. -^o^ i ♦J * O - ^ ^«,^ ^ 'o • h n..o< ' V^^\o^ V^^"s*^ "°**^-V ... X :^' v'v ■.' ^^''-^ °. •« • o ADDRESS HUGH N. SMITH. OF NEW MEXICO, TO THE PEOPLE OF THAT TERRITORY. To the People of jYew Mexico : As your delegate to the Congress of the United States, I regret to inform you that my mission has failed; your rights as citizens, under the Govern- ment of the Union, assured to you by the treaty of cession, have thus far been denied. As a people, constituting a large community, once a de- partment in the federative Republic of Mexico, you certainly are entitled to the right of modified representation, which has heretofore been accorded to the people in all other Territories of the United States, in which such an organization existed as could be recognised as a government. This right has always been conceded upon the principle that the inchoate govern- ments, charged with the interests of a people, who are, at some time, to come as a State into the Union, should have a representative on the floor of one branch of Congress, to make known the condition, to advocate the interests, and defend the rights of a community, which, in its infancy, is to receive from the National Legislature those fundamental and radical impressions which shape its future destiny. If the great American prin- ciple of the right of representation which has been extended to all the territorial governments of the United States, (even to those having the care of a few scattered people, as in the case of Florida, or where, as in the case of Minesota, there was no legalized government at all,) it ought surely now to be extended to you, my constituents, a people who come with a novel 2;overnment into the Union, which is to undero-o o-reat changes; who have a multitude of vast interests to be arbitrated in Con- gress, which once decided, are decided forever; and who, above all, have a right to be heard, at this moment, in the halls of the supreme civil au- thority, because you and your civil government are now at the mercy of a miUtary dictatorship, when your State is threatened with dismember- ment, and, what is yet more fatal, the introduction of slavery into its 1 t- bosom. But the very ground upon which you are justly entitled to repre- sentation is the reason for its denial. It is this double design against what- ever is most dear to you as a people, (against your right to the limits of a domain which you inherited, whilst Texas, that would sever it, was an unexplored wilderness, and against your right to exclude slavery from it, which was sealed by a constitutional sanction coming with you into this Union,) which has excluded your delegate from a seat whence he might repel the invasion. The most formidable part of this combination against you is that which originates in the slave interest. It not only rallies against you the whole slaveholding South, but all the influence of selfish, venal, and ambitious men in the North, looking to speculations in discredited bonds and land jobbing, or to the political honors which the combined vote of the South may promise. The cement of this strength in the South is not so much the interest in slave property, but the political power dependent on it. The great struggle is to secure for the decaying popular force of that sec- tion an equal weight in the Senate of the United States with the rapidly progressive population and multiplying free States of the Union. To this aim the rights and interests and all the hopes of a rapidly growing and rich prosperity, which beckoned New Mexico into the Union, are to be sacrificed. The doctrine of the slaveholding States, in regard to their domestic institutions, is non-intervention: but with regard to yours, it is instant intervention, to set at nought the prohibition of slavery which you brought with you into the Union, as one of your fundamental laws, and a fixed municipal policy — a policy which, now that you are under the shield of the great North American Republic, would invite into your country the intellect, industry, skill, enterprise, and capital, not only of the free States of the North, but a portion of that emigration from Europe which is now filling up the agricultural regions of the Mississippi, and the golden moun- tains, valleys, and commercial ports of Cahfornia, with a teeming popula- tion. Making the link between these two great countries, you could not fail to partake of their prosperity, if you could escape that blight which has doomed the fairest portion of our continent to a premature decline. Vir- ginia, the first and greatest of the States of the Union; richest in her great men, her soil, her minerals, her bays, her rivers, and her delightful cli- mate, has sunk into a third rate State, under the decay which affects the root of all growth in nations as in individuals — the decay of enlightened labor. Such has been the fate of