Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-08-31


much stronger in every point of view than that of New
Mexico this side the Rio Grande For have shown that
the President cannot interfere there without the virtual dec
of the question OF Texas boundary which he admits
| that he has no right to decide.
| now go further and maintain that if Texas should
be resisted by the Mexicans in this portion of the territory
lying within her prescribed limits and SHOULD apply the
President for assistance put down that resistance while
this question of boundary unsettled he would be bound
under the Constitution, and law of 1875, to afford the
necessary assistance read from the first section of that
act:
And in case Of an instruction any State against the
Government thereof shall be lawful for the President of
the United States, application Of the Legislature of
such State Of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) to call forth such number Of the
militia of any other State States may be applied for
he may judge sufficient to suppress such Instruction
These people, it is well known reside within the limits
of Texas according to the boundaries prescribed by her own
laws The law of boundary of that State the President
much bound respect and have enforced any other
law of Texas any other law of any other State or any
law of the United States unless be inconsistent with the
Constitution the United States law or treaty of
the United States. repeat sir the President is as much
bound to regard all constitutional laws of the respective
States he is the laws of the United States. And called
upon pursuance of the act of 1885, just read he is as
much bound to assist State in putting down resistance
the execution of any of her constitutional laws as he is to
the execution Of the laws Of the United States And
it is question which he cannot decide he is bound to
regard the laws Texas whether defining her boundary
extending her jurisdiction valid unless in con-
United States. Now sir is there anything in this law of
Texas inconsistent with the late treaty with Mexioo
do net intend now to go into discussion of the Texas
boundary. did this few days ago. do not now wish
to repeat what then said will barely enumerae some
of the points. You and this House well recoled that
do not consider the question stood before he war;
Texas independent State annexed and admitted
into the Union with such territorial limits righy be-
onged to her at that time Her rights founded alto
geher upon the right of successful revolution and their
extent in my opinion then, to the limits which
she had established her jurisdiction Her limits were such
she had successfully marked by the sword did not
then believe do believe that she had thus estab
shed her jurisdiction to the extent of her claim But the
settlement of her boundary with Mexico reserved for
this Government. And this Government, without waiting
for peaceful negotiations proceeded by force of arms to assert
her rights to the extent Of her claim The then President
Mr. Polk maintained that her proper boundary rghtfuly
extended to the Rio Grande from its mouth source
and this position maintained in the act declaring war;
by large maorities in both branches of Congress did
not receive my for did not believe be true But
1t received the sanction of this Government in both the
executive and Legislative departments The Government
OF the United States, therefore, consider to be fully
mitted on this point Unless disposed disregard
the public faith most soemny pighted are, my opin
on estopped by the record 1t upon the assertion of
these rights of Texas the Rio Grande from mouth to
its source, that the declared II was in vndica
ton OF the rights of Texas extend her Jurisdiction under
her laws and Constitution to the limits OF her Territorial
cam that the army was ordered to take position the
east bank OF the Rio Grande. The the conse-
quence. And now ask, if there anything the treaty
that was made at the end of that inconsistent with
those laws of Texas which the commenced to en-
force So far from it, the treaty arms the boundary to
be the Rio Grande up to the of New Mexico on the
other side of the Rio Grandfather turning Westward
leaving to Texas without the slightest restriction all the
territory claimed by her. And moreover the treaty has
map accompanying it, which is made part of it, and in
which the boundary of Texas is clearly and distinctly set
FORTH running with the Rio Grande from its mouth to
its source SO far them from this treaty containing any,
thing inconsistent with the previous laws Of Texas defining
her rphf IN al tto Il
rules of just and fair construction affirm and fully estab
fish those rights and utterly deprive this Government of
all pretext of questioning them, except by bold open and
infamous reputation.
Mr. MOORE inquired whether the resolutions of annex.
alton did not leave the General Government to deter
mine the boundary of Texas!
Mr. STEPHENS The resolutions of annexation con-
erred upon the General Government the power to settle
this question of boundary with Mexico They give eths
Government authority power the subject for no
other object and to further This Government
had no jurisdiction the but with Mexico She
had no power to say to Texas that her limits should be
stricted but in treating with Mexico. have shown that
IN the treaty with Mexico there no clause restricting
them. of course she has power to restrict them
But to present the subject to the gentleman clearer
view suppose that Mexico had never questioned the right
Of Texas the Rio Grande could this Government ever
have done SO Would we not have been bound main
tam her jurisdiction to the extent of her limits prescribed
by her laws and to have put down any instruction against
her laws within those limits The only contesng party
Texas had was Mexico and when Mexico ceased the con-
test Texas and the United States stood towards each othes
just they would have stood if contest had ever arisen
unless in making the treaty which terminated the contest
and where the United States only had jurisdiction some
restriction imposed upon Texas. If such restriction
had been inserted the treaty. of course Texas would have
been bound by it, for this Government had the power in
that way to take jurisdiction over it. but in no other way
And as the treaty does contain any such restrictions
and as Mexico is no longer contestng, maintain that
Texas and the United States stand towards each other
upon this subject just they would have stood if
had been waged and Mexico had disputed
her claim. The gentleman, trust understands me, and
feels fully answered.
Mr. STEVENS, Of Pennsylvania, asked if it was not
competent for Mexico assign her interest in the disputed
territory to the United States and whether the United
States under the treaty, the assignee Of that
terest
Mr. STEPHENS of Georgia, continued No. sir. In
the articles of union between Texas and the United States
or the resolutions of annexation Texas gave this Govern
ment no power to become the assignee of Mexico The
only power conferred extngush the outstanding
clain his Government assumed the character of an UNI
pre- She had to settle the dispute as disnterest
ed person. but not to become party to the
She had power purchase the outstanding claim and
to become the assignee thereof And if she had so
chased it, her rights would have been invalid and the pur
chase would have Injured Immediately according to the
wesetted principles of law, Texas her cestu; gui
trust But sir, the treaty shows that she did not at
tempt to take assignment of the interest of Mexico in
the disputed territory, and to put herself in the shoes Of
Mexico In this matter. There no such words no such
clause, no such intent to be found from the beginning To
the end OF that treaty and such construction can be mt
upon without committing great outrage upon the