The North-Carolina standard., 1845-04-23

he would devote to the subject. PROPERLY before
the committee However he had notified the
House, in the opening of his speech, that if he
touched the question before the committee, it
would be by accident, and not by design. AS to
the expedieney and consttutionaIity of resuming
the Jurisdiction Of the United States, over Texas,
or of admitting her into our confederacy of States
as sovereign member, he did not entertain a
doubt. In 1863, France, then the righfnl owner
by discovery and occupancy, ceded the whole
country, known by the name of Louisiana, (now
the State of Louisiana and the republic Of Texas
to the kingdom of Spain. The King Of Spain
held it under the French cession for thfrtyseven
years, or till the year 1900, when Spain cedea
back the Territory of Louisiana TO France.
France then held it until 1903, when she eeded
the whole country as before mentioned to United
States for the sum of Sl5,OOoOOo. In 1904 the
United States established territorial government
ont of the southern portion of It, under the name
Of New Orleans. In 1912 it was admitted into
the Union as a sovereign State. In 1919, all that
vast extent of territory lying west OF the dividing
line between the United States and Texas was
coded to SPAN by the United States. In the
treaty Of 1919, it is contended that the United
States was divested of all title to this country call
ed Texas. Mr.. J. contended that this govern
ment had no power to ALLEVIATE or expatriate any
portion of its ctizents without their consent. We
find the inhabitants of Texas, some few months
after the treaty between the United States and
Spain had been concluded, meeting in primary
assembly, exercising right pertaining to sover-
eigns, secured to them by the laws ofnatfons,
and the third article of the treaty made between
the United States and the Kingdom OF France, at
Paris on the 30.h of April, 1903, and entering
their solemn protest against the treaty of 1919,
transferring them and their country to foreign
despot The argument is " it has been done by
aola nd he n
violate; )" and from this argument he would not
dissent but he wanted to know if treaties had
been complied with In the third article of the
treaty of 1903, we were bound to do certain things.
Had the treaty been complied with 2 had the
plighted faith ofthe United States been redeemed2
He would read the third article of the treaty:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be
incorporated into the Union o. the United States,
and admitted as soon as possible according TO the
principles Of the federal constitution 10 the enjoy
ment Of all the rights. advantages, and immunites
of citizens Of the United States and, in the mean
time, shall be protected in the free employment of
their liberty, property, and the religion which They
profess" ~, %
Mr. J. said the only inquiry to make wasj wheth-
er the people of Texas had been incorporated into
the United States, which was part of Louisiana al
the time this treaty was made or had the article
just read been violated or not?-had the blessings
of our free institutions been extended TO them or net2
were they permitted to enjoy the religion they
professed or had they been transferred 10 aSpanish
despot like so many sheep in the shambles2 ? had
they been compelled to bow to a religion they
did not profess2 These, he thought inquiries of
some importance.
But the argument is, Texas and her inhabitants
were surrendered by this government to Spain in
1919, and that it is a treaty made and solemnly
entered into, and must be complied with. The peo-
Ill 4 hat yof
1903, which was solemhly made and entered into.
What then, is to be done2 There are two trea-
ties made BY the United States of the one part,
conflicting in their most essential articles. The
question then up is there no arber no prln-.
ciple by which the conflicting provisions OF those
two treaties can be settled2 By. reference to
Vattel, very high authority, and relied upon as
one of the abes writers upon the laws of nations,
the point now under consideration was conclusively
settled He then read as follows from Vattel,
page 1856, section l65:
ga sovereign already bound by treaty cannot
enter inIo others contrary 10 the first. The things
respecting which he has entered into engagements
are no longer at his disposal. IfH happens that
posterior treaty be found in any particular point,
to CLASH with one of more ancient date, the new
treaty is null aud void with respec; to that point ia
asmucb it tends to dispose of thing that is no
longer in the power of him who appears 20 dispose
Of it," .....'
The treaty made in 1903 with France is the most
ancient treaty the treaty made in 1919 with Spain
sixteen years after, is the posterior treaty. The
treaty Of 1919 is in direct conflict with the third
article Of the treaty Of 1903, and to- the extent of
the conflict, is void from the beginning never
yesting Spain with the shadow Of title 10 the ter:
ritory and people of Texas Notwithstanding
the Uuited States have slept upon or permitted
her right; which she obtained from France in
1903, to become latent from 1919 up to this time,
this government has never been divested of it ac-
cording to the laws of nations; and it can be re-
sumed and exercised at any time the people and
government of Texas asserting thereto, without
violating the rights of Mexico or Spain. Admit,
for the sake ofthe argument the fact that the title
set up by Texas 10 herself is not clear beyond dis
pute admit, also, the fact of her passing voluntar
ily under the jurisdiction of the United States,
thereby putting this government In possession of
the whole country. Once in possession, this gov
crnment is not merely bound to rely upon the pos
sessory title, but is cast back upon her more an
cent right. acquired by treaty from the kingdom
of France in 1903, which is beyond dispute, and
good against the world, and places this govern
ment 10 position that will enable her to do JUS
tice to brave and patriotic people, by incorpora
ting them into this Union, and thereby redeem
its plighted faith The title to this whole country
was rightfully and constitutionally acquired from
France in 1903 In 1919, it had been surrendered
or ceded to Spain contrary to the consent of the
in disregard of national law, tramp
ling under foot the treaty stipulatfons solemnly
made and entered into, and in direct violation of