Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1850-08-30

from the Executive? On the contrary, do we not
find the freesoil friends of the President contendng
for confirmation of this act of the convention by
the Congress of the United States? Has ever been
intimated that the President of the United States
would refuse his sanction to law of Congress legt
mating and confirming this nvidious discrimination
against the treaty rights of the native Caitornans
No, SIR notwithstanding the President has inform
ed us OF his discrimination to support by the militia
ry authority the full enjoyment on the part OF the
Mexican citizens of all civil and political rights, yet
we find him tamely, quietly, and submissively ap-
proving of this constitutional restriction rather
Acknowledgement.
But Mr.. Chairman, it is not only treaties; but the
Constitution is declared to be the supreme law of the
land and in addition to the Presidents obligation to
execute the laws he has taken solemn oath to pro-
tect and defend the Constitution. 1t then, his views
are correct the consequence is inevitable that he
must execte all the provisions of the Constitution
The second section of the fourth article provides for
the reclamation of fugitive slaves The language OF
this section is express and decided Would the
President consider it his duty to call out the mill
tary authority to execute this provision of the Con-
stltuton without the Intervention of an act OF Con-
gress authorizing him to do so? By the same sec
ton of the article fugtves from justice are to
be surrendered on demand; yet this provision was
found impossible of execution until Congress- by its
action gave life and force If President Washing
tom even with the aid and counsel of Knox and
Hamilton could have conceived it was his cOnsttu-
tional duty to execute this provision, he never would
have recommended to Congress the necessity of the
law of 1893 authorizing the execution of these
TONS Wherever the Constitution has imposed a
duty on the President the legislative department of
of our Government has always been called to pass
necessary laws to enable him to discharge those du-
ties And the great error of the acting President is
in supposing that in the absence of such laws, he is
at liberty to supply the omission.
But, Mr.. Chairman, the arrOgatiOn of such author
ity by the President is not the only objection to his
policy, Swallowed forth in this communication. AS
have read it, as understand it, the President of
the United States undertakes, by his lpse dirit:
backed by the strong of Government to prescribe
territorial limits to sovereign State Sir than
that, he undertakes to dismember sovereign State,
to cut, slash, and divide her at his pleasure. He
cites from the treaty of Hidalgo the article which
establishes the boundary the line of demarkatiOn
between the U. S. and Mexico What is that line :?
This line, the President informs us, commences at
the mouth of the Rio Grande, and follows the deep
est channel of that river until ntersects the south
ern boundary of New Mexico: then it assumes n
westwardly direction to the river Gila and thence to
the Pacific. This is the line described by the trea
ty, and quoted by the President, and in connec-
ton with it he hesitates not to declare that all the
country lying cast and north of this line belongs to
the United States-is the property of the United
States. will not do the President the injustice to
suppose that he intended to include in this descrp
ton the whole of the State of Texas. Yet under the
claim made by the United States, her title is as
good to the Sabine it is to every foot of the terri
tory living east of the Rio Grande. The President
has failed to intimate what boundary he WILL by the
force of the military power, establish between Texas
and the United States: but portion OF his friends
have always insisted upon the Nueces the western
limit of Texas this: doubtless: will be his ultimatum
Now, Mr.. Chairman. is it not we'll known that for
months and months before the breaking out of the
with Mexico, that all of this country was repre-
sented in this House by the predecessor of honor
able friend who sits before me Is it not we'll known
it not known to the President, before the
mencement of the war; That we constructed forts,
collection districts throughout the whole of that
country lying between the Neuces and the Rio
Grande p
But if these facts should not have removed all
doubt from the Presidents mind, the letters of his
ilustrous predecessor. Gen Tavlor-letters written
during the time of his military soourn in this coun-
try-shoud have afforded him relief. | have before
me all those official communications and they each
bear the significant superscription OF having been
written in the country which IN he estimation
to be recognized as Texas.
presume not, Mr.. Chairman. to determine how
far this message may be the reflection of the judy
ment of the Presidents Cabinet advisers, but think
have before me record evidence to show that their
Judgment could not have been harmonious. When
the bill declaring that state of war existed between
the United States and Mexico went from this House
to the Senate, it there met with warm opposition,
much discussion elected, and much information
was, of course, adduced respecting the validity of
the Texan title; yet with all this information be-
fore them, large majority of the Wing members,
including two of the former and three of the present
Cabinet, did not hesitate to declare that this was
American ground. refer to the amendment to the
bill offered by Mr. Clayton, which will read
Yet in the face of this accumulated evidence. we
are informed by the President that this country so
lying east of the Rio Grande, is not the property of
Texas but is the property of the United States This
is the strict the literal reading of this most unfortu
nate communication, and if it is not its true mean
ing the ambiguity rests not the language but on
the intent. But indulging towards him the most
kindly feelings, am willing to suppose that in reali-
ty the President intends to confne his demonstra-
tons of hostility to any interference by Texas with
New Mexico. He attempts to justify his position by
assuming that at the commencement of the Mexican
war; President Polk took forcible possession of this
country. and that the treaty of Hidalgo but confirm
ed and made good that possession. That the treaty
in legal language, joined title to possession, and as
it has been in possession of the United States
since, he is not at liberty to regard it otherwise
than property. This is a syllogistic mode Of
reasoning, which would answer a very good purpose
if the premises correct but unfortunately they
are not correct. Gen. Kearny, under the directions
of President Polk, did take military possession O
f that country but not this possession intended
to be for the benefit of Texas! In answer to a de-
mand by the Governor of Texas, did not President
| Polk distinctly admit that it merely military
possession growing out of the necessities of the war
and not intended in the least degree opposing the
claim of Texas! And furthermore, did not MIR
Polk, through his Secretary Gov Marcy particular
ly order and instruct that the military authority
while in possession of that country should act il
subordnation to the civil authority of Texasadins
and assisting in its establishment. These facts ar
e ndisputable: and the acting President had tn
evidence of these facts before him. can but consde