The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-03-04

| ties This is not the constitution as the trainers
oil this great instrument made and transmitted 1t "a
Their posterlty. They were wise men, who made
wise by the stern circumstances in which they were
placed and learned the great principles OF right govern
men with their lives and fortunes saked every les
son. They were perfectly aware that the war-making
power, and the treaty making power, must be vested in
the same hands These eminently executive powers
and are bound as Intimately together means TO an
end They therefore intrusted them to the high
iunctonary in whom they vested the executive power
The President OF the United States 1t was not consistent
with Their views OF free government to place the
Union French constituent assembly, with the war
declaring, the war-making, war-continung, and
ending powers-all vested in one vast legislative body,
whose internal energy in destroying others seemed TO be
only equaled by their capacity to destroy themselves
Our fathers vested the war-declarng or war beginning
power IN Congress-the making power in the Pres
dent-the war-contnuing power in Congress (by the
supplies) and the Presdent-and the uar-endtng, or
peace making power in the President and the Senate
although, BY the supplies Congress may incidentally
also, force the termination OF war
Mr.. Chairman come TO another false inference |
noticed, from the false prncple-hat Congress is the
Dar making potcer. Congress being the ,Darmaking
PoDer 1t is contended that the President of the United
States had no constitutional right, without the direction
OF Congress, to order troops from Corpus Christi to
The no Irande. This ORDER they argue. produced the
falsely assert, was Congress being the making
power and this war occurring without the order Of Con
Bress, therefore the war was unconsutonaly begun,
and begun by the President
Now. SIR is not my purpose to defend the President,
IN this or any other course of policy he has pursued
My object is far higher and nobler 1t TO vindcate
The constitution OF the United States whose integrity is
worth a hundred Mexican wars Whether the removal
of the troops from Corpus Christi TO the Rio Grande
wise or mpoltc, not the question. The question is
forced by the solemn decision of this Housewives
i unconstitutional!
TO determine this question: appears to me- that very
few facts only need be placed before the mind l. 1t
is fact. that the only western boundary known Texas
-revolutionlzed Texas-was the RIO Grande. AS de-
pament of Mexico, the Nueces her boundary; but
The only law passed by her, independent State de-
nRg her boundaries, declared the Rio Grande to be her
western boundary 2. II is truth, that she stipulated in
her treaty with Santa Anna lvod doubt because not
ratified by Mexico that the Rio Grande was her bounda-
General Wo the commander of the Mexican army, after
the battle OF San Jacnto, il stipulated that the Mex
can troops should not come east the Texas troops
west, of the Rio Grande. a. 1t is vehementy asserted
again and again. by gentlemen the opposite sde that
10 the rejected treaty providing for the annexation Of
Texas TO the Union, she stipulated that the Rio Grande
should be the boundary, and that on this account the
treaty rejected by the Senate. s. 1t also asserted
by the gentlemen who preceded me in debate and by the
then president of Texas, Gen. Houston,) that when
Texas was finally annexed to the Union, it secretly
understood between the government of the United States
and that Of Texas, that the Rio Grande to be vind
Gated as her boundary. That such secret understand
ing took place. some may question; but it cannot be
questioned that Texas pressed Its adoption.
Now, SIR, look at these facts. Texas, as an indie
pendent State declares the Rio Grande her boundary
She claims It from the vanquished President of Mexico,
in her treaty with him. She claims it from the com
handing general of Mexico in the field, by armstce
She claims in her treaty of annexation with the United
States and, finally insists it when incorporated into
the Union. This is the only boundary she has
claimed and under these repeated acts of vindcation
she becomes State of the Union. Now, to crown
these facts, let it be added, that Mexico had large
army the Texas frontier, and that negotiation to OBJ
tan an acknowledgment OF any boundary to Texas had
failed-and what more can be needed TO justify the
stuionali,y Of the Presidents conduct in ordering our
troops TO the Rio Grande'
But gentlemen assert that negotiation had not failed
They charge the President of the Une States openly
and repeatedly, with alsehood and auplicty in his
uon that from information received from minister
Mexico before he ordered the troops to the Rio Grande
he had good reason to suppose that minister would
not be received by the Mexican government, and conse
quently that his effort to settle by negotiation the west
em boundaries of Texas would be abortve Convicting
him. they assert, of this unruh, they make it the
father OF more hideous alses, and of the foulest
spiracies, against the welfare and honor OF the Union
Sir again repeat that is not my purpose to defend the
President of the United States My business is with the
constitution 1t is clear, that whether he had reason to
suppose that our minister would be rejected by the gov
eminent of Mexico, before he ordered the troops to the
Rio Grande, constitutes most imporant-probably the
most mporantpoint in determining the consttuonality
of the resolutions annexing Texas to the Unon that the
boundary of Texas should be open to negotia
ton How, then, stands the fact
The order directing General Taylor to march troops
from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande was issued the
18th day of January Gentlemen say that information
was received from Mr.. Sldel, our minister in Mexico,
v,
assertion that the order of the 18th influenced by in
formation received from Mexico is false But theirs is
the error. The despatch from Mr.. Slde which | hold
in my hand, dated the 18th day of December previous
received in Washington the 18th day of January
and was, reality, the President asserts, the of
the order of the day after Deeming my duty TO know
the truth, waited the Secretary of State and request
ed him to show the original despatch and saw, in
his handwriting, endorsement OF the date of its recep
tionthe 18th day of January, 1915 The despatch is
amongst the documents submitted to Congress the time
of the first outbreak with Mexico and is three printed
pages long. Our minister states in the most positive
terms, that he had not been acknowledged minister
from the United States, and details the various grounds
on which the government of Mexico had refused to
ceive him but that he informed by the Minister of
Foreign Relations that the question of his reception had
been submitted to the government council for final deter
minaton The substance of the decision of the govern
ment council is then given by Mr. Slde rejecting him
minister, with the various reasons, he understands
which assigned for his rejection; and he says that,
he is officially informed of it, is proclaim
ed by the government OF Mexico he will communicate it
the following words, gentlemen will lind by turning
to the document:
'sP. S. December Is, I845.-At the moment about
close this obtained the dctamen OF the council gov
eminent. published in the Sglo. send you the paper"
This dctamen, being in a newspaper, was not sent
with the other papers submitted by the President to Con-
gress but no one will charge any improper design in
to his vindication. have seen this dctamen of the
government council of Mexico rejecting Mr.. Slde as
minister from the United States; and il is equally open
to the inspection of any other member of Congress Sir
the President OF the United States and his cabinet had
this despatch and the decree before them the 18th day
of January, when the order issued to Gen TAYLOR to
march our troops from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande
81 Ill