The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-08-04

Speech Of The Hon. DGUid s. Kaufman, Of TerGs, Show
ing that Merioo commenced die late l0dr Nth me Uni-
ted States, by agad'ng territory that belonged TO Ierds
at The period Of her GHnerdtion.
We desire to call the attention of readers TO this
speech for two reasons. When Mr.. kaufman visited
New England, as member of the congressional com
mittee on the death of Mr. Adams the impression he
made was highly favorable TO himself and the character
OF his State Whoever met him, found frank sincere,
intelligent man and the conclusion Immediately was,
that State which selected such representatives was not
degraded the wings had declared. AmoEg the
distinguished gentlemen who represented the different
States and Territories on that occasion, no one pro
duced more favorable impressions than Mr.. kaufman,
OF Texas. He Is native OF Pennsylvania, Is now
rather than thirty years OF age held the rank OF
colonel in the Texan army, and was wounded IN the
face IN a battle fought we believe with the Indians
After Texas declared her independence, he was mem
Der of the House OF Representatives and Speaker OF that
body lie has been often before the people for their SUI
frages, and never defeated His recent speech is worthy
of attention, the most conclusive vndlcaton yet made
of the title of Texas to the territory between the Nueces
and the Rio Grande So zeaousy have the wing presses
and orators abored to show that the march OF the troops
from Corpus Christi was an INVASION OF Mexico, that
many persons doubted the defence which the admnlsa-
ton made But Gen. Taylor having advised this move
%eni the wings ought to be doabiy thankful 70 a S d
seek with Mexico; for, if Mexico owned the ter
rtory east of the Rio Grande it follows that Taylor is
the author of the Mexican We advise those wing
papers which support Gen Taylor to proceed 10 show al
onceas they can do from Mr.. kautmans speech-that
Mexico had no title whatever to that territory, and thus
dlSSpae the impression lat Taylor rs the aunOr Oh Tie
unless they intend to the General as the war
candidate and prove HIM TO be It's author AS they have
refused to present any opinions, or avoW any principles
this policy will, without doubt be pursued in some sec
tons of the country.
Mr.. kaufman has collected and arranged, with great
care, authentic documents, drawn in many instances,
from Mexican sources, which prove the title OF Texas to
what is called the disputed territory AT the capltuatlon
of the 1th of December 1885, after the battle OF Bexa
Gen Cos was to retire to the west OF the Rio Grande
Thereby abandoning all the country east of that river
The of Nav 1h declared the bank
of the Rio Grande the boundary, This treaty was
made with Santa Anna then prisoner OF war, and four
other generals not prSoners-one OF whom, IN the alb
sence OF Santa Anna was commander in chief by rank,
well as by special commission from the government at
home. The wings have endeavored to show that Mexi
co was not bound by this treaty, Santa Anna not
free TO act; but, from the treaty ITSELF it appears that
four of the negotiaors the part of Mexico were
free those the part of Texas And from despatch OF
Gen. Fisola, whom the command devolved after the
capture of Santa Anna, we learn that his exceency San
la Anna in my humble opinion in the treaties that he
agreed upon, and that had the honor to send your
ceency acted with entire liberty, and had nothing more
in view than the interest of has country And Santa Anna
also said "W Then offered 10 treat with the government
(of Teyas,) | was convinced it was useless for Mexico
to continue the war" From the concurrent testimony OF
these cheftans appears that the terms of the treaty
not dictated by Texas by Santa Anna, under the
pressure of Texan authony but by the Mexican officers
under Just convection that the interests OF their country
demanded peace and that it useless to continue the
There is nothing in the character OF this treaty TO
distinguish it from many others which have been regard
does it differ from the we have just made with Mex
leo or how can the violation of one be worse than the
violation of the other? And as the wings have justified
Mexico in her violation of the treaty of 1885, will they
not be ready TO justify violation OF the treaty OF lS4S
We do not wish to anticipate their conduct but the speech
and vote of Mr. Webster certainly point in that direction
When conquered party makes treaty, always must
be under restraint and if that restraint be
Tor It's violation no terms can ever be made when the
fortunes of unequal This doctrine leads to the
unlimited prosecution of hostlities the unconditional
subsection OF party Was nation govern
ment under restraint than that of Mexico with
every port blockaded its foreign trade destroyed its
and appropriated by the invaders its capital
and principal towns and foresses IN the possession OF
the enemy its government transferred from Its ancient
seat TO provincial town. Yet will any say that
the treaty is not obligatory upon Mexico' The world
will hold Mexico to the agreement She had her CHOICE
to continue the war, under unfavorabe circumstances
be sure, agree to such treaty acceptable to
the American government She chose the latter, and
therefore it is her contract, and she must abide by it.
How was If with the treaty of 1886 with Texas' Mex
leo not conquered her territory not pressed by
hostile foot her revenues and taxes were collected by
her officers her government safe at the capital
One misfortune only had befaen her. The division of
the army under Santa Anna had been defeated by Hous
ton but she had others in the field and upon the east
bank of the Rio Grande-armies too, more numerous
and better furnished than those of Texas The treaty,
then, entirely voluntary the part OF Santa Anna,
Fsola, aud the other officers; and therefore binding on
Mexico, unless these men exceeded their authority.
What are the facts on this point' Santa Anna was
DICTATOR with the title of President and as commander of
the armies could CONTROL and did CONTROL the action of
the Mexican government Fisola, as commander, after
the defeat of Santa Anna had right to make any agree
ment he chose subject to the action of the government
home The government had right to accept the treaty
as whole, or reject it as whole The course taken
however, reveals the true Mexican character, at the
same time that it establishes concusvey the title of
Texas to the territory east OF the Rio Grande The adj
vanages OF the treaty accepted and appropriated
while, with base teachery, the independence of Texas
denied But it is principle readily seen, to
require no argument, that party which avas itself of
the benefit of contract is bound to assume its bur
dens. 1t is by this rule that the faith of ndivdu-
ais and nations Is maintained. What would have
been thought of our government, if, after the trea
y, by which Mexico coded large territory, had
retained possession of her capital, refused to aban
don the castle of Vera Cruz Would the justice of
the world decree that, we had accepted the benefit of
the treaty, whatever must be faithfully per-
formed by us Or, having Withdrawn armies from
the territory OF Mexico and paid her the stipulated
of money, what would be thought of her faith if she
tempted the jurisdiction of Upper California; Yet
these instances of bad faith glazing than for Mexico
TO accept the release OF Santa Anna and his army with
large quantity OF baggage and munitions OF OF great
value to her, and OF greater value to Texas and yet
fuse to recognise the validity OF that portion OF the treaty
which guaranteed the independence of Texas andd defined
It's limits
And more than this. The Mexican government by a
despatch dated the 18th of May, 1896, gave to Gen. Fill
sofa discretionary power to procure the release OF Santa
Anna and the prisoners OF So that Flsoa acted in
conformity TO the authority of the government, though
had been signed and its conditions the part of Texas
faithfully performed But it is equally true that the
hority valid if received before the treaty was
signed Were there other basis than this treaty,
with Mr. kaufman, that the title of Texas TO the
country east of the Rio Grande sufficient. Unfortu-
can be presented in other, and stronger views.
On the 27th February, battle OF Buena