The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-01-07
WAsHIsGros, January l, 1850
To the Editors Of the Union:


WAsHIsGros, January l, 1850.
To the Editors qf the Union:
Your report Of the proceedings OF the House on
Mr.. Roots resolution does not show that offered
to vote on the motion to lay the table, but was
excluded under the rule, having been called out Of
the House for moment ON business, pending the
calling Of the ayes and noes As all debate was
cut of by the previous question, wish, through
your paper, to state the reasons why should have
voted TO lay the resolution on the table.
l. In the first place. do not believe Congress has
the constitutional power to abolish or inhiblt slave
ry in the territories.
2. As the resolution was intended to embrace
New Mexico, and gives special instructions TO the
committee, it ought TO have defined the boundaries
Of the territory acquired by the United States
der the treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in such a
manner as TO respect the rights OF Texas; or, the
intention of the resolution was TO Disregard the
claim Of Texas, it due to the State that the in
tent should be distinctly announced. Frankness
was certainly proper at time. when an attempt
has been made to organize territorial government
within the limits of Texas, from which TO intro
duce delegate upon the floor of the House. To
such outrage upon her rights and feelings, when
consummated, Texas will not submit, as long as
she can command rife to defend her soil-more
especially when this pretended territorial govern
ment has been organized under military supervi-
sion by few camp followers, operating upon the
fears and preudices of the Mexican population. 1t
is not the province Of the General Government TO
encourage sedition or rebellion in of the States
Of this Union. The State of Texas was assured
officially that the military government In Santa Fs
would cease with the war with Mexico.
3. The claim Of Texas to the whole Rio Grande,
from its mouth to it's source, and to the 42d degree
of north latitude, will never be contested by any in
telligent lawyer who takes the trouble to invesi-
gate the grounds upon which it rests. There is no
greater hllacy than that of supposing that the
United States succeeded to the rights of Mexico ia
any portion of the territory east of the Rio Grandc.
Between the republic of Texas and the United States
the question of boundary was settled finally and
conclusvely by NE convention of 1885, which re-
ceived the sanction of the Legislative departments
of both governments The treaty with Spain OF
1919 fixed the northern boundary between Spain
and the United States at the 42d parallel OF lat-
tude. The treaty of 1928 revived that boundary
between the United States and Mexico, reciting
that the treaty of 1919 was binding upon Mexico.
The convention between Texas and the United
States of 1885, rected that the treaty with Mexico
of 1928 els binding upon the republic of Texas, the
same having been entered into at a time when
Texas formed part of the said United Mexican
States. And whereas it is deemed proper and ex-
pedient in order to prevent future disputes and
collisions between the United States and Texas In
regard to the boundary bet.oeen the too countries as
designated by the treaty, that portion OF the same
should be run and marked without unnecessary de-
lay" &c. This convention was ratified and car
red out by the act of the United States Congress OF
January IL, 1899, under which the eastern bound
airy of Texas actually run and marked by the
two governments as far the 34th degree OF north
latitude. The very act under which this conven-
ton was negotiated upon the part OF Texas, was her
boundary act of 1885, by which her boundary Is de-
cared to be the Rio Grandet its source and thence
to the 42d degree of north latitude; and thence
east and south, according to boundary formerly
existing between the United States and Mexico
This convention was an express recognition OF the
entire boundary of Texas and made with reference
to the act of the Texas Congress of 1886 Whatever
might have been its effect upon Mexico, this con-
vention is forever conclusive of the boundary as
against the United States, by an act as solemn as
treaty stipulation.
4. The Texas act of boundary, together with
other laws not inconsistent with the Constitution of
the United States the resolutions Of annexation, or
the constitution of the State, declared in force
by the constitution under which she was admitted
into the Union, and therefore ratified by the Con-
gress Of the United States
s. Texas was admitted into the Union with spe-
cited boundaries, subject only to the right of the
United States to settle call questions of boundary
which may arise with other governments''-mean-
ing, of course, governments other than the United
States. This was a naked power, coupled with no
interest, which must be strictly construed. Under
il the Texas boundary, with any foreign govern
ment, might have been settled. But the late
treaty with Mexico removed the possibility of such
question with any other government, the power is
at an end. Neither could the United States, thus
acting the trustee of Texas TO settle the boundary
with other governments, acquire OF any govern
ment right in opposition to the claim Of Texas.
To assert such proposition Is 10 affirm that the
trustee may acquire the subject matter Of the trust
in opposition TO the beneficiary; or that the Judge
or arbitrator may adjudgc the subject of contro-
versy to himself, in opposition TO the parties iti
CANT IL il evident that whatever right the United
States acquired under the treaty with Mexico to
the country east Of the Rio Grande was acquired az
the trustee of Texas, and enures TO the benefit of
that State.
g. The United States, having neglected TO settle
inf he W wit b.x,.
mo constitutional power TO change alter the
boundary Of Texas, any moro than that Of any
other sovereign State. II was admitted in the
of Maine, that this government, without the con-
sent Of Maine could not negotiate for less than the
claim Of Maine. In his remarks on the resolutions
Of annexation, in the Senate, February 8, lS45
Colonel Benton said "ln fact, when once admit
ted State, she (Texas) never can be reduced
without her consent. The constitution forbids il I"
Having given her consent to the alteration only in
particular manner, 1t cannot be effected in any
different method.
7. The joint resolutions OF annexation evidently
intended that the whole Of New Mexico, the cast
bank Of the Rio Grande, should be embraced with
in the State Of Texas because they give three guar
antees, applicable 10 tins very country: l. That
Texas may be subdvided into five States; 2. That
in any State south Of 36o 80, (the Missouri compro
mise line slavery may exist at the option Of the
TO be formed north of that line, slavery lie prohibit
ed Now, the Missouri compromise line divides
the country formerly comprised in New Mexico
east of the Rio Grande, nearly centrally-Santa Fe
being in about latitude $50 as north. IL is ncom
prehensible that the Congress Of the United States
should have thus provided for the domestic govern
ment Of this very territory, as part Of Texas, IL it
was in Mexico, and not in Texas. By what right
could the United States, in compact with Texas,
assume to regulate the government Of depart
mcnt Of Mexico and make rules for its admission
ms State into the American Unioni The rcsolu
tons of annexation, IN terms, define the boundaries
of Texas to the extent Of one more States north
of 36o 3d. They assert expresslysthat 10 this cx-
tent the country rghtfuy belongs TO Texas, and is
included within her limits. And the limit Of ono
State thus Given, will include the whole Of New
Mexico east III the Rio Grande. There is fourth
guaranty given by the compact Of annexation, as
applicable 70 this territory east of the Rio Grande
II new Stae is not formed wholly north Of 1862 30,
slavery exists in Texas to the ADD degree Of north
latitude Iexists at present under the constitution
with which he State was admitted into the Union.
When Texas was admitted, by her law slavery OK
listed 10 her utmost extent, and no restraint was
placed upon IL by the resolutions Of annexation but
the prospective provision TO operate in State
was formed north Of 36o 30. Nay, more: the rcso-
lutions give another guaranty, not only to Texas,
but 10 her creditors applicable TO this territory,
in pcdging her public lands TO the payment Of her
public debt.
3. The boundaries Of Texas, az above mentioned