HOLLINGER 
 pH 8.5 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1343 
 
SFEECH 
 
 ► F THE 
 
 HON. Vv E..HOWARD, OF TLXAS, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 THE AUMISSKIN OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 '^' 
 
 
 AND THE 
 
 DISMEMBERMENT OF TEXAS. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESExVTATlVES, JUNE 11, 1850, IN THE 
 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THE CALIFORNIA MESSAGE. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GIDEON & CO., PRINTERS. 
 
 185U. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 The House beins; in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration the President's 
 message in relation to the admission of California — 
 
 Mr. HOWARD said: % 
 
 Nothing, IVIr. Chairman, but the deep interest which my immediate constituents and the State 
 of Texas have in these questions, could induce me to claim the attention of tho Committee at 
 this late period of the discussion. The tiine i»as at leni^th arrived, when the peace and welfare 
 of this country require, not a compromise, but justice to the South, and an observance of constitu- 
 tional requirements and official oaths for their support. The South demands her constitutional 
 rights, and a just share in the benefits of this Government; no other compromise is required, or 
 will secure tranquility to the country. 
 
 I am not, sir, about to enter into any abstract speculations upon the nature and character of 
 slavery. I am content to treat that institution as it was regarded by the fathers of the country 
 who framed the Constitution under which we here assemble, as an existing relation of society, 
 drawing to itself certain fixed, and, in theory, firmly established civil and political rights. What 
 the greatest and purest men that the world has ever seen — a Washington, a Franklin, a Hamil- 
 ton, and a Madison — guaranteed as a right, cannot be proved sinful by the latter day saints of 
 abolition and free-soil, however men may difFer as to its character in other respects. Neither 
 shall 1 so far follow the hackneyed examples of bad taste, as to participate in the sectional re- 
 criminations which have been so freely indulged in by speakers from all sections during this 
 debate; they are beneath the dignity of the subject, and unworthy of the American Congress. 
 
 Sir, when our forefathers, the men of the Revolution, framed the present Constitution — the 
 great charter of American liberty — slavery constituted no objection to the Union. If, in the 
 progress of events and opinions, it has become so odious and sinful in the'estimation of any con- 
 siderable section of this country, that the Government cannot be administered in its original spirit, 
 and the letter^^f the Constitution coinjilied with, let the fact be proclaimed, and the legitimate con- 
 sequences follow. But it is not in candor and honesty to appropriate the advantages of the com- 
 pact, and then refuse to abide by its obligations and ex|)ress stipulations; the performance, like 
 the benefits, must be mutual by all the contracting parties. 
 
 It cannot be disguised, that attachment and loyalty to the Constitution are, in some sections 
 of the Union, greatly weakened, and in danger of being entirely destroyed. Daring the present 
 session of Congress, petitions have been presented from free Slntes asking for a dissolution of 
 the Union, on the ground that the petitioners could not conscientiously remain in a Union, the 
 Constitution of which guaranteed slavery. A very considerable party openly take the ground, 
 that the Constitution is opposed to the divine law in this respect, and must yield to this new 
 rule of political faith. It is a novel revelation, and above tlie word of God, for the Scriptures, 
 as well as the Constitution, recognise slavery, and pronounce it legal. 
 
 It was satisfactory to hear this disreputable doctrine denounced by the distinguished member 
 from New York, (Mr. Duer,) as well as by the eloquent member from Massachusetts, (Mr. 
 WiNTHROp,) although the value of their reprobation was very much weakened by certain 
 phrases which they let fall about habeas corpus and jury trial. It cannot be necessary to remind 
 gentlemen, as intelligent as ihey are, that the difference between one who openly and boldly sets 
 the Constitution at defiance, and one who admits its obligation, yet evades it by dexterous legis- 
 lative devices, as to the remedy, is scarcely worthy the consideration of the casuist. 
 
 The truth is, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution, in relation to the restoration of fugitive slaves, 
 has become a dead letter, and so, I believe, it is destined to remain. This condition of things 
 is calculated to awaken the most lively apprehensions. The whole foundation of the American 
 theory of government is the respect and attachment of the people for their written Constitu- 
 tions. When they cease, the representative repwblican system of government is at an end. If 
 the people of this country once embrace the opinion that there is a Divine law, or any other rule 
 of government above the sanctions of the Constitution, and the obligations of an oath, an end of 
 republican forms will soon follow. 
 
 No one can read the acts of certain State legislatures, prohibiting the restoration of fugitive 
 slaves, opposed, as they are, to the Constitution, the law of Congress, and the decisions of the 
 Supreme Court, without feeling his pride as an American citizen humbled in the dust. 
 
 After the close of a brilliant war the Government acquired , by treaty of cession, an extensive a.:d 
 valuable country from Mexico. This acquisition was the result of common blood and treasure, 
 freely expended by all sections of the Union. On obvious princifdes of equity and justice this 
 public domain, thus belonging as a common fund to the whole country, ought to be open to the 
 citizens of all the States, with their property. If there is such a difference between the institu- 
 tions and property of the slave and non-slave States, as to make a common occupation by their 
 
 
\ 
 
 3 
 
 citizens repugnant to the interests or feelings of tliose emigrating from different sections, or in- 
 expedient for aiiv reason, llien the lime-lionortd principle of ii illvision of estate, hy proprietors 
 who cannot a^jreC to occnpy in coninion, should al once, lie the rule of udjustnieiit. If il cannot 
 be occupied in common, tlie icrri:ory should be divided by yome ecjuituble line of |)arlition. 
 
 I am not wedded to uny particular line of division. I am free to say that, twelve months ajjo, 
 I would not have voted for the Missouri coinpromise line; but tlie active intervention of the Kx- 
 eculive and others in the aflairs of California, and whi(;h will be continued us to the other Ter- 
 ritories if this question is left open, render a settlement, even by this line, desiralile at the present 
 time. I would be willing to a division of the Territory by parallels of longitude, and would 
 prefer the bill of the honorable member from Maryland, (Mr. McLake,) which proposes to ex- 
 tend the Texas boundary to the Colorado and the Gulf of California, giving to the State of Cal- 
 ifornia the balance of the country. This would fix the instiiutiona of the whole Mexican ac- 
 quisition, and lea\e no further territory for the Wilmot provi.so and the legislation of Congress. 
 
