The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-22

Texas, but under the influence of your own
desire to extend your territory to the Pacific,
and for which you gave consideration
which Mexico deemed an equivalent
think not. Judge if think rightly.
hope then, Mr. President, that, as re-
CARDS the territory east Of the Rio Grande,
i have succeeded in showing that, whether
It had been acquired by treaty before or after
the war, by itself or in connexion with other
territory, so far as it was within the limits Of
Texas, as these were asserted by her act of
boundary of 1886, which were known to the
United States, and which Texas continued
to declare, up to the time when she was in
lcorporated into this Union, it must enure to
the benefit Of Texas, while all that is west
OF IT is, of course, the property OF the United
States.
| But the argument does not stop here. |
referred the other day, as analogous to the
present case, to the treaty which ascertained
the northeastern boundary, to show that the
principe for which | am contending was
practically illustrated and enforced in that
treaty. That treaty established conven-
tional line between Great Britain and the
United States, the result. of wEich was to
throw into the United States portion of
territory which had been occupied by the
subjects of Great Britain, and to throw on
the other side of the line portion of terri
tory claimed by the United States. In that
case, the territory which was established to
be within the limits of the United States
was deemed and held to have been acquired,
not by the United States, for their own
benefit, but for the benefit of Massachusetts
and Maine, whose boundaries were deter
mined in determining those of the United
States. The senator from New Jersey,
Mr.. DAYTON, however, contends that
there is want of that analogy which as
serted between those two cases, and in these
two particulars He says, l. That the
boundary of the State of Massachusetts,
was determined by the treaty Of 1888.
2. That Maine and Massachusetts, were par
ties to the treaty Of 1912, whereas Texas
was not party to the treaty betw zen Mex
leo and the United States. Mr.. President,
in ascertaining the analogy between any
two propositions, you are to inquire what
are the essential elements Of that which you
propose to compare with another
Now, what is essential in this case to
prove the analogy which ! contend for :
Sir, it is this: it should appear, first, that
territory which was within the asserted
boundaries Of State of this Union had
been acquired by the United States by
treaty with foreign power; and, secondly,
that that territory, so within the asserted
limits of such State, and so acquired by a
treaty with foreign power, had been held
to have been acquired, not for the ben
eft Of the United States, but for the benefit
Of the individual State. Now, sir, in all OF
these particulars, | maintain that the analogy
is perfect. The boundary of the State OF
Massachusetts was ascertained by the treaty
Of 1888 between Great Britain and the
United States, because that was the limit
of the United States in that direction The
boundary of Texas, the limit of the U. S.
in another direction, was ascertained by the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in the same
manner as the boundary of Massachu-
sets was determined by the treaty of peace
with Great Britain. In each case it was
the boundary of the United States which
was stipulated by treaty The treaty Of
1888 did not propose and designate the
northeastern boundary of Massachusetts,
but between the United States and Great
Britain. And, forasmuch as Massachu-
sets claimed to that boundary of the
United States, therefore what was acquired
by the treaty was held to be acquired for the
people of Massachusetts, and afterwards of
Maine, which had been part of that State.
So, in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,
the boundary which it establishes is the
boundary between the Republic of Mexico
and The United States and the territory
which is acquired, or that portion which is
east of the boundary SO determined, must
enure to the benefit of Texas, because Tex
as was a State of this Union bordering upon
that boundary, and claiming to 1.-THE
extreme western or southwestern State Of
this Union. The cases, therefore, in these
particulars are perfectly analogous
Again : for the purpose of denying this
analogy, it is said that Texas was never in
possession Of that territory; that it was in
the possession of Mexicans, its inhabitants
acknowledging no allegiance to Texas, but
to the Mexican Government? Now, sir,
to show how perfect the analogy is, will
Senators direct their attention to the NADIA
waska settlement, thrown within the limits
of the United States by the treaty with
Great Britain of 1922 This was British
settlement, of which neither Maine nor
Massachusetts, had possession. And yet,
when it was acquired, by falling south and
west of this conventional line, it was ad-
Judged to erure to the benefit OF State
which had never been in possession of it
The analogy therefore in this particular is
also perfect.
gain: it is said that Maine and Massa-
chusetts were parties to the treaty between
the United States and Great Britain, but
that Texas was no party to the treaty of
Guadalupe. The Senator from New Jersey
explains to me what | am perfectly willing to
accept as an explanation, that, by contend
ing that they were parties to this treaty, he
did not mean to saw that thew were formal