Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-09-07

IN, SEPTEMBER 4, 1850.
d u the free exercise of their religion, these words have
nly an operation per they would be operative in an
~ q Congress and far they operative, act Of
GqUsss resnacting them would give them additional
" WOODWARD here made some remarks. which were
~ beard BY the reporter. s1be an
N pE DUEk. am coming TO that will come to il now
does the extension Of the laws Of Texas the csded
to impair the rights guaranteed heinhabitants by the
Naty! Are the laws Of Texas says the gentleman from
Georgia, (Mr. ToomBs.) Inconsistent with liberty
ewsf, nonot with the liberty of Texans but the exten-
q those laws over persons not subject to them 10 ncon
1ent with the liberties Of those whom jurisdiction 10
usurped. But says the gentleman from South Caro-.
this involves conclusion that Texas has no Just claim
&hs territory question And this understand 10 be Of
principal objections urged against the position taken by the
dent If itissaid, this territory rghtuily beopgto Texs
OF the laws Of Texas the persons living there
violation OF their liberty, and Infringement consequent
- ~ the guarantees Of the treaty When therefore, Il urged
President determines that il his duty protect these per-
against focible subection to Texan laws, be, in fact
- on the claim of Texas and decides that claim nos TO
Good. This certainly not the intention Of the Pre-
be expresses opinion ON the question Of the title q
ns and dscams III authority 70 examine and pass upon
neither do think that his decisonnvolvss any sach
sequence. The President does not beyond the ct ofpos
S.aes Is he not bound 70 maintain that possession Has
he any authority abandon il Whether the right or claim
of Texas be good or Otherwise she certainly has not that
which 10 requisite, in law, to make perfect title. think
Blackstone lays down that to constitute perfect title three
things required possession, the right of possession, and
the right OF properly Now, Texas certainly has posses
neither has she the right Of possession she has
been dssezsd by the United Sates by any under
whom the United States holds She had possession
Her claim them good bad is reduced the jus proprietor
IL ri0h
rights confer authority disturb the possession Of who
holds adversely they cannot be enforced by Executive power
and are without efficacy until udicialy recognised and de-
cared Ithe President should sit in judgment the claim
Of Texas and determining to be welfounded abandon to
her territory ceded TO and possessed by the United States be
would be guilty what he unjusy usurpaton
of judicial power May not the President of the United
States maintain the possession Of the public property Is
not hduty maintain possession Of the ships Of war; FORTS
arsena and navy yards Of the United States If officers
the United States should forcby dpossess Of his pro-
pery may be that the President might order that possession
10 be restored but could he listen and adudcae upon
mere csim Of property Can't make any difference whether
the claim species property another Or whether
instead Of proprietary right, is claim Jurisdiction,
sovereignty II the State Of Maryland should attempt
ercise jurisdton the District Coumbs the ground
that the act of cesson void that the title Of the United
States had become forfeited could the President entertain and
determine the validity of such claim 1t with surprise that
have heard from the gentleman from Georgia M TooMBs)
the declaration that the status qu0 Or in other words the
fact Of possession can make difference seems to me-
far the executive power is concerned to make all the differ
ence in the world.
But il is said that the territory of New Mexico is not in the
possession Of the United States do not know that it is
claimed be in the possession Of Texas and in this view
the the possession suppose, be considered
vacant What the facts The territory conquered
by the arms of the United States passed Immediately from
the jurisdiction Of Mexico the jurisdiction of the United
States and has been for moment under any other
jurisdiction. II ceded to the United States by the treaty
Of peace not indeed, in many wordsneiher Cali
fornia ceded in wordsbut the boundaries fixed
include It. and there is title either in this Government
in Texas except by that cesson When conquered pos
session taken in the Of the United Staes and
in the name Of Texas and the commanding general prom
the inhabitants both sides Of the Rio GraDde pro-
lection against all persons whatsoever. Now, what Mr..
Polk, when President may have said, what his Secretary
Of War may have said subsequently, and after the treaty of
peace affect the character Of the conquestis
part Of the gea 1t may affect the subsequent posses
on far that possession depends upon military occupa
ton but relate back to the original taking But
not for myself place the possession of the United States
since the treaty Of peace upon the military occupation of the
Territory. regard the actual possession residing in the
people dwelling there, who in fact separately ogani
nd community, living under their laws The question
then is under whom do these people hod-to whom do
they render aly-wbose jurisdiction do they acknowledge
II is indspuabe that they have always held adversely
Texas, and denied her authority and is equally ndspu
table that they have constantly, since the treaty peace
knowedged the authority of the United States and exercised
the power of government that necessity has devolved
upon them in subodnaon to that authority. They framed
Territorial Government and asked Congress adopit They
have since formed State Government and prayed to be ad
mitted as State the Union ismpossibs that there
can be more explicit recognition of the jurisdiction of this
Government Their possession possession just the
possession of tenant the possession OF his landlord It is
precisely like the possession for several Of Oregon and
Il is nseparabe in principle from the possession of all the
Territories Of the United Sates whether organized
ganized. t
Il is alleged that the President be consistent should
seek to spossess the people of Texas of that part Of the
coded territory lying south Of New Mexico. What have
aready said is an answer this objection The question Of
title NAV be the same but the difference that possession
makes is so far the Executive power concerned
tial and controlling fact If gentlemen would read with
attention what they severely criticize, they would find the
limits Of Executive authority and the line that separates the
powers Of the different departments of the Government very
clearly and accurately defined in the message itself:
The Executive Government Of the United States has
pover or authority determine what the line of
treaty o Guadalupe Hdago has such power now
since the question has become question between the State of
Texa. and the United States So far this boundary is
doubtful that doubt only be removed by act Of Con-
TO which OF the State Of Texas may be
sary by appropriate mode ofega adjudication; but
in the mean me II disturbances collisions arise should
be threatened it is absolutely incumbent the Executive
however painful the duty take that the
laws are faithfully maintained And he regard only the
actual of things it existed the date Of the treaty. and
and who remain north and east OF the line OF demarca
tion the full enjoyment Of their liberty and property
according the provisions the ninth article Of the treaty.
Isee here nothing to add and there nothing that would
take away.
The gentleman from Georgia (r. TooMBs) suggests an