 If there cannot l)e a division of the counuy, then the Mexican law ought to be furmally re- 
 pealed. Tlii.s would not be an establishment of slavery, but would leave the question to stand 
 merely upon the (Jonstitution and non-intervention. Congress has no power to destroy prop- 
 erty, or exclude it from a territory ; but it may remove obstructions and obstacles If there be 
 any Mexican law excluding: the manufactures or mechanic arts of the North, or the slave prop- 
 erty of the South, it is the duty o'' Congress to repeal these laws. I might go furth'^r, as a ques- 
 tion of right, and maintain that there is a broad and obvious distinction between the power lo 
 create, or establish a species of property, and llie power to destroy. 
 
 Congress oui^ht to settle this matter, and place it i)eyond doubt. The inclination of my own 
 mind is, that the Mexican law, m nlaiion to slavery, is superseded by the Constitution; yet it 
 is a question in contest, and, as long as it remains in that condition, no one will think of taking 
 slaves into these Territories. No prudent lawyer would advise his client to that course; how, 
 then, can he consistently vote for any settlement which docs not secure the right, and place the 
 emigrant beyond the harassment of vexatious law.suits in relation to this species of property? 
 Tlie present condition of the law is the subject of too much uncertainly to be a safe property 
 rule. It will prevent the emigration of slaveholders, and, in its practical results, exclude the 
 South from any fair partition in the advantages of the common Territories. Let there be a re- 
 moval of all obstructions, in the shape of Mexican laws, or an acknowledgment of the right on 
 one side of a given line. 
 
 THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 The first measure of the series is the admission of California as a State, with her constitutional 
 boundaries and inhibition of slavery. This action in California by a handful of men excludes 
 the South from the whole Pacific coast, running through 3ome ten degrees of latitude, and em- 
 bracing the whole Pacific country of any real value. The justice of permitting a few persons 
 thus to monopolize an empire, which they cannot occupy, to the expulsion of one half of the 
 States of the Union, cannot readily be apprehended. Within reasonable and legitimate bounda- 
 ries, first ascertained, the people of a Territory, when forming a State, have a right to prescribe 
 their own domestic institutions; but a few men or inhabitanls have no right or power to mono- 
 polize large tracts of the public domain for an indefinite period of time, which they cannot enjoy, 
 and encumber it with their political institutions. Such a course of action is alike forbidden by 
 justice and the Constitution. In the case of California, it is particularly odious to the States it 
 was aimed at, from the fact that it was accomplished through the instrumentality of political 
 agitations, and the interference of Executive agents and emissaries. I know this has been denied, 
 and I do not now mention the subject with any other view than to produce the proof", furnished 
 by the debates of the California convention, on a proposition to extend her boundaries to the 
 line of New Mexico for the purpose of excluding, slavery in all that vast region. 
 
 " Mr. Sherwood. The gentleman, (Mr. McCarver,; says he is in favor of a permanent 
 boundary. How is he going to get a permanent boundary by fixing it upon the Sierra Nevada.' 
 Is he sure that Congress will not cut us off on the south. If the gentleman has that assurance 
 from a majority of the members of Congress, I should like to see it. I hope he will produce it. 
 In my opinion, if a majority of Congress are determined to settle the question of slavery, they 
 will give us the whole territory. If it is objected to by Mr. Calhoun, or any other gentleman 
 who is in favor of slavery over a part of California, it will be answered that it is too expensive 
 to establish a territorial government on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada; that that territory 
 is for the most part a desert waste, and may rest with California as a part of the State without 
 being expensive to the people of California; but that it would be quite a burden in thirty or 
 forty years, at an annual expense to the Treasury of the United vStates of one or two hundred 
 thousand dollars a year — a large portion of which we would have to pay ourselves. In regard 
 lo preventing our admission into the Union by extending the boundary lo New Mexico, we ex- 
 pressly say to Congress that, if they will not give us that, they may cut us down to the Sierra 
 Nevada. If we cut ourselves down now, gentlemen on the other side will say we have acted 
 very foolishly in not embracing the whole territory, and thus throwing out of the councils of the 
 nation the subject of all the difficulty. If we are admitted into the Union, and become a con- 
 stituent part of the great Confederacy — a new star in the galaxy of stars — we shall always, i 
 
trust, have the same desire to keep the Union tosjether — to preserve it in Sjjirit and substance — as 
 we had when we were residents of the older States. 
 
 " Mr. Semple. I feel under some obligation to repeat a conversation which has a direct bear- 
 inir upon this matter. There is a distinguished member of Congress, who holds his seat from 
 one of the .States of the Union, now in California. With a desire to obtain all the information 
 possible in relat'on to the state of things on the other side of the mountains, I asked him what 
 was the desire nf the people in Congress; I observed to him that it was not the desire of the 
 people of California to take a larger boundary than the Sierra Nevada; and that we would prefer 
 not embracing within our limits this desert waste to the east. His reply was, ' For God's sake 
 leave us no territory to legislate upon in Congress.' He went on to state, then, that the great 
 object in our formation of a State government was to avoid further legislation. There would be 
 no question as to our admission by adopting this course ; and that all subjects of minor import- 
 ance could afterwards lie settled. 1 think it my duty to impart this information to the conven- 
 tion. The conversation took place between iMr. Thomas Butler King and myself. 
 
 "iVIr BoTTS. I have remarked it as a singular fact, that we have reports daily, and almost 
 hourly, of some important information that ha.s been received from some particular source; let- 
 ters that have arrived, conversations that have occurred; something that some gentleman has 
 heard Mr. Thomas Butler King say. Now, sir, I take it that Mr. Thomas Butler King, nor no 
 other single individual, is the exponent of the wishes of the Congress of the United States. He 
 is but one man on the floor of that Congress. He gives but one vote, and that vote it is not in 
 his power to give whilst he remains in the State of California. No, sir, not even that vote, 
 either directly himself, or indirectly through his friend upon this floor. Sir, I take it that if Mr. 
 Thomas Butler King did know, and had a right to tell us what were the opinions of the Con- 
 gress of the United States, it would be for us to consider rather what our own opinions are, than 
 those of Congress, upon this subject. Therefore I exclude the whole testimony as totally irrele- 
 vant to this matter." 
 
 Thus, it seems, that the opinions and discourse of Mr. King, if not that of others, did influence 
 and control the action of the California convention upon this most delicate subject. 
 
