The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-08-08

than that of the valley of New Mexico, as laid down
upon the map, occupying very small and narrow
territory, actually settled, east Of the Del Norte
and west of the mountain at the foot OF which Is the
city and valley of Santa Fe If this were agreed
upon, the boundary of Texas would then be the
Del Norte, from its mouth 10 the Passo, nearly
thousand miles; thence from the Passo north, along
the range of mountains which formed the western
boundary of New Mexico, to its northern boundary
in about latitude $50; thence along that boundary
west the Del Norte; thence along its bank to its
source and thence due north to latitude AZ. IL
this were agreed upon, every Mexican settlement
would be excluded from the republic of Texas, and
nothing embraced which was not clearly her own"
"IIere, then, we have the fact most clearly esab-
lished, that Texas was ours TO the Del Norte; and,
consequently If it is now reacqured from Texas, II
is clear case of reannex aon, and restoration OF
our former boundary Here might rest the case;
but am now prepared to show that, by the most
solemn treaty of limits with Texas, we have ac-
knowedged her boundary from point where line
draws from the head of the Del Nore strikes the
42d parallel of north latitude, and thence by the
present boundary of the United States to the Sabine.
In order to understand this subject fully it will be
necessary first to recur to our treaty of limits with
Mexico of the 18th of January, 1928. The pream-
bic to that treaty rectes the treaty of 1919 with
Spain, and declares that the said treaty having been
sanctioned at period when Mexico constituted a
part OF tne opuniSn HlOHuTCHy, 10 uScIHtu HcCcS-
sary now to confirm the validity of the aforesaid
treaty oflims, regarding it as still IN force, and
binding between the United States of America and
the United Mexican States Articles first and Sec
ond adopt and describe the boundary of the treaty
of 1879, as beginning at the mouth of the Sabine;
thence along its western bank to the 32d degree of
latitude north; thence due north to the Red river,
and along its course west to longitude 100; thence
due north to the Arkansas; thence to its sources
and thence due north TO latitude AZ, and along that
parallel TO the Pacific. On the 25th April 1888,
we concluded convention with Texas of
boundaries as it is called in the treaty. That
treaty declares that the treaty Of limits made
and concluded on the 18th Of January, 1928,
between the United States of America on
the one part, and the United Mexican States
on the other, is binding upon the republic of
Texas, the same having been entered into at time
when Texas formed part of the said Mexican
States Article provides for the immediate mark
ing of a portion of said line of boundary; and the
Cd article stipulates that the remaining portion of
the said boundary line shall be run and marked at
such time hereafter as may suit the convenience of
both contracting parties Here, then, the whole
boundary line of 1879, as then concluded with Spain,
and reaffrmed with Mexico in 1928 is, in a solemn
treaty, ratified by Texas and this government the
whole boundary now claimed by Texas up to the
42d parallel of north latitude is recognised and es-
tabished, and placed beyond the power of further
controversy. Texas, then, as recognised by us by
SUlefNn treaty, is tlOt tDe dHu OF sun anu UOWeTS,
and bounded by the Red river and the Nueces, but
is admitted in our treaty to run from the Sabine
along our whole western boundary to latitude 400;
and thence along that parallel until il meets and in
tersects the line running due north from the
of the Del Nore. When we consider, also, that this
was the boundary described in the organic act of
Texas of 1885, before referred to; that this was the
law which fixed the Del Norte as the boundary, and
authorized the treaty to be made with the United
States only according to the boundary line there
in described, the matter is placed beyond all ques-,
ton, and the organic law of Texas is admitted by
the United States; and against this treaty and boun-
Diary, although published and proclaimed at the
time, Mexico has never protested, but, by her long
silence for than five years-from 1888 until
lS43-has fully acquiesced."
Such are the authorities such the reasons, for claim
ing to the Rio del Norte. Up to that limit, have
obtained an "inchoate right" (as the National In
teigencer calls iL) We claim by 'thc compact Of
annexation, which has now the force of a law;n and
the Executive is bound by his duty 'sce that the
laws faithfully administered for securing to this
law of annexation its full force and validity as the
Baltimore American states When the Intelligent
Ger, however, would limit our Executive to occupy
within that territory, the settled limits of the land
whose proper population merely and not its territorial
the Mexican side of the question, and abandons our
own. Uemust keep, it seems, within the "setted lin
its of the land" and not the Mcxicsus 1.-THE Texans
have settled small proportion of the land we must
confne ourselves to that; and leave, perhaps, the
rest Of the lpnd settled unsettled the Mexicans.
At all events, tre must not now claim it, nor must
we occupy with our troops; otherwise, it will be
offensive ,car, and the President transcends his
legitimate authority by ordering our troops to
advance upon it, Suppose there are thousands or
millions Of acres of vacant lands with neither Mex
lean nora Texan foot upon il: still our troops must
not go upon il, even though the Mexicans might
think of advancing thereon, to invade and oc-
cupy it, and though we claim the land as our own.
large part Of the land may not hitherto have been
settled by the Mexicans. If our troops now propose
to occupy il, Mexico might thereafter advance her
own troops upon it, and then claim it their own.
Still according to the doctrine Of the National Inelli-
gcncer, must not go upon it, because it is not with
in sour settled limits" We must forbear to exercise
our territorial pretensions," because Texas has no
''propcr population" upon it, This doctrine par
takes of the Mexican interest. 1t is in itself per-
fecty preposterous. 1t limits obligation to de-
fend the actual settlements, and not the whole va
cant territory-the people, and not the property.
Our duty to defend and protect our property is
coterminous with our rights; and our Executive
is clearly bound to assert those rights
We, too, are for standing upon the defensive, for
the present; but is not so strict and "crpped and
defence as the Inelligencer claims
giving, in fact, the oyster to the Mexicans, and
keeping the shell to ourselves.
II tho territory we claim to the Rio del Norte be
not in the actual armed possession of Mexico, we
hold it to be clear that we may rghtuly take such
possession ourselves, and defend it when taken
But, at present, see no necessity or expediency
for resortng to force, to deprive Mexico of such
actual possession. Had we not better leave her to
commit the first act Of hostitesI When that is
done, at war; and then we strike with all our
power.
Such appears TO be our true policy. Our troops