Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1848-01-12

occupy thu left bank Of the Del No.te : >
The movement Of the troops - the
Del Norte was made by the commanding
: General. under positive instructions to alb
! stain from all aggressive acts towards
Mexico OF MeNican citizens. and % regard
the relations between the Republic and the
nited States as peaceful, unless she should
declare war or commit acts Of hostility il.
dlcailve Of 4 state Of war. He was spe-
clally directed = protect private propert,
and respect individual rights
In his annual message Of December 8.
1876. the President states that Texas. as
coded to the United States by France in
1908. has been ALWAYS claimed as oxtend-
ing west 10 the Rio Grande: that this fact
IS established by declarations Of our Gov
eminent during Mr.. Jeff;.rson's and Mr.
Nonroe's administrations: and that the
Texas which was cedcd u Spain bv the,
Florida treaty of 1919 embraced ali the
country now claimed by the State Of Texas
between the Nueces and the i,io Granaa
lie then repeats the acts Of Texas with
reference 10 her boundaries. stating that
''burlng the period of more tan hire
wears, which interviewed bctwc the aIop-
ton of her Constitution and her annex
atom as ono Of the States Of our Union.
Texas asserted and exercised MANY acts Of
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the ter
ritorv and Inhabitants west OF the Nucces
-such as organizinr and defining limits
o. counties EATEN ling II the Rio Grandc.
establishing courts Of Justice and extend
ing her judicial system over the territory;
establishing also a custo,n-h house, post
Offices, land Office. &c"
The President dcsignates b. he ra.in
Of Tcfas the ccssion Of Louisiana by
France To the United States: and he arain
calls the territory coded to Spain bv the
Florida treaty Of 1919 thc IeraS lie
intimates that The claim Of the United
States - the territory between the Sabine
ana the Rio Nortc was derived from the
boundaries of Texas. and that. bv claim
ing as far west as this river, the United
States did recognise that Il was the bound
airy Of he Terae IrealIv DO no: under
stand what is meant by This assertion
The nited States claimed the Rio
N9Tte IS being the lcnitimatc boundary of
LoHsinna. and not Of TexaS Neither
they or France had ever been in possession
Of IN" country beyond the sabine Spain
had always held possession and had dlvil-
ed the territory into provinces as she pleas
ed. One of thcs" was called Texas. and
its boundaries had been designated and al
tered at her viii With these the United
States had no concern. If their claim
could be sustained, it must be biz PROVING
that Louisiana cxtcndcd of RIGHT TINS far.
This had no connection with the boundaries
which Spain might have assigned to her
province of Texas. These might have
extended beyond the Rio del Norte. or
have been cast of the Rio Nucccs. There
IS not the slightest conncxion between the
legitimate boundaries of Louisiana and
those Of the Spanish province Of Texas.
The presumed identity is mere SUPPOSE
ton.
IL Is not necessary to discuss the sound
ness OF the prctensions to the Rio Norte.
asserted by Mr.. Jefferson and Mr. Monroe.
since they were yielded in exchange. for
Florida. and some other objects by the
treaty OF 1819-a treaty extremely popu-
lar at the time. and the execution ofwhich
was pressed with great zeal and persevcr-
ance.
Whenever ultimately coded to Mexico.
that Republic fixed is boundaries as it
thought proper. Texas and Coahuila were
declared to form a State. and the Rio
\ueces was made the boundary of Texas.
When Texas declared itself independent.
II was the insulrection of only part of a
State. for Coahuila remained united 10
Mexico; butth Rio \ucces was the boun-
Diary between the department Of Texas
and the State of Tamaulipas. The whole
contested territory lies within the limits Of
1amauIpas, which never was. under the.
Mexican Government, connected in any
shape with Texas
The question now under consideration
is only that between the I-nited States and
NeXlco: and IN that view of the subject ii
Is quite lnmaterial whether the acts of the
nIted States emanated Fl ON Congress or
from the Executive. No act of either re-
cognzIng the country beyond the Nueces
as part Of the territory of the United
States. can be alleged against Mexico as a
proof Of their right TO the country thus
claimed Any such act is only an asSer-
uon declaration. but not an argument
sustaining the right. 1t IS. however. pro-
per to observe here that the port of deli
very west Of the NueceS. erected By the
act Of Congress ito establish a collection
district in the State Of Teas was at
Cofups Christi. place which was in the
actual possession Of that State.
1t must also be promised that in the
oint resolution for the annexation of /
Texas. the question Of the boundary be-
ween 1t and Mexico was expressly resorv- '
I'd as one which should be settled by treaty t
between the United States and Mexico. /
The only arguments in the Presidents |
Message. which sustain the right Of Texas t
o territory beyond the Nueces. are con- t
AIMED in those passages in which it is as +
serted that the jurisdiction of Texas had {
zen extended and exercised beyond the q
\ueces: that the country between that
liver and the del Norte had been repre- J
ented in the Congress and Convention of )
Texas. had taken part in the annexation of a
tse.t. and was now included within one OF 0
ur Congressional districts.
But il IS moi stated in the Presidents f
Message ho1r far beyond the Nueces the 9
urlsdiction Of Texas had been extended. c