The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-13

4 d
Texans have held that country from that day TO this
The country between the Nueces and the Rio
Del Norte composes country, or part ola country
"a part Of the organization of the State Of Texas
II is part of a congressional district that viii
shortly be represented on this hoorthe member 30
TO represent which is already elected. The Con-
gress Of the United States have themselves reeog-
Missed this fact by the passage of an act establishing
port of entry on this very territory and oy the
extension by this very Congress, without dissent
ing voice. Of the revenue laws OF this government
| over that very territory.
! Thus sir, has the President OF the United States
brought on thus war Has he, by giving orders TO
General Taylor TO occupy the left bank of the Rio
Del Norte transcribed his constitutional duties 10
his country And has he, by this act, improperly
broughta war upon this country Or has that war
been brought upon US by the invasion Of this the
territory Of the United States by Mexican forces!
This is the question: and 1t seems to me, in the face
of these facts, gentleman can doubt for moment
as 10 who has caused this war.
What, then, is the state of the CASE We in
vaded by the Mexican army-ouT territory Is ln-
vaded. Is Mexico in a state of war with u.s. Why,
no man can doubt IL; no man can doubt, from the
declarations of her government in all It's depart
ments and from the subsequent action OF her army,
that she - in state Of aggressive war towards us.
And will gentlemen contend that a war can exist as
far as respects Mexico, and that there is no war
with us' This would be a strange anomaly Mex
her! Sir the President Of the United States had
the constitutional power, and it was his constltu.
tlonal duty TO 90 into Of defensive war, and
that without the aid of Congress.
The next question is, has the President OF the
United States done all he could do TO avoid war; II
seems TO me that no man can doubt this when he
looks al the correspondence between this govern
ment and the government Of Mexico All that
have 10 say Is this: were II not Tor the crippled and
| unfortunate situation Of the Mexican government,
N I'll. kaaa
deal further than he could have been justified or
would have been justified by the people Of this
| country in going If he had gone far 10 avoid
war with Great Britain or France he has 10 avoid
war with Mexico, he would have received the con-
demnation of the American people. He is justified
in what he has done by the fact that Mexico is weak
| and we ure strong.
Mr. DARRAGH said, while the momentous
question of war before the country, he could
not withhold from the government any amount Of
force or of means that might be required. That
the honor and ri hts Of the county should be sus-
aimed was his first and greatest object and desire
To sustain these, he would go to any extent.
He would not draw any distinction between a
state Of hostility and state Of war There might,
without doubt, be a border war, without a general
war, and this would be war as between the two
partles concerned. Other parties must be notified
in order that they might be made subject to block
AIDES. But war actually existed in this case and
not merely hosulIties on the border and the House
had very properly passed bill recognising that state
of the If blockadlng ports, shooting down
men, and capturing vessels was not war, he did not
know what It was. 1t idle to talk of a state Of
hostiltles this a Of open war. The
commanding general told that it was war.
| Our depots may, at this moment, be 10
the hands Of the enemy The House, he
| repeated, had done right in declaring this to be a
state Of war. We had thereby given notice to
third parties that war existed and all neutrals would
lake notice Of it. He wondered why the thunder
invoked by the gentleman from Ohio Mr.. SAwYERl
was not directed against the enemy-aganst Canales,
and Carasco and all who had shed the blood Of our
cIIIzens.
But he differed from the gentleman who last ad-
| dressed the committee, Mr.. TIBBATTs, in regard
to the territorial limits Of Texas. The territory
between the Nucces and the Rio Grande had been
| set down in every map and by every authority as
belonging to Spain France had no territory, was
long ago admitted, east of the Rio Grande, which
| we could claim under the Louisiana treaty. Mr..
| DARRGAH referred to authorizes to show that the
| western boundary OF Texas was the Nueces.
| The region between the two rivers was a thou
sand miles in width as it stretched towards the west
but at the south it narrowed down to ITO miles in
width. 1t contained portions Of four Mexican
departments. In annexng Texas, therefore, we
had annexed, not only Texas, which had re-
VOTED from Mexico, but thousands Of Mexi-
can citizens, and many Mexican settlements, inclu-
ding Santa Fe, where our merchants who come
with caravans from the west, now paid duties to the
Mexican government. He would like to know
| whether Santa Fe was part of the United States.
The argument in support Of our claim to the coun-
try west Of the Rio Grande was, that France had
discovered 1t, and that 1t was a part of Louisi-
ana.
But the only discovery that could be adduced
was that of small exploring party with La Sale.
He denied that there any authority for the as
seron that Texas extended beyond the M.
eces. What was this title' What were the proofs in
support of this claim Of Texas3 Whatever the title
was it was surrendered by the Florida treaty.
Suppose the argument to be correct, still all our
claims were merged in the treaty Of Florida. One
Of the principal motives that Spain had to cede the
Foridas to US, was the establishment Of the bound
airy OF the Sabine.
Blu, Texas was annexed, and far from being
sorry for it, he reoiced'at.t and he should ever
joice at the extension OF institutions. He
hoped the time would come when the whole CONT
nent would be under our institutions
Mr. d. asked whether a law Of Texas could de-
fine the western boundary Of Texas If Texas
could thus make the Rio Grande the boundary
they could make the Pacific the boundary; they
could take all Mexico How would such course
be justified to the world1 What right had nation
to take territory belonging to another nation'
But it was alleged that Santa Ana admitted that
the boundary was the Rio Grande, while he was
prisoner The circumstances showed that he acted
under duress and that the admission could not be
avniIed Of as an argument But even if Santa Ana
had admitted it while in power, and in the pal
ace of the Mon,ezumas, it would amount to moth.
ing; for he had no right to cede away the terri
tory Of the country. He could not dsintegrate
Mexico, cede away single inch of the
soil. As to the policy of annexing Texas, he
was of the same opinion formerly
Perhaps his opinions to the western boun
Diary to which Texas entitled were erroneous
but it appeared to him that this taking possession
Of the Rio Grande had something more in it than the
MOI If Fan old ra pf
The lands of Texas were, by the terms of an
nexaon, to be kept by her, and she was to provide
for her debts and liabilities. Texas had a large
debt and many liabilities. She had issued more
scrip than any account had been kept of and
it the impression that, after the soldiers and
other claims met, there would not he land
enough left in Texas proper to meet the scrip
Therefore it enacted that the Rio Grande should
be the boundary
The boundary not fixed by the law of this
government asserting to annexation. II provided
for the annexation Of the country rightfully lncu.
ded in the limits of Texas and the pdiustm q