 It is a great mistake to suppose that the highest interests of California require her immediate 
 admission into the Union. It has been announced in the other wing of the Capitol, that this new 
 State n)ust for a time be supported by the Federal Treasury, having no revneue of her own. 
 It is the first instance of such a pretension, and is of evil example. States ought never to be 
 dependent on the Federal Treasury. 
 
 If the report of Mr. Jones be correct, that there never was a surveyor in California, then it is 
 true that there is not a complete title in that country ; for it is a notorious fact, that in no part of 
 Spain or Mexico did the final title issue, until after survey and ji^dicial possession. All these 
 titles, on this siatement, are inchoate, and must depend for validity on the future legislation of 
 Congress. If the statements of Mr. Jones are accurate, there is not a title in California that will 
 su.stain an action of ejectment. They are not legal titles, but mere equities, requiring the action 
 of Congress, which in good faith their owners are entitled to demand. The interests of Cali- 
 fornia require leoislative action on these subjects far more tlian present admission into this Union. 
 
 Whatever may be the diflerence of opinion as to the extent of the power of Congress over 
 the municipal and internal affairs of a Territory when organized, there can be no well-founded 
 doubt that the right to authorize a State or territorial government is exclusively in Congress. 
 Until the Territory becomes a State, the rii;ht to govern is in the United States, and not in the 
 people who happen to be present or located on the public domain. In the case of Florida, the 
 Supreme Court of the United States declared, that " perhaps the powej- of governing a Territory 
 belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self- 
 government, may result necessarily from the facts that it is not within the jurisdiction of any 
 particular State, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to 
 govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be 
 the source whence the power is derived, tlie possession of it is im questioned." — (1 Peters, 542.) 
 
 I do not admit that under this power Congress has any authority to destroy private property. 
 This cannot be done either in the States or Territories by the Federal Government, because it 
 is restrained by the Constitution. By express provision of the Constitution, it may take private 
 property for puljlic use, first making compensation therefor. It has no power to take or destroy 
 private property to promote any general purposes of public good, or any real or mistaken views 
 of human philanthropy. The Federal Government has no such mission. In the Territories, 
 Congress may remove obstacles to the enjoyment of property, by giving remedies and salutary 
 police regulations, but it can neither exclude nor destroy it. The Federal Legislature is limited 
 in its exercise of power over property. Congress having in itself no authority to exclude or 
 destroy property in the Territories, can delegate no such power to the territorial legislatures. It 
 cannot confer that on another whirh it does not possess itself. If a Territory is within the 
 power and jurisdiction of the United States, it is exclusively so until it acquires a new sovereign; 
 and this cannot be done unless admitted as a State into the Union. How can there constitu- 
 itionally be a State on the public domain within \he limits of the United States, and yet outside 
 of th€ Union, and beyond the control of this Government.' The idea is a solecism, a contra- 
 diction in terms. ' It is not a State, in the American sense, for any purpose, until it is embraced 
 
by the Union. As the power to admit new Stated is entirely with Congress, there is no other 
 tribunal which can authorize a oovernmeni to be formed with a constitution preparatory to ita 
 admission into the Union as a State. The sovereisnty of the Territories must en her reside in 
 this Government or the people of the Stales. If such were not the ca.-ic, i: would be init bey- 
 ance, until a territory acquired by the United States was peopUd. The Supreme Court_ has 
 decided that an acquisition of territory is also an acqui.sitiou of the sovereignty over ii. If this 
 be so, it cannot be a divided sovereignty, partly in the United Stales and partly iti the people 
 of the Territory. It resides exclusively in the United States, and no K'.vernmeiii erected in the 
 Territories, in time of peace, can have a legal existence, unless it has been established or autho- 
 rized by Congres.s. 
 
 Previous to tlie call of the convention at Monterey, there was a provisional government in 
 California, organized by the authority of the United States during war, and which was con- 
 tinued after peace by the cmsent of th.^ Executive of the United States. It was a government 
 of necessity, with a legal commencement, which could not lie superseded without the auihoriiy 
 of Congress. It has been destroyed by an illegal «n<l revolutionary mov(tment, without the 
 authority of the United States constitutionally expressed. The action of General Riley, under 
 which the convention was assembled which framed the present constitution of (Jaliforiiia, has 
 been disavowed by the Secretaries of State and War of the last Adminislraiion, the only 
 officers from whom an order could have proceeded tu sanction his course. The convention had 
 not even the merit of a spontaneous revolutionary movement proceeding from the P*^"P'''- '"^ 
 had its origin in the proclamation or military order of General Riley, of the 3d of June, 1849. 
 By this order he called a convention, fixed the number of delegates, and the boundaries of di.s- 
 tricts. Thus were the highest attributes of .srvereignly arrogated by this military commandant, 
 at a remote position, in open violation of law and the Constitution. 
 
 Although the convention which framed the constitution of California was convened by Gen- 
 eral Riley without Executive orders, he stales in a proclamation of 22d of June, that it was 
 confirmed by instructions subsequently received by the steamer -'Panama." Thus was this 
 convention assembled, contrary to law and the Constitution ; and to the unauthorized goverH- 
 nient which it provided, was delivered over the then existing government ofCahrornia by Gen- 
 eral Riley, with the remarkable declaration that " whatever may be the legal objections to 
 putting into operation a State government previous to its being acknowledged or approved by 
 Congress, these objections must yield to tl>e obvious necessities of the ca.se; for the powers of 
 the existin<r government are too limited, and its organization too imperfect, to provide for the 
 wants of a'country so peculiarly situated, and of a population which is augmenting with such 
 unprecedented rapidity." , 
 
 If such action is authorized by the Constitution of the United States, what becomes of the 
 doctrine of the Supreme Court, that the right to govern the Territories is in the United States. 
 I think it quite demonstrable, as a legal proposition, that this action in California is not merely 
 irregular, but that she cannot be admitted into the Union, under her present constitution, with- 
 out another convention authorized by Congress. I should rejoice to see this action hfid, the 
 slavery question settled, the limits of California adjusted, and her worthy representatives admit- 
 ed to their seats. 
 
 I proceed to state some of the objections to the present admission of that Slate. 
 
