The daily union., 1854-07-23

Senate, July 10, 1854
Mr. RUSK said
Mr. President For several years past in the early part
of every session. some of the Texas creditors have pet
toned Congress for the payment of their claims These
petitions have generally been referred the Committee
Finances and have upon several occasions urged upon
that committee to make early report that time might
be allowed for the discussion OF the subject
While would make no complaint in reference to the
action of the committee referred to, am nevertheless,
compelled regret that they have always reported at
late day in the session, that sufficient time has not been
allowed for the proper discussion of the grave questions
presented by these petitions have upon more than one
Occasion said that although Texas had been liberay
charged with reputation could show that it the
United States government and not Texas that repudated
lust obligations. ,l4at
In 1880 Immediately after the committee of thirteen
was formed presented to Mr. Clay the chairman of that
committee proposition from the Texas delegation for the
settlement of all matters in dispute between that State and
the United States The proposition was to agree upon the
thrty-fourh parallel Of north latitude as the boundary
line Texas ceding all north OF that line to the United
States and releasn. them from all claims hereafter
count of encroachnens of the Indians Of the United States
upon Texas prior to annexation for sum sufficient TO pay
of the Texas debt in full In the paper which submit
ted Mr. Clay, stated that very large portion OF that
debt had been created by the necessity of defending our
selves against the Indians of the United States whom this
government bound by every principle OF humanity
and good neghborhood well by treaty obligations
to restrain utterly failed 10 do BY this failure 10
comply with their treaty obligations at time when she
was conending at fearful odds against Mexico they sub
ieced Texas expense Of blood and treasure de-
fend herself against the Indians Of the United States
whom you bound by the most sacred obligations to
restrain from ourages upon SHALL sir now proceed
briefly possible, to show ,aa H..a5
First That the United States were bound to restrain
these Indians; and
Secondly, That the government failed comply with its
obligations in this particular
If succeed in establishing these positions think it fol-
lows necessary consequence that this government in
good faith and honor bound pay what Texas forced
expend in consequence of the violation OF the of-ac
knowedged obligations of the United States.
The first piece of evidence which shall adce, is the
thIrty-thrd which
is in the following words: .,..a.i4
"tiskewise agreed that the two contracting parties shall,
by all the means in their maintain and harmony
among the several Indian nations who nhab the lands ada
to the lines and rivers which form the boundaries of the
bind themselves expressly restrain by force ho
ties and ncursions on the part of the Indian nations living
within their respective boundaries that the United States
of America will not suffer their Indians attack the citizens
the United Mexican States nor the Indians nhabng their
territory win the United Mexican States permit the In
dams residing within their territories hosties
against the citizens of the United States of America
p I nt IN I OF e
person captured by the Indians who inhabt the
been carried into the territory Of the other both
engage and bind themselves in the solemn
ing within their respective territory to deliver them up
the agent representative of the that claims
the Claimant paying the expenses Incurred in the transmission
and maintenance OF such who in the
s ss s with G ssy gs a
lawful under any pretext whatever for the citizens of either
made by the Indians inhabtng the territories of the
other" II
At the time this treaty made Texas was part of
Mexico and although she separated from that country
after by revolution that revolution did oteate
the obligations of the treaty According to the principles
of national law Texas bound by all the obligations
which were applicable to her in her capacity
separate government, and this government claimed ;
for In treaty made with Texas in 1888 it is recited that
Texas bound by the terms of the treaty made by the
United States with Mexico in 1928 in reference to bound
ary
The treaty alluded to contains these words:
Whereas the treaty of limits made and concluded
the twelfth day Of January in the year one thousand eight
America on the part and the United Mexican States
the Other IS binding spoa The rsp"se gt 7eas the same
Of the said United Mexican States"
Now, sir, it is assumed here :hnt Teas bound lie
United States BY the terms of treaties made with Mexico
while Texas was part Of that republic If Texas thus
bound to the United States, the United States
upon the same principle bound to Texas or in other
words, the United States claim benefits and the
same time avoid responsibility The proposition is
untenabe to be even asserted, much less insisted
After her separation FROM exco the republic of Texas
claimed the benefit OF the thryhird article of the treaty
of 1884, as will fully appear by the letters of her dipo
matte representatives here many Of which might pro-
duce; but win content myself with only reading two of
then'
On page 5, Document No. IA, January 3, will be found
the letter from which the following is extract:
TEXAS LEaATIos
Washington March IA, 1887.
Within the last months we have received from our
government several dispatches all giving detailed accounts
of different Indian aggression We trust that this govern
will feel itself bound alike by humanity and by its treaty
obligations to of similar of rapine
and boodshed by the only ecctual in its power
which the reoccupation Of Nacogdocbes, other
point west of the Sabine.
- 'S1 ". H. WHARTON.
M. HUNT.
Hon. JoHN FORSYTH, Secretary Of State
Also on page of the same book the following:
TEXAN LEoArIoS,
Washington July Is, 1887.
have also to inform YOU that certain Indians from the
United States still committing their depredaons upon
he citizens of eastern frontier and again would urge
.he terms of tho existing relative control of
'ne Indians in that quarter.
have the honor be, &C.,
MEMUCAN HUNT.
lion. Johs FoRsyrH, Secretary of State.
ihese two extracts will be sufficient to show that Mt that
@ uay after the separation from Mexico Texas demanded
e iulhment OF the thy-third article of the treaty with
Meco IN reference to the Indians of the United States
pa tns government deny the obligation? The letter
from MT Forsyth OF the 18th of July, 1887 will show that
so lar rom refusing to acknowledge it, the distinguished
statesman referred to virtually admitted The force of the
demand On page viii be found his answer to the letter
IRON Mr. Hunt in which he says;
DErARTMENT OF STATE
Washington, July 20, 1887
SIR; have the honor TO transmit a copy of eto, TO this
department rom the Department of War, which part
your note of the 18th instant was referred bv which Won
WIN De reminded OF the Importance of more particular in
ormauon upon the subjects thus referred in order that
proper orecton and efficiency may be given the efforts
government Tor the suppression of the acts complained Of
have the honor to offer the renewed ssurances m INV
great consideration. -
a. JOHN FORSYTH
Hon. MEMucAS Hunt &C., &C., &c.