The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1850-08-28

! "The Executive of the United States has no
power or authority to determine what was the
true line of boundary between the United States
and Mexico before the treaty of Gaudaloupe Hi
dalgo, nor has it any such power now, since the
; question has become question between the
State Of Texas and the United States. So far
as this boundary is doubtful, that doubt can on.
lly be removed by some act of Congress-, to
which the assent of the State of Texas may
be necessary, or by some appropriate mode OF
II legal adjudication.
Il Yet in the face of this declaration he not only
declares what is New Mexico, but afirms with
all the solemnity of his position that he will treat
as trespassers all who may venture within the
limits which he has prescribed. See the Sec
ond extract from his message.] Here follows
an other extract in which he admits as unset.
tied and underlined that which he regarded not
only as settled, but that which he would defend
for the United States against trespassers.
81 hope shall not be regarded as stepping a.
side from the line of my duty, Notwithstanding
that am aware that the subject is now before
both Houses, if express my deep and earnest
| conviction OF the Importance of an immediate
decision, or arrangement, or settlement of the
question of boundary between Texas and the ter
ritory of New Mexico
After having told the Governor of Texas and
Congress what he regarded as New Mexico, and
what he would do to defend it against Texas OF
trespassers, he makes the following admission
which is SO opposite to his first declaration that
the most casual observer will be struck with
their inconsistency. &.
"No government can he established for New
| MayicO either State Trerrifor;o1 cba oil
be first ascertained what New Mexico is, and
what are her limits and boundaries. These can
not be fixed or known, till the line of division
between her and Texas shall be ascertained and
establshed-and numerous and weighty reasons
conspire, in my judgment, to show that this d.
vsional line should he established by Congress,
with the assent Of the government of Texas"
We claim now to have established two facts :
LIST, that the position of the President in indca-
ting boundary line for New Mexico, is unten-
able, and 2ndly that he is inconsistent with him
SELF
fit be conceded, as we think it must be, that
these facts are established, it will be easy to
prove that the Presidents message is both mean
ingless and uncaled for, and that in marching
the troops of the United States on the disputed
i
would become the trespasser.
The Presidents Message is meaningless, fit
is based upon mere hypothesis That it is so
based, we refer again to the second extract, be-
ginning with the words, elf Texan militia &c.
In that extract he makes case, and in reference
to it, he defines what his duty would be, and
how he would perform it; but as we have AREA
dy shown, such case is not likely, nor was it
ever likely to occur, for by his own admission
the United States cannot settle the question
Texas be deemed a trespasser in territory which
cannot be taken from her without her consent,
and for which the United States are bargaining
with her for the price of $10,000,00O?
The President means that he will drive Tex
as from the disputed territory or he means moth
ing. We contend that the constitution and laws
of the United States confer upon him no pow
| er by which he can do any such thing, and to
sustain this proposition, we quote the constitu-
ton and laws under which he claims to have the
power.
| By the constitution of the United States he is
ex- offico Commander-in-chiefo of the army and
navy of the United States, and the constitution
further defines in what cases Congress shall
give him power to act.
According to the 18th clause of section 9Th,
of article lst it is the duty of Congress to pro-
vide for calling forth the militia to execute the
laws fthe Union, suppress instruction, and re-
pei invasion. So far then as the militia are con-
cerned, the President has no power to call them
forth without an act of Congress- BY several acts,
Congress has given this power to the President,
to be exercised on the occurrence of any of the
contingencies provided in the Constitution.
The first contingency contemplated by the
constitution, is to "Exccute the laws of the I'm
ion"
What law of the Union does the President
propose to execute, when he informs Congress
that he will treat as trespassers those who may
venture into the New Mexico which he has de-
fined?
There is no law of the Union there, but what
is also in Texas, nor would any act of man vio-
late the law Of the Union in New Mexico, which
would not do the same in Texas, therefore, there
Is no law OF tne Union 10 De enforced against
Texas or Texans. They can do nothing in New
Mexico against the law of the Union, which, i'll
done in Texas would not be against the law off
the Union, therefore, that contingency does not
exist as excuse for calling out the militia.
The 2nd contingency is ''to suppress insur-
rection." Instruction is rising against, or an
opposition to civil or political authority. Will
obeying Texas law on Texas ground be insur-
rection? Certainly not if the Texas law did not
conflict with the law Of the United States. Butt
the United States have not yet made law a.
gainst which the Texas law can conflict. They
are trying and have been trying to make one du-
ring the present and last sessions of Congress,
but they have not yet succeeded, and this very
law which they are trying to make, gives impli-
eddy to Texas, the ownership Of the territory u
Therefore, there can be no insurrection against
the United States, which calls upon the Presi-
dent for the exercise of the power vested in him
by the constitution.
The third contingency contemplated by the