Virginia, and yet her fate has been better than that of any of her Southern sisters. The vigor which the free muni- cipal institutions of England infused into the race that gave the first im- pulse to the Southern Commonwealths, has been gradually running out under an adverse system. The labor of negroes, in exempting the master from labor, has made every free man look to such exemption not only as a relief from painful effort, but as a privilege and an honorable distinction. Hence slave labor has destroyed the industry of the free race, and the prosperity of the State is made dependent upon the forced exertion of those who have no interest in it; while those who have are enervated and subjected to all the demoralization which must flow from a system which makes easy indolence a mark of superiority. The freemen who, in such a State, are compelled by poverty to labor, must become yoke-fellows with the degraded African race, which makes up the mass of cultivators. Those of the free white men who submit to this soon sink to the level of the black laborers with whom they associate; while every one whose innate energy and intellect teaches him to spurn it, leaves the State, and adds to the multitude who fly from it, to exalt the prosperity and grandeur which beams on the free States of the Union, making them the miracle and glory of this age of progress. I point your attention to the fatal tendency of the system which the South seeks to impose upon you, to stay its own downward course, with feelings of deep chagrin. I am myself a native of the section whose fate I deplore, and if my duty to you did not require, I would be the last to advert to the malady which preys upon its life. As your representative at the seat of political power, I am bound to reveal to you the machina- tions of which you are the object, and to open to your view the conse- quences which would attend its success. The schemes of those who w^ould bind you to the destiny of the slave States, render it necessary that your Representative should be excluded from the Halls of Congress; that your civil government, and the laws you brought with you, should be denied recognition; that you should be left in a condition too helpless to defend your own rights, while the plans were maturing for their sacrifice. You need not ask, then, w-hy have our own petitions, respectfully presented, been rejected? Why our rights, which are certainly indisputable, been so long withheld? Why we have been compelled to live under a military domina- tion so repugnant to freemen, and so opposed to the acknowledged spirit and foundation of this Government? Why our condition, instead of being improved by the transfer of allegiance as was promised to. us, has been continually getting worse? Why this Government has so long neglected giving you that protection against Indian depredations which was so often promised, both before and since the treaty of cession? Why the connec- tion with this Government, which you have been encouraged to look for- w^ard to as the beginning of your prosperity and improvement, has had its opening with three years of depredation, miserable, misrule, and military despotism. You ar^ left prodraie, ihat Texas may dismember and divide J^'ew Mexico, and subject her to Soid/iern influence', thai negro davery may be introduced into the remnant of territory that may not be appropriated to Texas; and, finally, that the region thus secured to Southern policy may be- come the stock on which to graft new conquests from Mexico. To this whole poUcy I know you entertain the strongest repugnance. The deep stake which you have in the issue of this scheme, demands from you a thorough examination and speedy action. It is beyond a question, that you cannot expect that assistance and support from this Government which you certainly had a right to look for. That you have been deserted and transferred to the power of Texas, so far as the administration of the War Department — to which 3'ou are committed by the Executive of the United States — can effect it, you have the evidence in the conduct of your military government. While the Administration say here, that you have a Government under which yow can well afford to live, and under which you are amply protected, the Secretary at War is giving instructions to that Government itself to desert you, when you have most need of an or- ganized resistance — thus making it manifest that the Administration here, (and especially the Secretary of War, a Southern man,) connives at the Texan scheme to dismember your Territory, and the Southern scheme of opening it to slavery. The Administration claims to be neutral in this con- troversy between the authorities of Texas and the people of New Mexico, but when it is understood that the people of New Mexico have no other civil government than that which is administered by the