the country west of the Sabine to the Klo del Norte. So Mir. Adams, before the ratfcations were completed, (1Iay Sd, 1920, 1 State Papers, 684,) says of the United States, "their right of territory was, and vet Is, to the Rio del Norte," j" and (in Feb, 1821,l ssthese concessions oa the part of.the United States were great, and the treaty wasa treaty of "ntatUal ceSaioas" 4 State Slate Papers, S03;9 in the words of Don Onis, 1t was a treaty of EXCHANGE of Florida for Texas acounuy more extensive, fertile, and valuable.
 The proprety of that exchange or eession Is a very different question; and however proper mast of it may, as earlyas 1906, have seemed ju5tifiable to one House of Congress, and the whole of 1t advisable to all of the other House, and the President in 1919, yet with the knowledge we now possess of the value of Texas, and the land ceded on the sources of the Red river and the Arkansas, as we'll as the better terms which might pro- bably have been procured of Spdia, the cos- sion is much to be regretted.
 But before complaining too severely of those who participated ill the making of the treaty, and its ratification, by having obliged us not only topay five millions of dollars for Fiorida-a country that has been called mere sand banks and swamps-but to cede the whole of Texas, larger and richer than three Floridas, t may be well 10 advert 10 one or two considerations. The title of what we ceded was eontroverted, however improperly; but that of what we obtained was 'uncontro- verted. The extent and character of Texas were thenHttle known or appreciated; while the importance of the possession of Florida by us, with view .the free navigation of the Mobile and Apilachicola was thoroughly understood, as well as its benefits to the rich countries above, of having American depots and outlets for their produce near the ocean, and additional guards to the domestic tram utility of the South, and the security of her peculiar property and institutions. These cir induced Mr. Jefferson, as carly as he attempt to buy Louisiana, to seek to ob- ain the Floridas aIso.-l4 State Papers, .738 -9.)
 It is nota little curious that, in the original instructions, they extended only to that part ,l Louisiana consisting of the Island of New Orleans, or all east of the Mississippi, and in- Iuding, at the same time, the Floridas; but