The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-01-11

out Of the present republic OF Texas, with suitable extern
until the next apportonment of representation shall oe
admitted the Union. by virtue OF this act on an equal
footing with the existing States, the terms and
Conditions OF such admission and the cesson OF the re-
manning Texan territory to the United States snail DC
agreed upon by the governments OF Texas anu .e uned
States; and the OF 100000 is hereby appropriated
10 deay The expenses of missions and negotiations to
agree upon the terms of said admission and cesson either
by treaty be submitted TO the Senate or by articles to
be submitted the two houses OF Congress- as the Prei-
dent may drectl .r
Mexico General Almone, demanded his passports, upon
the ground that the annexation itself was state OF hos
tlity 10 Mexico; and from that period to the march OF
General Taylor from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande'
the frequent efforts of the American government to ter
inmate the controversy by negotiation, failed; and be-
fore that march, the Mexican government were collect
design not of taking possession only OF the territory be-
tween the Nueces and the Rio GIande, and coneedng to
the United States that portion of Texas which lay west OF
the Nueces but Of dispung with the United States the
title the whole OF the country between the ko ranoe
and the Sabine and upon the ground That the whole ana
every part of that territory was still portion Mexico Dy
virtue of her original and paramount title Now the prop
osi,ion which seek to maintain is this that as between
the government of the United States and the government
OF Mexico the former had in this condition of things
perfect right and the right for the purpose OF erei
ling the threatened invasion, to march her troops INTO te
territory between the Nueces and the Rio Gande as INTO
any territory situated between the Sabine and the Nueces
The question is not whether such movement OF the
troops was under all the an ae
ual conflict might not have been avoided put whether
matter of rght-as matter OF se;aeen S. an
perfect authority and lustfca ton to make such move
ment =. >. nr IN, :
United States had received the republic of Texas into the
Union without antecedenty defining her boundaries, and
under constitution which reiterated what had been as ar
dependent republicha the Rio Grande from It's source
to its mouth, was her southwestern boundary ne ne
United States extended an h had sssumed actual rs
dction at Corpus Christi They knew that there were
citizens between the Nueces and the klo Ganae VINO
claimed to be citizens of the State OF Texas SO Admired
They knew that for nine years the State OF Texas had
existed an independent nation ~ tho ,a,b Nav,
Who denied then that had good right to repel the
Mexcans and invade for the purpose OF avengng ne
ouages any every part OF Mexico ona naa
had terminated all diplomatic relations she had refused 70
receive minister mere bubble OF the then Ires
dent because he afraid of his own power threatened
with DOWNFALL because was believed he willing to
negotiate at all She had mustered an army on the no
Grande, with the declared object OF invading all Tex
as and recovering the whole to her own sovereignty
Her then government owed its existence to this very de-
termination She had never maintained any peculiar n t
TO what Is now called disputed territory What IN this
siate were the United States do Were they bound to
remain still ard await the invasion; or were they moi a-
horized to meet the threatened INVASION even upon me
admitted territory Of the invader! VINO douots that
with nations as with individuals, the right OF sel1-de-
fence gives the right strike the first blow! 10 prevent
an injury is easier than TO repair It, Sir, where Is the
writer on the law of nations who holds different opn-
ion There some propositions SO plan tha iney au
nit of @ Inc tneIs own osar
right to meet Mexico at the very outermos limits OF
Texas and repel her there we deemed advisable
an equally clear and undeniable right to anticipate her
by striking the first blow on her admitted territory
Bnt il is said that the place OF conflict Mexican ter
rtory If it the argument IN our behalf would not DC
in the least eneebed She there. intending ogo iur
Their she there to drive army back TO the SABINE
she was there to reconquer Texasthe whole and every
hs ground 81 that sueh portion was not Texas
But even the fact is not as alleged whether this por
ton of the territory was or was not rght9y par o.
il Texas over portion of it, exercised Jurisdiction
Citizens residing claimed to be citizens OF that gov
eminent Mexico had in vain attempted TO recover it
The constitution of Texas included it. The United
States had exercised, after the admission OF Texas mic
the Union, sovereignty over part q he nsnes &c, o.
into the Union without any other definition of boundary
reserving the right only as between themselves Texas
5 iy ohfy TO see By Without
breach of honor TO Texas the United States could nc
have 6s o the
rtoy than they could have surrendered 10 such demand
the entire State. 80
this part of her territory open to dispute Such
dispute is to be settled but by two meaRs-by negotiation
or by force. II the negotiation was reiused-n MeXce
elected the other alternative orce,) can she complain
we meet her with force But suppose her design was
actual force but to only OF the disputed
take possession and hold whatever they possessed unit
the question of title was decided by negotiation Inc
OF title might have been affected by Inc lac
of possession Mexico might have relied upon as con-
elusive of the inability of Texas and the United States
as their successors, TO prevent il and demonstrating
that the original sovereignty had not been lost by the
oution This the United States had right TO guard
against Their own honor babe them guard against it
Ii actual possession by Mexico could weaken the title OF
Texas was their duty strengthen by also taking
session Pending question Of disputed territory not &C
tuay possessed BY either who conended that was
the duty of one the parties TO suffer the other to take
possession and then try the title No, sir; no lawyer
would give such advice No statesman would so act
Things should in such case, be suffered to remain ii,
statu quo Neither should seek to get advantage OF
the other If right in this, and Mexico designed
taking possession, then she cannot complain we alsc
take possession; and especially not, if she knew that
notwithstanding such possession we were willing al any
time to negotiate the question of title.
Sir, it has been said that to march into the disputed
territory is act of hostility concede it. But Their
threaten march-to prepare to march-to muster ar
army to march, and with the avowed purpose of taking
forcble possession and holding is also act of hos
ty. This Mexico did first, and we had then clear RICH
anticipate her upon every principle OF the national law
by marching ourselves, and placing ourselves IN cond
ton successfully to meet and repe her Between nations
as between individuals, aggression may be met by ag
gression-assault may be met by battery But is SAID
revolution gives title unaccompaned by actual and un
disturbed possession and jurisdiction AS genera
principle the proposition true but what is actual ant
undisturbed possession Does il mean that the revo
lutionary government to have soldier on each TOO
of her asserted DOMAINE Does it that every nhabit
ant within her territory is to acknowledge and submit
har. dooa nOf me-