Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-06-22


that this treaty OF 1886 mere article OF agreement
between certain officers. and shows upon Its lace that the
Texan Government, with whom the treaty was made knew
that those officers had no authority TO make treaty.
further appears from the eleventh article Of that treaty. that
after Santa Anna dismissed the other Mexican ofncers
to be holden hostages until was seen wener OF not
the treaty would be concurred in by Mexico IS perfectly
obvious therefore, the face of this agreement ha no ute
can take its origin there The is just this and
nothing The Texan Government by an act passed
in December, 1886, claimed New Mexico, (then IN tne
actual adverse possession of another Power and up 70
the APO north, the latitude of Boston, though no Iexan
had been within thousand mieso that line This
the basis of her claim she has any Now, suppose that
South Carolina, not to be nvidious Virginia, should
revolt for other, from the Federal Govern
men and should sustain herself themselves by force OF
arms and should take prisoner commanding general and
he should think proper to enter into agreement with hem
acknowledging their independence, and running the lines OF
South Carolina up around North Carolina, or, If It were
Virginia. running her line up around Ohio and Pennsylvania
and that he should pledge himself TO his best Efforts 10 get
such treaty ratified Would treaty be considered by US
as any thing but mockery Yet i would DC worth exactly
New Mexico. The different provinces Of the Mexican Re-
public stood in relation their Central Government the States
Of this Confederacy stand to the Federal Government and
was the central Government and the Central Government
only that could agree any transfer of these territories and
the treaty shows upon its face. This treaty. therefore,
be considered out of the way operating convey title
and So the of Texas defining her boundary which was
based on IT. and only, amounts to nothing.
But 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 the Mexican
Secretary of War; the only evidence given to support that
position Why Mr. President this letter before the date
the treaty General Fsola, second in command,
and in reference altogether to other Objects He writes thus
| to General Fisola '
Excellency directing all his 6orsto Saving The remainder Of
the army concentrating IL to render it more respec-
able placing in convenient place for receiving
for which the most ecacops are adopted I've
preservation Of Berar Of absolute necessity an order that
The Government according circumstances, may act as they
| see fs"
! He is told the army, by treaty. but BY
concentrating y transfer all the country east OF the
Rio Grande but that the preservation Of Bexar Is OF abb
soue necessity Bexar only the east side OF the
Rio Grande but recollect Alright tits the eastern side
Of the Nueces perhaps sixty seventy miles from the Rio
Gande and yet this letter Of the Mexican Secretary of War
Produced and the only paper that Produced to show the
recognition of this treaty 1t written before the treaty
made 1t not written with reference to treaty,
and the only Injunction il contained that the Mexican
commander should take preserve Bexar, &can act
utterly incompatible with surrender of the country to the
Rio Grande Now, how has the Government Of Mexico
any time recognised the binding obligation of this treaty
My friend from Ohio (Mr CoRwIS) has just placed in my
hands Malards History of Texas, Published in ls42 in
which it is said, among other things, this subject
The .Mericaa Government had passed decree the
Goth of Ndy dnfniing all SGbatons entered By Santa
| .4Rla wiaie q prisoner, J" SIC.
This shows that the Government of Mexico only
recognised the binding obligation of this treaty. but that she
by express decree annuled and yet it is pretended that
that Government by act Of her recognised this
4 treaty if so, what is it ~
In the history Of this title, the next thing which is
lied is the treaty of Guadalupe Hdalgo, Of ls4s and
\ the map accompanying that treaty. We have heard
great deal Of this map in the course Of this discussion
The Senator from Texas has frequently referred to It.
He says that this Government entered into treaty with
Mexico to settle the line Of boundary between the two
tries and that connected with that treaty there map
which laid down all New Mexico lying the of the
Il nd hat Inv that
If might be permitted to professional term, would
say Of that map that it res inter alos acta Il was
used between Mexico and the United States, and for
irely different purpose than specify the bounds of the
States east of the Rio Graude The United States nego
iating with Mexico in reference their line Of future beun
dairy The object for which the map used and attached
the treaty designate the western boundary OF New
Mexico, which western boundary to become the line OF
demarkaton between the countries For the purpose,
therefore, for which the map used was bindings butt
binding for other purpose will now call the atfen-
ton Of the Senate and Of the Senators from Texas to fact
connected with this treaty map It is perfectly evident that
map referred for any such purpose claimed
the Senators from Texas Let what the treaty it
self says this point in describing the map Article says
among other things:
"7He southern and limits Of Ne1p .herico
toned this article, those laid down the map entitled
Map of the United Mexican States organized aud de-
fined By various acts of the Congress Of said republic, and
according to the authorities Revised edition.
Published at New York. ls47, by j. Disturne OF which
map copy added this treaty bearing the signatures and
seals of the undersigned plenipotentiaries"
1t was the southern and western limits Of New Mexico
only it intended to describe could refer to nothing
else, and its face shows that twou have been absolutely
false had referred the eastern boundary Of New Mexico
all for declares the map according to the various acts Of
the Mexican Congress and the best authorities There is and
Of the republic Of Mexico any authorities
whatever that show that New Mexico lay altogether the
west side of the Rio Grande and preends and yet
is said by the treaty that this map correct map; but
for what Obviously for the purpose for which was
used, and nothing else We all know if go beyond that
purpose that the description Of the map states fact which
not correct There acts authorities any where to
be found, which lay down New Mexico west altogether OF
the Rio Gande and yet supposed that because this map
attached to the treaty of Hago binding to this Gov
enmen not in reference the western boundary OF New
Mexco-whch be the line Of boundary agreed upon
the counesbut in reference to the eastern bounda-
ry, of which Mexico at that me not treating at all
The map nothing which the Senators contend o and
| pass it without further consideration
But then it is further said that the United States Govern
ment in negotiating this treaty with Mexico acted as the
agent for the State Of Texas and that al
hoe she have the entire benefit of the treaty Now,
beg take issue these points, the United States
acting the agent for Texas in this matter
but on her So far repeing invasion from
known Texan soil concerned the United States acted
The agent rather the sovereign power protecting the
subordinate State and she ask nothing at the hands oil
Texas the exercise of that of sovereignty But far
the extension Of the boundaries Of the country she was
acting the agent of the Government Of Texas And
when you she beg the entire question take
granted that the boundary of Texas the line OF the
Rio Gande the 42o north latitude You that to be
true which the very point be proved and then You say
that the of the United States acted al the
Of Texas in repeing Mexico and settling the boundary.
Why that is the very question in ISSUE You prove the fact
,t, t,,,tht that ha Hail.