 The Constitution of the United "States declares, that "new States may be admitted by Con- 
 gress into the Union.'' Now, what is a State, in the sense contemplated by the Cimstitution 
 of the United States.' If Cuba, without any previous sanction of Congress, were to present 
 herself here with a constitution ready formed, would she be a State which could legally be ad- 
 mitted into the Union' It seems to me that the previous assent of Congress would be neces- 
 sary to the creation of a State out of a foreign country, which had not been under the laws of 
 the Federal Government by virtue of territoria! organization 
 
 The case of Texas has been cited as furnishing a precedent for a different rule of action; but 
 its authority is clearly the other way. By the joint resolution of annexation. Congress gave 
 consent that Texas might be erected into a State, in order to it« admission into, the Union, by 
 means of a convention of delegates chosen by the people. This convention was assembled, 
 and the constitution formed by authority of the Congress of the United Stales, as well as by 
 the legislative department of the Republic of Texas. As the first admission of a foreign State 
 into the Union, it is a strong precedent to prove the necessity of a previous consent in order to 
 legalize the preparatory action of forming a government which is to enter the Union as a State. 
 Obviously, no foreign government has a rishf to proceed to the election of Senators and Repre- 
 sentatives until iisadmission into the Union. No political organization has any warrant for 
 this until it is inside of the Union ; for it is by virtue both of the Federal Constitution, as well 
 as of the membership of the Union, that a Siate has this privilege. 
 
 The admission of Vermont, Kentucky, and Maine are not exceptions to this rule, inasmuch 
 as they were formed out of pre-existing States; and, in that case, the Constitution contemplates 
 that the initiatory step shall be taken by the old States, and that the approbation of Congress 
 should follow; which, in their admission, was the course pursued, the respective laws of ad- 
 mission defining their boundaries. 
 
 It is worthy of observation that in no case has a State been admitted without the previous con- 
 
6 
 
 sent of Congress to form a constitution and State government, unless such State had previously 
 been in the condition of a territory, and had her boundaries defined by an act of Congress dur- 
 ing her territorial pupilage. It is dilficult to perceive how, on principle, it could otherwise be 
 done. A State must have identity, to which definite boundaries are indispensalsle. These 
 boundaries must be established by the United States, if the Stale is carved out of the public 
 domain. Who but the proprietor can set up the limits of his own estate, when he parts with a 
 portion of it.' The United States have clearly the right to say where shall be the limits of a 
 new State to be erected out of its own territory or domain. Naturallv, before any political com- 
 munity enters on any portion of this domain to erect it into a State, tlie consent of Congress 
 should be had, and, as a general course of legislation, such has been the practice of the Gov- 
 ernment. The late treaty with Mexico evidently contemplate.'? that the Congress of the United 
 States will move first in this matter, and that, until it does act, these territories will be governed 
 by the authority of the United States. As to the lime and method of admission, the language of 
 the treaty is peculiar and quite different from the provisions by which we acquired Louisiana and 
 Florida: 
 
 The treaty with France of 1803, for the acquisition of Louisiana, provides that •' the inhabit- 
 ants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into tlie Union of the United Siate.s, and admit- 
 ted, as soon as possible, accordnig to the principles of the Feileral Constitution, to the enjoy- 
 ment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the Un:ted Stales." 
 
 In the treaty with Spain, of 1819, it was declared that the inhabitants of Florida "shall be in- 
 corporated in the Union of the United Stales as soon as may be, consistent wiih the principles 
 of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enj( yment of all the privileges, rights, and 
 iniinunilies of the citizens of the United States." 
 
 The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo declares that "Mexicans, who in the territory aforesaid 
 shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, coiitormably with what is 
 stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, 
 Ifnd be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by tlie Congress of the United States) to 
 the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of 
 the Constitution; and, in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the tree enjoy- 
 ment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion witliout re- 
 straint." 
 
 Here Congress is given a wide discretion by the treaty, which is the law of the ca.«e, unless 
 it can be shown that it conflicts with the Constitution. Congress is made by the treaty the ex- 
 clusive judge of the i^roper time for tlie admission of these people into the Union. It is a fair 
 inference from the language used that the coinmissioners conteinplated that Coiigress would say 
 to them when the proper time for admission had arrived. It was not the people of the ceded terri- 
 tory, but Congress, who were to judge of this matter. The reason for this provision must occur 
 to everyone. At the period of the negotiation ofthis treaty the mines of California were unknown ; 
 the massof the population were Mexicans a»d j)ue6<o Indians, and they were to have a year to de- 
 termine their citizenship. It was a very unpromising material out of which to form American cit- 
 izens, capable of working our representative system. Mr. Trist knew their character well, and 
 hence the provision in the treaty which gave to Congress unlimited control over the time of their 
 incorporation into the Union, and made the previous action of Congress a condition precedent to 
 their formation of Stales in order to an admission into the Union. It is obvious, from the lan- 
 guage employed in the treaty, that the commissioners contemplated a territorial government for 
 these countries previous to their admission into the Union. Until admitted into the Union, the 
 treaty expressly guaranties to these people their liberty, property, and religion, which shows 
 that an intermediate territorial government was contemplated by the commissioners. 
 T Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the legal difficulty of the want of previous assent 
 of Congress to the formation of this State could be cured by subsequent legislation, still there 
 is another defect which is radical, and goes to the nullity of the very basis of the California 
 constitution. The delegates who formed the constitution itself were not elected by citizens of 
 the United States with a legal and fixed domicil in California, and a large portion of those who 
 voted for its ratification were laboring under the same disability. The Constitution of the Unit- 
 ed States, wherever it speaks of federal numbers, looks to citizenship and domicil. The citi- 
 zens of one Stale cannot be enumerated in another. Citizens domiciled in one State cannot vole 
 for members of Congress in another. To maintain the reverse would be to overthrow the entire 
 representative theory of the Government, and destroy the State system. The people of Ohio 
 have no power, under the Constitution, to permit the citizen.? of Kentucky to be enumerated or 
 vote for President or members of Congress in that State. If they had this power, the federal 
 slave basis could be transferred to the free States, and the same federal numbers counted in dif- 
 ferent States. The exercise of the right of suftraije touching federal rights, under our system, 
 cannot be separated from domicil. People domiciled i^ the States have no right under the Con- 
 stitution to pariicipate in the formation of agovernineni for a new State in one of the Territories 
 of this Union, or to vote for members of Congress to represent it. Their political rights, in this 
 respect, are fixed in and pertain to anotlier jurisdiction. Thai the action of California violated 
 the law and the Constitution in this respect, is evident from the following provisions estab- 
 lished by the proclamation of General Riley, on the 3d of June, 1849: 
 
" Every free male citizRii of the United Stales and of Upper California, twenty-one years o 
 age, and uctually residiiit in tlie district where the vole is offered, will l)e entitled to the right of 
 suffrage. All eitizcn.s of Lower California, who have bean forced to come to this territory, on 
 account of having rendered assistance lo the American troops during the recent war with Mex- 
 ico, should also he allowed to vote in the district wiiere they actually reside." 
 