military com- manders sent there by the War Departm.ent, and those holding commis- sions under and during the pleasure of these military commanders, and. when we see that they have been instructed not to resist the authorities of Texas in their attempt to assume jurisdiction over the people of New Mexico, is it not manifest that this ''neutrality''^ is a virtual surrender of the actual government of Jfew Mexico into the hands of Texas? Does it not demonstrate the connivance of the slaveholding Secretary of War in the schemes of Texas and the South? It is useless for me to remind you that you have no other than a milita- ry Government to administer the civil laws with which you came into the Union, (and under which you and your ancestors have lived for two cen- turies,) — what other Executive have you, but the commander of the troops in New Mexico? Does he not absolutely control all the civil establish- ments of your country? Is there a civil officer but holds his ofhce by com- mission from the military officer during his will and pleasure? Has he not, indeed, assumed to order the courts whom to bring to trial, and in every way prescribe their jurisdiction? And when the Secretary of War com- mands him not to interfere, or prevent the officers from Texas to exercise their commissions in your Territory, can that be called a neutrality? Is it not a virtv al abandonment of the government? If you had a separate civil government, entirely disconnected with the military commanders of the country, thenlheir non-action might be deemed a neutrality. But now, by this non-action, they compel you to resist the mihtary government which the United States have set up over you, and then organize a government and prepare a resistance to the encroachm.ents of Texas. Being thus de- serted by this Government to the extent to which this Government can de- sert you, (for I have appealed in vain to the Secretary of War and the President, to prevent this collision until the question can be adjudicated and settled by some competent authority,) it only remains for you to decide whether you will tamely submit to this assumption of power. Texas, knowing the illegality and injustice of her claim, refuses to submit what is a question of law to an impartial Judiciary; and the question of her right, has assumed an entirely sectional and geographical phasis. It is sustain- ed by the assertion, the sympathy, and assistance of the entire South, the motives and object of which are too plain to be disguised; it is avow- edly to be a forcible extension of their peculiar institution over a country whence it is now excluded, and where it is repugnant alike to the feelings and interests of its inhabitants. Under the cover of this Texas claim the approaches are made— designed to give a lodgment to slavery in Kew Mexico, which shall convert it into a new slave State on its introduction into the Union. Out of the dismembered remnant given as a portion to Texas, she will be enabled to ek<3 out another, to come in as on« of its four new^ slave States counted on, to counterpoise the free institutions of the North. If this should not be sufficient, Mexico proper w^ill then be at hand to undergo a new partition, or a total submersion in a new Soulhera slave confederacy. The first step in this process is to supplant the fundamental municipal institutions brought by New^ Mexico with her into the Union, by a territo- rial government, w^hich, by omitting the inhibition against slavery in the Congressional act, failing to reserve that contained in the Mexican code, and preventing the people of the Territory from legislating upon the sub- ject of slavery, and from re-enacting the prohibitory clause, will unques- tionably abolish all protections against that institution; and, indeed, more effiictual legislation for the extension of slavery into New Mexico could not be enacted. Under it the whole body of Southern influence, inspired by political ambition, and looking to preponderance in the aristocratic branch of the Federal Government, through an equality of representation with- out aa equality of numbers; in part, too, actuated by panic touching th^ institution at home — in part by hopes of greater pecuniary gains to be de- rived from it, in a country of mines — now that mining is a mania — would combine to pour an immense colony of slaves into New Mexico; the conse- quence of this would be to level the whole population of New Mexico with the new caste brought into competition; and you, my Mexican fellow-citi- zens, who till your own soil with your own hands, would be compelled to fly your country, or be degraded from your equality of freemen, forfeiting all your hopes of rising to the new elevation promised by your alliance with the great North American Republic, and living only to witness the ruin of all that renders life desirable. And what is this