New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-06-13
The Texas Boundary.

The Goshen INDEPENDENT Republican INDUCES in
some remarks on The Tribune and its Editor re-
spec,ing the War which we leave TO the contempt
thew merit: bat its next article on "Our Title TO
Texas as far as the Rio Grande may deceive some
one unacqaainted with the facts so we shall forget
the basenees of the and expose its decisions
The material portion Of The article is as follows;
The Declaration Of Texan Independence IN 1880 ex-
tended 10 the Rio Grande as follows:
Reeinning al The mouth OF The Sabine, and running
Yves, along the Gnf OF Mexico three leagues from eno 70
ae oas u 1't .o hence due north The forty
,erood degree OF north ATTITUDES thence ine
rs defined In the treaty between Inc one oees auo
Soan 10 The beginning
tie Of San Jacin,o. was the following article
ARTICLE The MsIi,an roops Will vaca's The tern:
tory OF Texas passing 10 the other side Of tho Rio Grsnde
The Secret Treaty reads
"ARrIcLE :. treaty OF commerce. srnity and limits
will be established between Mexico aud Texan. The terri
tory The latter not TO extend beyond lbe Rio Grande
AS the author Of the above profanes the name OF
Republican we ask him rs Republican TO IN
form us how the prearranged revolt against Mexico
of Houston anc few thousands Of adventures
from the United States all living this side OF the
Nueces and below Inc Camanche country, could
ALLEVIATE from Mexico the valley of the Rio Grande,
with the towns Of Laredo, Santa Fe, Taos, Aiou'
oueroue, &c. which never participated IN the revolt
bu, adhered openly and actively to Mexico and 80
adhere TO this day To test the principle by case
in point: Suppose New-England should secede
from the Union and declare the Hudson its West
ern boundary, while The People of New-York East
of our River still adhered to New-York end the
Union would the claim Of the seceders to the
boundary of the Hudson have any moral force or
righ,ful validity Will the Republican answer?
Well then, "Me Treaty between Mexico and
Texas after The battle of San Jacinto.' Nhat
Treaty? Can even Loco Focoism be base enough
10 rest on a paper signed by Santa Ana when
Texan prisoner in imminent fear of massacre I
The Law of Nations the dictates of justice and
common sense, declare that prisoner of war can
make no binding Treaty of limits in behalf OF bis
nation. Beside this the Mexican Government ex-
pressly deprived him Of all authority TO make
treaties Immediately on hearing OF his capture-a
needless but significant act. And then the Texans
dyes,ed this sham Treaty Of all shadow OF binding
force. even on Santa Ana, by refusing 10 fulfil lis
conditions on their part. As consideration Tor his
concessions Santa Ana and his suite were 10 be set
at liberty at once, and sent home 10 Mexico; but
the Galveston mob took the business out oil Inc
hands of their Government and by force seni nm
! back 10 prison where he remained for some tune
and finally 90, offby way OF the United States. And
this Treaty and Secret Treaty are gravey quotcd
bv the Republican as valid binding agreements on
! the par, of Mexico Is not passing counterfeit
notes respectable in comparison to this