 Ill ilir fir.ft |)liir(., this proclamation is a direct violation of the laws of naturalization of the 
 Unitcij Slates. Tlio.se ciiiz<'iiH of Lower California who had been forced to remove hccauBe 
 they had assisted the United Stales troops, were not thereby naturalized, nor were they em- 
 braced ill the provisions of the treaty of Hidaigo. Under tlie hiws of Congress on this subject, 
 ihey were aliens, and yet they have been permitted to vote and aid in excluding the South 
 from this rich and comimm heritage of the Union. The next objection is, that for citizens of 
 the United States to vole for delegates, citizenship in California is not required, but mere resi- 
 dence. 
 
 With t)ie exception of the admission of the new States formed out of older Slates, and the 
 case of Texas "previous lo admission, tiiere has always been an act of Congress for the 
 territory, fixing boundaries and regulating the right of suflVage. 
 
 At the time the conveniion was Called at Monterey, there was no law of suffrage existing in 
 California. The Mexican law, which fixed majority at 25 years of age, and was in other re- 
 spects greatly restricted, was not preieiuled to be followed by General Ililty. The reason must 
 be obvious. A.sa purely political regulation, determiiiiii!; ihc relation between ihe citizen and his 
 Grovernment, according to the writers on international law, as well as the English and American 
 decisions, this rule ceased on the transfer of California to the United States. The language of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States is: " The same net which transfers their country, 
 transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and the law, which maybe denominated 
 political, is nece.ssarily changed, although that which regulates the intercour.se and general con- 
 duct of individuals remains in force iinlil altered by the newly created power of the Slate." 
 
 The right of suffrage is not a natural right; it is'a positive institution of society, confided to a 
 certain portion of its members for the good of all. The power to regulate it was usurped by 
 the proclamation of General Riley, and was an abuse of authority without a parallel in the his- 
 tory of thi.s Government. The convention appears to have been aware of this defect it. the very 
 basis of iheir proceedings, for the constitution which they framed declares the qualification of 
 voters, and provides that " every citizen of California, declared a legal voter by this constitu- 
 tion, and every citizen of the United States, a resident of tliis State on the day of election, shall 
 be entitled to vote at the first general election under this constitution, and on the question of the 
 adoption thereof." Thus no domicil was required to vote for the adoption of this constitution; 
 nothing but simple residence on the day of election. I maintain that no one has a right to 
 vole oil ihe organization of a State, unless he is domiciled within the territory at the time. I 
 deny ihe right of strangers and denizens to exclude he South and Southern property from one 
 of the territories by erecting it into a State organization. That can be effected only by citizens 
 of the territory actually domiciled, who are forming a State government under which they are 
 to live. It is not the province of foreigners and strangers without domicil, or any intention of a 
 permanent residence, who, in contemplation of law, still retain their former legal domicil, and 
 have acquired no other. For the rule of law is well settled, that the domicil of origin obtains 
 until a new one is acquired, and it cannot be acquired without an actual change and an inten- 
 tion to abandon the former domicil and acquire another. 
 
 Resident is defined: " One who resides or dwells in a place for some time. A. B. is now a 
 resident of London." .Tudge Story informs us that " two things must concur to constitute domi- 
 cil; first, residence; and secondly, intention of making it the home of the party. There must be 
 the fact and the intent." 
 
 " If, therefore, a person leaves his home for temporary purposes, but with an intention to re- 
 turn to it, this change of place is not in law a change of domicil, * . * *. . * ^°^ 
 it is not the mere act of inhabitancy in a place which makes it the domicil, but it is the fact, 
 coupled with the intention of remaining; there must be ammo manendi." (Story on Conflict, 42.) 
 
 " A person who is a native citizen of one State, never ceases to be a citizen thereof until he 
 has acquired a new citizenship elsewhere." (Story on Constitution, 565.) 
 
 If persons merely resident in a State on the day of the adoption of a constitution are allowed 
 to vote, it lollows that strangers who do not intend to make it their permanent abode may con- 
 trol its iiisliiutions and policy. Under such a rule of suffrage, tlie citizens of other Slates on the 
 day of election might be brought into the new State in sufficient numbers, and for the express 
 purpose of controlling its domestic policy. The injusiice and illegality of excluding the South 
 from the Territories by such a course of proceeding under the pretence that it was a State action, 
 or people of a Territory settling the question of slavery for themselves, is loo manifest for dis- 
 putaiion. 
 
 There can be no validity in the action of a convention, the delegates to which were chosen, 
 and whose constitution was adopted, by voters who were not citizens of or domiciliated in the 
 Slate. I undertake to say, that where citizenship was necessary to the jurisdiction of a court in 
 California, not one-fourth of the voters for this constitution could have maintained a suit in the 
 judicial tribunals. It is doubtful whether this portion were there for the purpose of making 
 
8 
 
 it their home, and without this intent, as the jurists prove, they could not acquire a domicil. 
 They were there temporarily to dis; gold, and with the intent to return as soon as they had 
 collected a certain quantity of the glitterins; dual. It is no answer, in a legal sense, that many 
 would change this view; the in<en< to remain was necessary to domicil and citizenship. Without 
 this intention, they had no right to participate in the formation of a State government, and to pre- 
 scribe institutions to those who were really resident citizens of the country. Under the rule of 
 their constitution, citizens of other States might have voted on the adoption of the constitution on 
 the day they arrived in San Francisco, and departed for their homes on the following morning. 
 
