The North-Carolinian., 1850-08-10

|
composed Of Coahuila and Texas. If thai
attempt had been successful. would moi
New Mexico, as attached territory. have
followed in the wake? | am clearly OF
that opinion. But should New Mexico, in
the event OF the Texan revolution. be con.
sidered as an incident Of Coahuila on the
west, or OF Texas on the east of the Rio
Orande! Il OF course refer only to that
portion OF New Mexico lying east Of the
h'o Grande.) The last is her true posi-
ton. The diplomatic history of the u.
states Will throw considerable light on this
point. BY the treaty Of 1903, by which
we acquired from France, Louisiana, it
was carefully stipulated that all the rights
IN their fullest extent resulting to France
from the treaty of Iieiefonso, made between
France and Spain, should accrue to the
Y. States, and under that provision our
Government did not hesitate to claim all
the country lying east Of the Rio Grande
lhs was certainly the opinion not only Of
Alr Jefferson, but of every other tlistin-
sulshed statesman of that day; and it was
| IN accordance with the correctness of this
claim on our part, that, when we conveyed
away Texas to Spain, as part of the con-
sIderatlon of the purchase Of Florida, both
OF the high contracting parties Spain and
the =. States) adopted and made the Red
River as the proper boundary between the
two countries as far west as 100 deg of
longitude west of London, and from thence
due north to the Arkansas river, following
the course OF the Arkansas to its source in
~ deg. OF latitude, thence bv that paral-
le! OF latitude to the South Sea. What
country were we engaged IN conveying
away? Was it not Texas? What coun-
try, then. did these boundaries circum-
scribe? Was it not Texas9 If this coun-
try. SO described, was not part of Texas,
but possession of Spain, why the partcu-
lar'ty OF this boundary. l apprehend it
would have been much more convenient,
as we'll as more consistent with the usages
OF nations, to have established a common
line OF demarcation until the possession of
Spain was arrived at, and from thence to
have made the boundary of such posses
sions the dividing line between the two
countries; and the deviation from that
usage in this case, clearly demonstrates
that the country so clrcumscrbed and
bounded, lying east of the Rio Grande,
was not. IN the estimation of either of the
contracting parties. actually appurtenant
to the Grown OF Spain. Then, Mr. Speak
er will submit, that If the light of Spain
to this country was acquired trom the y.
States by the retrocesslon ct Texas. Wheth-
er the onus probandi Of a discounectlon be-
ween Texas and New Mexico, by Spanish
authority, does not devolve upon the
shoulders of those who maintain that when
we reacqured Texas we lost New Mexi-
CO? Where is the act of Spanish authori-
ty making this disconnectIon? l have
never seen it.
1t cannot be pretended that the State Of
Texas, either as component part OF the
NJ f, =!
ever consented to such disconpection.
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, do we not
find her, not only during the misery and
trials of her revolution, but after the
achievement of her independence, after
the "lone STAR had assumed her appro-
pirate position in the galaxy of nations,
firmly, stoutly, increasingly maintaining
and asserting her right to this country:
Texas never relinqulshed her rights, and
indeed the supposition that any such re-
linquishment ever took place is refuted by
a succession of Legislative acts, all con-
spring to reduce into actual possession,
this, her territorial dependency. The
last resounding echo of the battle of San
Jacinto had not vet died upon our ears,
when we hear her declaring the extension
of her laws and constitution over all the
country east of the Rio Grande.- But we
are tOlu she was unable 10 feuuCe 1t into
possession. This was also the case with
that now called the Mesopitamia, lying
between the Neuces and the Rio Grande;
but suppose that none Of US covet
Gus of the distinction of a ''stra ght Jacket
as now to contend that the last named riv-
er is not the true western boundary of
Texas.
But what availability is there in the po-
New Mexico into possession! 1t proves no
defect of title, but is, at the best, mere
evidence of natural imbecilty. Our do
mestic history affords US examples strictly
analogous. The chartered limits of North
Carolina extended, between certain given
parallels of latitude, sfrom the Atlantic
ocean to the Mississippi. That portion of
her territory lying west OF the Blue Ridge
fell into the possession of a set Of hardy aG-
venturers. who not only denied her author
ity, but put her laws at defiance, actually
formed State constitution, and demand
ed admittance in the old Confederacy as
one of the States of the Union. Were her
delegates received by the Continental Con-
cress? No, sir they were not: and why?
Because the country they would represent,
if received, was a dependency of North
Carolina, and the inability fthat State to
reduce it into subsection was not re'in-
quishment ola title. Her sovereignty still
continued to exist.