The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-01-17

tons showing that the seQasstaoo would % Vss'
~.lioasl b,osa,as TAm ls',er d Mr. Vaa ba'sn w.
an sdm.rsble oce and would eomuaend ''s y~russ'
again TO ms friends - well his opponents pshc'-
mg il would sxer a sey salutsry influence lie w
slracled MIR Ponsctt 10 his best endcssots 10 SO
cute Texas and d.r~eted ham 10 give hve mn'o"s o'
dollars Zoe Il, II necessary fa,hag THIS time, INC
cfost ~ss rene we'd by Gen, Jackson and MT Living
slsa Ia. Scsrular, in iSss, and again by Mr.. For
syth IN 1885, Which was the las, effort, IN eo"'e
quencs OF the revolution IN Texas.
have thus skelehcS briefly the history OF our 81
plomscy upon this subject icr the purpose OF correct
lag the statement OF the gentleman from Masssehu
.ells that "thss otous question devised lot n"'s
ter purposes BY President Of the u States not elect
ed BY The people" aud Of doing justice to ms cor
league, Mr. Adams, and the Others have named" VINO
were the real ig,ostos OF the project II ungene
rous that gentleman 10 deprive has colleague Oh INC
orrdi, which his due in originating tins great mea
But Il now occurs 10 me hat perhaps hsNe ms
apprehended h,m, Nlr. Wiu;hrop.l He may have TO
fetrcd 10 his colleague, Mr.. Adams, and proo~oiy
did when he said that 'lhis odous question was DC
sssd for sinister purposes BY President Of the on
| ted States NOT elected ~ tAs PEOPLE" II The al
lusioo Was To hs colleague, II was very unkna one
10 designate as od,oSs question dsr'ssa Loo ss-
tac pssposss," and In that connection TO taua ms
colleague with not having been elected President o
the people, Is rather too great Liberty, would
think, for one friend TO take with another. IL,
the contrary he did no, reierso his colleague ms
documents which have jus, quoted aoundanuy
prove.
The gentleman from Massachusetts Mr.. Winth.
rop,l and has friend from Pennsy lssnia, MIR J. n.
lngeno, seem To doubt whether the boundary oil
the United States, under the treaty OF leo5, ever
extended further than the Sabine, aud the Inc
agreed upon by the treaty with Spain IN lols'
trust that Will be able 10 remove these doubts ana
satisfy them, by authority which they will be The last
10 imPeach, that our territory under the treaty oil
1903 not only extended TO the Sabine, but actually
reached the Rio del Norte. | could cite in support
OF tins position great variety OF Official documents
and other proofs but will content myself with rely
ing uPoa The testimony Of witness whose learning,
accuracy, and seraciiy they Will not question
| allude TO the venerable gentleman from Mas
| saehasetis, Mr.. John Quincy Adams and his va
rious Official letters and notes TO the representatives,
OF the Spanish government, while he Secretary
Of State under Mr. Monroe, and especially TO the
letter dated March - 1918, which have IN the large
volume before Upon this authority rely to es-
tsblish the RIO del Nortc as the western boundary
Of Louisiana, and consequently the western bounda
~ line Of the United States, under the treaty Of
ls03 The first settlements made in the coun-
try bordering the Gulf Of Mexico, between the
Sabine and the RIO del Norte, were established by
La Sale, on the bay Of St Bernard, the Colo
RADIO, IN 1876, under the authority Of Louis XIV,
hing Of France. These settlements, together with
those the Mississippi and the Illinois, formed the
which continued under the jurisdiction of the crown
Of France until l762 when il was ceded and trans
ferred to the Ming Of Spain. The Spanish govern
men held the colony Of Louisiana, and exercised u-
rsdicon over II by virtue Of the cesson from France
until the year 1900, when II retroceded to France
by the treaty of St. Ildefonso. France held the colo
ny under the latter treaty until 1903 when she ceded
II to the United States by what is usually called the
louisiana treaty. II is true that in the treaty of
1852, BY which louisiana was ceded to Spain, no
boundaries designated and in the treaty Of
PROCESSION in 1900 other boundaries specified
than the general description that it included the
colony Of Louisiana, and :" icih the ertent Il
had when in the hands Of France" The description
in the treaty Of 1903, ceding the same country to
the United States, was in these Terms with the
same extent following the treaty of St. Idefonso)
that il has in the hands of Spain, and that it
had when France possessed it, and such it ought
TO be after the treaties subsequently entered into be-
tween Spain and other states" From these trea-
ties and facts it is clear that the United States
quired ali the country situate within the limits Of
the original French colory of Louisiana. | have
not only the authority Of the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts Mr. Adams,l in the correspondence re-
ferred TO- out a vast variety Of documentary proof,
| collected by him, for saying that France always
claimed the Rio del Norte as the western boundary
| of Louisiana, while it belonged to her. have also
the same authority for saying that there is reason to
believe that Spain regarded the same river as the
boundary, while Louisiana belonged to her under the
ccssion from France. In support of this opinion,
| among many other evidences, the gentleman from
Massachusetts Mr. ADAMsl referred TO a Spanish
geographical work of high authority, and also to
map by Lopez, geographer to the King Of Spain in
both of which the Rio del Norte is delineated the
| western boundary Of Louisiana as ceded to Spain
! Thus find (uness that distinguished gentleman
| has msled us on this polnO that France and Spain
regarded the Rio del Norte as the boundary during
the periods they held the country respectively That
tha IIu,sa
under the treaty of 1903, far west the Rio del
Norte, there can be no question, until Texas
ded to Spain by the unfortunate treaty of 1873
When discussing this point in 1905, Messrs. Monroe
and Pinckney, on the part Of the United States, said
to the Spanish Government that the facts and prn
cipes which justify this conclusion satisfactory
to this Government as TO convince it that the United
States have not better right to the island Of New
Orleans under the cesson referred TO- than they have
to the whole district of territory thus described ~"
In 1916, Mr.. Monroe, (Secretary Of State under Mr.
Madison) his letter to the Chevaler de Ons, said
with respect to the western boundary Of Louisiana
| have to remark, that this Government has never
doubled, since the treaty of 1903 that it extended to
the Rio Bravo In 1918 MIR. Adams (Secretary of
State under Mr. Monroe) after reviewing all the
facts and proofs both sides relating to the western
boundary of Louisiana, and quoting the statements
have just read, used this language We'll might
Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe write TO Mr. Cevallos
in 1905, that the claim Of the United States to the
boundary of the Rio Bravo was clear their right
to the island of New Orleans"
| could 90 on and multiply proof upon proof,a au-
hority upon authority to the same paint; but it is I'M
necessary. lprcsume have produced enough to To-
move the doubts from the minds of gentlemen from
Massachusetts and Pennsy lvania and to satisfy them
that the RIO Bravo del Vore, and not the Sabine,
was the western boundary of the United States
under the treaty Of 1903 | now pass to the CON
sideration of another grand discovery which the
gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr.. J. X. lnger-
sol has made and disclosed to the House in
gard 10 that boundary After the most extensive ro
search and aborious Investigation, he has discover
ed that the Sabine made the boundary line Of tho
United States in 1919, by the act Of Congress admit,
| ting the State of Louisiana into the Union and not
ly supposed lie has brought this startling, as,ouod-
ing fact before the House with air of triumph, and
pronounced il complete vlndca,ion Of the conduct
OF his friend from Massachusetts Mr.. Adams against