 Sir, it is not true that this constitution here presented was formed by the people of California. 
 It is not their sense. It is the work of alien.s, and the citizens of other States of the Union, 
 without domicil or citizenship in California. It was a usurpation of political rights clearly op- 
 posed to the principles of the Federal Constitution and the spirit of our Government. It is well 
 ifnown that the great mass of the real citizens of California, who were made so by the treaty, 
 or had made themselves such by residence, were entirely overslaughed by this action of adven- 
 turers and .strangers. The great majority of the citizens resided south of 36° 30', and were unan- 
 imous in favor of a territorial government. Their wishes were overruled and defeated by a 
 horde of new-comers, the aien of a day, whose baggage had scarcely been transferred from the 
 shipping to the shore. It is notorious that the people south of that line were, in the sequel, in- 
 duced to vote for the State organization only to free themselves from present difficulty, and un- 
 der as.surances that it was the only hope of civil government. Since the agitation here, a por- 
 tion of them have reiterated their choice for a territorial government. 
 
 But, sir, such as the population was, the number, at the time of the formation of the Consti- 
 tution, was not enough to entitle them to a State government. 
 
 The statement of T. 0. Larkin, esq., navy agent at Monterey, as to the population of Cali- 
 fornia, is published in the American Quarterly Register and Magazine. "The population of 
 California in July, 1846, was about 15,000, exclusive of Indians; in July, 1849, it is about 
 35 to 40,000." 
 
 The number of inhabitants in a territory to entitle it, under the Constitution, to a member of 
 Congress and to admission under the present federal basis, is 70,680. Before a State can be 
 admitted, or a State government legally formed, it must have this number, it cannot form a State 
 government and then await for the steamboats to bring in the population If a territory could 
 do this, the one hundred who first arrived in a territory mis'ht form a State government that 
 would control its institutions and give them a lasting character. 
 
 There is still an insurmountable objection to the admis.sion of California under the present 
 Constitution, which has been urged with great ability in another place. It is the absence in her 
 constitution of the recognition of the title of the United States to the public domain within her 
 limits, and the want of a compact not to interfere with the primary disposition of the soil. The 
 usage of the Government demands such a provision. It is the exercise of a high sovereign 
 power, and cannot be had without the call of another convention, because the present constitu- 
 tion of California does not confer it upon the legislature. Without such a stipulation, the Unit- 
 ed States cannot preserve any title to the public lands and mines of California. The title of one 
 government to lands within another, is inconsistent with the sovereignty of the latter, and can 
 only be maintained, with the consent of the State, in the nature of a compact. Such has been 
 the uniform construction of Congress, of our Constitution, and system of Stale sovereignties, in 
 regard to this complex subject. This object cannot be secured by the simple legislation of Con- 
 gress. It must have the form and sanction of a compact, which can be consummated only by 
 the assent of California. 
 
 Since the constitution of California must return to the people for further action and new and 
 important provisions, it becomes the duty of Congress to adjust her boundary and curtail the 
 ▼ast extent of this Pacific empire. There is great dinger in permitting one State to engross all 
 the ports on the Pacific, especially when the remoteness and isolated condition of that country 
 is considered. To say nothing of the political hazard to our system, arising from combinations 
 among large and disproportionate .States, California, with her vast limits, presents other subjects 
 of serious apprehension. She will be tempted to a separate existence by the wide extent and 
 productiveness of her mines. By the still richer treasures that will flow from Eastern and In- 
 dian commerce. From all these causes we may look for hostility to the revenue and commer- 
 cial system of the Union. All the great commercial ports of the Pacific should not be left under 
 one local jurisdiction. San Diego and San Francisco ought to be in diflferent Stales, for many 
 and cogent reasons of policy . In the progress of events, the Government of the Union will 
 have slight hold upon that extensive and isolated region, with its great mines and western trade, 
 if the country is all embraced by one State government. It is our policy to strengthen the bands 
 of the Union there by the erection of two or more States, the multiplication of seaports, and the 
 creation of commercial rivalries. If you admit California with her present limits, the bay of 
 San Francisco will engross nearly the whole of the foreign and domestic trade of the Pacific. 
 
 It is apparent, from the report of Mr. King, that the country possesses much more agricultu- 
 ral power than is generally supposed. Its mines will fill the country rapidly wiih a large popu- 
 lation — a population composed, in a considerable degree, of foreigners, with very little sympa- 
 thy with our own Government. It is not the part of wisdom to organize this State in such a 
 
9 
 
 manner as to tempt its inlmhiianls with the advmitages of a separate political existence, inde- 
 pendent of the American Union. 
 
 THK DISMEMBERMENT OF TEXAS. 
 In opposing the compromise of Mr. Clay, in its present sliape, I desire to speak of tha' 
 illustrious stiUesman with all rcspe. i. By his lofty patrioti.sni and great intelle<-.tual exeriionB 
 durin? tiie present session of CoiiKri'SS, he has shown himself, what lie has been olten termed, 
 the Chaiham of America. Rut lam constrained lo say, that ihfi provisions of his hill m rela- 
 tion to Texas are totally inadmissihie as a Southern measure, f^laringly unju.st to that State, and 
 destructive to her hitjhcst intrre.-<t. tn her security and prosperity as a slave Slate. 
 
 The Scniite hill d.-chiiTs, that ..11 ihai portion of the territory of the United Stales acciuired 
 from Mexico liy th'' treaty, concluded 'id Fcliruary, l«4d, and not included within the limits 
 of the Stale of California, nor within the limits of the Territory of Utah, as prescrii.ed in this 
 act, be and the same is hereby erect. •(! into ,i temporary government, by the name of " the Ter- 
 ritory of New Mexico," witli a provision that Goiii^ress may hereafter dividr it into two States. 
 This bill is accompanied by a report, wiih the Ibllowm^' statement: "The committee bej; 
 leave next lo report on the subjeci of the northern and western boundary of Texas. On that 
 question a great diversiiy of o|')inion has prevailed. According to one view of it. the western 
 limit of Texas was the Nueces; i.ccording to another, ii extended to the K.10 Grande, and 
 stretcherl from its mouth to its source." The report then stales, thui the committee had agreed 
 on an amicable adjiistnunt with the following boundary: "The northern boundary ol said State 
 shall be as follows ; Dc^iiming at on ihe Rio del None, commonly called El Fuso, and rnniiing 
 up that river 20 miles, mrasiircd by a siraight line thereon, and thence easiwardly to a point 
 where ihe lOOlh degree of west loiii^'iiude crosses Red river, being the southwest angle in the 
 line dcsisnaied between the United Si:ites and Mexico, and the same anijle in the line of the 
 territory set apari for the Indians by the United States." 
 
 In the first place, ihe bill and report taken together throw discredit and doubt upon the whole 
 western boundary of Texas, They cast doubt upon a portion of the line which is and has 
 been, for a considenU'lc iieriod, under the quiet jurisdiction of the officers and government of 
 Texas, from the mouth of the Rio Grande to El Faso. 
 
