The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-08-09

The Southern Press Of yesterday morning
gives It's views of the Presidents message and
the reply of the Secretary of State to Governor
BELLS letter. In so doing. il argues at length
the right of Texas to SO much of the territory of
New Mexico as lies east Of the Rio Grande.
Several OF the positions taken, in support Of the
| idea that the Federal Government are estopped
from denying that title, are at the least debate
able, but we can perceive no necessity for eX-
aiming them. The gst of the matter lies not
| in the question, whether New Mexico belongs
| to the unorganized federal territory, or const-
| tutes, in point of right and of law a part of the
State of Texas. Those who are of the latter
opinion, equally with those who are of the
former, must as it seems to us, agree upon calm
reflection that the PRESIDENT takes the only
| admissible view of his duties.
1t cannot be denied that the people in the actual
| occupation of the region to which Texas lays
claim, hold it and ever have held it in subordina-
ton to an adverse claim, that of the ancient State
OF New Mexico, now transferred, as they under
stand it, to the United States, and not to Texas
If Texas has the right to possession, she has
never obtained its actual enjoyment; and that
possession, so far as it supports any title, sup
ports that which is recognised by the occupants
II may safely be granted, for the purpose Of the
| argument, that they are mistaken-that in
point Of fact they ought to declare themselves
tenants of Texas, and abjure the title of the
Federal Government. If they did SO, they
| would commit the same offence against the
United States which they are now com
hitting against Texas-that of disputing
disputed title. Whether it ought to be dis
puted or not, is question which neither they
! nor Texas, nor the PRESIDENT, are vested with
| the power of determining.
The Press throughout assumes that Texas
has that power; at any rate, that she has the
| right TO take such measures as practically as
sert it, if need be, with an army and by success
in battle. The absurdity of such pretensions
would be apparent to every one, if put forth in
behalf of an individual. Perhaps it may be
| thought that the circumstance of their being set
up in behalf of a sovereign State may. change
their character But il is clear enough that
| the attributes of State sovereignty cannot ex-
tend beyond the State limits, and that no distinc-
| ton can be based on this circumstance, in re-
spect to proceedings had in New Mexico, with
out begging the whole question.
Under the rules which have been found Is
sential to maintain the peace and good order Of
society, the individual in the actual possession
| of land, however frivolous his claim to it, is
protected against the violent disturbance Of that
possession by the true owner, however nds-
putable his title may be, until an adjudication
by some competent authority. The considcra-
| tons which render this necessary apply with
greater force to communities than to individuals.
in the proportion that a warfare between the
former is more deplorable than private con-
test. Nor is il difficult to show that the same re-
spect is paid to possession even as against rights
of sovereignty. The rule that no man should
be punished as a traitor for adhering TO an ac-
tual sovereign in opposition to the claims of the
rightful king, has long been engrafted upon the
Jurisprudence of the country from which we de-
rive our laws.
The principle which lies at its foundation
has been extended as the rule Of our Govern
utut IH It's lOItlBH TelduonS-lndt OF recOg-
nising the government which we find estab
lished de .facto, without inquring whether ano-
Their ought not to exist de jtTe Mere pos
session is thus respected by sovereigns and
against sovereigns. How can Texas claim cx-
empton from this common lawl It cannot be
upon the ground that tho Executive ought TO
examine and determine the validity Of her title,
for that involves the right to determine against
II, as well as for it, aud could exist in the FIX
ccutive department no otherwise than as neces
sary 10 the discharge Of the duty Of active in
lcrpOsition. In either way we come 10 the
same result.
The PRESIDENT must either respect and
maintain the existing relations, until they are
changed by Congress OF the courts. OF he must
assume to decide the question Of ultimate right |
in favor Of Texas 10 admit that he could |
properly do the latter, would concede his capa- |
city 70 decide it otherwise, and draw with it |
consequences much more serious TO States rights |
than result from any doctrine asserted in the |
e I'll, r.