The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-03-26
From the u. s. Gazette.
OREGON-TEXAS-TH HE INTELLIGENCER

From the u. s. Gazette.
OREGON-TEXAS-TH EINTELLIGENCER.
The columns of the InteIligebcer have abounded
with cogent Arguments to Impress upon the propr
city of leaving to Executive action the settlement of
the Ore ION question. Ii has deprecated discussion
OF 1t, except by he Executive and the English Minis
tel; 1t has gone farther II has denounced It's agita
ton as improper, as interfering with the undoubted
right Of the Executive. Such has been its course in
relation To the Oregon question.
But upon The Texas question, repudiatng all Off
cia authentic information to the intention
Of the Executive, it bold lakes ground in flat contra
dlction of all The principles laid down by itself on the
Oregon question. !, goes far > to anticipate sup
posed Executive pun ose and attempts TO strsnge
ton. lbe lntehgencer argues that a treaty made
by the Executive and ratified by the Senate i'll have
gone through puTgation which must cleanse 1t Of
all objections and recommend it to the approval OF
the naton. And yet this specific of the INTEL gencer
for Oregon, II 10 be denied the nation the Texas
question, and the treaty-making power W hich 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 al apprehended action ofthe Executive
In strict accordance with the principles of action laid
down by the lntcll'gencer as the only true ones
Suppose for a moment that the Executive purporis
q treaty with Texas: Hoc does The Inieihgeneer kno,r
that IS not for the purchase Of portion Of It's er,iiory3
Let them fist dsoeidD What the truth OF the case
before they open Their batteries, If justified so 10
do when ascrrtained
We would recall TO the notice OF the nleIig cncer
certain records of history TO the authority Of which
as conclusive precedent, they least must obedenty
bow.
During the Administration of J. O. Adams, Hen
ry Clay beng Secretary of State, and about fur
yeas after the declaration Of independence by Mer-
CO. and while Spain wa pressing her rih active uar-
fare, MI. Adam proposed to purchase of Mexico the
territory OF Texas he failed 10 accomplish it, onlu be-
cause Mexico would not accede 10 his proposals -
Texas declared her Independence ,igh years ago,
and having continuously maintained II during all
that period beyond the shadow Of a doubt Mexico
having bot eebly attempted suhjupation, hayinp been
slghaly ioed IN every attempt TO enforce her sove-
regny having IN fact ceased warfare from sheer ina
biiy 10 prosecute II, Texas proposes to enter into
treaty WIN the united States, and the Inelligencer,
which supported and approved oil the measures OF
Adams Adu,inisraton-tbat Of proposing to buy
Irras-now turns round and denounces the right of
Texas (or proposing 10 do that hch declared right
IN Mrrieo) to ccde any portion of her territory Mr.
Adams aud Mr.. Clay having opposed in toto the
eesson ofTenas, very properly took the first occasion
to seek is recovery. Mexico in DISCUSSING tho ones
on, never suggested a doubt Of her ripht To ceje II
OF an allusIon 10 the relation which a re-conouesi
OF MrTlco by Spain would induce between The
United States end Spain, nor did MIR Adams con-
template II as matter worthy Of consideration
The right OF Mexico to cede Texas and NJ the
United States TO take IT, uas assumed as
II therefore under circumstances when the sun of In
dependence she'd but dim light on the fortunes of
Mexico that country deemed her right Of absolute con-
troll over the whole Of her domain and the United
States sanctioned II n so formal a manner VIII, NAV
not Texas, upon which the light Of Independence
sheds respondent halo, with scarce a retreatinq
mist on the horz1n,) enter into similar negotiations
with the United States and cede any portion of her
errltory 10 lhe United States, IN accordance with
the precedentlaid down by the United Statesi Will
the In elgencer and its co advocates make a dis
tncton between cediLg part and anneaing the
whole so, UW they gipt IN their adherence 10 frea
" or 10 measure by rhieh The United States shall obtain
The ee''ion ofa portion Of Tera, large or small
there are many reasons why our negotiations with
Texas, demand the form Of treaty more imperative
ly than does the Oregoa One may suffice There
are no matters connected with the settlement of the
Oregon question, which may not with propriety he
published IN every paper throughout the land But
IN regard 10 exas, the startling policy Of foreign ma
uons on TINS question, can be revealed only in secret
session. The whole merits Of the Texas question
many vital and essential points, must be excluded
from pubic discussion, and interests vital TO TIN,
country be endangered.
The United States having (by its commissioners. in
treaty with the Commissioners Of Texas established
Units between the countries, Texas and the United
States) and each nation being now in possession
geesbly to that settlement, will the United States
abandon the deiences on the ground that ceded by
Texas as ours, but desired by Mexico should Texas
TAI again under the dominion Of Mexco2 II Mexi.
co has right TO reclaim, why not wait the scknogl
edgment Of The Independence Of Texas. before finally
establishing the line Of demarcstion between the two
rivers.
live purpose TO adhere 10 the line established he.
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
il became morally certain, that Mexico never could
resubugaie her, and that therefore TO all inents and
purposes she was entitled 10 be considered absolite
y independent and sovereign, notwithstanding Span
'sh obstInacy might refuse to admit II in words
The Administration Of Mr.. Adams fore.aw the GER |
tan'y OF Mexican Independence, while yet lowering
clouds over-shsdowing her prospects a purblnd |
man cannot doubt the cloudess title of Texas