New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1849-01-10

eminent which were ratified BIZ the u.orf@ Of Texas
.ieaaAy and pefseyer4nely clung 70 ths boundary -
AMER iae senate Of The United had ected An
neXat1n, and al hopes Of becoming State u the rniou
we're sbaud0re5 Gen Houston then President oi Tex.
ss gave written order % Hon Arson Jones -ecreta-
~ OF state y Instruct the Texas Miuser resident a,
Inc Court OF - James TO propose commercial treaty
with the British Government providing fr peace
with Mexico but the boundary from ~ month b re
,olref u ne RI Grade Has % BE- si1f qua HO1.
" ntn, within yea- sfterWard. suddenly. and e1-
tfcy unexpected IN Texas. the hopes Of Annexaf
were revived and ia succcss aim certain President
Jones The successor ~ Gen. Houston and bic Cabinet
sent the projei Of treaty 20 MeXico kcrlAz tie
boHdlrg % arbitration. and containing the condition
that Texas Hr become annexed % the United states
but remain ind pendent This treaty was ratified b.
the Mexican authorities and With 'aleP-HctHf g1d
ptdcf rh al M n1rid, was presented before the peo
pie Of Texas simultaneously fHnez1ti0a Gaf al re
o0ainge"eif'. Between these two issues TIE people
were 70 chOOse.
The senate Of Texas unasiusously rescsd De Mericra
frfa'E and the people almost anaHn0lsy accepted Al
ncXat0n and ifs cOatHgeHcits Few i any. IN Tex
~ a. that time thought that c the contingencies
appertanlpg 70 Annexation would be attempt the
part OF any branch Of the Government OF the lnlied
states 20 osmemter the state OF Texas and apprcpri
ate 70 the Of the Federal Government large por
ton OF Territory claimed by. and equtaby. c0nsiiiu-
tonaly, and legally belonging 20 the state Of Texas
II IS notorious tact apparent from the journals Of
proceedings IN both branches Of the Federal Legisa
tlre, and from num5erless other sources, that the
scheme Of Annexation was greatly embarrassed by the
question, whether the United states should take
ion OF the public domain Of Iexas and, 10 considers
ton, assume the payment Of her public de5t, leave
her debt in her own hands and also her Territory as
toe means Of payment
Il was considered by many that As the United states
deprived the Republic Of Texas OF The Of i'm
post duties they were bound 10 assume her debt Bat
It was thought by others that the large amount Of Ter
ritory secured BY Annexation 10 Texas would be an
equivalent for the loss Of her mpOst system and would
constitute ample means Of discharging eli her debts.
Tie latter views ultimately prevailed 10 the Congress
rHf NE ID hs4rf .rHF nr
public domain, and De found 10 deny tEst Ia
estimating the value Of the security offered her by An
nexalon IN reference % the maintaining her title 90
her public domain. and considering the means -he
would have left 10 discharge her liabilities after yield
inF her impost system 10 the United states the entire
domain Last Of the Rio Grande had In cOntempla.
uon nor viii any one dispute the proposition, that
the United -tates, a. al one time was Intended, had a.
sumed the debt Of Texas, and received from her, In
consideration thereof cession Of her inappropriate
Territory, they would have regarded such cessiOn IS
covering the whole Territory Easi OF the Rio Grande
And Texas would never have had the hardwood 70
question the fairness of the claim.
She therefore demands more in relation % terri
tory than the uited States would and ought 70 have
insisted upon in the rcsOlui which ceded her
territory the United states had been adopted y
Congress IN lieu Of those that were adopted
The authority Of the United States IN reference 10 the
question OF boundary between Texas and Mexico was
derived from the provisions of the resolutions Of Gd
mission into the Federal Union, and comfortable 70
power vested in the Federal Government by the Con
rllALDu. nut Vnht l. TINS tuNeff IL = a power ~
act b. treay and not by legislation. We deny the right
Of Congress 20 divide reduce the territory OF Gov
e-egn state without it consent The Constitution i
express upon this subject Whatever power the United
States may possess In OF this sOr rests with It's
HeofymakiH8 authorities.
