The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-28
To tie Editors ef lie Sou.hern p,,,,.

MEssRs EDITORS AS It is your purpose to
make the experiment whether political journal
at the seat Of government can sustain itself
in making the discussion Of grave matters Of
state and public justice preferable object to the g
noble wrangings and vituperations of party, it is
presumed you will cheerfuly afford space for
the following extract from the report of the minor
ity, Of the COMMITTEES on the Territories, made at
the last session Of Congress, on the subject Of the
title and boundaries Of Texas.
The extract comprehends that part of the
port which relates to the legal construction of the
resolutions Of annexation. Five typographical
errors OF purely verbal and mmaterial charac-
ter have been corrected
II lsa notorious fact, apparent from the journals
Of proceedings in both branches Of the Federal Lee
glslature, and from numberless other sources that
the scheme of anne xaton was greatly enbarra ssed
by the question, whether the United States should
take q cession Of the public domain Of Texas.
and, in consideration, assume the payment of her
public debt, or leave her debt in her own hands,
and also her territory, as the means Of payment
II was considered by many that, as the United
States deprived the Republic of Texas Of the re-
source Of impost duties, they were bound to as
sumo her debt. But it was thought by others that
the large amount Of territory secured by annexa-
ton to Texas would be an equivalent for the loss
Of her impost system, and would constitute ample
means Of dscharging all her debts.
The latter view ultimately prevailed in the Con-
gress Of the United States. Texas retained her
debt and her public domain, and no can be
found to deny that, in estimating the value Of the
security afforded her by annexation, in preference
to the maintaining of her title to her public do
main; and, in considering the means she would
La E.L
her impost system to the United States, the entire
domain east Of the Rio Grande was had in con-
temptation nor viii any one dispute the propo-
sition, that if the United States, as at one time
was intended, had assumed the debt of Texas, and
received from her in consideration thereof,a cesson
other unappropriated territory, they would have
garded such cession as covering the whole terrific
ry east Of the Rio Grande ; and Texas would
never have had the hardihood to question the fair
ness Of the claim.
She therefore demands no more in relation to
territory than the United States would and ought
ceded her territory to the United States had been
adopted by Congress in lieu Of those that were
adopted.
The authority Of the United States in reference
to the question of boundary between Texas and
Mexico was derived from the provisions of the
resolutions of admission into the Federal Union,
and conformable to power vested in the Federal
Government by the constitution. But what is this
pOwer9 1t is power to act by treaty and not by
legislation. We deny the right OF Congress to di-
vide or reduce the territory of a sovereign State
without its consent. The Constitution is express
upon this subject. Whatever power the United
States may possess in cases Of this sort rests with
its trSuty-making authorities.
The treaty making authority is applicable only
to questions to which foreign States are parties.
The present question does not concern any foreign
State, involve any foreign relation whatever. 1t
koxo
crcign States Of the Union, and while the treaty
making power is, from its very nature, wholly in
applicable to it, the Constitution has invested the
Congress, the Legislature Of the Union, with no
power to egisate upon the subject. Nor do the re-
solutions of annexation concede such power, even
were il legitimate TO look to such source for the
derivation and origin Of Legislative authority.
If the Rio Bravo be not the western boundary
Of Texas, then she has no western boundary, and
any one imaginable line might be indicated as well
rs any other. And if Congress may assume to
exercise power conceded and belonging to the
treaty making authorities OF the Union, Texas is
liable to be reduced to the smallest conceivable d.
mansions. IL is in vain to say that Mexico re-
fused to treat; for, though reluctantly, yet in the
end she did in fact treat. And the late treaty by
which she coded California and New Mexico to
the United States ought TO have designated and
settled the boundary Of Texas And the fact that
the United States omitted to prescribe boundary
in the only way in which they were authorized to
do, shows conclusively that they meant to acqui-
esce in the one claimed by Texas. And Con-
gress, the law making authority, cannot assume
to say what the treaty making authority ought to
have done, and to found claim to reversionary
power upon the imputed neglect, oversight, or de-
.linquency of the treaty -naking authority.
\ That the late treaty did not disturb the bounda-
.ry Of the Rio Grande, did not prescribe any other
shows that the Executive and Senate meant to ac-
quiesce in that boundary; and the resolutions Of
vatiO 81, TIT he
boundary, should the treaty -making authority
agree upon it. In not prescribing different
boundary, the Executive and Senate practised no
bad faith towards the Legislature Of the Union.
They neglected nothing they were commanded to
do, but only omitted what they were permitted to
do or not to do upon their own free discretion
The only ground; upon which Congress could
insist upon different boundary, would be that
The treaty-making authorities intended that diff
ferent one should be fixed upon. But where is
the proof that a different one was intended Can
il be found in the fact that the one claimed by
Texas was not disturbed!
The controversy in relation to boundary was
not between Texas and this Union, but between
Texas and the Republic Of Mexico. And if
Mexico refused to treat, the forfeiture Of claim
should fall! uPos her, and not upon Texas, who
stood at all times submissive to the treaty making
authority. Contrary reasoning would be strange
indeed!
In submitting the question of boundary to the
United States, Texas hoped to avail herself of
the friendship and advocacy Of the United States
She set a high value upon the advantage of hav-
ing the moral force of so powerfula government
in favor Of her pretensions and claims. But if
this friendship and advocacy are to be displaced
and substituted by adverse and rival pretensions-
if this moral force is to be brough to bear against
her, if she has only exchanged a controversy with
Mexico for one with the U States, then il would be
better for her had she kept her destinies in her
n r handa. and atOOd nj All nded auaiuSt
her former adversary.
The power conceded by Texas to the United
States, in acceding to the resolutions of annexa-
ton, was not power to institute and ordain ar
birarily the limits and extent Of her territory as
though she had been new State about to be
formed and admitted into the Union, having no de-
terminate claim TO any definite limits or extent Of
territory. Instead Of such, it was mere judicial
power to ascertain boundary previously exist
ing, and to which Texas laid defntve claim.
The power did not cover the whole matter Of
boundary and territorial compass; IL it did, the
Ia k<,.