The North-Carolinian. [volume] (Fayetteville [N.C.]) 1839-1861, 1850-09-07


Cabinet advisers, but think have before
me record evidence to show that their
judgment could not have been harmonious.
When the bill deIarng that state of war
existed between the United States and
Mexico went from this House to the Sem
ate. 1t there met with warm opposition.
much discussion was elected, and much
information was, of course, adduced res
pecting the validity of the Texan title;
vet. with all this information before them,
large ma jority of the Whig members.
including two Of the former and three of
the present Cabinet, did not hesitate that
this was American ground. refer to the
amendment to the bill offered by Mr. Clay.
ton, which will read.
Yet in the face of this accumulated
evidence, we are Informed by the Presi-
dent that this country, SO lying east of the
RIO Grande, is not the property of Texas,
but is the property Of the United States.
This is the strict, the literal reading Of this
is not its true meaning, the ambiguity rests
not on the language. but on the lntent.-
But indulging towards him the most kind
ly feelings, am willing to suppose that in
reality the President intends to confine
his demonstrations of hostility to any in
reference by Texas with New Mexico.-
He attempts to justify his position, by as
suming that at the commencement of the
Mexican war, President Polk took forciblc
possession Of this country, and that the
treaty of Hidalgo but confirmed and made
good that possession. That the treaty, in
legal language, joined title to possession,
and as it has been in possession of the U.
States ever since, he is not now at liberty to
regard it otherwise than as our property.
This is syllogistic mode of reasoning.
which would answer a very good purpose
if the premises were correct, but untor-
tunately they are not correct. Gen.
Kearny, under the directions Of President
Polk, did take military possession Of that
country but was not this possession in
tended to be for the benefit of Texas In
answer to demand by the Governor of
Texas, did not President Polk distinctly
admit that it was merely military posses.
sion growing out Of the necessities Of the
war, and not intended, in the least degree,
as Opposing the claim of Texas? And
Furthermore. did not Mr. Polk, through
his Secretary Gov. Marcy, particularly
order and instruct that the military au-
thority, while in possession Of that county.
! should act in subordination to the civil au-
thority OF Texas-aiding and assisting in its
establishment ? These facts are indispu
table and as the acting President had the
evidence Of these facts before him, can
| but consider it as tlisiEgenuous for him to
have attempted to deduce the authority Of
President Polk to sustain his position,
when that authority, if accompanied with
the appropriate explanations. would have
been in direct opposition to his policy:
! Sir, no aid countenance can be derived
from anything which occurred under Mr.
Polk's administration for maintaining the
position that this our bare military posses
sion gave to US an initiatory title to that
country. 1t is a well-established legal
principle, that the possession OF land or
other property is governed and controlled
by the quo amino of the possessor. This
act of possession was perfected by Gen.
Kearney. have before me his proclama-
ton explaining its character. will read it:
Mr. Acade and people of New Mexco have come
by the orders of government to take
OF and extend it the laws of
the United states we consider have time
considered it, part of the territory of the u States &c
Here is a distinct admission by General
Kearny, that we claimed the country-that
we took possession of it under color OF
title. What title could he have referred
to? 1t must have been the title of Texas.
We had no claim or right, no pretence of
| any CIdi'u o"u IA S'"-
sive of the title of Texas. But it has been
contended in defence of the President, that
Mr. Polk was but an executive officer, and
that his opinions could not be conclusive
upon the judgment of a subsequent Presi-
dent. Without entering into an argument
on this point, | will observe that the Pre-
sident takes shelter under no such plea.
but, on the contrary. invokes the acts ot
President Polk affordins to him justin
cation. 1t is Oh the military possession
Consummated by order of President Polk,
that President Fillmore relies for title;
and we admit the fact of possession, but
contend that that possession shall be sub
ject to such explanations as accompanying
circumstances evolve.
The futility of the attempt made hy the
President to justify his contemplated step,
ton with the act of 1907, has been SC
clearly demonstrated by the honorable
gentleman from Georgia, MIR Stephens,
; that it is unnecessary for me to say any
J thing in addition. As he we'll and truly
remarked, these acts contemplate an OBJ.
struction to the judicial process and
, rePulsion Of foreign invasion, as the pro-
per occasions on which the President
, should be authorized to call in use the
7 military authority. We have at present
. no foreign invasion we have as yet In tha
!, country no judicial process to execute. ant
: hence an obstruction to its execution there
E IS an impossibility. No law Of Congress
D has as vet been passed affecting In anywis