pretext of a claim by Texas to New Mexico, under which the South seeks to destroy or reduce to nothing your rights as a people? The origin of it is, the claim of the United States to the boundary of the Del Norte as the western limit of Texas, when as a province it was held as part of Louisiana. But, when the United States asserted a claim to Texan territory on the Del Norte, it was never pretended even that there existed any semblance of title to that portion of the Del Norte which was embraced in the boundaries of New Mexico. Before France, from whose Government the United States derived its title, asserted its owner- ship over the wilderness of Texas, in virtue of the right of discovery — an hundred years before a civilized foot-print had been made in the country towards fixing a limit on the Del Norte, or elsewhere — New Mexico was discovered, conquered, and colonized by the Spaniards; and during all the protracted modern negotiations on the part of the United States with Spain, in regard to the boundaries of Texas, the boundaries of New Mexico were as well established and as universally acknow^ledged as those of Virginia, having preceded that State, and all other States of the American Union, in becoming an established government, with ascertained limits for its juris- diction. In claiming the Del Norte for its territorial boundary, the United States looked only to the low^er part of the stream, when it w^as not in- cluded within the unquestioned limits of New Mexico, which were recog- nised also as being the limits of the wilderness territory, as having pre- ceded its exploration, or any claim asserted by France, or any other Power, in right of discovery or possession. The Government of the United States, In sending General Taylor to the Del Norte to protect the asserted claim of Texas before the W' ar, gave him no warrant to invade New Mexico, by approaching the Del Norte in that quarter. All the world would have con- sidered such an order as an act of war, and General Taylor would as soon have thought of marching to the City of Mexico, under the order to pro- tect the frontier of Texas on the banks of the Del Norte, as to have marched to Santa Fe, on the upper section of that river. Can, then, the recent right to territory to the sources of the Del Norte, now set up by Texas in deiogation of the prescriptive right of New Mexico, be maintained as de- rived fiom conquest or revolution? This would not be a grosser violation of the truth of history than to assert its derivation from discovery and colo- nization. It is well known, as I have said, that New Mexico was dis- covered, conquered, and colonized by the Spaniards one hundred years, at least, before a European had set foot upon the soil of Texas. If you trace the history of its conquest and settlement by Don Juan Oiieate, in 1595, down to its cession by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it is clearly seen that New Mexico has never acknowledged any allegiance, or submitted to any power, save that of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Mexico; that, in all its demarkations and its extent, in its history, political, social, and commercial relations, it was as entirely disconnected with Texas as with any other portions of Mexico, and had greatly less intercourse with her than with the State of Missouri. Even France, in the largest extent of her claim for Louisiana, never pretended to embrace within her limits the settlement of New Mexico. The earliest discoverers, and the most respected geographers, have acknow- ledged the limits and extent of New Mexico. But it is useless to enu- merate historians or geographers who have written upon or described our territory; its extent and the limits of its jurisdiction are well known, and have been defined by the highest authority. The viceroy, Joseph Sar- miento, Marquis de la Laguna, whose original draft is now in my possession, described the boundary between New Mexico and New Biscay to be at the Rio Nombre de Dios or Sacramento, and designated this boundary so as to confine each governor of these respective provinces within his own juris- diction, and expressly described the village of El Paso to be within the jurisdiction of New Mexico. Translation of a Spanish document, dated Mexico, March 8, 1697. Don Joseph Sarmiento Valladores, knight of the order of Santiago, count of Montezuma, Seuor de Monterosano, viceroy, governor, and captain general of New Spain, President of the Royal Audience : Whereas, whilst governing this New Spain, the most excellent Sefior Conde de Paredes, Marquis de las Lagunas, was pleased to make the following order : Don Thomas Antonio Lorenzo Manuel, &c., having named as governor and captain general of the province of New Mexico, Captain Don Domingo Vironza Petris de Cruzat, and having resolved in general council that it was necessary and