The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-06-24

K
s, datej on the 4lh of January lS41 the Sc reiary
+ state. by my direction, informed him in a letter
| fthe 18th Of February, lS47, that in the Presi-
depts annual message OF D,cembcr, iS46. You
nave already perceived that New Mexico Is at pre-
| ,en n the temporary occupation Of the troo 8 Of
the United States. and the government il is
| military in its character. IL is merely such gov
rnment as iuu-t exist under the laws Of nations
| nd of war. 10 preserve order and protect the
rights Of the inhabitants, and will cease The
'lusiop Of a treaty OF peace with Mexico Nothing,
therefore, be more certain than that this iempo
AIRY government, from necessity .caiipcyer
njurously affect the right which the President be
lieyes 10 be justly asserted by Texas "a the whole
territory this side Of the Rio Grande. whenever
the Mexican claim To il shall have been cxtin-
| .uished by treaty"
| Without violation of all law and justice, this
pDssesson cannot now be set up against Texas
7. The title al Texas asserted by the declara.
iion of war by Congress, that existed
| ny Mexico, which consisted onIy in M.xcap SD
diers crossing the Rio Grand and committing hos-
| tities near its banks To deny the title is
| change the character of the into one of ag-
/ gression and conquest and bring unnerited re-
/ proach upon the country.
| 3. Pending the nego'iations for peace with NIX
leo, missioner, Mr. Tri-t, asserted the Texas
| title, and said =. Until ascertancd by compact
| or agreement, defnltve or provisional. between the
| U lied States and Mexico, the boundary between
| the two republics, hen considered by the United
States with reference To the national obligation 10
protect their territory from invasion, could be none
other than that pery boundary c,ch had been asserted
the treaty with Mexico, by attaching TO the treaty,
| and making part of il, a map which enformed
exactly to the claims of Texas, and placed New
| Mexico on the bank of the Rio Grande. This
is absolutely conclusive Of the question. II the
intention Of Mexico, in this treaty redeem her
faith pledged to Texas in the treaty Of 1885, ap-
pears by the declaration Of her commissioners, no
negotiated the treaty with the United States IN
their address to their countrymen.
''fhc intention (say the commissioners) Of max
ing the Bravo limit, has been announced by the
IL.
have been impossible at the present day to change
it. Afer ihe defeat Of San Jacinio, Aprii, 1886,
that the territory tohich stipulated euacuate,
and ,chieh zoe accordingly did eUdcnas, by faing
stationed ,chai called the army Of t north; and
though IL is true that expeditions and
been made there asfar Beja, tDe haUe peyy
reireaed leaving the space absolutely free
In this state General Ia ior found schen,
y prt Of iasi year, he entered there by order hs Coo
ernment."
tain and specified boundaries, Congress ha
power to legisate upon or distu them than those
OF any other State, any further than IL is given by
| the resolutions Of annexation. Congress has no
more power over the boundaries of State of the
Union than those Of a foreign State. This is the
settled doctrine Of the country, and was asserted
even by Colonel BssTos; i'll debate in the Senate,
on the l4th May, l54S, he said: The Republic Of
Texas acts by its name, and passes itself TO in
the whole extent Of all the limits and boundaries
which il asserts TO be its own"
ann, xation Of Texas, February 5, lS45, Colonel
BEsToS declared, "ln fact, when once admitted
State, she can never be reduced without her con-
sent. The Constitution forbids it," This his
construction Of the compact Of the resolutions Of
annexation.
This compact gave TO this Government but one
power, that of negotiating the boundary with Mex
leo. That power would have BEEN extinguished
by the treaty in removing the possibility of ques-
ton of boundary with Mexico. II the treaty had been
silent the subject But the treaty settled the
-
| expressly recognises the boundary as asserted by
Texas. This right while it existed could only be
exercised in a particular manner, that is by the
treaty making power. IL did not pertain to Con-
gress.
