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

that this treaty of 1886 mere arucle OF agreement
between certain officers, and il shows upon Its lace that he
Texan Government with whom the treaty made, knew
that those officers had authority to make treaty.
further appears from the eleventh article OF tna treaty. thas
after Santa Anna dismissed, the other Mexican ofcers
holden as hostages until il whether or not
treaty would be concurred in by Mexico is perfectly
obvious therefore, the face of this agreement tha no e
take its origin there The now is just THIS and
nothing The Texan Government, by an act passed
in December, 1886, claimed New Mexico, Chen IN the
actual adverse possession of another Powe) and up to
the 42o north, the latitude of Boston, though no Iexan
had been within thousand miles OF that lne Ihs
is the basis Of her claim she has any, Now suppose ha
South Carolina, not to be invidous Virginia, should
revolt for some cause ohe from the Federal Govern
ment and should sustain herself themselves by orce Of
arms and should take prisoner commanding general and
he should think proper into agreement with them
acknowledging their independence and running the lines Of
South Carolina up around North Carolina, if i were
Virginia. running her line up around Ohio and
and that he should pledge himself his best Efforts to get
such treaty ratified Would such treaty be considered BY US
any thing but mockery Yet it would be worth exactly
much the basis this claim of Texas TO the province OF
New Mexico The different provinces Of the Mexican Re-
public stood in relation their Central Government as the States
of this Confederacy stand TO the Federal Government and
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 Of the way, operating convey title
and the of Texas defining her boundary, which was
| based on it, and it only, amounts to nothing
But it is said that the Government OF New Mexico itself
recognised the binding Of this treaty. and the Senator
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 was before the date
Of the treaty it General Fsola, second in command
and in reference altogether to other objects He writes thus
to General Filisola
His excellecy the President pro tenn upon your
Excelency's directing all his Efforts saving the remainder Of
the army, by concentrating render it more respect-
able placing it in convenient place for receiving provisions
for which the eicacous measures adopted Tie
preservation Of BeIa is of absolute necessity order that
the Government, according 10 circumstances, may act as they
see ft."
He is told to the army, not by treaty, but "by
concentrating i not transfer all the country east OF the
Rio Gande but that the preservation of Bexar is of abb
soute necessity Bexar is only the east side of the
Rio Gande, but if recolect agh tits on the eastern side
Of the Nueces perhaps sixty seventy miles from the Ro
rande and yet this letter of the Mexican Secretary of War
Produced and the emily paper that Produced to show the
recognition Of this treaty 1t was written before the treaty
was made. 1t not written with reference to treaty,
and the only injunction contained that the Mexican
commander should take preserve Bexa &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
Ny friend from Ohio Mr. CoRwIs) has just placed in my
hands Malairds History Of Texas published in ls42, in
which it is said, among other things this subject
The JMeafcan Government had passed decree on the
2oh of May anng all sapuLati0ns entered into By Santa
.fraa ruhale a prisoner" SIC.
This shows that the Government of Mexico not only
recognised the binding obligation Of this treaty. but that she
by express decree annuled and yet it pretended that
that Government by act Of her own, recognised this
| treaty if so, what is it ?
In the history Of this title, the next thing which is
lied the treaty of Guadalupe Hdalgo, Of ls4s and
the map accompanying that treaty. We have heard q
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
tries and that connected with that treaty there map
which laid down all New Mexico lying to the west of the
Rio Grande and that bound therefore, by that map
| If might be permitted to use professional term, would
say Of that map that inter aos aca." II
used between Mexico and the United States and for
rely different purpose than to specify the bounds Of the
States east Of the Rio Grande The United States was nego
tatng with Mexico in reference to their line Of future beun
dary The object for which the map used and attached
the treaty designate the western boundary Of New
Mexico, which boundary to become the line Of
demakaon between the two countries. For the purpose,
therefore, for which the map used 1t was binding butt
binding for other purpose. will now call the atten-
ton Of the Senate and of the Senators from Texas to fact
connected with this treaty map 1t is perfectly evident that
the map was not referred to tor any such purpose as claimed
by the Senators from Texas. Let what the treaty it
self says this point in describing the map Article
among other things:
Tie southern and zuestern Ins Of Ners Nerico,
toned in this article those laid down in the map entitled
Map Of the United Mexican States organized and de-
fined BIZ various of the Congress of SAID republic and
according to the best authorities Revised edition
Published New York, in 1s4 by j. Disturne OF which
copy added to this treaty bearing the signatures and
seals Of the undersigned plenpotentaries"
1t was "the southern and limits OF New Mexico
only it intended describe could refer to nothing
e and its face shows that would have been absolutely
false had referred to the boundary Of New Mexico
all for declares the map according the various acts of
the Mexican Congress and the best authorities There 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 yet
is said by the treaty that this map correct maps but
for what Obviously for the purpose for which it was
used, and nothing else We all know if go beyond that
purpose, that the description of the map states fact which
is not correct There acts authorities any where to
be found which lay down New Mexico altogether of
the Rio Grande and yet supposed that because this map
attached to the treaty of Hdago, is binding to this Gov
eminent, not in reference the boundary Of New
Mexicowhch be the line Of boundary agreed upon
by the two counesbu in reference to the eastern bounda
ry, of which Mexico, that me not treating at all
map nothing which the Senator'S contend fo and
| pass il without further consideration
But then il is further said that the United States Govern
ment in negotiating this treaty with Mexico acted the
agent trustee for the State of Texas and that quo od
hoe she have the entire benefit of the treaty Now,
beg to take issue these points say the United States
not acting the agent trustee for Texas in this matter
but her So far repelng invasion from
known Texan soil concerned the United States acted
agent rather the sovereign power protecting the
subordinate State and she ask nothing at the hands OF
Texas for the exercise of that act of sovereignty But far
the extension Of the boundaries Of the country she
acting the agent of the Government Of Texas And
when you she you beg the entire question You take
for granted that the boundary of Texas the line of the
Rio Grande the 42o north latitude You that to be
which the very point to be proved and then you say
of Texas in repelng Mexico and settling the boundary.
that he in Your