The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-08-09
For the Union
RELATIONS WITH MEXlCo.

In regard to the measures to be pursued by the
government in occupying Texas, it is matter of
surprise that any great difference of opinion should
exist. by the passage of the JOINT resolutions Con-
taia terms asd conditions. Those terms and condi-
lions have been assented to by Texas. The COM
pact is thus complete. What, then, remains to be
donei As REGARDS the act of annexation, nothing.
Texas is now to form-or at this day. we may
saw, has iormed--her constitutions, which will be
submitted to Congress; and, if approved, she will be
admitted as one of the States of the Union, This
proceeding, however, obviously is wholly distinct
from the org'uolact Of annexation. Texas, bys such
n measure, becomes vested with certain rights, and
parts with others which she now possesses. But
her admission INTO the Union a State can neither
enlarge nor impair ony rights of property. 1t mere
y changes tho character of the relations between the
parties
1t VIII also become necessary for Congress, by
distinct eglsaton to create districts, ports of entry
and to extend the revenue system to their newly-ac-
quired territory. Such legislation presupposes, aud
docs not confer, rights of sovereignty. The mecs
and bounds of the various collection dstrisa
throughout the old thirteen States were fixed by act
Of Congress- aud may at any time be changed at
the pleasure ofthat body. No one, however, ever
dreamed that this statute created the Union. The
constitution had completed that; the right of
sovereignty, the capacity to enact the law,
was slready consummatc Hence results what
some have supposed to involve an incongruity--
that while one branch Of the government Considers
Texas as virtually ours, and dispatches troops to
occupy it, another department holds that It is not
operated upon by our revenue laws Obviously,
there is no shadow Of incongruity in these views.
They both right, and there is no collision
between them. Until the territory and sove-
reighty ours, there can be no extension Of
our laws that territory and exercise of this
sovereignty. Wei take possession. We must
occupy, must hold, as preliminary to legislation.
What, then, have we acquired by the annoXatio of
Texns' We have acquired all that belonged TO
Texas. We have acquired the territory, with the
same boundaries and rights which she before
had. Where those rights perfected by open
aud quiet possesson, they clear and beyond
controversy. Where they rest merely in claim,
which claim is controycrted, they deynlve upon us
precisely in the same way, and to exactly the same
extent The case is n familiar one. When we ac-
qrIired Louisiana by cession from France, neither
the eastern, western, nor northern boundary dis
tinctly settled To the eastward of the Mississippi
we claimed to the perdido-comprehend large
extent Of territory then possessed, and which con-
tinued be occupied by Spain To the southwest, we
claimed to the Rio Bravo; and thus claim continued
until settled by the treaty of 1919. To the north,
the limits have been partially adjusted by ar
rangement with England; while, TO the westward of
the Rocky mountains, this very question OF bounda-
ry remains open with England.
In each and every of these cases, IT was sup
posed that the right of the Executive to take posses
SION was unquestionable Oregon has been Occur
ped, aud is now in the progress of rnpid settlement
while the title rs yet in controversy The most
analogous case, however, in our history, is that of