The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-22

ton comes up II atrms nothing. Ipresents the whole
question 70 The decision OF the Supreme Court
Mr.. RUSk. Even with that explanation OF II, am
opposed 10 the entire amendment In the hrst place.
contend, and the State OF Texas will contend that the
supreme Court has jurisdiction this case al all
That they cannot have any under the constitution was
we'll illustrated by the senator from Kentucky himself,
and 10 my mind his remarks were conclusive, when he
said that the State OF Texas, without an enactment OF
this Congress, will have no power to bring SUIT against
the government OF the United States to terminate inns
difficulty Ii the government gives the Supreme Court
dicon over Stale, in favor oil the United states the
jurisdiction ought to operate Also and IN favor o. Slate
over the United States. The amendment supposes that
the United States enter into this SUIT Dut the Slate
do it, This, to my mind, shows al once the im-
Propeiy Of assuming that ne SJpreme Iours mas
from Kentucky proceeds upon another supposton;
which is that the possession which the United States
heard # but rscentyadversey 70 the State OF Texas
bona fds, and in good faith Now, sir, maintain that
such Is not the fact II is al direct variance with the fact
was asonshed 10 IL asserted by the President
message laid upon table days since, which gives
character TO this controversy that il had not before
but o which shall not now speak-that the position
assumed by the United States presumed by the amend
ment to be in good faith II was such position that il
an individual should assume it for such purposes
should have no hesitation whatever il saying that was
fraudulent. How was il obainedi Texas was annexed
to the United States She had question OF unsettled
boundary between her and Mexico The United States
became the Judge. the aber. the trustee II you please
and Texas surrendered the power oil determining the
controversy into the hands OF The United States Every
body knows that the government oil the United States
could have no power by which to exercise its authority
in behalf OF Texas, except the treatymaking power
Texas claimed to the Rio Grande. In this unsettled con-
tovesy her claim Enthusiastically asserted, and con-
tnued to be asserted for number Of years. and was
recognised in every quarter This government took the
RIO Grande in annexlng Texas as the boundary upon
which she had insisted to the time Of annexation.
was it She claimed Texas a Mexican province, and
that her own iurls fiction exiepded 70 the Sabine Here
them was the subject 10 conference.-the territory lying
between the Rio Grande and the Sabine That was the
subject rather OF dispute-the boundary claimed by
The United States under the Joint resolutions Of annexa
ton, 70 determine the extent Of the State OF Texas
Now, IA Impossible to conceive, under any known prlncI
pie Of equity, of law, of conscience, that the United
States could with any popriey or pausiby, after that
set up an adverse clam Is peposteroas That prn
lupe Hiago, would be sufficient to preclude the United
States from going into court Of justice to set up
title TO any portion OF the territory acquired from Mexico
But this is not all How did the United States get pos
session Of this territoryi She attempted in the first
abate single foot Of her claim the Sabine. No act
of hers shows that she relinquished any portion OF IT,
The United States took possession OF the lower part OF
refused to treat The United States having taken pos
session. Mexico made attack upon them, and for that
act OF aggression we entered into the war; General
Taylor took possession OF Laredo, several hundred
miles up the Rio Grande-doubtess acting under instruc
lions from headquarters heefor the avowed purpose OF
enabling Texas to extend her jurisdiction there We
went into the And upon what claim did the United
States proceed to take possession OF Santa re! None
other than the claim BY which they took possession OF
the Lower Rio Grande. The United States had no
shadow Of claim against Mexico. except 10 virtue Of
the claim OF Texas and this was known TO all the world
To show that they did take possession OF it. under color
OF this claim Of Texas and this only soon after The pos
session the governor of Texas demanded to know OF
the Executive upon what ground possession was taken
and he replied in substance that was taken under the
claim which Texas had extended over that section of
rnn AM ha said hat the aStabslp0
there was military, and must in ts character be tempo
rary until the treaty should take effect There could De
no mistake. He said that he regarded the claim which
Texas set up to the Rio Grande from lis mouth to lis
source, "as being well founded"
Now, could the United States, under such assurance
that-would it be acting in accordance with the prnc
Piles OF common honesty TO demand that this Territory
should belong only to herself, after having deceived
Texas by false must be false when they
attempt to claim any title without notice to Texas
Could the government of the United States, in accord.
with the principles OF moral honesty, understood
everywhere. undertake. TO settle the question with Mex-
and acquire the title for bemselvesl In dealing be-
tween man and man, such principle would be repro.
bated by every and cannot conceive that the prn
cpe is different between or States and be-
individuals, ana especially when government
strong and powerful and the other sexhausted by long
nothing in the character OF the parties,
and especially in the character OF the government OF the
United States, that relieves il from the observance OF the
paiHest principles OF common honesty. But, sir that is
not ALL The United States not TO be discharged from
The obligations Of the treaty which they have made be-
set up to New Mexico by the United States Every rod
conveyed by Mexico TO the United States OF Che territory
they acquired acquired belonging TO individuals.
and organized States under territorial jurisdiction
any other The New Mexico, used in the OF Con-
gess applies not TO political community, but to territory
and territory alone.
Well sir, what does the treaty show Point out to me
foot upon the east branch OF the Rio Gfande de-
scribed the territory OF New Mexico and will
render the question to the Supreme Court But there Is no
such thing there. defy its production defy any far
Interpretation OF the treaty 10 suppose TO convey the
idea Tor single moment that any claim OF Texas was ce.
ded by Mexico 10 The Unied States, other than as the
claim of Texas, there plainly described. The United
States then declared that all the vacant lands in the limits
OF Texas should belong TO her for the purpose OF paying
the debt TINS is vacant land IL within the limits OF
Texas. We have held il two years and upwards. And
now, under possession thus obtained after treaty thus
described, after the evidence clear that the posses
by the treaty 10 invalidaie her claim
United States says they must hold possession until
there is end to this controversy am anxious TO set
lie this with all the other disiractng questions will
make great sacrifices TO do H.; know that IL xas will
the provisions Of the bill which is before
she makes the greatest sacrifice. But while she would
do that she has been annexed BY you coming upon
footing with the original States OF this Union She de-
nands your hands TO be thus treated But The United
States choose TO up claim which 10 my opinion Is
frivolous and unfounded and obtained by conceament OF
her intentions No read the resolutions Of
nexaiion or the answer Of the President OF The United
States the governor Of Texas, and then say that the
government OF ihe United States intended then that her
title was TO be held good against all the world and that
then she was 10 be turned over To litigation IN your
courts Texas will not willingly bring such disgrace
upon this country and this government as 70 permit the