New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-06-25

waiver Of the Wilmot Proviso. That bill
may be passed if the friends of Free Labor
and New-Mexico see fit 10 pass it, as it could
not be without the votes which are won to
it by that waiver of the Proviso. The SEN
fences above quoted are calculated tO de-
ceive and mislead the careless reader with
regard to material and notorious facts. We
do not say that the friends Of New Mexico
ought to vote for the Compromise on this
ground, but we DO say that to profess ignOr-
ance Of the practical connection of the two
propositions is not candid.
"Texss might organize counties, appoint judges
and extend her laws every foot OF the disputed
territory but ell this would not establish her claim
would not take the dispute out Of the tribunals
| by which, must, in the end, be settled. '-C0urser
Possibly not; but it 'oould establish Sdre-
ry. The very day Texas is acknowledged
master there, Slavery becomes part of the
common law; she will appoint no Judge
who will not so decide; and men and women
may be lawfully sold at the auction-block in
Santa FG the day after the authority of
Texas is affirmed there. Slaves would be-
gin to pour into it-not from Texas merely,
but from Missouri, Arkansas and the entire
Southwest The shareholders and dealers
would be the special favorites and champi-
ons of the ascendancy; they would be APP
pointed to the best Offices and assume the
most commanding positions. BY the time
we could reasonably hope to obtain deci-
sion adverse to Texas from the Supreme
Court, the country would be Overrun, re-
nodded by, saturated with Slavery, and
ready to maintain and perpetuate it. Such
are our apprehensiOns, and they induce us
to labor for preserving New-Mexice at any
sacrifice from suhjugation to Texas, howev-
err transient. Hold fast what is good is
the safe course.
Texas claims part of New Mexico, aud the
United States claim it slso.'-Courier.
That Is just the way we would have the
matter stand till adjusted; but does it so
stand? Where, when, how, did "the United
States claim it also?" They did not so claim
it under Polk, when Col Washington was
instructed not to resist but to aid Texas in
establishing her jurisdiction. We can't see
that the United States claim it also in
Crawford's dispatch, directing our Comman-
dant to take no part either way, but main.
tain complete neutrality. Surely, on the
assumption that the United States is the
party adverse to the claim of Texas, this is
a very strange order. Who ever before heard
party to territorial dispute, himself un-
questionably in possession, directing his
agent to remain entirely neutral in case of
any attempt by the adverse party to enter
and possess, compelling the tenants to hold
of him? All we ask and plead for is that
the United States shall frankly and plainly
place itself on the record as the party ad
verse to the claim of Texas. Hitherto this
has been done by no branch of the Govern
ment-Executive, Legislative nor Judicial.
Let Gen. Taylor say, 81 hold this Territory
for the United States, maintaining her
right to it against all gainsayers until Con-
gress or the Supreme Court shall otherwise
ct"-and he will have done all we ever
asked. 1t is precisely because the United
States has not stood up in opposition to the
Texas pretension that we have feared the
subversion of New-Mexico and been anxious
to avert it.
when majority in Congress shall perceive
the folly Of trying 10 settle dozen things at once
and make up their minds to decide upon each ques
tiOn that beOre them sInoV and
own merts-there will be no difficulty 10 settling
this boundary ispute'-CoUricr.
The facts do not say so. 1t was tried last
Session in separate bill, but could not 60.
Had the matter been pressed to decisive
vote, the Right would have been beaten,
though tbree-fourths of each House knew
well what it was. There were two adverse
interests in the House-Slavery and Loco
Focoism-and, though neither was in ma
jority by itself, both together were very de-
cidedly ascendant. Slavery was against
the bill because it embodied the Wilmos Pro-
viso; Loco-Focoism was the same because
it exposed its years of false pretense with
respect to the Rio Grande being the true
Western boundary of Texas. So the bill |
organizing New-Mexico came to dead halt
in Committee, and had to be given up. 1t
might have been passed, perhaps, by waiv-
ing the Wilmot Proviso, and so securing it !
the votes of the Southern Wings; and if |
that would have insured it, we were ready; |
| but there was no such assurance. We felt |
then that to leave that Boundary unsettled,
or at least unafirmed, invited disaster now
we know it. And we shall not be content. |