convenient for the faculty, which to the above named I have conceded of granting lands, it should be notified to the governor of Viscaya, in order that he may keep within those of his own jurisdiction, which alone concern him; so that reciprocally, one and the other, they may have good corres- pondence, keeping themselves each one in the limits of his own jurisdiction, adjusting them to the demarkations of their governments, it being understood that that of Viscaya runs to the Rio de Nombre de Dios, or called the Saci-amento, and that from thence commences the district of the government of New Mexico, with which declaration shall cease all dif- 8 ferences. By this present, I order tlio ?aid Don Domingo Vironza Petris tie Cruzat that he shall intimate and make known this resolution to Don Bartholeme de Estrada, knight of the order of Santiago, governor and captain general of the kingdom of New Viscaya, so that if he shall have anything to represent, he may do so to this superior government, contenting himself in the mean time. And I order to the above named, that all the Span- iards who may have fled from the Paso, and other jurisdictions of the province of New Mexico, in the district of their government, that he shall constrain them to return to said place— informing me with particularity of having executed the above order, and all other duties which present themselves. Mexico, August 20, 1682. El Conde de Paredes, mar- quis de la Laguna. By order of his excellency, Don Pedro Velasques de la Cadena. Wherefore it is provided by his Majesty, that the Castillian, Don Pedro Rodrigues Ca- bero, as military and political governor of the said province of New Mexico, orders to be given, and gives by duplicate said orders, that it shall be observed, fulfilled, and executed according to its tenor. Mexico, March 8, 1697. Signed, JOSEPH SARMIENTO. This Rio Sacramento, or called Nombre de Dios, is within what is now, and for a long time has been, the acknowledged territory of the State of Chihuahua. The Mexican Congress regulated the limits of their jurisdic- tion, and by an act of the 27th July, 1824, extended Chihuahua to the point of the Paso del Norte. Further than that decree or act curtails New Mexico, her limits and jurisdiction have not been encroached upon. But it is scarcely necessary to adduce facts or arguments to show that Texas and New Mexico were entirely separate and distinct departments — as much so as two departments of the Mexican Government could be — pre- vious to the Texan revolution; that there was an intervening prairie waste of near six hundred miles between the nearest settlements of the two coun- tries ; that this was roamed over by the wild Comanche, who alone knew whether a practicable road could be made to connect the two set- tlements. In that space the Indian held undisputed sway. Nor is it necessary to adduce any facts to show that, previous to the time of the Texan revolution, New Mexico had always held in undisputed, peaceful, and legal jurisdiction all the Mexican settlements north of El Paso. The above decree taken from your own archives and the records of your Territory prove it conclusively. Even the Texans themselves will acknowledge that there was no connection, affinity, or intercourse between the countries previous to the commencement of her revolution; and that she never, previous to that time, even claimed to embrace within her limits any of the settlements of New Mexico. Let us look now to her war with Mexico, and see what claim she can pretend to New Mexico; why her "magnificent empire carved out by her sword" (as Mr. Kaufman calls it) should look to embracing half New Mex- ico. If she was an independent republic by conquest and revolution, she certainly can embrace within her limits only that which she actually con- quered or successfully revolutionized. You did not join her in her war, and through all the varied fortunes of that eventful and brave struggle we look in vain for any compactor co-operation by the New Mexicans to throw off their allegiance to the Mexican Government. Could you be revolution- ized without your knowledge or consent, you could scarcely be conquered and transferred to the conqueror, and still remain in entire ignorance of the fact. You could scarcely become an integral part of a new repubhc, gov- erned by the people — one in which the majority controlled— without being at least made aware of it, and without any representation in its conven- tions, councils, or participation in its government, when you constituted, if not a majority, at least half of the entire population within the limits of the so called republic. Until the one single but unfortunate invasion of your country by Texas, it is not asserting too much to say, that you knew nothing whatever of her war. You had not participated in it either for or against her. You knew nothing