The treaty making authority is applicable only to
questions 20 which foreign states parties The pres
cnt question does not any foreign state or IN
vOFe any foreign relation whatever. Il is question
betTeen the Union aad of the sovereign states Of
the niOn and where the treaty making power IT, from
10 very nature, WHOLLY uappicate % H. the COnsttu
uOa has invested the Congress, the Legislature OF the
Union, with power to legislate upon the subject
NOT do the Resolutions Of Annexation cOncede such
power legitimate 10 look to such source
for the derivation aud origin Of legislative authority
III The no Bravo be not the western boundary OF
Texas, then she has western boundary and any one
imaginable line might be indicated As well any other
Aud If Congress may assume 10 exercise a power con
ceded and belonging 20 the treaty making authorities OF
the Union TeAas liable 10 be reduced 10 the smallest
conceivable dimensions IL is IN vain say that Mexico
refused to treat for though reluctantly yet In the end
she did in fact treat And the late treaty by which she
ceded California and New. Mexico to the United states
ought to have designated and settled the boundary Of
Texas And the fact that the Dited states omitted %
prescribe boundary in the only way In which they
were authorized to do. shows cOnclusivey that they
meant 10 scquiesce In the claimed by Texas. And
Congress the law making authority, cannot assume 20
say what the treaty making authority ought TO have
done aud to found claim 70 reversiOnary power upon
the imputed neglect oversight or delinquency OF the
treaty making authority.
That the late treaty did not disturb the boundary Of
the Rio Grande did not prescribe any other, shows
that the Executive and Senate meant TO acquiesce In
that boundary and the Resolutions Of Annexation fully
commit Congress TO the same boundary, should the
treaty making authority agree upon H. Ia not pretcrD
ing a different boundary the Executive and Senate
practced no bad faith toward the Legislature Of the
Union. They neglected nothing they were commanded
10 do, but only omitted what they were permitted to
do or not to do upon their own free discretion. The
only ground therefore upon which Congress could In
sist upon different boundary, would be that the trea
tymsking authorities inteLdt that different one
should be nXed upon. But where - the proof That
different one was intended Can il be found In the
fact that the claimed by Texas was not disturbed
The controversy in relation 10 boundary not be
tween Texas and this Union. but between Texas and
the Republic of Mexico. And II Mexico refused 10
treat the forfeiture OF the claim should fall upon her
and not upon Texas, who stood 81 all times submissive
to the treaty making authority. Contrary reasoning
would be strange indeed
In submitting the question OF boundary 20 the United
states Texas hoped to avail herself Of the friendship
and advocacy Of the United States. She set nigh
value upon the advantage Of having the moral iorce Of
so powerful government ia favor Of her pTetensons
aud claims Bl, this friendship and advocacy are TO
be displaced and substituted by adverse and rival pre-
ensionsif this moral force is 70 be brought TO bear
against her II she has only exchanged controversy
with Mexico for with the Snited states, then
would be better for her had she kept her desiines in
her own hands and stood Up singehanded against her
former adversary.
The power conceded by Texas 10 the United States,
in accediug the Resolutions of Annexation was not
power 10 institute and ordan arbitrarily the limits
and extent Of her territory though she had been
new state about 10 be formed and admitted into the
l. nion having no determinaie claim 10 sny definite
limits extent Of territory. Instead Of such, II was
judicial power to ascertain boundary pre- sOusy
existing and 10 which Texas laid dehniiye claim.
The power did not cover the whole matter Of boan.
Diary aud territorial compass II II had, the United
States might claim 20 unsetile every boundary OF the
Stste-East West North or south, and reduce It 10
any shape or size they might please they might cut
OF portion Of her territory well south or LAST IS
West OF North.
The subject Of boundary. substantive MISTER, |
was not meant be placed under the jurisdiction Of
the United States but only were questions OF ooun
dairy submitted 20 their srbtrsments.
There was pending Al the time Of Annexation cues
ton OF boundary between Texas ard Mexico and this
question relating 20 boundary the whole iounda-
don and hnsl cause OF the authority vested in the
United States and Ii the solemn duty OF the |
United states by their treaty making authorities 10
sdjudse and determine this question In manner a.
favorable 70 Texas Mexico might By al the lawful
means Of negotiation, be induced 70 acquiesce in
But this question: cessing 10 exist al authority de-
pendant upon It's existence must also cease
The late Treaty Of Peace between the United states
and Mexico put end 10 every question or conirover
~ and Ia doing put end TO the authority conceded
10 the United states 10 the Resolutions Of Annexation
Bat what Is the claim set up on behalf OF Con I
Eress IL IL this the treaty Sng authorities OF the
aiOn, 10 whom was entrusted controversy touching