The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-02-19

perty posse ssed by the chuich and the Catholic
mssions and with respect, like wise, to the rights
rf occupsnts founded upoR naked possession, with.
out formal written grants from the authorizes OF
forser Governments This is an error The ex-
plunged 10th article was in these words -
All grants eflsnd made by the Mexican goversnsnt,
or BY the oon Petent authorities 10 tsrrtorss pre-.
within the limit. Of the United States shall be
respected as valid to tbs ssme extent that the same
grants would be valid II the said territories haa
aimed within the limits OF Mexico But the grantees
of lands in Texas, put In possession thereof Who, BY
reason ORC Lmstsnces OF the country since the
beginning the trouble between Texas aud the Mex
lean government may have been prevented from full
filing all the conditions Of their grants. shall be
in the periods limited in the same, respectively; tuch
periods TO be nov counted from the date OF the
which the said grants shall be upon the
state OF Texas In virtue OF the spustions contained
The foregoing stipulation in regard to o antees OF
land In Texas 10 extended to all grantees Of the land
in the territories aforesaid elsewhere than in Texas
of the ful6lment Of the dtops Of any such gra
within the period. which ~ 10 above stipulated
begins with the day Of the exchange Of the rstidcas
of this treaty the same shall be null and vsid &c
President Polk, in his message of sd of Feb
ruary, sending the treaty TO the Senate, recon-
mends this article TO be expunged. He said
To the tenth Article Of the treaty there serious
objection and instructions given to Mr. Trst
plated sat hori zed it's insertion The public
lands within the limits of Texas belong to that State
and this has to dispose OF them,
change the conditions Of grants already made.
al raid hs TO land uihn the other territories coded 10
the United States eM remain unaffected ~ me change Of
Sovereignty and L. therefore, submit that this article
should be inserted part of the tresty.-(Vol
7 TX Doc. ls47slst SEES 3oth Conf
The 9Th article was modified, and certain clause
in it referring to church property stricken
doubtless be the law of nations and the Othe
provisions were deemed a full guarantee.
II is worthy OF notice that a remark able feature
of this treaty is, that it does not contain any ex
Il. II e. L..M Me-
United States, Of the public lands or other public
property in California and New Mexico. Mexico
seems carefully TO have aveided this Why il wa.
that The precedents OF the treaties OF louisiana and
Of Florida, both containing such clauses, were dis
regarded by our negotiators, we cannot imagine,
unless Mexico was urgent in objections to them.
The boundary line TO exist thenceforth, between
Mexico and the United States, is distinctly pre-
scrbtd and defined in and by the treaty. This is,
doubtless, virtual acknowledgment and cession
Of the sovereignty over all the countries north and
OF that line, to the United States; but the doc
trne that this acknowledgment, eI proprto u,gore,
rests on the federal government OF the United
States, the ownership, as absolute possessors. OF
the lands there not before then disposed of by the
former authorities, has been disputed II has
been denied that by force of such agreement as
10 the national boundary of Mexico, (hough It
involved cession Of the sovereignty of the
country this side of the line to the United States
the United States succeeded 10 all the rights OF
the central government OF Mexico, and also OF
the local provincial governments in California
and New Mexico, under the constitutions OF that
republic, with respect 10 the proprietaryship of
such lands. II has been strongly argued that
the delegated and restricted powers and attri-
butes of sovereignty vested by the constitution
of The United States, in the government OF the
conf. derscy, are not such as allow that govern
ment TO become such owners or propretors OF land,
without express trensfer and inves,ture of title.
Ii has been disputed that the federal government.
has any inherent prerogatives akin 10 those unaer
which lands escheat 10 the crown Of England, it no
other owner exists. Ii has been denied that any
analogous right in the United States results from
the circumstances attending the acquisitions under
this treaty. Ii has been commended that the exer-
cise of the right Of ownership Of these lands by the
United Staes, 10 The exclusion of the local sove-
reignty Of California, is an usurpation IL has been
argued that the vacant lands within the limits of
the Stale OF California, upon the extinction OF the
authority OF the central government OF Mexico
over them, reverted 10 the local sovereignty and
upon the organization of the State government in
California (before Congress assumed exercise any
control of these lands that control dtvolved upon
that Stale, and that they all, under the laws OF ma
tons, revertto and belong 10 that State IL has been
asserted, that by the VI sxicen laws all the power
disposal or control possessed by the central govern
merit, wss trus,ee Tor The LEGAL or provincial
government, which was regarded as the true pro.
prie,or, and cestnt ~, trust, and hence II has
been stat, thst the central government IN Mexico
carefully avoided express cession OF the pro
peity in these Ian IDS To the United Sates-as being
in violation of It's constitution al rustbut preferred
",
leaving the settlement of the question as 70 the
ownt rsbip Of the lands 10 be arranged between the
United Ststes and hi provincial governments.
We do not venture TO express our opini) as TO the
correctness or iDcorTeCiness of any Of these posi-
tons The State a California did not, when she
formed ard adopted her con s'iiution, and applied
fer admission as a STATE, yield up he. claim TO
these lands. She carefully and purposely re-
Trained from making such REIMBURSEMENT IN IN II
constitution. which had been required of several
other States by Congress Yet, she was fully ad-
mit;ed by Congress ard the President as State
Her Senators and Representatives were allotted
seats in Congress. II she persists in her claim in
despite OF the "conditicn subsequent Stipulated
in the act Of admission, declaring
Sec That tb. said State Of California l. admitted
into the Union upon the express condition that the
people Of ssid State, through their Lssi.laturs er
otherwise shall never interfere with the primsry
c,po.al Of the public lands within tie limits and shall
pa'. no lay ard DO no &C, whereby thr title OF the
shAl be impaired or questiortI; and that they shall
never lay any tax or assessment Of any description
whatever upon the public domain ot the United State
and In shall resident 7ropretors Who are
oitin M ~ the United state. he taxed higher than
residents, &c --tAct 81 SEPT. 9, 1870
And refuses To comply with these conditions,
what can Congress dot Will California be ek-
PEELED from thu Union VIII IN. enforcement OF
The federal cism 10 these lInds be attempted BY
arms against the people ard goyernnsn nj OF that
state We rather presume aot Congress 10 then
lett 10 the utterly lucrle and Inefficient redress
which may lie afforded by suits, by the nited
States 10 the ders tribunals. sgsius, he STATE or
IL oiti7eua, 10 lands within her limits occupied
~ those citizens. under titles conferred by the
State. Legislation by party ~ill be met by coun-
ttysilirg lePslation ~ the other party and what
ever federal Judges may decide, the lands will con-
iiDue TO he lied and ef lCyed ny The citizens
the State, rtgirdless # the claims of the United
States nd II would net he cause ~ surprise, II,
Congress should egree not only 10 yield
the lands, but 10 pay all The expresses al the State
and 's citizens incurred by sou 81 the dispute.
The history Of The Tasselfs case, and Of the But
Ter ard Worcester ce,es, N Georgia, should not be
forgotten hy any 81 the Depart neots 81 the federal
governmsn =, executive, .eCisative, or judicial.
j may be depended upon hat similar courses will
be enacted by other distant or frontier safes,
whenever f,def8l legislation with respect To Them
is regarded BY the citizens generally az IN usurpa-
ton of power, or ~ sfhtrsry, yrspnlcsl unjust,
or oppressive IL California, esgeCialy rs remote
ness from the seat Il federal authority, the crcum
stances attending " QUESTION by the nited
States, end i's admi sson - StAte aud The bold,
ka'aens'iCs Of her cllizena, all tend
TO proCfCe such stae Of fairs We should not be