The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1848-01-06

&
!. Tie rasssfnrat nftle arnafs 10 flae hi Metz
ns Iaase n ai.e roaalisassg General anlsr Fso-
siixe instructions % abstain from I'll agsErsalxc
aras tsNasd Meaica o. Mexiram riliaens. and ~
ErssTa The Eelzsiaas leiwaen 1laai Relxlhe and
lie United STATS - Teauslu. unless she Shouts
aleriaEr Mar - sonsmis arts 4 hoiliy indicative
Il Stale II War. He MS especially dineesrsi u
Prusert p4issse rRoPr'is and respect individual
nights" .e~@ <.s @.
In his annual message nr December &.
1910, the President states That Texas. -
rntlci 10 lie United States hy France I'm
1903. has alwaysbeenelaimed ~ extending
west 10 the Rio Grande; that this fact i
. established hy declaraiions of our govern
menl during Mr.. JeiTeFsnn's and Mr.. Mon.
ross administrations and thai the Texas
which was eelrd 10 Spain by the Florida
treaty Of 1919 embraced NIL tie country
now claimed by the state nf Texas be-
tween the Nueres and The Rio Grande.
/ Tie then REPEATS iIle acts Of Texas with
reference 10 her boundaries, stating that
! During ii,n period Of more than nine years,
which iutcryened between tie adoption Of her
Constitution aud her annexation Us one oi tie
States Of our Linton. Texas asserted and exeTeis-
ed many acts Of sovereignty ami jurisdiction over
the territory anl inhabitants west of Tie Nncees
--sarh ~ organizing ani defining limits Of coan-
tits extending to the Ria GTandc, establishing
courts Of Justice and extending her judicial sys-
tenn over the territory establishing also custom
house. post oliicrs, and i land Office, &c"
The President dcsignaies hy the name
of IfTas the cossion Of Louisiana by
France To the United States and he again
calls the territory eetled To Spain by the
Florida treaty III 1919 me 1ixas. lie
intima.cs ihat the claim Of The United States
10 The territory between the Sabine and
the Rio NoFle was derived from the buun-
diaries of Texas, and ihai, by claiming as
Ear west as this river, the United States
did recognise that il was the boundary ol
, hs Ttras. | really do not understand
what is meant BY This assertion.
The United States claimed The RIO
Norte as being The legitimate boundary ol
/ LaWisiaaa, and not Of Texas. Neither
! they nor France had ever been in posses.
! sion Of the county beyond the Sabine,
Spain had always held possession, and
! had divided the territory into provinces
as she pleased. Ore Of these was called
. Texas, and its boundaries had been de'
. signaied aid altered NJ her will. Will
! these the Tinted States had no concern
/ III their claim could he SUSTAINED il mus, !,
he by proving that Louisiana extem;led d
: right thus far. This had TO ronnexioi
) with the boundaries which Spain NIGH
! have assigned 10 her province of Texas
! These might have extended beyond the
. Rio del Norle, or have been east of the
L, Rio Nueces. There is not the slighles
l connection between the legitimate boun
diaries OF Louisiana and those OF the Span
ish province of Texas. The presumed
2. identity is mere superstition.
/ II is not necessary TO discuss The sound
ness Of the pretensions TO the Rio Norte
$ asserted by Mr.. Jefferson and Mr.. Mon
: roe, since they were yielded in exchange
r for Florida, and some other objects, by the
, treaty of lsl9--a treaty extremely popr
) lar at the time. and the execution Of which
? was pressed with great zeal and perscrer
= anee.
| Whenever ultimately ceded TO Mexico
that republic fixed its boundaries as i
{, thought proper. Texas and Coalul;
r were declared 10 form state, and the Rio
: Nueccs was made the boundary OF 'fexas
When Texas declared itself independent
/ il was the insurrection of only part of /;
state, for Coahuila remained united tc
, Mexico; but the Rio Nueces was tho
, boundary between the department of Tex
rs and the state OF Tamaulipas. The
whole contested territory lies within tho
/ limits of Tamaulipas, which never was
under the Mexican government, connect
, ed in any shape with Texas.
The question now under consideration
is only that between the United States ant
Mexico; and i'm that view of the suhlec
t il is quite immatcral whether the acts o
: the United States emanated from Congress
, or from the Executive. No act OF either
f recognizing the country beyond the Nue.
3 ces as a part oil the territory of the United
f States, can be alleged against Mexico as !;
5 proof OF their right to the country thus
/, claimed. Any such act is only an asser
ton. a declaration, but no, an argument
| sustaining the right. 1t is, however, pro
( per to observe here that the port of deliv
$ cry west of the Nueces, erected by the ac
of Congress "to establish collection dis
= trict in the state of Texas" was at Corpu:
+ Christi, a place which was i'll the actua
= possession of that state.
e 1t mus, also be promised that in tht
= joint resolution for the annexation of Tex
4 as, the question of the boundary between
!. it and Mexico was expressl y reserved al
IS one which should be settled by treaty be
is tween the United States aud Mexico.
II The only arguments in the President
Message, which sustain the right of rexa
!, 10 the territory beyond the Nucces, ar
j. contained in those passages in which il. i
i asserted that the jurisdiction of Texas ha'
d been extended and exercised beyond tn
'i Nueees; that the country between tina