The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-09-28

But it is not disputed territory in any which in
wolves well founded doubt of title. The Rio Grande is
the proper boundary of Texas.
II the authority of great names Is worth anything IN
the determination OF this question, might array the opn-
ions OF our abest statesmen IN favor OF the RIO Grande
might adduce the testimony OF Messrs. Benton, Clay
Jefferson Madison, Monroe, Pinckney, and Adams, TO
snow that Texas was originally part OF Louisiana, and
extended to that river MIR Clay his letter of the nth
of April, 1874, said
g The United States acquired title Texas, extending,
as believe, TO the Rio del Nore Tor Rio Crande) the
treaty of Louisiana They ceded aud reIinqushed that
TILE TO Spain by the treaty of 1919 by which the Sabine
boundary"
But the Rio Grande was defined and treated as the
western boundary OF Texas, by the joint of Texas
and Mexico, during the revolution This is clearly
shown by the capulatlon OF General Co.'S to which |
have before alluded, entered into the nth of Deem.
Der, 1859 BY which he stipulated that he and his Off
with their and private property into the
interior OF the republic, (of course west OF the Rio
Grande,) under parole OF honor"
On the nth OF May 1896, only a few days after the
brilliant victory of San Jacino, in which the Mexican
commanler-in chief and his army, together with other
dising officers were taken prisoners by the Tex
ans, anita Anna, " convinced that il useless Tor
Mexico 10 continue the war; and that was oler to
il by political negotiation, and 10 OBTAIN hs
lease, well as all those OF his countymen who were IN
captivity, offered 10 treat with Texas on the terms OF
peace Whereupon solemn and formal treaty was
concluded signed by DaYid g. Burnet, President of the
republic of Texas, Of the one part and OF the either rar
by Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, an ms oDlcidf
capacity chef Of The NeTicdn government, and the
Generals Don yncente Flisoa Don Jose Urea Don Joa
chiefs OF armies"
The ih article solennly ackr 1wedges sanctions and
atfes the full entire and perfect independence Of Texas,
ruth suei boundaries as are hereafter set forth and agreed
The 5h article fixes the boundary of Texas ''at
the Ri Grande om It's month to rs source, thence TO he I'D
degree Of north tatitade,' &c.
Other articles provide for the return of Santa Anna and
the prisoners of war to Mexico.
But is said this not valid and binding on
Mexico Let examine this point for a few moments.
Now, treaty is strictly contract between nations,
and like that between Individuals must combine three re-
qustes render ii valid, viz ls sufficient considera-
ton; 3D. the parties must be able to contract; and Sd,
they must actually contract.
That the third of these requisites happened there IS no
question; 1t is matter OF history that the treaty sign
ed by both Mexico and Texas. They did actually con-
tract -
Then was it founded on sufficient consideration The
consideration mutual. That moving towards Next
co, was the release of Santa Anna the President and
chief of the government OF various distinguished officers
and prisoners and the saving OF FIsolas army OF 1000
men, and that moving towards Texas, was The acknowl-
edgmen of her Independence and the definition and SET
Element of her boundaries The consideration therefore,
was of national Importance to both the high con-
tracing parties and which is recognised by all VIII
tiers national law, as fully sufficient to support the
treaty.
Were the parties to the treaty under consideration capa
bic of contracting That David G Burnet was on the
part OF Texas has never been denied ether oy ne
Was Santa Anna capable OF contracting IN behalf OF
Mexco' Vatle says
ssThe same power who has the right of making wr of
tons has naturally thatIkewlse making Concluding
a treaty of peace"-Page 432.
Now, it is notorious that Santa Anna was, 10 all IN
tents and purposes, dictator OF Mexico that he had con-
cenaed all the powers OF government IN his own hands;
and that whatever have been its organic orm he
had converted i, into military despotsm. Moreover, he
proessed have the power. and it not incumbent
Texas to look behind the fact OF his possession OF IT. He
signed the treaty officially, as chef Of the erioan gop-
ern1nent"
Blu, il may be said that Santa Anna usurpsr.
and did not righJMiy possess the power OF declaring
fhnrI hnku
" conclusive this point Having become possessed OF
all the powers OF government the people having sub
med to his authority, and acknowledged hlm Us their
chief, were bound by his acts.
"Oher States" (rexas, for exampe,) Gas having no
right with domestic concerns OF that naton,
(Mexico) interfere in her government, bound ~
by her decision, and to look further Than the cir
cumstances OF actual possession-lhey may, M"cioe,
breach aud conclude treaty Of peacs ,c the nspPer
Vattet, page $50.
Those who deny the validity of this treaty the
ground of Santa Annals ncapacy to contract invoke to
their aid another rule of national law, which, IN tins
case, there temptation desire to evade 1t is thS
every npedimen by which the prince Is disabled rom
the affairs government, undoubtedly deprves
him OF the power TO make peace.
every legitimate government whatever it be, is esab
lished solely Tor the good aud welfare OF Tue state ms IN
conestabe principle being laid down. the making oil
longs to the nation. Now, certain that capture nce
oanno, administer the Or a,egd to the man
In the case under consideration, is alleged that Santa
Anna the President of Mexico, its highest executive ot
Ger, in captivity as prisoner OF war; deprived OF he
power to ''adninser the government, or attend TO fie
management of public o0ars and that therefore, ac-
cording to the authority, he could not make valid treaty
This objection seems to involve the idea that more
less duess and intimidation always accompany captivity
That thew sometimes do there be question. But
this case there the cearest evidence that Santa Anna
acted poi1aaray freely and for the good o. the country
In bus de- patch to the government I'D INTERIM dated JIne
10, 1896, General Fiisola, who was never prisoner,
says
ellis exceiency (Sana Anna) in my humble opinoa, ~
nd
your exce.ncy acted liberty, AMI had nohns
more IN view the interest OF his country.
In his letter OF July 4, 1885, Santa Anna hlIise says;
s'Wben offered with thts government, tteNh5,l
was rynvnced that useless for Mexico to continue
the war have acquired exact information respecting he
which lid possess Jour tnonths ago nave
zeal the interests OF county ID VISA Tor
ANYTHING which compatible with them Beng always
ready to fee myself glory and advantage, never
would hested subject myself to onnen's or death
thereby obtain the slightest benefit am firmly convinced
that proper terminate this question by political nego
tieuon'
1t is clear therefore, that Santa Anna acted ''lo en-
tire Rberty making the treaty and 1t is also le lhat
during the absence OF Santa Anna from the seat OF gov
eminent IN command OF the national army The executive
authority according to the forms of the constitution was
vested in the hands OF the Vice Presidents that ne re,
ceived dispatches from the commander-in-cheI, anu
issued instructions 10 the conduct OF 'he war au '
pecaily IN relation TO the release OF those IN SaNY,
Whilst therefore, 1t is true that the Ffesiuent vi L~eco
was prisoner of war; it is also true hat MS pace was
supplied by an officer clothed with the power 10 ddm"1
ter the government and 10 attend 10 me management
public affairs" o,, h., .ho s,,bso,,,n, r,,;s
cation of the treaty. The RUE Oh hauohal law on Tue
"a. bts