Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-24

the rasut of the treaty for presume is not TO be
copended that government like this, invested by the
constitution with the treaty maklng power is not COM
neent TO exercise that power at least far it may
be necessary for the settlement OF its own boundaries
irrespective the of any State whose rights may
be affected by it.
do not contend that the United States by treaty
go within the limits OF State, and cede portion OF
that State to foreign power But do contend that
the United States, in the exercise OF the treaty making
power is competent to settle the boundary between
ourselves and any foreign power is armed with full
thorty to do so by the constitutional grant OF tina
power and is not dependent in its upon the will
of any State whose limits may be affected by it. Thus
the States of Maine and Massachusetts, were strict
and formal parties to this insrument-nay, they were
not necessary parties to it in any form whatever.-
The benefit which they derived from it resulted from
the fact that portion of the territory acquired fell with
in their limits. Their assent though It was properly
sought for, and was alust Difference to the spirit OF our
Institutions proper respe the rights OF two sove-
reign States OF this Union, certainly not essential
the conclusion validity OF the treaty There W as
a particular propriety in the invitation; and why Be-
cause the United States having endeavoed upon seve-
raj occasions to trace out The actual line Whcn was
stipulated by the treaty OF 49, but having tailed to ac-
compsh it, had to the determlnalon after these
faures to establish conventional line which should
serve in lieu and instead of the line of the treaty o'93
As this convenonalne might then interfere with the
territory OF the cotermnous States, there fitness
and propety in obtaining the assent OF those States to
the treaty which determined it.. This consideration led
10 the invitation of Maine and Massachusetts, partake,
not in the conclusion OF the treaty. but In preliminary
consultations with our minister, by whom 1t was ne
goialed.
moment to the treaty of Guadalupe and its results,
as they affected the interests OF Texas, they will per-
ceve that there occasion for inviting that State
to be party this treaty, either formally, in such
preliminary consultations as were participated in by the
States of Maine and Massachusetts. Those States
were Invested OF portion of their territory by this
ventiona line, and were therefore invited to attend
and consulted with in the progress OF the negotiation
By the treaty of Guadalupe Hidago, Texas acquired
the whole territory for which she commended ttook
nothing from her it secured all that she claimed. The
Rio Grande was determined to be the boundary be-
tween the United States and Mexico, and inasmuch
Texas was not suffer loss in consequence Of that
treaty. the considerations which induced the invitation
by the commissioners OF Massachusetts and Maine did
not exist in her 1t obvious then, srthe argu
ment of the Senator from Jersey to the contrary
wthstanding-that these two cases run together-qua
tuor pedibuSthat the analogy is perect that in both
cases we acquired territory falling within the limits
claimed by particular State and by universal CONSENT
and by the direct effect and operation OF that treaty.
that territory has been assigned to the States within
whose limits fell although they had never before been
in possession of it, submit the Senate, therefore,
that have established the analogy for which contend
ed.
But that is not the only objection to the claim OF Tex
as 1t is said that she did not persevere in the assertion
of her claim. She made it in 30, in the manner in
which have spoken and the gentleman from New Jer-
sey says that representative was assigned to that por
ton of Texas-no member from New Mexico took his
seat in the convention which declared the sovereignty of
that State. Sir the is obvious. That portion OF
her territory was not then under her control. Mexico
was possession of it, and claimed it as her own, and
the laws OF Texas were not extended to it. There Is
nonovelty in this thing. The United States, powerful
as they are when compared with Texas have been
PEELED recognize the principle that the territory OF
State when in the possession OF foreign power is not
subject TO its laws 1t has been decided in the State
courts and in the courts of the United States The Sc
nator from New Jersey and myself have agreed to lay
aside judicial titles trust we have not parted
trey with our professional recolecons. The Senator
from New Jersey, am sure, has not. In the meridian
of life, and actively engaged in professional pursuits,
the principles of his profession wildly present to his
mind With me, the recolectons of an earlier day are,
Ihope not entirely effaced. The territory within the
limits OF one of the States of this Union, when by tho
occupation of a foreign force it was Withdrawn from
the jurisdiction of that State was held to be longer
within the scope of the operations OF its laws. During
the of the revolution. portion OF the State OF
New Y ork was for considerable time in the occupa-
ton of the British forces. 1t decided by the
preme court of that State, that the OF limitations
did not operate against person who remained within
that portion of the State which occupied by the
my. A more recent case will be recolleced. Castine,
(Me during the war of l5l215 fell into the posses
sion Of the enemy, and continued SO for some time
Upon the reoccupaon of that place by the u States,
attempt made to enforce the payment OF duties
for goods which imported while the place in
the possession of the enemy That pretension was re-
pudated by the supreme court of the United States 1t
constituted to be sure they said part of the United
States but for the time Withdrawn from their Ju
risdicon, and not within the scope and alton
of the duty acts. lreer to this last case particularly,
for the purpose of relieving the claim OF Texas from the
objection which was founded upon the fact that had
Consulate at Santa Fe and that the privilege of draw
back had been allowed for goods exported there Mr..
claim of Texas. You had consul commerce ial
agent at Santa Fe, and authorized this allowance OF
drawback before Texas was annexed to the U. States,
and you continued them both because your citizens
who traded there required consular protection and the
goods which exported there, not being consumed
by own citizens, or within the sphere OF the opera
ton of our laws, not liable for the payment of
duties Then, sir, as apprehend this question stands
upon the original footing on which l have placed it;
that is that the United States have acquired that terri
tory the assertion OF the rights OF Texas and that she
has done no act to forfeit her claim to it.
The next question which presents itself is, what dis
position shall be made ofit9 We are proposing to pro-
vide governments for the whole of the territory which
we have acquired from Mexico. California assumes to
prescribe her own limits; Utah is to have limits which
You determine for her and then the residue is to con-
stitute the Territory of New Mexico What is that
sidue the boundary OF the Rio Grande from its
mouth to its source according to the opinions OF some
while; according to others whose opinions ! am bound
haps safely disregard, it is restricted within much
rover limits. There is, then, vexed question which
YOU are leaving open for future controversy between the
United States and Texas, or between Texas and New
Mexico you strike out the thirty-nnth section OF this
bill How that question be decided2 1t may be
settled by the Supreme Court of the United States by
negotiation, in the provided for in this bill
without the intervention OF the courts OF the United
States, and without the amicable settlement which is
proposed by it: youmay leave to be settled by forcing
upon the executive department the necessity lin behalf
of New Mexico, rather in the assertion of the right
of domain OF this government OF resisting the claim
which Texas may assert by such force as may be ne
cessary to maintain the claim of the United States
These the various modes in which this controver-
sy be determined 1t may be determined by refer
TO the Supreme Court OF the U. States You may
refer that tribunal tomorrow, if you will. do
not consider necessary await the admission of New
Mexico State; tor do not concur in the opinion
that two States must be parties controversy of this
sort before the Supreme Court. do not understand
that opinion to be given by the Chief Magistrate in the
message which is before US. That is suggested a
mode by which this controversy may be settled but
if it was designed to intimate that it the only mode by
which it could beludicially determined must respect
fully dissent from such an opinion. Sir, the United
against any State OF this Union for the purpose settling
question of boundary confess l have heard with
surprise the expression OF doubt upon this subject
NNh, tl. Snnrnr1a Court of the Inited Stntas hnuo