Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-09-20

We argued, in our last notice of the Texas ques-
tion that TEXAS claims to be former State of the
Mexican Confederacy to have been an indepen-
dent and sovereign party to that league; TO have
been, snder it, temporarily united with the larger
that is, more popuous) State of Coahuila--but moi
consolidated with her in territory nor any further
than this, that their local government was commit
ted to common Congress, until such time as Texas
should grow up into population emitting her te
become State entirely separate. She further as
serts that when Mexico allowed a military usurpei
to overthrow the Constitution THAT Of 1924 Il
which she crexas) was party, she stood out fol
that compact, upheld by arms her rights under il
and, resisting the usnrper, established her Texas
separate nationality. Texas, then, upon all he
own allegations, is, fundamentally, the ex-Mexical
State of that name, originally formed of terrtor,
constituted by Mexican laws, upon soil of limits
defined too by Mexico, just as much as those o.
Iowa or Wisconsin must be by the United States
which erected them into Territories. In word
Texas is, upon her own showing not mere casual
political formation, lately sprung up out Of various
conserving regions and populations before separate,
but public, legal being, continued from that which
was member of the Mexican federation, and, truly
to speak, not changed but which refused to change,
when its associates of that compact allowed them
selves to be sunk, by SANTA ANNA, out Of separate
States into departments and dependencies of CEN
trail Government. These are, beyond any posi-
bility of question, her own solemn and uniform
suggestions, the very basis on which she places all
that entities her to the name Of legitimate civil
existence, nation, not an accidental herd of men,
Her Declaration of Independence, her Constitution
the whole series OF her public acts and annals say
this, and can say nothing else without impeaching
themselves.
Now, see the inevitable consequences By what
possibility, if these things be true, can she assert
herself to comprehend large districts and popula-
tons, which were within other Mexican States at
the time when she separated; which never volun-
arly joined her; which she never reduced BY arms
which were never ceded TO her! There is no orr
glnal jurisdiction to be set up, and no subsequent
force or consent: how, then, can il be pretended
that they are hers
She stood out, she says, upon her rights as one
OF the Mexican States. Well, those rights were
OF certain laws upon certain soil. She canno
then claim, upon legal grounds those of common
sense any thing beyond those rights and that soil
If Mexico refused the former, she had right t,
to carry off from Mexico what was not her own
and desired not to be hers.
Now, what is the fact The Rio Graade neve
was boundary granted her by Mexico. 1t neve
was the boundary of any Of the contiguous Mex
can States or provinces. On all the maps belong
ing TO the date of the Texan revolution il will b.
seen that the four Mexican districts living on tn
Rio Grande stretch far across it. Towards its hea,
Is New Mexico, which every body knows to run
far on this side OF it, Next along its course comes
Chihuahua, which traverses it and extends several
hundred miles northwest Of Texas. Next lower is
Coahuila, which meets Texas on its west also far
acifhin The Rio Grande. And, lastly, Tamaulipas,
crossing that river near the coast runs up and
pies the entire peninsula between that river and the
Nueces.
All this is distinctly and directly avowed in Mr.
KENNEDy's book and on his maps and here let u,
inform the government and editors who afec
to speak of him as " an English Consul at Calves
TOM that they only by this loose conjecture, AM
by their limitations as to the hostile character o.
his book towards Texas, show their utter ignorance
of the man and Of his work. work much the
exactes, the most skilful, and the most friendly Ia
Texas and her cause yet Published by any BODY.
And Kennedy says, (pages IL, 49, in addition to
the passage the other day cited embodying an ex-
tract from Almonte's report:
Within the limits Of the Republic Of Texas. as
defined by the boundary act Of December 10, 1896
are included parts of Tamaulipas Coahula, and
New Mexico And, after brief description a
their SOIL he concludes the paragraph thus II i
TO be remarked that the title of the Republic OF
Texas 10 lands ertraneous 10 the boundaries q,
the State al ne period Of The revolution has yeI
10 De formally perfected By treaty tcifh Merico
For all practical purposes, however, the limit,
have been determined by the ac, of the Texar
Congress in 1896"
The last sentence, like that last in our citation
from him on Saturday, is enough to show, by il.
complete adoption Of Texas reasoning and Texa,
claims the most absurd, how hearty and entire arr
Mr. Ms neutrality-suspicious. which do not hin
DER hlm from correctly stating historical AM
geographical fact, nor even a clear and cogen
principle OF National Law but which lead him ia
treat as dec,s're against both an empty law.
conquest by enactment, which could nus, a. vel
have given to Texas Louisiana or Florida AZ wba
" conferred upon itself with just the same riobt
out OF Coahulia or other Mexican STATES
For H. on the one hand, what Is now rex.s 90.
by us once asserted 10 be mar, &C ro,;s;., ~.
a.. n~t..x - tl.<D D. ~