TO- II is quito prepostcrous that the Uni
ted States while sciing the negotistor and
tee OF Texas, could have acquired the subject mat
ter in opposition the title of Texas either by the
treaty or otherwise. To inpute such intention
TO thu Government is to charge II with act which
a court Of equity holds 10 be the species Of
fraud. IL never permits the agent trustee To buy
deal in opposition the prinripal b-ns hciary
II has been asserted that the United States, under
this power 10 settle the bOuDaary Of Texas With
"vthcr gOvernmrnts." was no more the trustee of
Texas than the other States This proves to-,
much IL maintains, that the Government has a
general power the subject o State boundari,s,
that the provisions uf the compact Of ann. alton
did enlarge the juTisdiction Uf this CIV rum. mt
over that question Of boundary. IL in eff CT denies
the special limited authority. IL makes the Gov
ernment party 10 acquire, instead Of AN agent 20
the power must be excrcis,d according To the law
Of il creation and one party caunus -cttle
troversy wiibout the consented the ,th, Ia short
il IL quite absurd TO suppose that the United States
could purchase and ccrd to the rights of Mcxiro
10 the contested boundary without the cons, ,f
Texas. This GOvernm at did not rclipquish an
Of the boundary Of Maine without the consent IL
that Statr, although Great Britain was in actual
adverse possession. Was any oie 50 obtusc as to
assert thai United States could acquire IL in Op-
position 10 Msinrl
i ~ u.
boundary with mathematical prtc csin a. al the
country sOuh of 36o 30, aud sufii,i. north Of ia
for st i Une State. They provide Tor States,
and declzrc, "And in such Satc ststes as shall
b. f,riued Out Of -ah tcrriory north Of said CON-
promise line. (36o 30) slavery or Involuntary rcr-
vitude (ercrpt ior criInr) shall be prohibite,i.'
This u a d,tlsfatVn that the country north Of
that line, sUfcs MT for state, bclo"gs 10, and IL
rigttfuliy T. cluded within, the limits ,f Texas
tile with such a boundary would be sufficiently
certain 20 authorize a recovery in cjectm nt be.
tween private hulrants. A surveyor could 70 upon
the ground and sct up the m~te- and bounds. As
all below 360 30. IL Is utterly impossible that there
can b. any -pute about lincs. In his speech Of
yesterday, Colonel Benton says:
"rhe Miseouri compromise line was a curtsil-
rneut Of slave territory; the Texas esstion
buttons the same"
How could the Texas resolutions be a curtail-
ment Of slavery, IL the country which she claimed
north Of 36o 80 not her territory by rghS that
the intent 10 admit I, xa- ~ ith the Boundaries
caInrd by herself, subject only &, the right of sd
jusung them with Ohers, is further demonstrated
by The provision Of the resolutions that The S,ste
shall aso retain all the vacant and unapprOpratcd
lands lying totthin s itnsits To be appheo 10 The
payment II the dcbts aud liabilities II said republic
Of rcxss; AMI the residue Of said lands after dis
charging said dcb's and liabilities, Ia be disposed
, Of ss ssid State may direct" What limits bad the
republic but th,'se she set up and asserted by her
O~ pultical actiunl II " obvious that the refer
encc Is to them. and no other, especially when all
the provisions taken together.
Mr.. Chairman, Texas is strong in the legal force
and justice of her claim. Site will be strong Ina the
sympathy and support Of the SOUth-for the prece-
dent which would permit Congress 10 appropriate
any portion Of her territory to free sil wOu open
the hOud gates Of abolition upon the iu-titotOns OF
, every southern State within The Confcdrrscy. am
quite certain that but for this sectional question,
her title never would have been the subject of con-
test.
! DgsTau rIoS or THE TEMPLE OF Nhvvoo nv A
. SroaM.-The Temple Of Nsuvoo, erected by the
Mormons, finished In lS45, partially burn, in Octo-
A. a a - la.-.