Tri-weekly journal. (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1847-188?, 1848-02-10

/
this Is urged as though il were sufficient cause
for war; when everybody knows, who reflects
al all upon the matter, that such has never
been heretofore regarded as justiabe cause
Of war. No, sir, will tell you what was the
cause Of this war. II was the Unauthorized act
Of the President, in taking possession Of terri
tory to which this country had no tife--to
which Congress had notauthorized him e make
claim, and against making claim for which
they had warned him by the very terms OF the
resolution Enumeration.
| Sir, my colleague has gone fully into this
question aud have no doubt that he thought
he had demonstrated the correctness of his lo-
! siton; bat he took good care not to mentlen
the Mexican claims as being the cause of tie
war. He did not consider that they were the
cause OF the war, however much the President
paraded them in his messages
Mr.. Johnson. never thought they We're.
Mr.. Pearce. But he put il upon the ground
that this Government was bound 10 vindicate
its title to the territory up TO the Rio Grande and
he cites variety offacts which, as he thinks,
belong to the consideration of this question,
and which, in his opinion, are conclusive
Well, now ! think that the facts which he has
cited-some of them at least--do not belong to
the consideration of the question, and that
neither one nor all of them are conclusive.
/
show on the other side facts which are strong
as chains Of adamant. / pass over that part of
his speech in which my colleague speaks of the
the revolution of Texas. No body doubts the
galantry of those citizens of Texas who achiev-
ed their independence. Nobody questions their
right to revolt from Mexico, to establish an in
dependent government, and to claim all the
territory over which they could extend and en-
force their Jurisdiction. But, my COLLEAGUE
says:
/ THE boundaries of Coahuila and Texas, as
these departments were laid off into one State
by the constitution of "A, was the Nueces, run
ming for upwards of one hundred miles up that
stream, and then by line across from that
point TO the Rio Grande. The territory below
that line, between the NUeces and the Rio
Grande, was part of the State of Tamaulipas.
Taumaulipas granted it to various individuals
by what were called colonygrants, under which
many settlements were made"
l make no objection to this statement, sir;
| only desire to add something to it, to make it
little more specific. In 1924, the depart
ments of Coahuila and Texas were united with
out change of their former boundaries provisi-
onally as one State-it being understood that
when Texas had strength and population
enough she should be made a separate State:
The united State of Coahuila and Texas ran
as properly never did-her limits stopped at
the Nueces. My colleague went on to refer to
the treaty to which Santa Anna was party at
the time he was prisonerin Texas, and he re-
lied upon the authority Of that miscalled treaty
as conclusive.
: Sir, my colleague is distinguished lawyer,
he stands at the head Of his profession in Ma
ryland, and that is praise enough for any man.
knf nai s nv PCS ~ -:
between Santa Anna and the Texas authorities
is conclusive on the question of boundary.
Why, sir, it was no treaty tall. Santa Anna
was prisoner; and, if he had not been, we all
know that the constitution of Mexico contains
la provision-that when the President of the re-
public is at the head of the army his civil func-
lions cease. He was in captivity; and, if he
had not been, he would have had no authority
to conclude treaty under the constitution of
his country, which is like our own in that res
pect. A treaty, when signed, required ratih-
cation by the Senate; and treaty made by San
ia Anna was of no more value than blank pa
per. 1t had not even legal obligation Loon
himself, having been extorted by duress.
1t might have been an appeal to Santa An
mas honor; it undoubtedly was SO, but as a
treaty, it had no obligations; it was treaty
made by a captive, ratified by "a runaway; and
take it, sir, thatn no validity will be ascribed 10
ii by any fair man who understands the facts.
My colleague next relies, sir, on the action
of the Texas Congress regarding the boundary
of the State, and says they passed law des-
cribing the Rio Grande as the boundary. !
sh ia ike to know how the mere act OF Con-
gress or Legislature ofany country can author
ize the fixing their boundaries where they
please to put them on paper; how the decara-
ton of any Congress or Government can make
a right or authorize claim 10 such case. 1t
can do nothing more than assert such claim.
and venture TO 90 little further and say that
| presume, that, in the case of Texas, II was not
done bona fde. They did not deem that they
were to take in Santa Fe, or any of the valley
of the Rio Grande. They claimed great deal
of territory in order to secure part.
Sir, | do not make this statement from any
personal knowledge that have, bull will re-
fer to the authority OF an honorable SENATOR
here, and beg leave to read from aspeech made
by the honorable Mr. Ashley, at the second ses-
sion Of the 28th Congress:
"And here will add, that the present boun-
daries of Texas, learn from Judge Ellis, the
president OF the convention, that formed the
constitution Of Texas. and also a member OF
4 the first Legislature under that constitutions
4 were fixed as they now are, solely and profess
eddy gcith a uiesC Of haUing a large margin in
the negotiation Nth MericO, and not with the
expectation Of retaining them as they now ex-
list in the statute book.
Sir this authority is worth all my colleagues