The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-02-06

States have supposed that the western mn oi iexas
the Nuecesthat II did extend TO the RIo Grande
We know that the question OF what is the western limit
and the northern limit Of Texas was an open question
has been all along an open questions was an open ques
ton when the boundary in virtue OF the act OF
1885 marking the boundary between the United States and
Texas Sir. at that time, the boundary authorized
BY that act Of 1888 was to begin az the mouth Of the Sa
bne, up to its head TO the Red nver and thence
weswardy, with that river, 10 the 1000 Of longitude
Well sir, that did not 30 far Texas now claims, and
why because Ssssass was an open question War wa.
that time authorized 10 say what would be exactly the
ultimate limits. But. sir, when TO the question
Of what was done al the time OF her annexation, this
whole resolution which relates to boundaries, from be-
ginning 10 end, assumes an open, unascerained and un
liked boundary to Texas the west. Why, sir, what
Is the first part OF the resolution i Is that Congress-
doth consent that territory properly included within and
rghtfuly belonging to Texas may be erected into new
State" Properly included"-" rghtfully belonging"
i specifies no boundaries could specify no boundary
II assumes the state OF uncertainty which point OF fact
we know existed. Now, sir, the latter part OF it-[Mr
CLAY here read from the resolutions OF annexation, the
paragraph relative 10 the rcuar point he was discuss
and proper boundaries, without specifications but such
as were known These boundaries, at the West and
North, It was asserted, the government OF the United
States retained to itself the power to settle with any for
Now sir is impossible for me 10 go into the whole
question. mean TO express rather my opinion than
10 into the whole extent OF the argument The western
boundary Of Texas being unsettled, and Congress retain
ing to itself the power TO settle IT. ask suppose that
power had been exercised and that cesson OF territory
TO the United States had ensued, and that the negoa-
lions between the two countries had been limited TO the
settlement OF the western and northern limits OF Texas,
could i not have been done BY the United States and
Mexico conjontly Suppose that treaty OF the limits
Of Texas had been concluded between Mexico and the
United States, fixing the Nueces the boundary, would
not Texas have been bound BY ii Or suppose had
whatever limit had been fixed upon by the joint act OF the
two powers, would it not have been obligatory upon
Texas, BY the express terms of the resolution BY which
II WAS xeds d
Well, now, sir, if Mexico and the United States con.
jointly by treaty might have fixed upon the western and
northern limits of Texas and the United States have
acquired that power by treaty, then all the power upon
which the limits of Texas must have depended IS now
vested il the United States solely and excluslvelyall
which Mexico and the United States conformity possessed
prior to the old treaty with Mexico. Il seems TO me- SIR
that the conclusion and reasoning perfectly
II Mexico and the United could have fixed upon any
western limits for Texas and did not do il, and if the
United States have acquired to themselves by the treaty
any extent of the territory upoa which the western limit
TO be fixed, and must be fixed, II seems to me that no
one resist the logical conclusion that the United
States has the power 10 do what the United States
and Mexico conjontly could have done. admit that il
init that it ought to be exercised with spirit Of JUSTICE
generosity, and iberay towards this youngest member
Of the great American family.
Upon that question offer positive opinion. Posi-
bly, il the United States fixes in way contrary to the
desire and rights of Texas she might bring It before the
Supreme Court OF the United States and have the ques
that class OF politicians who believe that every question
proper question for the Supreme Court OF the United
States There are questions too large for any tribunal
of that kind TO decidegreat POLITICAL NATIONAL and terri
torial questions, which transcend their limits, and to
which they utterly incompetent Whether this is
not, will not decide, but will maintain that the
United States invested solely and exclusively
with that power that in both nations 10 fix. ascer
an and settle the western and northern limits OF Texas
Sir the other day my honorable friend who represents
well the State OF Texas Mr. RUsK said that we had
no more right to touch the limits OF Texas than have
to touch the limits Of Kentucky that tho State is one and
ndivsble and that the federal government has right
TO separate il. agree with him that, when the limits
are certain and ascertaned they undisputed and
indispuable. The general government has right
power to interfere with the limits Of State whose bound
aries are xed known, ascerained, and recognised-no
power at least to interfere with it voluntarily. An
treme case may be putone which trust in God never
will happen to this union-of conquered nation and
and conquest TO which has been reduced, and the giving
oil whole States, well parts OF the State order
to save what remains from the conquerng OF the
cessul invader say such power may possibly exist
for case OF extremity such this and admit that short
OF such extremity. voluntarily, the general govern
has no right to separate Stale to take any Por
ton OF its territory from IT, regard il otherwise than
| an integer-one and indivisble
But then 1 assume-what does not exist in the State
OF Texas-that this boundary known ascertaned,
and indisputable. On the contrary, il open-it
unhxsd. and remains unfxed to tins moment, with re.
spect TO her western limits north Of the head Of the Nue.
ces. Why, sir we gave fifteen millions of dsars for
these Territories that we bought and God knows what
costly bargain TO this country that was We gave
fifteen millions OF dollars for the Territories ceded BY
Mexico TO US, and Texas justly fairly, and honorably
comes 10 claim all she has asserted right 10, without
paying any portion OF that fifteen millions of dollars
She talks indeed about the United States being her
ageni-her trustee Why, sir. she was no more her
agent or trustee than she the agent trustee Of
any other part OF the United States.
Texas involved her in war with Mexico make no
repfoachesnone, Texas brought her into the war;
but when she got into il, II not OF Texas and
Mexico-t was war OF the whole thirty States with
Mexico-a war in which the government OF the United
States conducted the hoslities and was as much the
trustee and agent OF the twenty zine other States com.
posing this Union she the trustee and agent OF
Texas Sir with respect TO all these Circumstances
such Tor example, as map annexed 10 the recent treaty
with Mexco these the opinions OF individuals, high
y respectable and eminenty elevated individuals,
the amened MIR. Polk, late President OF the United
States Il was his individual opinion, that he had no
right As President OF the United States in any other
character otherwise than negotiating with Mexico,
and then the Senate had to act in concurrence with him.
TO M boundary In respect to that map which s At
tached to the treaty. il s sufficient 10 say that the treaty
tseli SILENT from beginning TO end, upon the limits OF
Texas; and the annexing Of the map TO the treaty no
more confirms the truth OF anything delneated upon that
map in relation to Texas than il does in relation 70 any
other geographical subject which composes the map
Mr.. President have said that thought the power has
been in the United States fix upon the limits
OF Texas have said that this power ought to be exercised
IN spirit OF great beraty and justice and put 70 you
say, upon this second resolution OF mine, vhetner
that liberav andtu dsDlayed the