The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-19

/
probably The government OF 1924 would be restored
on the capture Of Saata Anna II would not be Tres.
passing 100 much upon the courtesy Of the honorable
aior would say that have bolomed the title Of
Texas on the treaty with Santa Anna II is the treaty OF
Hdalgo upon which we base our claim
Mr. DAYTON. will come down to Hidalgo in
moment do not mean to overlook that in the regular
tracing out OF this Texan title argue the whole
question at once and the senator's speech found based
he Texan claim on this treaty with Santa Anna which
was saying. sir. (and do not see that the expana
ton Of the honorable senator at all alters the nature Of
a bswssS q so was mere article q
lace that1he Texan government. with whom the treaty
was made knew thai those officers had no authority to
tcle OF that treaty, that after Santa Anna was dismissed
the other Mexican officers to be holden as hostages
until was seen whether or not the treaty would be con-
Cured in by Mexico lis perfectly obvious therefore,
the face OF this agreement thai no title can take It's
origin there The case now is just this, and nothing
more The Texan government, BY an act passed 10 De-
adverse possession of another power and up to the 42d
deg NORTH the latitude OF Boston, though Texan had
ever been within thousand miles Of that line This
is the basis OF her claim, il she has any Now, suppose
tfat South Carolina, or, not 10 be invdious, Virginia.
should revolt for cause or other from the federal
government and should sustain herself themselves by
focs OF arms and should take prisoner commanding
general and he should think proper to enter into an
agreement with them, acknowledging their independence
ad running the lines Of South Carolina around North
Carolina or it i were Virginia, running her line up
Ohio and Pennsylvania and that he should pledge
himself 70 use his best efforts to get such treaty ratified
would such treaty be considered BY us as anything but
mockeryl Yet il would Be worth exactly as much as
the basis Of this claim OF Texas to the province Of New
Mexico The different provinces Of the Mexican repub
lie stood in relation to their central government as lhe
States Of this conederacy stand to the federal govern
men and il the central government and the central
government only, that could agree to any transfer Of
these Territories and the treaty shows upon its face
This treaty. therefore, may be considered out Of the
way as operating to convey title and 50, the act Of
Texas defining her boundary, which was based on it,
and II only, amounts to nothing
But It is said that the government of New Mexico
itself recognised the binding force of this treaty. and the
senator from Texas in proof Of this, gives the letter Of
to support that position Why. Mr. President this letter
was before the date Of The treaty; it General Fill
soa second in command and in reference altogether 10
other objects. He writes thus to General Filisoa
His excelency the President Sro tenn counts upon your
exceencys directing al his os saving the
spectabe placing i in Convenient place for receiving
PROVISIONS for which the most eficacious
n order that ne goDsramsS aeeorasg 70 eireumaness
mag act as they see ft.
He is told to the army, not by treaty. but by
concentrating it, not TO transfer all the country east OF
the Rio Grande but that the preservation Of Bexar Is
OF absolute necessity Bexar is not only on the east aide
OF the Rio Grande but if recoect Alright, it is on the
from the Rio Grande and YET this letter Of he Mexican
Secretary OF War is Produced and the only paper that is
produced to show the recognition Of this treaty Ii was
with reference treaty. and the only Injunction Il CON
taned was that the Mexican commander should Take
care TO preserve Bexar, &can act utterly incompatible
how has the government Of Mexico ever. at any time,
recognised the binding obligation of this teatyi Nv
Trend from Ohio MT CoRwiEl has Just placed in my
in which il sad among other things, on this subject
The Mexican government had passed decree on the 20 h
Of May annulng all spnlaons entered into by Santa
Anna while prisoner, &c.
This shows that the government of Mexico not only
never recognised the binding obligation of this treaty.
but that she BY EXPRESS Decree annuled it and YET
is pretended that that government by some act of her
own, recognised this treaty; if so, what is II
In the history OF this title. the next thing which is re.
lied is the treaty Of Guadalupe Hdago Of Is4s and
great deal Of this map in the course OF this discussion
The senator from Texas has frequently referred 10 il
he says that this government entered into treaty with
countries. and that, connected with that treaty there was
map which laid down all New Mexico az lying to the
west OF the Rio Grande and that are bound there
fessiona term would say of that map that il was
res inter atios actd" II used between Mexico and
the United States. and for entirely different purpose
than to specify the bounds OF the States OF the Rio
Grande. The United States negotiating with Mexi-
co IN reference 10 their line oil future boundary Theob
Ject Tor which the map was used and attached 10 the
treaty was to designate the western boundary OF New
Mexico, which western boundary was 10 become the |
line OF demaroaion between the two countries For the
purpose therefore for which the map was used. il was
bindings but il was binding for other purpose will
now call the attention OF the Senate and OF the senators
from Texas fact connected with this treaty map II is
perfectly evident that the map was not referred to for
such purpose claimed by the senators from Texas Let
US see what the treaty itself says this point in de-
scrlbing the map Article says, among other things
The sothern and limits Of Nsw Merieo mentioned
~ this article, those laid down In tle map entitled
MAP Of the United Mexican States organized de
nsd by various acfs Of the Congress Of SAID repabc and
constructed according the best authorities Revised
edition Published New York, In l647 by Disturnel "
OF which map copy added TO this treaty, bearing the
signatures and seals OF the undersigned plcnipocnaries
II was sthe southern and western limits OF New Mex
co' only IL was intended TO describe II could refer to
nothing else and on s face shows that il would have
been absolutely false had il referred the eastern bound
airy Of New Mexico al all for il declares the map Is ac-
cordng to the various acts Of the Mexican Congress and
the best authorities There Is not and act OF
the republic OF Mexico any authorities whatever that
show that New Mexico lay altogether the side OF
the Rio Gande, and pretends ii and yet is said
BY The treaty that this map map But cor
rect Tor what Obviously Tor the purpose for which il
was used, and nothing else. We all know, il we 10 be-
yond that purpose. that the description of the map
fact which is not correct There are no acts no auiho
ties anywhere 10 be found. which lay down New Mexico
as west altogether OF the Rio Grande and vet il is sup
posed that because this map attached to The treaty OF
Hdago It is binding to this government not reference
to the western boundary Of New Mexico-which was to
be the line OF boundary agreed upon by the two copn
Iesbut IN reference TO the eastern boundary, Of which
Mexico, at that time, not treating at all. The map
proves nothing which the senators contend or and
i without further consideration.
But then it is further said that the United States gov
ernment in negotiating this treaty with with Mexico, |
acted the agent trustee for the Stale OF Texas,
asd that quond hoe she must have the entire benefit OF
the treaty Now, beg to take issue these points.
al Nf.fas fka