The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-15
public Meeting in Texas

| A large aud general meeting of the citizens OF
Austin and the county Of Travis, assembled
pursuant to adjournment, at the Capitol on Tues
day the 18th inst, at 2 o'clock, p. M, to
receive the report of the committee appointed a,
1.-THE previous meeting, the late movement al
Santa Fe for the formation of State government
within the limits and in violation of the territorial
rights of Texas.
Chief Justice Hemphill resumed thekaair.
Judge Oldham, behalf of the committee
Messrs. John Hemphill, w. S. Oldham, John
Hancock, w. ID. Miller, p. DE Cordova, James
B. Shaw, Joseph Rowe and s. G. Sneed--pre-
scented the following report and resolutions:
REPORT. s
The committee, in the discharge of duties
which devolved upon them, by virtue Of their APP
lpointment, have agreed to, and submit to the con-
slderatlon of this meeting, the accompanying res
serted, we conceive to be self-evident and incon-
trovertible. Should the doctrine prevail, in re-
gard to the powers of the General Government
and the rights of the States, to which the resolu-
tons are opposed, all political authority would be
centered in the Federal Government and the
States would be shorn of their strength, and be-
come contemplate and useless political machines.
But In order 10 make the application of the
principles asserted by the resolutions, decisive as
| TO the questions at issue between the Government
of the United States and the State ofTexus, grow
| ing out of the existing state of things I'm New
be not inappropriate to show conclusively, that
that district of country is not only within the de-
| fined limits of Texas but that the same rishtfuv
appertains to her jurisdiction.
| Texas having successfully declared and estab-
lished her independence, and absoved herself
| from all allegiance to the government of Mexico
her Congress, representing the will of her people,
subject to the control of no other earthly power
whatsoever, by public act, solemnly declared
and defined the boundaries Of the Republic, and
proclaimed them to the world. With these limits
she declared herself free and independent State !:
with these limits her existence as free and indie
pendent State was recognized by the United States
as well as by several of the most powerful ma
| tons of Europe, who thereby admitted that they
had no right to interfere with her exercise of go
yernment within those limits. The boundaries of
Texas as declared by her laws was the very es-
sence OF the definition Of the Republic. 1t was
the country whose independence was acknow-
lodged, and 1t was the only country answering
| the description. Sag. ... ..,.. ...
But. has been said, that the province of Texas.
constituting a part of one of the States of Mexico
did not extend to the Rio Grande, and did not in
clude any portion Of New Mexico within its
limits, and that the recognition Of the indepen-
dence of Texas, only applied to the province of
that name. This argument is futile and entirely
untenable. The province of Texas had been blot
ted out, no longer existed, and in her place and
stead new and Independent nation with defined
Grande and up the Rio Grande to the forty second
parallel of north latitude, had sprang into eXs-
tence and was known as the Republic of Texas.
1t was the Republic and not the province of Texas
whose national existence recognized.
The right to establish her boundaries attaches
to and constitutes part Of the sovereign power
of a nation, and no other nation possesses any
right to question such boundaries when estab-
! llshed, II they do not come In conflict with her
own. Questions of boundary existed between
the late Republic of Texas and the United States,
and also with Mexico. The first was settled by
commissioners mutually appointed by the two
governments for that purpose; the latter was left
open during the existence of Texas as an mdepen-
dent Republic; and authority by the resolutions
under which she was admitted into the Union
was conferred upon the United States 'to dust
all questions Of boundary that might arise with
listed or could arise, was with Mexico. Failing
to adjust the question by treaty, it was settled by
the sword. The authority conferred upon the
government of the United States was to adjust
questions Of boundary with other governments,
and not to raise such questions. Having settled
the question with Mexico, she has no right to
surrogate herself to the claim Of that nation, and
keep that claim in existence, in opposition to the
rights Of the State by whom she was constituted
an agent. She acted as the agent of Texas, and
could not either in law or morals, acquire an in
terest in the sub matter in controversy deroga
, tory to the rights of her principal When the
treaty was ratified between the United States and
Mexico, by which the latter surrendered all claim
to the country east OF the Rio Grande the title of
Texas, the only remaining claimant, became "clear
and UNREASONABLE. -
| If the United States can now question the title
of Texas, she places herself in the humiiating at
ttude, of having first agreed to become the agent
OF Texas to assert her claim in opposition to that
of Mexico, and after having extinguished that,
then to assume the attitude of a principal and re-
vive the extinguished claim, in opposition to that
which, agent, she had established. This posi-
ton is not only humiliating but absurd and pre-
posterous. Will the Government of the United
States, or any department Of that government seek
| to place her in an attitude so odious and unenvi-
able--so inconsistent with the high character she
should maintain for good faith proby and justice'
Can any statesman advocate before the nation, or
the bar of public opinion, in her behalf, claim
acquired under circumstances that would cause it
to be secuted from any court of Justice in which
it might be asserted 1t is a principle never con-
troverted and invariably sustained in courts of
justice, that the agent can acquire no rights in
gard to the subject of his agency, inconsistent
with the rights ofhis principal 1t is rule founded
in justice for the prevention of fraud and for the
protection of good morals We hold the rule ap-
plicable, equally to States as TO individuals If
the United States could now surrogate herself to
the claim of Mexico, after having eXtinguished
that claim as the agent of Texas, she would be
guilty of injustice, and perpetrate fraud upon
Texas as well as violate the moral sense of every
honest man.
Let 1t be admitted that as between the late Re-
public of Texas and Mexico. the question of
boundary was debateabe question, it is asked
by what authority can any nation upon earth con-
test the matter, save Mexico herself Whether the
claim of Texas to the full extent of her declared
limits, In opposition 10 that of Mexico, was well
or Ill founded, is not question for any other pow
er but Mexico herselfto enquire into. Mexico hav-
ing surrendered her claim to the territory ofthe
Rio Grande, no question of boundary,now exists
between Texa, and any other government. The
United States had placed herself in n position
which precuded her from acquiring an interest in
opposition to that of Texas and neither she nor
any other power has the right to question the
claim of the latter by asserting the extngui shed
and defunct claim OF Mexico.
But if the question between Texas and Mexico
were now an open question, it is conceived that it
would be easy to prove, has frequently been
done, that the title of Texas IL paramount But
the claim Of Mexico no longer exists; it has been