The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1850-10-02
Queries Answered.

Our Jackson County contemporary asks US
whether we endorse the sentiments or positions
of the Gov. of Texas, as shown by his recent
message to the Legislature of that State 10
which we reply, that we have not read the mes
sage referred to, and therefore have formed no
opinion upon its sentiments or positions.
If Texas should march her troops out of her
own territory to invade the territory of the Uni
ted States, the duty of the President is defined
in the Constitution for such emergencies; but if
Texas marched her troops to defend her terri
tory from the invasonof the United States, she
would do but her duty. The settlement of the
boundary by Congress cannot take foot of
ground from Texas against her will, and if San
ia Fe was part of Texas before, it will be SO
yet for aught that Congress can do to prevent it.
Taking it for granted that the territory in and
about Santa Fe is in dispute, if Texas should
march her troops there to take possession of it
for herself, she does wrong which would not
be made right by opposing her with military
force as the President intimated his intention of
dong. The duty of the President under such
contingency, would, in our humble opinion, be
analogous to the duty of a private individual
whose rights were invaded under similar crcum-
stances, Appeal to the Judicial Tribunal Of the
Nation. We know that the popular doctrine
would be to repel force by forcc-t would also
be the doctrine Of passion and imprudence, but
it would not be the doctrine of Cancellation. If
Texas could acquire more right by actual pos
session than she could by mere claim of juris-
diction, it would be the duty of the President to
prevent her acquiring more right as against the
United States than she would otherwise possess,
but even in this contingency, we would not sub
scribe to the doctrine of military force while the
constitutional remedies remained unried or un-
exhausted. In disputes between sovcreigns
there is, unfortunately, no tribunal to which eli
Their seems willing to bow, but the constitution
wisely provided that the jurisdiction of the Su-
preme court shall extend "to controversies to
which the Uditcd States shall be a party and
to this tribunal the question between the latter
and Texas, should have been long ago submit
ted. We think it was the duty of the President
to bring the Texas boundary question before this
tribunal, and should Texas refuse 70 accede to
the terms proposed by Congress in the bill re-
Gently passed. his duty is no less imperative and
no less obligatory.
The bill recently passed, is more in the nature
of treaty requiring the concurrence Of contract
ing parties, than it is law per Sc. Texas is one
of the parties, and the other cannot compel her
to accede to the proposed terms. Texas has az
much right to decline the proposed terms as the
U. S. have to make them. She may find it her
interest to accede, as we hope she will, but she
looses no rights-violates no law by refusing
The boundary bill is not law till ratified by
Texas She may and she can appeal to the Su-
preme Court and compel the United States to
abide the decision Of the tribunal, and it is only
through the same tribunal that the United States
can of right settle the controversy with her.
We hope this explanation will satisfy the que
ny of our coiemporary.
PEACHES -This sweet luxury is cheaper than