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

all admit tfldt the only armed force IN the dis
puted territory on the lower as well as the up
per Del NorIe was Mexican force. allude to
the armed company at LOredo, commissioned
by the Mexican Government. Very possibly
the object was to protect the people from Indi-
an incursions, as think have heard stated by
the Senator from Texas himself.
But my colleague referred to several acts
of Congress as authorities to sustain him in his
position. The first act of December, 1915, ex-
tending the laws of the U. States to Texas, was
cited by himas one of these authorities. / con-
fess am at loss to know how any inference
can be drawn from that in favor of our right,
or the right of Texas to the country between
the Nueces and the Rio Grande. 1t affirms no
limits to Texas. As the resolution of annex
alton applied only to Texas as properly limited,
so this law provided that over Texas proper,
within her Tightful limits, the laws of the u.
States should be extended. Well, then, my
colleague referred to the act of February, 1916.
making Corpus Christi port of delivery, and
Galveston port ofentry. But Corpus Christi
was within the limits which Texas maintain
ed by force of arms-within the bounds of rev.
olutionized Texas; and undoubtedly we took
Corpus Christi into the Union when we adj
mitted Texas and we had as good right to es-
tablsh port of delivery there as we had to es-
tablish port of entry at Galveston. Corpus
Christi was the frontier settlement of Texas,
and, having been always since the revolution
under her jurisdiction, was as little disputed
as Nacogdoches itself. Here the possession
was unquestioned, and the title absolute, but
this fact could give no claim to the claim of
territory beyond her reach and not subject to
the sway of Texas. But the act of Feb. 2, AT,
is also invoked in aid of the argument.-
Sir, this act was passed long after the war was
recognised by Congress, indeed it was a conse-
quence of the war, and cannotapply toa state
of things existing at the commencement of
hostii'ies. 1t provided among others for a
post route from the Brazos to Fort Brown.
we'll recollect the history of that act and the
proceedings, while it was pending here. Some
objection was made TO it, as likely TO be quot
ed in aid of the boundary question, when ii was
explained by more than one member. Allow
me to refer to it, and to read few remarks of
the honorable Senator from Texas on the sub
ject. When ii came here, after its passage in
the House of Representatives, it was objected
that it might involve some question as to the
boundary of Texas.
Mr.. Rusk said if he could suppose that this
provision would involve any question as to the
boundary rights of Mexico or Texas, he could
urge it. The establishment of this route would
prevent the necessity for sending letters TO the
army through circuit of five hundred miles,
He had another reason for pressing this route.
Texas, ever since her annexation, had been
worse supplied with mail routes than she was
before. There were five or six counties entire
ly destitute of accommodation. If the bill
were amended and sent back to the HOUSE,
great delay must be the consequence; and the
Postmaster General was now waiting for its
passage, to make the necessary contracts,
The honorable Senator from Texas then dis
claimed the view of raising the question of
boundary on the bill?
Mr.. Rusk. Will the Senator allow me to
interrupt him for moment? My remarks were
not exactly reported though Ibid state the sub
stance of what has Just been read. | remarked
that | did not look on the bill as involving at
all the question of boundary; that if it did, no
motion was made 10 strike out the clause
should do it.
Mr.. Pearce. The Senator says the report is
substantially correct, though not exactly so.
knew that the question had been raised in the
House Of Representatives,, and that it was put
ON footing which myself recognized as le-
gitimate. find that when this bill was in
troduced into the House. Mr.. Vinton moved to
amend it.
''Mr. Vinton moved to amend the bill by ad-
ding to the second section the following:
.'PrOUided, That nothing in this act shall be
understood to contain an expression by Con-
gress of its opinion as to the question of boun-
Diary between the territory of the United States
and Mexico
In the discussion which followed, | find that
Mr.. Dromgoole made the following remarks
'Mr. Dromgoole resuming, said he supposed
tina. neither the transportation of the mail, nor
the establishment of post-office, or a custom
house, were conclusive facts in regard to a
boundary, whenever the two nations should
see fit to enter into negotiation respecting it.
But admit that this is disputed boundary ,sand
then having the possession of 1t, we have the
complete right to govern the country during
the possession, even if it be d military possess
sion. We have not only the power to estab-
fish post-offices, post-routes, custom-houses,
but to introduce civil governments, not only
on this side of the Rio Grande, but through
all the provinces of Mexico, which had been
overrun by our arms; we had the right to es-
tablish governments during the time we occupy
them. None of these were conclusive; they
were mere acts which we might do because we
had possession of the country
Now, sir, this is perfectly right, and | may
add that tits Characteristic of the intelligent
adroit, and skiful parlianentarian who made
the remark. 1t was necessary to supply our
army with postmasters, and certainly he had
authority to do so-the country being in our
possession by military occupation. We had,
undoubtedly, as good right to establish post
route TO Fort Brown as to send troops there.