of her causes of complaint against the Mex:ican Government. So little connection or intercourse w^as there between the two departments, that not one-third of your people knew even that she had revolted, and was struggling for her independence; and not one-tenth of you had ever heard that she claimed to embrace almost your entire country within her limits. But she claims that, by treaty, in May, 1836, entered into with Santa Anna, the boundary between Texas and Mexico was established on the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source; but it is worse than ridicu- lous to call that a treaty, between two governments, which is extorted by duress from a commanding general, who is a prisoner of war in the hands of the enemy. As w^ell might you contend, that if the famous Texas ex- pedition sent to invade New Mexico, in 1841, had capitulated and agreed to cede to you one-half of Texas, your claim to the country, so granted, would have been as good as that of Texas, based upon the treaty of Santa Anna. But to show that it was not a treaty, but only a stipulation on the part of certain officers to try and procure a treaty from the proper and legiti- mate Government of Mexico, and expressly on its face requires confirma- tion from higher and better authority, it is only necessary to look to the very language of the fourth article of the stipulation and agreement: 4th. "That the President Santa Anna, in his official character as chief of the Mexican nation, and the Generals Don Vicente FUisola, Don Jose Urea, Don Joaquin Ramirez y Sesma, and Don Antonio Gaona, as chiefs of armies, do solemnly acknowledge, sanction, and ratify the full, entire, and perfect independence of the Republic of Texas, with such boundaries as are hereafter set forth and agreed upon for the same. And they do solemn- ly and respectively pledge themselves, with all their personal and official attributes, to pro- 2 10 cure, without delay, the final and complete ratification and confirmation ofthia as:reement, and all the parts thereof, by the proper and legitimate Government of Mexico, by the in- corporation of the same into a solemn and perpetual treaty of amity and commerce, to be negotiated with that Government, at the city of Mexico, by ministers plenipotentiary, to be deputed by the Government of Texas for this high purpose. "5th. That the following be, and the same are hereby, established and made the lines of demarcation between the two Republics of Mexico and of Texas, to wit: The line shall commence at the estuary or mouth of the Rio Grande, on the western bank thereof, and shall pursue the same bank up the said river, to the point where the river assumes the name of the Rio Bravo del Norte, from which point it shall proceed on the said western bank to the head waters or source of said river," &c. And even if Santa Anna, with perfect freedom and without restraint or duress, had purported to make an absolute and unconditional transfer of territory to Texas, and the parties had not expressly agreed that confirma- tion by the proper and legitimate Government of Mexico w^as necessary, it could have conveyed nothing. Independent of this agreement and un- derstanding by both parties to the solemn compact that there was an exist- ing Government of Mexico, whose consent was necessary to a treaty of cession, it is well known that the laws of jMexico did not invest any offi- cer V. ith supreme control of the affairs of the nation whilst he is in the field. So soon as he assumes actual command of the active forces, his civil jurisdiction as president and supreme executive of the Government must cease; and the very correspondence from Mexico, in which they ac- knowledge Santa Anna's defeat by the Texans, is conducted by order of a President pro tern.; show^ing that the proper and legitimate Government did not recognise Santa Anna as its head or chief. 2\or could Santa Anna and the President pro tem. combined have made such a transfer. The sovereign Congress of Mexico alone had such power. But this President pro tem., instead of consenting to this cession of the territory and agreeing to give up to the Rio Grande, expressly instructs Gen. Filisola to retain "Bexar, as its preservation is of absolute necessity, in order that the Government, according to circumstances, may act as they see fit." And Bexar is cer- tainly on the east side of the river, and within the ceded territory. Upon this so called treaty or compact then made between Santa Anna and President Burnet, Texas, who, in declaring her independence and lay- ing the foundation of her revolution, had not as yet gone beyond the old limits of the department, now, in December, 1836, seeks to extend her limits so as to comport with the compact, and passed the following act to define the boundaries of the Republic: "An act to define the boundaries of the Republic of Texas. "Se