Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-04-27
1Dolttttal.
SPEECH OF MIR. UPHAM,
OF VERMONT, ON
THE TEN REGIMENTS BILL.

VS.
OF VERMONT, ON
THE TEN REGIMENTS BILL,
AND
THE MEXICAN WAR.
DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE u STATES
FEB. l5, 1913.
(coNcLUDED.)
But, Mr.. President, it is time TO leave this
branch of the subject, and pass to the order o.
the 18th January 1896 for the march of the
army from Corpus Christi, to the left bank of the
kio Grande. This order, in my judgment, was
an act OF Executive usurpation, and the mme.
oiate cause OF the war. If our army had re-
NAMED at Corpus Christi, the acquisition of Tex
as would, to use the language of the President
Have been boodlcs achievement No arm of force would
have been raised to produce the result The sword would
have had no part in the victory"
/ The resolution of annexation declares:
hat congress doth consent that the territory properly
included within and rightfuy belonging 10 the Republic Of
the same be admitted one of the States of this Union
Sald state to DO ormed subject the adjustment by this
other Governmental, $500 ~
1t appears on the face of the resolution, that a
portion of the territory claimed by the republic
OF Texas was in dispute, and might not properlv
belong to her, and that her right to the disputed
territory was a question to be settled BY this
Government and Mexico. The republic of Texas
had, by her act OF Congress-, passed in Deem
Der, 1886, declared the Rio Grande, from its
mouth to Its source, to be her southwestern boun-
dairy; but she had not, at that time, nor at the
time the resolution of annexation was passed,
possession OF any portion of the country west of
the Nueces, except small settlement on the
western bank OF that river. The whole territory
between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. as I
shall show before resume my seat with the ex-
ceptlon of the small settlement mentioned. was
IN possession of Mexico, and claimed as part
OF her republic. Now, sir, what was the duty
OF the President III regard to this matter? What
are MS powers IN the adjustment of international
Controversies? They are pacific not bellire-
rent His instrumentaties are diplomatic a.
gents not armies and navies. lie makes con.
tracts and treaties with foreign governments /;
out ne has no authority, without the consent of
congress, to call on the military power of the
country to enforce their performance. lie is. il
Is true, commander in-chief of the army and
navy, but he has no authority to employ then, a.
galnst foreign nation for any purpose whatever.
without the order of Congress. The whole war
making power Is, by the Constitution, lodged in
congress. Aud Congress alone is constitution.
ally invested with the power of changing the
condition of the country from peace 10 war
inns was the opinion of Mr.. Jefferson, as en-
pressed to Congress in his confidential MESA ge
OF December ., 1905, in regard to question of
disputed boundary between the United States
and SPAN, growing out of the Louisiana pur-
chase.
Amer nearly i've months of fuitless endeavor saws Mr.
!eeHon our mnistcr ended the conferences without hay
Ing been able to obtain indemnity for spoatons of INV do
OF any satisfaction as to the boundaries Louisi
of the Ibetvile." 1''
Considering that Congress alone is cons,ituonaly iuves
ted with the power of changing condition from neaee to
war have thought my duty await thc authority for
usinS force IA any degree which could be avoided
ms, Mr.. President. is sound constitutional
doctrine, and If Mr.. Polk had followed in the
footsteps of his iustrious predecessor. this war
would have been avoided. 1t was the duty of
the President to settle tbs question of disputed
boundary with Mexico, by negotiation if he
could, bu: 1t his efforts failed, it was equally his
duty to inform Congress of the fact, and await
their authority for marching the army on to the
disputed territory. Congress was in session, and
could have been consulted without the least in
convenience.
The ground | assume is, that the territory be-
tween the Nueces and the Rio Grande being dis
pulablc, and most of it in possession of Mexico.
the President had no right to take forcible DOS
session OF 1t, even if it righttully belonged to
the State of Texas, without authority from Con-
gress. We have had many questions of disputed
boundary with foreign nations, and no admins
tration, except the present, ever thought of tax.
ing iofclblc possession of the disputed territory
Our northeastern boundary was in dispute from
The peace OF 1888 to 1872 and 10 attempt was
made by any of our Presidents to take possess
ion. by force, of the territory we claimed. But
Mr.. President, various pretences have been set
up to justify the march Of our army to the left
bank OF the Rio Grande. The honorable Sena-
tor from Maryland, (Mr. JoHNsoN,) in his elo-
quent speech upon this question said, that the
hn ,..s.ls al,
into the Union without antecedently defining
her boundaries, and under constitution inclu,
ding the disputed territory and, therefore, they
were bound to defend It, Sir, the constitution
OF Texas, formed after the passage of the reso.
luton OF annexation, and under which she was
admitted as State of this Union, did not define
her southwestern boundary was left an
open question, to be settled by negotiation be-
tween the United States and Mexico. Again,
Mr.. President, the honorable Senator said that
Mexico had mustered an army on the RIO Grande
with the declared object of invading Texas, and
recovering the whole TO her own sovereignty,
and that we had clear, undenable right to meet
her there and strike the first blow. But I'M
dersland the Senator to admit, that our right to
meet her there and strike the blow could be JUS
tilted only upon the principle of self defence
II we were III no danger of blow from Mexico
- if she had no force collected for the invasion
OF Texas, then our march into the disputed ter
ritory was an unjustiiable act of hostility. Now,
sir, where is the evidence that Mexico had mus
tered an army on the Rio Grande with the de-
clared object of invading and conquering Texas?
Did the President say any thing OF the kind in
his message of the llth May, 1916, informing
Congress that he had ordered the army to the
left bank Of the Rio Grande? No, sir he as
signed no such reason for the order. lie said in
that message that our force remained at Corpus
Christi until after he had received such informa-
ton from Mexico as rendered it probable, if not
certain, that the Mexican Government would re-
fuse to receive our envoy. Our army, then, was
ordered TO occupy the left bank of the Rio
Grande, because the President apprehended that
Mexico would reject our envoy. Now Mr..
President, to show that Mexico had mustered no
army on the Rio Grande with view to the in