Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-24
SIX DOLLARS PER ANNUM.

me termination OF such contest, we look the civil
lied world in the face and claim for ourselves that
WINCH we nave been battling for as the right OF of
the States OF the Union? put this question to the
consideration OF gentlemen who deny the right ofTexas
Suppose Mr. Sdell had been received and had nego-
tated treaty by which Texas had been limited to the
Nueees if ratified by US, Texas would have been
bound by it, for she had authorized this government
to settle her boundaries by negotiation with Mexico
which it had been declared that the Rio Grande from
It's mouth to It's source, the boundary of the United
States, to whose benefit would the territory thus acqu
red have Injured? Certainly the United States acting
in virtue of the power which reserved to them to
settle the boundaries OF Texas by negotiation with
Mexico, when they had in the course of that negotia
ton acquired the territory which Texas had claimed,
could have had no pretence whatever to claim for
themselves the territory thus acquired. 1t the treaty
had crcumscrbed the boundary of Texas she would
have been forced to submit to it. Surely when terri
tory was obtained coertenSipe Dith her Clai she
entitled to the benefit oft 1t seems TO me- sir that
this is proposition which cannot be contested, that il
thserritory had beenacquired by negotiation between
Mr.. Slldell and the Mexican government anterior to
the war; that negotiation entered upon in virtue
OF the power reserved to the United States nshe art
Giles OF annexation TO settle the boundaries of Texas
1t seems to me unquestonabe that whatever territory
was so acquired would have been acquired as part of
the territory OF that State. Otherwise Texas liable
to lose but oculd by possibility gain anything II
her claim yielded to Mexico, she would lose it, ii
it was yielded by Mexico the United States not Texas
would gain it. think, then it will not be denied that
if Mr.. Sidel had succeeded in negotiainga treaty by
4
tended to the Rio Grande the territory acquired would
have Injured to the benefit of Texas and it this be adj
mltted, advance one step further, and ask in what
consists the difference between the acquisition oterri-
tory made pursuance of the power reserved by the
eles otannexaton, and territory acquired by treaty
the termination OF war entered into in the assertion
OF the rights OF Texas! The United States, repeat,
| had no claim to the territory of Mexico; they made
none, except they the representatives OF the
State OF Texas. They determined to settle the question
which Mexico refused adjust by negotiation and to
hP ted terri tor
they invaded Mexico; they compelled her to concede
not only the territory which claimed by Texas,
but large additional extent. Can this vary the rights
| OF the parties!
advance then another step in this inquiry 1fthis
territory, having been acquired by treaty anterior to the
war, would have Injured to the benefit Of Texas which
must be admitted; there difference between terri
tory SO acquired by treaty and territory acquired by
ty at the termination OF prosecuted in afirmance of
her rights, which it will be difficult deny, then ask if
that question be in the slightest degree affected by
the fact that the United States acquired by that treaty
not only the territory which claimed by Texas but
additional territory in juxtaposon TO it! ThataS the
ph0Le extent OF the controversy. Ii your acquisition OF
territory had been limited to the Rio Grande, and that
QUESTION had been made by treaty. either before after
the war, it would have been papabe that it the ter
rtory OF Texas, the boundary OF Texas which was es
| tabshed IN establishing the boundary Of the United
States Can change the inevitable conclusion resulting
from this TACT that you have acquired additional ter
rtory, for which you have paid consideration and
which you have acquired not in assertion of the rights
of Texas but under the influence of your desire 10
extend your territory to the Pacific and for which you
gave consideration which Mexico deemed an equi-
valent! think not. Judge if | think rightly.
hope then, Mr.. President, that, regards the terri
east OF the Rio Grande Ihave succeeded in showing
that whether had been acquired by treaty before
ter the by itself in connexion with other territory
80 far as was within the limits OF Texas these were
asserted by her act OF boundary OF 1886 which
known the United States and which Texas continued
declare up the time when she Incorporated into
this Union, it must nure the benefit of Texas while
all that west OF s, OF course. the property OF the
United States.
| But the argument does not stop here l referred
the other day, analogous the present case to the
treaty which ascertaned the northeastern boundary
show the principle for which l am eontending was
practically illustrated and enforced in that treaty.
That treaty established conventional line between
Great Britain and the United States, the result of
which was to throw into the Uried States portion OF
territory which had been occupied by the subjects OF
Great Britain and to throw the other side of the line
portion OF territory claimed by the United States
In that case, the territory which established to be
within the limits OF the United States was deemed and
held to have been acquired, not by the United States
tor their own benefit, but for the benefit of Massachu
sets and Maine, whose boundaries were determined in
determining those OF the United States The senator
from New Jersey, Mr.. Dayton,l however, contends
that there is want OF that analogy which | asserted
between those two cases. and in these two particulars
He says, l, That the boundary ofthe State of Mas
sachusetts determined by the treaty of 1883. O.
That Maine and Massachusetts, were parties to the
treaty OF 1872, whereas Texas not party to the
treaty between Mexico and the United States Mr.
President ascerainng the analogy between any two
propositions, you are to inquire what the essential
elements OF that which you propose to compare with
another Now, what essential in this case to prove
the analogy which contend for? Sir it is this it
should appear trst, that territory which 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 fsuch State, and acquired by
| treaty with foreign power had been held to have
been acquired, for the benefit of the United States
| but tor the benefit the individual State Now sir
IN all OF these particulars, maintain that the analogy
Is perfect The boundary OF the State of Massachusetts
was ascertaned by the treaty OF 1883 between Great
Britain and the United States because that was the
limit OF the United States in that direction The boun-
Diary OF Texas, the limit of the United States in another
direction ascertaned by the treaty of Guadalupe
Hldalgo, In the same manner the boundary of Mas
sachusets was determined by the treaty of peace with
Great Britain In each case it the boundary OF the
| United States which was stipulated by treaty The
treaty OF 1888 did propose and designate the north
eastern boundary OF Massachusetts,, but the boundary
between the United States and Great Britain And
forasmuch Massachusetts, claimed to that boundary
OF the United States therefore what was acquired by
the treaty held to be acquired for the people OF
| Massachusetts, and afterwards OF Maine which had
| been a part of that State.
| So the treaty of Guadalupe Hidago the boundary
which 1t establishes is the boundary between the
republic OF Mexico and the United States; and the
territory which acquired that portion which is east
OF the boundary determined must nue TO the bene-
ut OF Texas, because, Texas was State of this Uni
on bordering upon that boundary, and claiming to it
The extreme western southwestern State of this
unon 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 terrific
ry that it was in the possession of Mexcaus its nhabi-
tants acknowledged no allegiance Texas but 10 the
Mexican government Now, Sir, to show how per-
lec the analogy 49, will senators direct their attention
to the Madawaska settlement, thrown within the limits
otthe United States by the treaty with Great Britain
OF 1912! This was British settlement OF which nei-
Their Maine nor Massachusetts had possession. And
yet when 1t was acquired, by falling south and west
OF this conventional line, adudged inure to the
benefit OF State which had been in possession
ott The analogy, therefore, in this particular is also
perfect.
Again, it is said that Maine and Massachusetts were
parties to the treaty between the United States and
treaty of Guadalupe. The Senator from New Jersey
explains to me what | am perfectly willing TO accept
explanation, that, by eontending that they were
parties to this treaty he did not say that they