it enacted by the Senate and Home of Representatives of the Republic of Texa-i in Congress assembled, That, from and after the passage of this act, the civil and political jurisdiction of 11 this Rcpu'.ilic be, and is h-reby dec'ared to be, tlie following boundaries, to wit: Beginning at the mouth of the S.ibinn nver, and running west along the Gulf of Mexico tJiree leagues from land, to the jnouth of the Rio Grande; thence up the principal stream of said river to its source: thence," &c. Rut could this act of her Congress, based upon a compact or treaty, it- self null and void, as being wanting in the important requisites of power in the parties to make it a treaty, and being nothing more nor less than a pledge of certain officials (as I have shown) to try and procure a treaty, could this effect the vested rights of New Mexico, or set aside actual pos- session? Let higher authority speak in reference to this; and I quote now from the ablest and most zealous of the advocates for Texas. Mr. Wood- bury, in his speech in the Senate of the United States, says: " Most people considered the line to run north on that river (the Rio Grande) only to the mountains, though tlie legislature of Texas, by a law, have clanned to run to its source. But Texas, by a mere law, could acquire no title beyond what she conquered from Mexi- co and actually governed. Hence, though her law includes more than ancient Texas, she could hold and convey only that; or, at the uttermost, only what she exercised clear ju- risdiction over. As to that there is and can be no eventual contest ; and the deed of ces- sion, like one by an individual at common law, v/ould practically pass no more than was owned, and under it the grantee would get no more if he could, and could not if he would." And in a note to same speech, he says : "The law of Texas, including in her claim more than she actually occupied, donabtless originated very innocently in the compact by Santa Anna with President Burnet in 1836, agreeing solemnly that Texas should extend not only to the mouth of the Rio del Norte, but thence to its source. " And if she had ever conquered from Mexico a foot of the soil of New Mexico, or actually governed it, it is certainly not known in tlie history of the two countries, and Texas, we know, has generally recorded all her successes. Nothing, then, was done by Texas to make this her boundary, so far as New IMexico was concerned, except to declare it to be the boun- dary; and, therefore, up to the time of her annexation to the United States, or until the treaty proposing annexation was entered into and submitted to the Senate, her right rests entirely upon this act or claim by her Congress; and this right is weakened, if it could be made weaker than a bare claim without right is, from the fact that, in the oni}^ attempt she made to extend her authority into New Mexico, she found an authority in possession, and her expedition met with a disastrous defeat. And there has never been a time when Texas would not have found an authority in possession of New Mexico adverse to her control. If the single act of claiming on her part could establish any right to waste, unappropriated, or unoccupied lands, it certainly is different where, as in the case of New Mexico, there has beea 12 from the very discovery of the country an undisputed, quiet, and unbroken adverse possession. When the annexation of Texas to the United States was proposed by the treaty In 1844, it said, "the Republic of Texas cedes to the United States all Its territories;" and how may I ask, was it then construed; what ex- tent was it then Intended to embrace, let Its most eloquent, able, and in- defatigable advocates speak. They contended that Texas could only em- brace what she had revolutionized, conquered, and reduced to her subjec- tion. Mr. Walker, In his speech on Annexation, May, 1844, says: *'Now there is no description of boundary in the treaty. The words are, the Republic of Texas cedes to the United States all its territories. If these territories extend to the Del Norte they are ceded, not otherwise. It is said that Texas, by the act of her Congress of 1836, claims to the Del Norte, and that, therefore, the cession by name necessarily ex- tends to that boundary. But the boundaries of a nation depend upon something more than its own claims; these may extend beyond its rightful limits, and when it is ceded by name, that cession extends only to the country embraced within its lawful boundaries." Mr. Breese, In speaking of the objections urged to the limits and boun- dary, says: "I consider all these objections as futile. If Texas has no claim to the left bank of the rio del Norte, we get no right by the cession. The cession for all she does possess is good. If I convey five hundred acres of land, and have title to but one hundred of it, is not my conveyance valid