Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-11


This is what the senator says in his speech
about the passages | have Just read from the
address:
4They suppress the following material facts,
| which, II produced, would have disproved their
| statements: They first suppress the fact that the
| same section Of the act cuts of from Texas and
cedes TO the United States all that part Of Texas
wnch lies north OF 300 3O They then suppress
| The further fact that the same section of the law
| cuts on from Texas large tract OF country on the
west more than three degrees of longitude. and
added II TO the territory of the United States They
then suppress the further fact that this territory
/ thus cut of from Texas and 10 which The Mis-
souri, compromise line did apply, was incorporated
| INTO the Territory of New Mexico. And then what
was done! 1t was incorporated into that territory
| with tins clause:
| "'That when admitted as State, the said Ter
riory, or any portion OF the same, shall be received
| INTO the Union with without slavery, as their
constitution may prescribe the time OF its adop-
| iion'
| :. Yes, sir the very bill and section from which
lney quote cuts of all that part of Texas which
! was TO be free by the Missouri compromise, TO-
gether with some on the south side OF the line in
| corporates il into the Territory of New Mexico
ana then says that that Territory, and every por-
ion OF the same, shall come into the Union with
or without slavery, as il sees proper"
The assertion here is, that all the territory
claimed by Texas north Of go 30< was cut off
|
Mr.. DOUGLAS Read it.
| Mr.. CHASE. / have read it; but will read
it again.
''Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which
they quote cuts of all that part of Texas which
| was 10 be free by the Missouri compromise TO-
gether with some the south side of the line
incorporates 1t with the Territory ofNew Mexico
and then says that that territory and every portion
OF The same shall come into the Union with or
without slavery, as II sees proper"
| Mr.. DOUGLAS, lin his seat.) Most of it.
Mr.. CHASE. In his speech the senator said
ALL the territory claimed by Texas north of SO
degrees 80 minutes was incorporated into New
Mexico. Now he says, MOST OFT. These are
| very different statements. | will show the
| Senate what was and what was not incorpo-
rated. The boundary line between Spain and
| the United States, for want to make this mat
ter perfectly clear and distinct was this
| "This boundary line between the two countries
west of the Mississippi shall begin on the Gulf of
Mexico, at the mouth of the river Sabine in the
| sea, continuing north along the western bank Of
that river, to the 32d degree of latitude; thence by
line due north TO the degree of latitude where it
strikes the Rio Roxo Of Nachitoches or Red river;
| then following the course of the Rio Roxo west
ward, TO the degree of longitude 100 degrees west
| from London, and 90 degrees from Washington;
| then crossing the said Red river, and running
thence by line due north 10 the river Arkansas;
thence following the course of the southern bank
of the Arkansas TO its in latitude AZ degrees
NORTH and thence by that parallel of latitude to the
| South sea-"
| Now look at this boundary upon the map.
Here it is. Exhibiting the map Here we
go up the Sabine to the 800 parallel; then
straight north to the Red river; then along the
edriverto the 1902 of longitude then straight
north again to the Arkansas; then up the Ar
kansas to its source; then straight north once
more to the 42o of latitude. There you see the
! boundary between the United States and the
Spanish possessions, as defined by the treaty
of 1920.
| Now, what did Texas claim? Here is the
most authentic evidence of it in her own act,
approved December 10, 1886, by SAM HoUs-
| TON l will read it:
" Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine river
| running west along the Gulf of Mexico. three
leagues from land, 10 the mouth OF the Rio Grande;
thence up the principal stream of the said river to
its source then due north TO the Ago Of north lati-
lude; thence along ate boundary line as dsfned ia
the treaty 6etreete United States and Spain to the
beginning"
| That, sir, is the boundary claimed by Texas.
| After her annexation to the United States, and
after the treaty with Mexico of Guadalupe Hi
dalgo, Texas asserted her claim to the whole
territory included within these limits. The
senator from Virginia Mr.. Mason was among
those who regarded this claim of Texas as Just;
not because of any valid original title to the
territory, but because of the implied recogni-
ton of her title by the United States. ! need
notsay that ], in common with very many others,
dissented from that view. But the senator from
Virginia, and other senator's, maintained it.
That senator, on the 30th july 1850, moved a
| joint resolution recognising this claim, which
! | will read:
"Resolrcd de-. That by the joint resolution approved
March ls lS45 for annexng Texas to the United States
being ordained that the territory properly included
within and righully belonging TO the republic Of Texas
may be erected into State &c., it is the opinion
Judgment Of Congress that the admission of Texas
the Union with the boundaries described by the laws
thereof not objected to by the United States the time of
such annexation, is conclusive, against the United
States of the right Of Texas the territory included with
in such boundaries"
The recognition proposed by this resolution
would give TO Texas all the land east of the
Rio Grande, and line drawn from its source
to the forty.second parallel and west of the
line between the United States and the Spanish
possessions already described.
/ Now, sir, Of the territory within this claim of
Texas, that part between 800 and 38o of north
latitude, and west of l03o Of longitude, was in
corporated into the Territory of New Mexico
That part between the 3sth parallel and the
Arkansas river, stretching north towards the
4Su Parallel IN long narrow strip, and that
other part included. within 1000 and 1899 of
longitude, and $50 3O> north latitude, and the
Arkansas river, were not incorporated into New
Mexico, nor relinquished to Texas, but became
part of the territory of the United States
Here are these two tracts of country, which
the senator says were cut off from Texas, and
incorporated into New Mexico. If the claim
| of Texas was valid, they were cut off from her
| territory, but they were not incorporated into
New Mexico The senator is totally mistaken
as to that; and it is not trihing mistake. The
tract west of New Mexico, between 36o 30< and
the Arkansas river, contains over twenty thou
sand square miles. 1t is not easy to estimate the
contents of the other tract The first is as large
as Connecticut Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
and New Hampshire put together. The two
tracts probably are nearly equal in extent to
the whole Of New England, excluding Maine.
There are seven States in the Union neither OF
which equals in extent the larger of these
tracts, nor probably the smaller. Not one foot
of this territory was incorporated into New
Mexico, and yet the senator asserted that it all