The North-Carolinian., 1850-08-10

English Privy Council that her claim wa
groundless; yet after the severance of thi
country from England by the war of tn,
Revolution and the REIMBURSEMENT by the
British Government of her territorial right.
| to the American Confederacy, did our gov
eminent presume to possess and retain
this disputed country in opposition to Vir-
ginia? On the contrary was not oul
title derived from Virginia by deed o
cession, and was not that cession obtained
at our solicitations? The imagination
is at fault to conceive the consequen.
ces which would have betalIen our
infant Republic it she had made a forcible
attempt to wrest this country from Virgin.
la. Yet in what particular was the claim
OF Virginia. being a mere paper title un-
accompanied with possession, stronger
than the claim of Texas to New Mexico!
But even if there was any force in the
argument that the imbecility of Texas to
reduce this country into possession amour
ted to REIMBURSEMENT of her title, | main
tain that our Government is estopped by
its own acts and declarations from setting
up any title antagonisticaI to the claim of
Texas. By the treaty of annexation, the
United States became trustee for Texas.
to arrange and settle her boundary; and,
forsooth! it strikes me as a novel doctrne
to be mooted in court OF good conscience
in court of equity-that in making a
bargain affecting the right Of cesfui que
trust, the trustee can be justified, upheld,
and sustained in circumscribing those
rights for his own benefit. [ have always
imagined that all bargains and contracts of
this description inured to the benefit Of the
cestui que trust; and hence, have conclu-
ded, that as our Government undertook,
as the friend of Texas, to settle her boun-
Diary. she must, as an honest, as faithful
trustee. lmpart to that State all the result
ing advantages of the bargain. But if the
voice of justice should fall upon our ears
as ''the listless wlnd," imagine that there
is power to be found in the Federal Con-
stitution which, when exercised. will COM
pell US to admit, to the fullest extent, the
right OF Texas to this country.
The Constitution of the United States
and the treaties made in pursuance of that
law of the land, and | would ask, have we
not treaty stipu!ations made with Texas,
acknowledging her title to this country
and are not those stipulations still binding
on us?-By reference t" a convention con-
cluded between the United States and
Texas, in the year 1888. we distinctly ad-
mitted our then entire western boundary,
now claimed as the eastern boundary OF New
Mexico. to be the proper boundary between
our country and Texas. If we did not
at that time consider the claim of Texas as
being good. why should we have compro-
missed our independent position as neutral
Power in the war then being waged between
Mexico and Texas, by the establishment OF
this line and in case of any aggression
having been made upon our national inter
est in the country circumscribed by this
line, would we have hesitated in demand
ing reparaton from the government OF lex
as? And if Texas should have attempted
to shield herself under the plea that 1T was
not her territory. would we have been sat
isfied with the justification? Or, rather.
would we not have insisted upon a strict
observance of treaty stipulations? A care
fuI unpreiudiced consideration of these diff
ferent questions will cause upon our minds
the conviction. that by the terms of the
convention we admit and acknowledge the
claim of Texas as good to the Rio Grande
up to the 42d degree Of north latitude. Is
not that convention still in force, or has it
been abrogated by the annexation of Texas
to this country? Justice, law. and common
sense all combine to enforce upon US the
conviction. that as there is nothing in that
regarding title, at ali inconsis
tent with the present relations of the two
the agreement and stipulations
are still binding on US, and that we cannot
bv any act Of our own. absolve ourselves
from their observance. But iii addition to
this treaty, there has been another conven-
ton between the u. $. and Texas, ulteri-
or, indeed, in time, but vastly more impor-
tant in its operations-I refer to the agree
ments of annexation. 1t may want the
Ugh solemni!y attending the execution of
a treaty as prescribed by our Constitution,
but it can never want its judicial cogency.
1t will, it must be considered as the
supreme law of the land, a law resting un-
der the agis of the Constitution for its pro-
tectioh ana union, irrepealable by any ac-
ton of Congress, much less by mere res
olution of this House. Let me call your
attention to the second section Of this joint
resolution, by the force Of which Texas be-
came re-annexed to our country. This
section sets forth three conditions, on the
with which by Texas, she was
to be admitted as one Of the States of this
Union. The first condition relates to the
settlement of the boundary of Texas. The
second relates to the local and fiscal resu-
lations, which would necessarily result
from annexation. The third condition re-
lates to the territory of Texas. l will
read it:
s'New States of convenient size, not exceeding
four in number, in addition to said State of lex
as, and having sufficient population, may here