The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-21

the other side OF the line portion of territory claime
by the United States In that case The territory whlc
was established 70 be within the limits Of the Unite
States deemed and held to have been acquired, no
by the United Siaes for their own benefit, but for tn
benefit OF Massachusetts and Maine, whose boundarie
were dets.m'aed IN sdeer%nng those a. q the Unite.
however, contends that there is want OF that analog,
which asserted between those two and in thes
two particulars; He says. H. That the boundary o
the State OF Massachusetts was determined by the treat,
OF 1853. 2. That Maine and Massachusetts were par
ties to the treaty OF ls42, whereas Texas was not
party 10 the treaty between Mexico and the United States
Mr. President ascerlanng the analogy between any
two propositions you to inquire what the
a elements OF that which you propose TO compare with
another Now, what Is essential in this case to provs
the analogy which contend for Sir, il Is this Il should
appear, FIRST that territory which within the asserted
q sae q ns union had been acquired y
secondly that that territory within the asserted limits
of such State, and acquired BY treaty with foreign
power had been held TO have been acquired not for the
benefit Of the United States. but for the benefit OF
the individual State Now, sir, in all OF these par
ticalars. maintain that the analogy is perfect The
boundary OF the State of Massachusetts ascertaned
by the treaty OF 1888 between Great Britain and the Uni
led Siates because that the limit OF the United States
in that direction The boundary OF Texas, the limit OF
the United States in another direction, acertaned by
the treaty of Guadalupe Hdago, IN the same manner
the boundary of Massachusetts determined by the
treaty Of peace with Great Britain IN each case i was
the boundary OF the United States which was stipulated
by treaty The treaty OF 1883 did not propose and desg-
nate the northeastern boundary Of but the
And orasmuch Massachusetts claimed to that bound
ary Of the United States. therefore what acquired
BY the treaty held y be acquired for the people Of
Massachusetts, and afterwards OF Maine, which had
So, ii the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the boundary
which establishes is the boundary between the repub-
lie of Mexico aud the United States and the territory
which is acquired, that portion which is east OF the
boundary SO determined, must inure 10 the benefit Of
Texas, because Texas was State OF this Union border
ing upon that boundary and claiming TO 1.-THE extreme
western southwestern State OF this Union The
therefore. in these particulars, perfectly analogous.
sa a Texas v as q ~ ha
that il IN the possession Of Mexcans its inhabitants
acknowledging no allegiance to Texas but to the Mex-
can government. Now, sir, to show how perfect the
analogy will senator's direct their attention to the Mad
awaska settlement thrown within the limits OF the Uni
ted States by the treaty with Great Britain Of 1912 This
was British settlement OF which neither Maine nor
Massachusetts had possession. And yet when il was
acquired, by falling south and west Of this conventional
lne,it was adudged TO inure to the benefit Of State
which had been in possession of IT. The analogy,
therefore, in this particular, is also perfect.
Again il is said that Maine and Massachusetts were
parties the treaty between the United States and Great
Britain, but that Texas was no party to the treaty Of
Guadalupe. The senator from New Jersey explains 10
me what am perfectly willing to accept an expana-
ton, that by conientng that they were parties to this
treaty. he did not to say that they were formal par
ties bu by virtue Of the agreement that they were to
ceye The benefit OF this portion OF The treaty
The analogy Jailed IN that particular because IN this
gotiaon oil the northeastern boundary, only the Uni
!ed States and Great Britain were parties, but Maine and
Massachusetts also, by the condition that they 10
refeiYe the benefit OF the land falling within the line 1T
not therefore, the operation of any prncpe but the
Mr. BEsssS aa ssfa sseeey sy'' willing to receive the
explanation OF the gentleman from New Jersey. But he
will find, think. upon momens reflection, that IT does
at all interfere with the analogy existing between the
two lie did not intend TO contend that they were
parties In the strict of the term, but that they
entitled to certain benefits TO be derived from that treaty,
in consideration of which they assented TO it. Now,
that their assent not essential 10 its validity IL You
VIII advert TO the message OF the President o the United
States accompanying the transmission OF that treaty 10
the Senate, will find 1t stated that these commissions
on the part OF Maine and Massachusetts invited
to attend herenot because was essential TO The con.
cuson OF the treaty that they should assent to IT, but II
thought proper to invite them from the interest that
their respective States had in the result OF the treaty
for presume that j is not TO Be conended that gov.
lreatymaking power is not competent TO exercise that
power eas, far il may be necessary for the set
Element OF its boundaries, irrespective OF the assent
OF any State whose rights may be affected by il.
do contend that the United States can, by treaty,
go within the limits OF State, and cede portion OF that
Stale 10 foreign power. But do contend that the Uni
ted States, the exercise OF the treaty naking power, is
competent to settle the boundary between ourselves
and any foreign power is armed with full authority 10 do
so BY the constitutional grant OF that power and IS not
dependent In its exercise upon the will OF any State
whose limits may be affected by IT, Thus the States OF
Maine and Massachusetts strict and formal par
parties to il in any form whatever. The benefit which
4
tbey derived from resulted from the fact that portion
OF the territory acquired fell within their limits. Their
assent, though properly sought Tor, and was just
Difference TO the spirit OF our institutions proper respect
10 the rights OF two sovereign States o This Union,
certainly not essential to the conclusion validity OF the
treaty There particular proprey in the invitation
and whyi Because the United States, having endeavor-
ed upon several occasions 10 trace out the actual line
which vas stipulated by the treaty OF 's3, but having
failed TO accomplish il, had TO the determination,
after these failures, 10 establish conventional line
which should in lieu and Instead Of the line OF the
treaty of So As this convenional line might then in
tenere with the territory OF the coermnlnous States,
there fitness and propriey in obtaining the assent
OF those States to the treaty which determined It, This
consideration led 10 the invitation Of Maine and Massa-
chuses to pariake not in the conclusion of the treaty,
but in preliminary consultations with our minister by
whom il was ne sotiated.
MI President il senators will turn their attention for
moment The treaty Of Guadalupe and its results they
affected the nteress Of Texas they will perceive that
there occasion for inviting that State 10 be party
10 this treaty. either formally, or in such preliminary
consultations as were participated IN by the States OF
| Maine and Massachusetts Those States were dvestcd
OF portion OF their territory by this conventional line,
and therefore invited 10 attend and consulted with
IN the progress OF the negotiation by the treaty oi
Guadalupe Hdago, Texas acquired the whole territory
for which she conended II took nothing from her II
secured ali that she claimed The Rio Grande de.
iefmned 10 be the boundary between The United States
and Mexico, and. nasmuch Texas was not to suffer
loss in consequence OF that treaty, the considerations
winch induced The invitation by the commissioners OF
Massachusetts and Maine did mol exist IN her IL
is obvious them sirihe argument OF the senator from
New Jersey TO the contrary Notwithstanding these
4