 The Senate bill, it will be perceived, pushes a free line, down into the immediate vicimiy of 
 El. Puso, on Ihe great military road from the coast of Texas to the Pacific. It opens a highway 
 for our slaves into New Me.xio, TJtah, and California, with every means and facility for escape 
 t'rom the frontiers. Such a line cuiiioi lail to rendt r slave jiroperty in western and northern 
 Texas, and especially on Red river, insi cure, and seriously aftect its value. The salubrious 
 climate, rich soil, and'productions of Texas, together with cheap lands, invite emigration, and 
 oifer great inducements to the planter. Her' capacities lor producing su^ar and cotton are 
 almost incalculable. She must receive a large poriion of the negroes of the more northern 
 slave States, unless pmigiation is retardeil by an unjust and, to the South, unwise adjustment of 
 this subject. If Texa.s is true to her own interests, she never will consent to such a boundary, 
 v/hen the rtsoluiions of annexation guarantee slavery to new Slates to be formed out of her 
 territory souih of .36° 3t}' north latitude. How can she consent lo permit slavery to be abolished 
 v/ithin her limits to the :i2d degree of latitude, with the inevitable consequences m full view r 
 
 This bill further provides: " If the State of Texas shall refuse or decline to accede to the pre- 
 cedin-; articles, they shall become null and void, and the United Stales shall be remitted back to 
 all their territorial rights, in the same slate and condition as if these ariicles of compact had 
 never been tcmlerecrio the acceptance of the Stale of Texas." The amount to be paid in case 
 Texas accedes to the proposition is by the bill left blank. 
 
 It will be perceived rhat the Territory of New Mexico is, by this bill, lo be created with or 
 v/ilhout the con.senl of Texas. It will of course be organized accorduii; lo its ancient limits, 
 and in derogation of the rights of Texas. It will be claimed that the bill legalizes the present 
 military government in Santa Fe. It will give the appearance of law to a systematic resistance 
 to the jurisdiction of TcXii.^. and before ihe matter can be adjusted, practically determine the 
 question against the State, li will produce civil war and bloodshed between the people of Santa 
 Fe and the authorities of Texas. It leaves the State no choice between such a calamity and 
 the acceptance of the money which may hereafter be inserted in the bill. It includes country 
 on the east never within the l.inits of New Mexico, and transfers it to the new territory. It 
 makes no provision as to the future condition of the foreign and hostile tribes of Indians now 
 roaming over northern and western Texjis. 
 
 In relation 10 the people of New Mexico proper, which is now situated on the west bank of 
 the Rio Grande, the provisions of ilie iieaty with Mexico are complied with if they are ad- 
 mitted into the Union in any Stale, 'nicy have no claims to their ancieni limits, any more than 
 had the people of Louisiana. But tins bill transfers territory to them 011 the south and east, 
 not embraced within the leijai iimils of New Mexico, as it existed under Mexican rule. 
 
 Up to the present lime, the ai ti- f all the departments of this Government has admitled the 
 
 claim of Texas to the Rio Grande in us I'nllest extent. Individual.^, a few members of Con- 
 gress, have denied our title ; but the Gocenimcnt never has taken that position. This compro- 
 mise bill, if passed, would assert, for the first time, by this Government, a claim to the country 
 
10 
 
 on the east bank of the Rio Grande. It is drawn with the skill of a master in this respect. 
 The 25th section provides : 
 
 " Previous to the first election, the e;overnor shall cause a census or enumeration of the 
 inhabitants of the several counties and districts of the Territory to be taken ; and the first elec- 
 tion shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the governor 
 shall appoint and direct; and he shall, at the same time, declare the number of members of the 
 council and house of representatives to which each of the counties or riislriets shall be entitled 
 under this act. The number of persons authorized to be elected having the hii;hest number of 
 votes in each of said council districts, for members of the council, shall be declared by the gover- 
 nor to be duly elected to the council ; and the person or persons authorized to be elected having 
 the greatest number of votes for the house of representatives, equal to the number to which 
 each county or district shall be entitled, shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected 
 members of the house of representatives : Provided, That in case of a tie between two or more 
 persons voted for, the governor shall order a new election to supply the vacancy made by^guch tie. 
 And the persons thus elected to the legislative assemlily shall meet at such place, and on such 
 day, as the governor shall appoint; but thereafter, the tijiie, place, and manner of holding and 
 conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representation in the several 
 counties or districts to the council and house of representatives, according to the population, 
 shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commencement of the regular sessions of 
 the legislative assembly." 
 
 In the first place, the provision is a strong implied recognition of all the counties and districts 
 as now regulated by the present military, and by the former departmental government of Ntw 
 Mexico, which establish a boundary entirely exclusive of the claim of Texas. It authorizes 
 the governor to take a census, to say how many and which of these counties and districts are 
 in the Territory, and name the seat of government in the first instance. It confers on this 
 officer ample power to fix tlie boundary for all practical purposes in the first instance. After 
 the first session of tlie legislative council, that body is given the power tn establish the seat 
 of government, and the counties and districts, and, as a matter of course, the right to declare 
 the exterior boundary of the Teiritory. The faculty to do this, both in the governor and legis- 
 lative council, is clearly granted in the power of apportionment and regulation of the counties and 
 districts. The result of all this is the establishment of a boundary for New Mexico, and a 
 determination of the right against Texas, so far as it can be df)iie by the legislation of Congress. 
 With the Supreme <Jourt of the United States, this law would be conclusive of the whole con- 
 troversy. That court decided, in the cases of Foster and Elam, Garcia and Lea, and the 
 United States and Reynes — the last case at the present terra — that it was controlled on questions 
 of boundary by the action of the political departments of the Government, and would not look 
 beyond that action into the facis and justice of the case. Under the comproiMise, this firmly 
 established rule would compel the court to decide the question of title against '1 exas, if it ever 
 was brought before that tribunal. With the court, this bill would be conclusive of the whole 
 controversy. 
 
