The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1844-03-26
From the u. S. Gaxeffe.

From the U. S. Gazette.
OREGON-TEXAS-TH EINTELLlGENCE GER
The columns Of the Intelligencer have abounded
with cogent Arguments To impress upon the propri-
ETY. OF leaving to Executive action the settlement of
the Oregon question. 1t has deprecated discussion
OF it, except by the Executive and the English Minis
ter; 1t has gone farther it has denounced it's agta-
ton as improper as interfering with the undoubed
right of the Executive. Such has been its course in
relation to the Oregon question.
But upon The Iexas question, repudiating all Off
cIa or even authentic information the intention
of the Executive it bold takes ground in fiat contra
dction of all the principles laid down by itself on the
Oregon question 1t goes far to anticipate sup
posed Executive purpose and attempts strsngIe &C
ton. The IntellIgencer Argues that treaty made
by the Executive and ratified b, the Senate will have
gone through Purgsiion which must cleanse il OF
all objections and reeonmend it 10 the approval OF
the nation. And yot this srsoAe the Ipsssr-~..s
for Oregon, is to be denied the nation on the Texas
question, and the treaiy-making power which with
the great nation of England is declared the only pro-
per one, is denounced unfit settle with Texas or
with Mexico, and direct appeal is made to public
prejudice upon apprehended action of the Executive
In strict accordance with the principles of action laid
down by the lntelligencer the only true ones.
Suppose for moment that the Executive purporis
treaty with Texas Ho,o does the InttlIigencer kno,r
that u Is not for the purchase Of portion Of its territory?
Let them FIST ascertan what the truth Of the case
before they open their batteries even if justified SO TO
do when ascerained
We would recall to the notice Of the Integcncer
certain records of history to the authority of which
as conclusive precedent they at least must obedieny
bow.
During the Administration of J. q. Adams, Hen
ry Clay being Secretary of State, and about -four
years alter the declaration of Independence by Mexi-
CO. ard while Spain was pressing her ,c aciipe par-
Jare, MI Adams proposed to purchase of Mexico the
territory of Texas he failed TO accomplish it, only be.
IN WI nat 70, kiy n.
Texas declared her independence eight years ago
md having continuously maintained it during Ill
that period beyond the shadow of doubt. Mexico
having but eebly attempted subjugation, having been
sIgnally fooled IN every attempt TO enforce her
regny having In fact ceased warfare from sheer ina
by to prosecute it. Texas proposes to enter into
treaty with the United States and the In,egen cer,
wvbh supported and approved all the measures OF
Adams ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Of proposing to buy
Tsxas-now turns round and denounces the right Of
Texas for proposing 10 do that which declared right
IN Me1ico) to cede any portion Of her territory. Mr..
Adams and Mr. Clay having opposed in toto the
eessi0 OF Texas very properly took the first occasion
TO seek its recovery. Mexico in discussing the ques-
ton, never suggested doubt Of her right cede it,
allusion TO the relation which re-conque est
OF Mexico by Spain would induce between the
United States end Spain, did Mr.. Adams con-
template 1t as a matter worthy of consIde ration.--
The ,ight Of MEXICO TO cede Texas and Of the
United States to take 1t, Das ashamed pnquesonnbi.
uDueT circumstances WneU the oil In
dependence shed but dim light the fortunes OF
Mexico that country deemed her right of absolute on
troll over the whole Of her domain and the United
States sanctioned IT in so formal manner why may
not Texas, upon which the light of Independence
sheds Respondent halo, with scarce a retreatng
mist on the horizoD) enter into similar negotiations
with the United States, and cede any portion of her
Territory to the United States in accordance with
the precedenipaid down by the United States? Will
the 10 elllgencer and its CO advocates make dis
tincton between ceding part and apnexing the
whole Jso wH they gire in their adherence 10 iren
y or 10 measure by chch The United States shall obtain
The cession Of "a portion Of Ttras large or small
There are many reasons why our negotiations with
Texas, demand the form Of treaty more mpera
ly than does the Oregon. One may suffice. There
are no matters connected with the settlement of the
Oregon question, which may not with propriety be
published in every paper throughout the land But
in regard to Texas the startling policy Of foreign
tons on this question: be revealed only in secret
session. The whole merits of the Texas question,
many vital and essential points, must be excluded
from public disc usson, and interests vital to this
country be endangered.
The United States having (by it's commissioners in
treaty with the Commissioners Of Texss) established
limits between the countries, Texas and the United
states) apd each nation being in possession
agreeably to that settlement, will the United States
abandon the defences on the ground that oeded by
Texas ours, but desired by Mexico, should Texas
fall again under the dominion Of Mexco' II Mexi-
co has right to reclaim, why not wait the acknowl.
eJgment OF The Independence Of Texas before finally
establishing the line Of demarcation between the two
rivers.
IL we purpose TO adhere 10 the line established be-
tween Texas and the United States despite of Mexico,
it must be upon the principle that the Independence
Of Texas was not acknowledged by this country until
it became morally certain, that Mexico never could
resubugate her, and that therefore to all nents and
purposes she was entitled to be considered absolute
y independent and sovereign, notwithstanding Span
ish obstnacy might refuse to admit it In words.
The Administration Of Mr.. Adams fore,aw the GER
tainty Of Mexican Independence, while yet lowering
clouds over-shsdowing her prospects purblind