The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1848-03-11


(who afterwards complained that in the Ore
gon controversy they were abandoned by their
Southern brethrenO they I" sOent il uind'-yet
the vortex into which they plunged was not 50
dark and deep as the gentleman supposes. He
is entirely wrong in his facts. The cOnstitu-
ton Of the State Of Texas, adopted in 1916,
did not declare her boundary to extend to the
Rio Grande, and in the gentleman's published
speech, he has modified his statement. On the
contrary, that constitution, which ! have now
before me, declares inits preamble that it was
adopted in accordance with the provisions Of
the Joint Resolution Of Annexation. And
the third section Of article XIII Of that cOnssi-
tuition is as follOws:
@Sec. All laws and parts Of laws, now in
force in the Republic Of Texas, which are not
repugnant to the Constitution Of the United
States, the joint resolutions iOrannexing Texas
to the United States, or to the provisions OF
this constitution, shall continue and remain in
force, as the laws Of this State, until they ex-
pire by their own limitation, or shall be alter
ed or repealed by the Legislature thereof"
All laws, then, Of the former Republic of
Texas were to remain in force by the Constitu
ton Of the State Of Texas, except such laws
as were inconsistent with the annexation yeso-
luton. Laws 80 inconsistent were not to con-
tinue in f1rce, but were, from that time, re-
pealed by this constitution Of the State Of
Texas. Now, sir, / ask, what laws OF the old
Republic Of Texas we're inconsistent with the
annexation resolutions? Show me, If you
can, a single law of this character, except one
and that one was the act, passed BY the Texan
Congress in 1886, extending the boundary OF
Texas to the Rio Grande; and thus, if allowed
to remain in force, annulling that clause in
the annexation resolutions which provided that
the boundary question should be settled BY the
Government Of the United States. lshall give
in another part of my remarks, some facts
with regard to the character OF the act OF the
Republic of Texas, passed in 1886, which ex'
tended the boundary to the Rio Grande, ant
was thus repealed by the constitution OF tn
State Of Texas, as being r~epugnant to the an
nexation resolutions. i cannot dwell upon i
in this place. The State Of Texas, in forming
a constitution with the view Of coming int
this Union, was not guilty Of the folly OF risk
inc the success Of their favorite measure, b!
refusing 10 consent that the boundary line be
tween Texas and Mexico should be settled b,
the United States Gov ernment No, sir, the.
l had previously, in point Of fact, abandOne'
s all claim to the Rio Grande. They never ha
f possession up to that river, and their claim t
=. it was virtually abandoned long before. !
proof Of this, permit me to read an extraC
( from a letter from Charge d'Ataires at Texas
| (Mr. Andrew Jackson DOnelsOn,) to Nj
f Buchanan, Secretary Of stats,) dated Texa
July IL, 1916. He says:
"The proclamation of q truce between tn
f two nations, (Texas and MexisO) founded o
o propositions mutually accePtableto them, lea'
ing the question Of boundary not only an ope
one, but Mexico in possession Of the east ban
of the Rio Grande, seemed to me incOnslster
with the expectation that, in defence OF tn
claims of Texas, our troops should march in
media,elv to that river. What the ExecutiV
of Texas had determined not to fight for, b.
n to settle by negotiation, to say the least OF
ls could as we'll be left to the United States
d the same conditions.n
# The question Of boundary, then, was
If Texas {" not only left ope1," but the Preside
had information that " Mexico was in posse
sion tf the east bank Of the Rio Gtande."
ID was then eminently proper, when Texas, as
State, adopted a constitution preparatory to n
10 proposed admission into Our Union, that Il
laws of the Republic Of Texas, inconsiste
10 with the annexation resolutions, should be CO
sidered no longer Of binding validity. 81
10 came into our Union, it not abandoning h
L claim to the boundary Of the Rio Grande,
~ least leaving it open for negotiation. She can
with the express understanding both on b
n. mart and on ours, that tho settlement Of :
80 boundary question was one which the GeneI
IN Government must undertake; and that 1t W
err not for Texas, much less fof the President
W the United States, to attempt its settlement.
,e fro BE CONTINUED.