The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-08-29

"Undcr these circumstances, il is manifestly an
abuse of terms, miscalling of names, to say that
the President, in consequence of the proposed ac-
ton of Texas, assumed position Of menace to-
wards her. Ii was she that assumed position oil
menace towards the United States, and thereby
rendered indispensably necessary the communion
ton to Congress of 'the proposed action of the Pres
ident in case Congress and Texas should fail to adj
Just the dispute amicaby, and the latter should re-
sort to the arbitrament of arms, which she had
threatened to do.
"There be no do ubt whatever, that the course
of the President in this matter has been approved
by an overwhelming majority of the people of the
United States. - Republic.
'This statement ia not only destitute of truth.
but so VIGOROUSLY destitute of foundation that the
conductor of village press could not excuse him
self for making it. We know not what estimate
the Republic may place upon the intelligence of its
readers but the estimate must be low, indeed, if it
expects them to give credcnce to the assertion
tanned in the above GENERALIZATION.
We entreat our venerable contemporary of
the Union not TO SCATTER so much when he
writes, as it is very often impossible to ascer-
tain what he is driving at. The extract he
quotes from the Republic contains, as will be
seen, several distinct statements. and yet, after
quoting it, he pronounces "his statement"
80 destitute Of truth" Sc, and talks about
'The assertion contained in the above extract"
Which one of the statements does he thus
courteousy refer to? What is "the assertion"
TO which he 50 bandy assures MS our readers
will never give "credcncel" His column of
subsequent comment does not show, nor have
we the slightest idea he knew himself when
he was spinning it out.
He says 'Soon after Mr.. FILLMoRE's mes
sage and Mr. WEBsTER's accompanying let
ter were laid before Congress, we he de-
monstrated that tho mere fact that the troops
& Of the United States occupied the Santa Re
country during the war and when peace was
made, did not give TO the United States that
technical possession which the Free-soi ire
mendous epithet, that apologists of the Ad-
ministraton contend for. If the claim of
Texas was good, then the occupancy of the
troops Of the United States was the occupaH-
{ cy of Texas, and their possession was her
possession" lie demonstrated" ~ the
claim Of Texas was goodp' &c. And it is
upon such stuff as this that the drveler Of the
| Union presumes TO pronounce statement OF
ours-he does not say what particular state
ment-to be destitute Of truth"
lie demonstrated But precisely the re-
verse of his demonstrations has been shown to
be true by a number of the most distinguished
men of the nation!
II has been shown that Texas had no occu-
pancy, aud no such title as would authorize
constructive possession Of that portion OF New
| Mexico which is east of the Rio Grande.
| 1t has been shown that The Government Of
the United States has not recognised the right
of Texas to that portion of New Mexico; and
that if the former Executive has, at different
times, expressed an opinion favorable TO that
claim, il has also furnished evidence against it.
1t has been shown that Mr. Polk and his
administration fully recognised all this territory,