The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-01-15
The New York ResoIution against Texas.

The resolution already referred to- as being be-
fore the New York Senate, in relation to the boun
dairy of Texas and denying the right of that State
to the territory between the Nueces and the Rio
Grande, is in the following words
Resolpea f the Assembly concur) That the territory
lying between the Nepce and the Rio rande the common
property Of the United states and that Senators in Con-
Their best efforts 70 the same such common
Texas and prohibit the the laws
The Washington Union describes this as new
and extraordinary" proposition and other papers
describe it as novel movement of the exclusive
free-sol party
The resolution itself is an old acquaintance 1t
is one Of series of resolutions which passed both
Houses Of the New York Legislature last year
approved blythe Governor, and laid before Congress,
as instructions to the New York Senators. On
their presentation in the Senate by Mr. Dix, oppo-
sition was made to the printing, as some parts of
them were contended to be insulting to the slave
holding States, and long debate of exciting char
acter followed. The resolutions were, however,
passed, and ordered to be printed with only ten
nays.
Neither is the doctrine at all newr-however ex-
traordinary its eharacerthat Texas had no title to
the country. between the Nueces and the Rio
Grande isJt !" free-soiP' view, exclusively or
peculiarly. 1t was on the contrary the view Of the
larger portion of the opponents of the war with
Mexico. The denial of the right of Texas to any
jurisdiction beyond the Nueces, was leading topic
in the debate against the war and the issue of the
war; in the acquisition of the lower line of the Rio
Grande, left the title to Texas-to this territory
as much unsullied as her title to the Santa Fe ter
ritory on the upper Rio Grande They claim that
the acquisitions by the treaty of peace may be
treated as conquests blythe United States fortheir
\ own benefit and that succeeding to the rights of
Mexico, they can set up the Mexican title against
that Of Texas, extraordinary" as it may be, is
therefore nothing novel and the pretensions cover
the Nueces country the common property of the
Union, just they demand the country East of the
Rio Grande as part Of the conquered provinces of
| New Mexico.
| We have no doubt that eagerness to limit the
area of Texas, because slavery exists there by law
and zeal to extend the area, over which the power
of the Federal Government to prohibit slavery may
be exerted will drive the freesoi1 interest into d
rect and determined hostility to the territorial claims
Of Texas but hostility is not of free-sol origin, nor
altogether with free-soi objects Ipervaded nearly
the whole wing party in 1S46-7, and has not been
ny I6CeHt tNeHtSs ne
against Texas will be extremely strong, and her
friends have just to fear the issue the more
so, because clear appear to be the convictions of
Texas of her rights in the NATTER that grievous dis
contents and possible collision of conflicting juris
dctions, perhaps resistance by arms may be antici-
pated to follow if she is despoiled of her territory.
But independent of the grounds of fact, history,
and constitutional law, upon which Texas relies for
the preservation of her full limits there are high
grounds of expediency upon which the United
States ought to relinqush such an ungenerous pre-
tension. The war agaist Mexico was justified be-
fore the world, the ground that in crossing the
Rio Grande the Mexicans invaded American soil ;
and after having punished the enemy, and compelled
him to relinqush both the claim and the possession
it would not read well in historyAfor the United
States to assume that it was nevertheless Mexican
! territory all the time, and had been won in battle
not for Teras, the invaded State but for the United
States
The late Administration, we believe, always re-
cognized the title of Texas and gave assurances
that it should be respected and if any act of the
Government of the United States has been taken to
deny this tide deliberately it is recent and the par
tculars have not been made public, officially. We
shall have them all, we suppose, in reply to Gen
Houstons call for information. We are reluctant
to believe that, under all these circumstances, the
President has undertaken to decide against Texas
in this matter by directing, as it is said has been
dOne, the military authorities to disregard the civil
power of Texas.
In view of'the interesting nature of this question
it is hoped it will be adjusted promptly, before the
territorial bis-which involve questions of bound.
ary-are brought up to be acted on.