Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1850-08-02
sPEECH OF HON. w. 9. AsHE,

SPEECH OF HON. w. g. AsHE,
On the Question of the Admission of the Delegates
from Utah and New Mexico, delivered in the House
of Representatives, July 18th, 1850.
Mr. AsHE being entitled to the floor, said
MIR. Chairman, the excessive and almost insutfer-
able warmth of the weather must be taken as my
apology for the few and incoherent remarks which
will offer to the House on the matter now pending
before it. AS one of the Committee on Elections,
can say that this application from New Mexico
received at their hands most sedulons examination
agree entirely with the majority in the report and
the accompanying resolutions submitted by them,
and will further say, that any other conclusion on
their part would not only have been Incompatible
with the usages and practices of Congress- but in d
rect antagonism with the constitution of the United
States. In making this broad declaration, Intend
to cast no eensure on the minority who made con-
trary report We have all to abide the workings of
our respective judgments. The minority thought in
way reasoned in one way, and concluded In that
way. The majority, actuated by desire no less
ervent to discharge their duty properly and correct
ly from the facts deduced opposite and contra
~ conclusions. As the chairman: in his speech and
report has most ably argued the merits OF the case,
think it is idle for me to make any extended re-
marks.
correctly the relation which New Mexico bears to
the Union we should previously examine the relation
which subsisted between New Mexico and Old Mex
leo previous to taking possession of it. We have
gOO0 ana lnQ1SputaDle the POSITION
there were nineteen States composing the Mexican
confederacy anterior to the separation of Texas from
that confederacy. New Mexico was not recognized
of these nineteen States but on the contrary
considered territory attached to Coahuila
and Texas Its settlement was indeed, much ante
ror in time to either of the but it possessed
the capacity to emerge from territorial condition
This fact is not at all impugned by the consideration
that this territory was possessed OF Provincial Coun
Gil invested with legislative powers for its legisa
To NOno ropn lntIO No
should bear in mind that Coahuila and Texas form
ed one of the Mexican States; the frst-named lying
on the west of the Rio Grande the last Texas, ly
ing on the east Of that river. As early the year
1897, there was an attempt made to establish a sep
arate and Independent Republic, called Fredonia
composed of Coahuila and Texas. If that attempt
had been successful, would not New Mexico, as at
tached territory, have followed in the wake | am
clearly of that opinion But should New Mexico in
the event of the Texan revolution be considered
an incident of COahuila the west or of Texas on
the east of the Rio Grande? q of course refer only
to that portion of New Mexico lying east of the Rio
Grande) The last is her true position. The diplo-
matte history of the United States will throw consd-
cradle 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 Ide
tonso made between France and Spain, should &C.
crue to the United States and under that prOyisI
our Government did not hesitate to claim all the
country lying east of the Rio Grande. This was GER
tainly the opinion not only of Mr. Jefferson, but of
every other distinguished 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, part of the consideration of the
purchase of Florida, both of the high contracting
parties (Spain and the United States) adopted and
made the Red river as the proper boundary between
the two countries far west as 100 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 by that
parallel of latitude to the South Sea- What country
were We engaged in conveying away? Was it not
Texas! What country, then, did ,nese boundaries
circumscrihe! Was it not Texas If this country,
so described, not part of Texas, but posses
sion of SPAIN why the particularly of this bounda-
ry! apprehend it would have been much more
convenient, as we'll consistent with the
ges OF nations, to have established common line of
demarcation until the possession of Spain arri
we'd at, and from thence to have made the boundary
of such possessions the dividing line between the two
countries and the deviation from that usage in this
clearly demonstrates that the country crcum
sclibed and bounded, lying east of the Rio Grande,
not in the estimation of either of the contracting
parties, actually appurtenant to the Crown Of Spain
Then, Mr. Speaker will submit, that if the right
OF Spain to this country acquired from the Uni
ted States by the rerocesson of Texas whether the
onus probondi of disconnection between Texas and
New Mexico, by Spanish authority does not devolve
upon the shoulders of those who maintain that when
we reacquired Texas we lost New Mexico? Where
is the act of Spanish authority making this discon
nection have never seen it.
1t cannot be pretended that the State of Texas, Ell
Their as component part of the Mexican confedera-
cy, at any time since, consented to such a
diSconnection. On the contrary, Mr.. Speaker do
not find her, not onl during the misery and trials
of her revolution but after the achievement of her
independence after the lone STAR had assumed her
appropriate position in the galaxy of nations, firmly,
sodtly, increasingly maintaining and asserting her
I right to this country! Texas never relinquished
her rights, and indeed the supposition that any such
REIMBURSEMENT took place is refuted by sue
cession of legislative acts all conspiring to reduce
into actual possession, this her territorial dependen
cy. The last resounding echo of the battle of San
JacintO had not yet died upon when we hear
her declaring the extension of her laws and constiu
ton over all the country east of the Rio Grande.-
But we told she unable to reduce it into pos
session. This also the with that called
the Mesopitamia, lying between the Neuces and the
Rio Grande but suppose that none of US are 81
coveous of the distinction of straight jacket" al
now to contend that the lasnamed river is not the
true western boundary of Texas
But what availability is there in the position tina
Texas not able to reduce New Mexico into pos
session 1t proves defect of title, but is, at the
best, a mere evidence of national imbecility. Oul
domestic history affords examples strictly analo
r gous The chartered limits of North Carolina extend
ed between certain given parallels of latitude, from
the Atlantic ocean to the Mississippi That portion
of her territory lying west of the Blue Ridge fell in
to the possession of set of hardy Adventures VIII
not only denied her authority, but put her laws
defiance, actually formed State constitution, ant
demanded admittance in the old Confederacy as on,
of the States of the Union. Were her delegates re
ceived by the Continental Congress! No, sir. the
were not and why! Because the country the
: would represent, if received was a dependency o
North Carolina, and the inability of that State to re
duce it into subsection not REIMBURSEMENT of