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

the term, but that they were entitled to
certain benefits to be derived from that
that treaty, in consideration of which they
assented to it. Now, sir, ! reply that they
were not necessarily parties to the treaty
that their assent was not essential to its va
lidity. II you will advert to the message
OF the President OF the United States ac-
companyiug the Transmission of that treaty
to the Senate, you will find it stated that
these commissioners on the part of Maine
and Massachusetts, were invited to attend
here-not because it was essential to the
conclusion of the treaty that they should as
sent to it, but it was thought proper to in
wife them from the interest that their re-
spective States had in the result Of the
treaty: for presume that it is not to be
contended that government like this, in
vested by the Constitution with the treaty.
making power, is not competent to exercise
that power, at least so far as it may be ne
cessary for the settlement of its own bound
aries, irrespective of the assent Of any State
whose rights may be affected by it.
do not contend that the United States
can, by treaty, go within the limits of
State, and cede portion Of that State to
foreign power. But do contend that the
United States, in the exercise of the treaty.
making power, Is competent to settle the
boundary between ourselves and any foreign
power, is armed with full authority to do so
by the constitutional grant of that power,
and is not del endent in its exercise upon
the will Of any State whose limits may be
affected by it. Thus the States of Maine
and Massachusetts were not strict and for
NAL parties to this instrument--nay they
were not necessary parties to it in any form
whatever. The benefit which they derived
from it, resulted from the fact that portion
OF the territory acquired fell within their lin
its. Their assent, though it was properly
sought for, and was just Difference to the
spirit of our institutions, proper respect to
the rights Of two sovereign States Of this
Union, was certainly not essential to the
conclusion or validity of the treaty There
was particular propriety in the invitation ;
and why' Because the United States
having endeavored upon several occasions to
trace out the actual line which was stipulated
by the treaty of 's3, but having failed to
| dISOll)llou IL, Hdu CoulC W TUG
ton, after these failures, to establish a Con-
ventional line which should serve in lieu aad
instead OF the line of the treaty of 'S3. As
this conventional line might then interfere
with the territory of the cotermininous States,
there was a fitness and propriety in obtaining
the assent Of those States to the treaty
which determined it. This consideration
led to the invitation of Maine and Massa
chusetts to partake, not in the conclusion o
the treaty, but in preliminary consultations
with our minister, by whom it was negotiated
Mr.. President, ii senators will turn theil
attention for a moment to the treaty Of
Guadalupe and its results, as they affected
the interests Of Texas, they will perceive
that there was no occasion for inviting that
State to be party to this treaty, either
formally, or in such preliminary consultations
as were participated in by tine States o.
Maine and Massachusetts,. T. hose States
were Invested of portion of their territory
by this conventional line, and were therefore
invited to attend, and consulted with in the
progress Of the negotiation. BY the treaty
of Guadalupe HidaIgo, Texas acquired the
whole territory for which she commended
II took nothing from her it secured all thai
she claimed The Rio Grande was deter
mined to be the boundary between the
United States and Mexico, and, inasmuoh
as Texas was not to suffer loss in conse-
quence of that treaty, the considerations
which Induced the invitation by the commits
sioners of Massachusetts, and Maine, did not
exist in her case 1t is obvious then, sir
the argument of the senator from New Jcr-
scy to the contrary lthstanding-that
these two cases run ogether-qudtuor pedi-
bus-that the analogy is perfect that in
both cases we acquired territory falling
within the limits claimed by a particular
State, and by universal consent and by the
direct effect and operation of that treaty,
that territory has been assigned to the States
within whose limits it fell, although they
had never before been in possession Of it.
submit to the Senate, therefore, that have
established the analogy for which | CON-
tended.
But that is not the only objection to the
claim of Texas. 1t is said that she did not
persevere in the assertion of her claim. She
made it in '36, in the manner of which
have spoken, and the gentleman from New
Jersey says that no representative was assign
ed to that portion Texas-no member from
New Mexico took his seat in the convention
which declared the sovereignty of that State.
Sir, the reason is obvious. That portion of
her territory was not then under her control
Mexico was in possession o! it, and claimed
it as her own, and the laws of Texas were not
extended to it. There is no novelty in this
thing. The United States, powerful as
they are when compared with Texas, have
been compelled to recognise the principle,
that the territory Of State when in the pos
session Of foreign power is not subject to
its laws. 1t has beenso decided in the State
courts and in the courts of the U niteJ States.
The Senator from New Jersey and myself
have agreed to lay aside our judicial titles
| trust we have not parted entirely with our
professional recollections. The Senator from
New Jersey, | am sure, has not. In the