for the one hundred? What shall be the true boundaries of Texas is left by the treaty as an open question, as all such matters usually are. When we acquired Lou- isiana in 1803, the boundaries were not defined, and it was not until 1819, they were es- tablished west to the Sabine. The limits of Texas are to be adjusted hereafter." Mr. Owen, of Indiana: "This matter of boundary, about which much has been said, is a very simple one; even supposing the treaty of annexation ratified in its present form. By that treaty, (article 1,) Texas cedes to the United States all its territories, no boundaries whatever being speci- fied. Whatever territory Texas is lawfully entitled to, the United States would, therefore, by the ratification of that treaty, acquire; no more and no less. Mr. Sevier, in the Senate, January 4, 1848, says: "I am one of those who have ever contended, and do now contend, that the territory lying between the Nueces and Rio Grand, and below New Mexico, rightfully and properly belongs to Texas by title of conquest and possession. I never did contend that the country east of the Rio Grande, and included in New Mexico, did belong to Texas, for she neither conquered nor held possession of it." Mr. Ashley, In his remarks In the Senate in 1845 upon the annexation of Texas, speaking of its extent, said : "And here I will add, that the present boundaries of Texas, 1 learn from Judge Ellis, fhe President of the convention that formed the constitution of Texas, and also a member 13 of the first legislature uml.; that constitution, were fixed as they now are, solely and pro- fessedly with a view of lenving a large margin in the negotiation with Mexico, and not with the expectation of retaining them as they now exist in their statute book.'' Mr. Inge, of Alabama, in 1848, said: "The only claim of Texas to any part of her territory rests upon successful revolution, and as far as her revolution extended , pari jjossit her territory extended." Mr. Buchanan, in his speech on the Annexation, says : *' They left the boundary of Texas without specification in the treaty, and have prompt- ly offered to adjust it with Mexico on fair and honorable terms. Texas has always claimed to the Del Norte, and is now in possession of the whole of the left bank of that river to the Paso, nearly a thousand miles from its mouth. Her claim to that portion of New Mexico which lies east of this river and north of the Paso, is certainly of a very doubtful character ; and it is one upon which we ought not to insist." In his correspondence with Mr. Slidell, after contending that Texas ex- tended to the Rio Grande as far up as El Paso, and had thus far been re- presented in her government and reduced to her subjection and control, he says : " The case is different in regard to New Mexico. Santa Fe, its capital, was settled by the Spaniards more than two centuries ago ; and that province has been ever since in their possession and that of the Republic of Mexico. The Texans never have conquered or taken possession of it, nor have its people ever been represented in any of their legislative assemblies or conventions." If, then, these distinguished statesmen regarded "Texas with all her ter- ritories" as leaving the boundary an open question, and as conveying only what she could rightfully claim and had reduced to her subjection, and that such a conveyance "would convey no more if she could, and could not if she would," with how much greater force will this restrictive construction apply to annexation as changed to the expression used in the resolutions which afterwards consummated the act. The objection which was urged so successfully to " Texas with all her territories," and which was con- ceived to be obviated by changing the phraseology to "the territory pro- perly included in, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic of Texas," certainly meant something. And it could mean nothing else than that our Government did not recognise, as belonging to her, all which she claimed; but intended, by express words, to restrict her conveyance to what she actually held, and had a right to hold and to convey. And had not every department of our Government recognised Santa Fe as being in Mexico; had we not consuls and commercial agents there; and in 1841 and 1842, had not the President, in his correspondence to secure the release of the ardent young Americans taken prisoners in the Santa Fe expedition, acknowledged it to be in Mexico and within her jurisdic- 14 tion? The House of Representatives, on the 14th of January, 1842, call- ed upon the President, by reyolution, to lay before them the information in his possession, <.^ ".^^'' y-o "'"i^R" „o^°X "•'^ <-\ V o P 3 . 0. \5'- c.^ -^^ ;>- '*'-^ 'V, ^^0^ /^ v-s^ .,, V^\^^ "o^^^^/ V^^V V <^^^ ^^*^'>^%\ .^°.-a&><>- ^'1^^'% ^° ■ V\tRT BOOKB(NCMNC Crantville Pa Jan Feb 198? oV '^0^