Tri-weekly journal. (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1847-188?, 1848-02-10

is a boundary fruitful of expense, and of every
species of collision, and collision. A noun
tain and desert plain is far better; and these
we have between US and Mexico; and it would
be just as unwise for us to project segment,
or salient angle, of our frontier across this
plain and mountain into the natural limits Of
Mexico, as it would be in her to make the same
projection of a segment, or angle Of herself,
across the same plain and mountain, into our
natural dominion"
Sir, 1t is not in the Senate only that this
doctrine has been announced. | find dis
tinguished member in the other House, in a
report made by him in regard to the Texas
question, made an important confession. On
the Sd of February, 1915, Mr.. Ingersoll, in
his report, said:
''The stupendous deserts between the Nueces
and the Bravo rivers are the natural boundaries
between the Anglo Saxon and Mauritanian
races There ends the valley of tie West-there
Mexico begins"
This is the opinion of the Chairman Of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the other
house. Now let me turn to another authority.
propose to read from letter from Mr.. Don
aldson, our charge d'alfairs at Texas, to Mr.. Blu
chanan, Secretary of State.
. alt is the policy of those who are on the side
of Mexico in the present crisis to throw upon
the United States the responsibility of war
for the country between the Nueces and the
Rio Grande. That territory, you are aware,
has benin the possession of both parties. Texas
has held in peace Corpus Christi. Mexico has
held Santiago. Both parties have had occa-
sional possession of Loredo and other higher
points.
"Mexico, however, has threatened renew
al of the war for the whole of Texas, if she ac-
cepts,the proposals for annexation to the Union.
If she undertakes such an expedition, she of
course puts upon the hazard of war the whole
claim, and gives US the right of going not only
to the Rio Grande, but wherever else we may
please"
At page 78 of the same document, in a letter
of Mr.. Donaldson, the Secretary ofState of Tex
as, find this:
"My position is, that we can hold Corpus
Christi and all other points up to the Nueces
Ifattacked the right of defence will author
ize us to expel the Mexicans to the Rio
Grande.
at is better for us to await the attack than
run the risk Of embarrassing the question of
annexation with the consequence of immedi-
ate possession of the territory to the Rio
Grande You will find that | have guarded
every point"
He had no idea Of the advance of the army
to the Rio Grande, or Of an attack upon Mexico
He appears TO have acted with such caution
and prudence as became his position. "The
right of defence wonld authorize us to expel
the Mexicans to the Rio Grande" Sir, how ex-
pei the Mexicans to the Rio Grande, il Texas
had possession up 10 that river? Here you have
the authority of your own negotiator for the
the fact, that Mexico held this territory and not
Texas. But you have the same authority in a
dozen places.
''The occupation Of the country betweenlthe
Nueces and the Rio Grande, you are aware is a
disputed question. Texas holds Corpus Christi
Mexico holds the Brazos de Santiago, near
the mouth of the Rio Grande. The threatened
Invasion, however, of Texas, is found upon the
assumption that she has no territory iEdepen-
dent of Mexico.
"You can safely hold possession of Corps
Christi and all other points up to the Nueces:
and if Mexico attempt to dislodge you drive her
beyond the Rio Grande."
"You will have observed, that, in my cor
respondence with this Government there has
been no discussion of the question of limits be-
tween Mexico and Texas. The joint resolu-
tlon of our Congress left the question an open
one and the preliminary proposition made by
this Government, under the auspices of the
British and French Governments, as the basis
OF a definite treaty with Mexico, left the ques-
ton IN the very same state. And although
this Government has since indicated point
on the Rio Grande for the occupation Of our
varying the question, since the President but a
few weeks before issued proclamation sus-
pending hostilities between Texas aud Mexico
the practical effect of which was TO leave the
question precisely as it stood when our Joint
resolution was passed-Mexico in possession
ofone portion of the territory and Texas of an
other \
The proclamation of a truce between the
two nations, founded on propositions mutual.
lly acceptable to them, leaving the question Of
boundary not only an open one, but Mexico in
possession of the east bank of the Rio Grande
seemed to me inconsistent with the expects
ton that in defence of the claim of Texas as
our troops should march Immediately tc
that river. What The Executive of Texas had
determined not to fight for, but to settle by ne
collation., to say the least fit, could as we'll be
left to the United States on the same condi
tons Tat once
decided that we should take no such position
but should regard only as within the limits o.
our protection that portion of territory actual
ly possessed by Texas and which she did moi
consider subject to negotiation"
If it had been in the occupation of Texas
would she have been obliged to fight for it,
Sir, the inconsistency is too palpable to make
Unnecessary any longer to dwell upon it. Again
he says at page 80:
"There were many circumstances making il