 1 will never give any vote here, which will have the effect to deny or prejudice the title to 
 Texas, or place it in any worse condition than it is at present. As a part of the Southern q'les- 
 tion, there ought to be an unconditional admission of the boundary of Texas, as she asserted it 
 when she came into the Union. The feet need not be disguised, ihat if California is admitted 
 with her present boundary, the South will be excluded from the whole country west of the Rio 
 Grande, either under the non-ai:tion policy of the President, or the non-intervention platform with 
 the .Mexican law; unless that law can be repealed, or a division of the Territory effected. On 
 this basis of non-action, non-intervention, or the compromise of Mr. Clay, there is nothing prac- 
 tical in this question, to the Southern States, beyond the boundary of Texas. With all these 
 measures, the practical result to the South is the same exclusion. Why, then, surrender the 
 slave territory of Texas, and place it within the power of free soil? 
 
 If the object of the Compromise Committee of the Senate had been merely to settle the con- 
 troversy, so as to accommodate the people of New Mexico with a separate political existence, 
 it was not necessary to establish the boundary much below .36° 30'. Santa F'e is in 35° 44' 6", 
 according to the observations of Cohnel Emory. At 35° 30' there is a natural boundary pre- 
 sented by the configuration of the country; below that line, the valuable go d, silver, and copper 
 mines are to be found on this side (he river. Below that line is the country most valuable for 
 slave labor, with exception, perhaps, of the mining district above. Up to about iluu line, I learn 
 from an intelligent traveller direct from El Paso and Santa Fc, who journeyed with Major 
 Neighbors, the Texas commissioner, the people submitted at once to the jurisdiction of Texas. 
 He met with little or no opposition until he arrived at Santa Fe, where there are some four or 
 five hundred Americans, who want offices under a Territorial or State Government. 
 
 Let the title of Texas be acknowledged by Congress — placed beyond contest — and I am will- 
 ing to submit any fair proposition to the people of Texas. I am willing to trust them to pass 
 upon it, whether it meets my own views or not ; but I shall oppose any scheme which, in terms 
 or by implication, denies hur title to the country in question. Congress shall not, even by infej-- 
 enec,;assert a claim to it by aid of any vote of mine, because that would change the present status 
 of the legal question. 
 
11 
 
 The Compromise bill is, in legal effect, n present approprintion of ihe territory, if Texas with- 
 holds assent, and u presfiit sale us snon as she assents. Now^ sir, altliou^h I niiijht he willing 
 to submit a projwshion, the titte nf Texas being first admitted, 1 am not willing lo t;o lieyond ihis. 
 The Ltgislaiure of Texas has pluctd all this disputed country in my district, and I do not under- 
 stand tliai my mission here is to be fulfilled, on my part, by a naU of half my district ! The 
 Legislature of the Stale has been in session since tlie proposition of Colonel Benton was first 
 made, and took no action upon it. I have seen no development of public sentiment in Texas' 
 which looks like an approbation of any of these measures in tiieir present shape. To this y)rop- 
 ositioii for a purchase there are two objections which I will here notire. In denying )iractir,ally 
 the tille of Texas, the compensation is nd'cred to her (uily in the shape ni' Inisit iiwney, and foi-the 
 sake of pea<'.e. Jt goes on the liypothesis of buying of) an unl'oundeil preiension of title, and places 
 Texas in this odious and humiliaiiiig attitude before the world. If the jiroposition was, in other 
 respects, free from objections, the State, in my opinion, would indignantly reject iheolVer, clothed 
 111 this insolent form. As a Southern measure, it presents the liirtlier serious difficuliy tiiat it 
 so establishes the Iwundarj' as to preclude tlie idea of a cession, and, of coursi', siibsiiiutes the 
 uncertainty of the Mexican for tlie certainty of the Texas law on the subjcci of slavery. It 
 secures the ultimate division of iSew Mexico into two Slates, which will lie free; and for which 
 there would not be sufficient territory, but for this acquisition from Texas. It thus still further 
 destroys the equilibrium between the slave and free Stales. It so reduces Texas as lo leave 
 room only for three instead of four slave States. 
 
 Much has been said, Mr f^hairman, as to the large amount proposed to be paid to Texas for 
 this coniemplaled iri\nsfcr of territory. The basis of the wliole com[)ensation is the payment of 
 her public deUt. Ami here again she is insiilicd, tiy being told that she cannot be trusted with 
 the payment of that portion for which her revenues t'rom imports were pledged, but the bill 
 makes a special appropriation of stock to discharge first that portion of liie debt. Sir, the 
 power of taxation, prorierty, and tlie whole revenues of a nation, above the curreiu support of 
 government, are, in coiitemplatimi of law, pledged for the public debt. It is a well settled prin- 
 ciple of international law, thai when one Government incorporates another country with it, the 
 former la bound to the creditors for the whole debt of the latter. This Government is bound to 
 the creditors, hut not to Texas, under the articles of annexation. Tc::as does not call on the 
 Federal Government m jiay; she has appropriated the land, by an act of her last Legislature, 
 offering land serin to hi^r creditors at fifty cents per acre, to be located in any part of her wide 
 and magnificent clouiain. This is all she is able to do; and a better payment of a revolutionary 
 debt was never made before by any government. It preserves her honor unUunished — her faith 
 spotless and unimpaired. If there i.s any money obligation pressing upon any one m connexion 
 with thi,-5 business, it is upon ilus Government, who took the public impi>sts Irom the creditors 
 of Texas by force oi" annexation. At the time of that event, Texas, with the lowest tarifl'in the 
 world, was prospering with Ijrilliant commercial prospects; and by this time, with a separate 
 existence, her revenue would have defrayed the current expenses of her Government, and paid 
 the interest on her national debt. 
 
 Let me ask, sir, what will be the great gain to Texas, as a State, l.iy the payment of this 
 money.' Her creditor.^ are principally non-resident brokers and stockholders, very worthy peo- 
 ple, no doubt, who ought to be pai<l, l>ui whose money would not come into the Siate. If Texas 
 were to transferal! the public lands north of El Paso to her creditors, more than eighty millions 
 of acres, it would be a magnificent payment It would [)ay the debt at ion (;enis per acre. 
 What, then, does she get t'or ilie s.ile of her civil jurisdiction.' If the public domain i.s worth 
 more than the delM, which is clear, why does not this Government take the puMic domain with- 
 in that line, instead of insisting on the transfer of the jurisdiction.' 
 
 The value of that country, in an agricultural point of view, is greatly underrated. The good 
 land is much more extensive than is generally represented. And from all the information 1 can 
 obtain, it is nearly, if not quite, as rich as California in mineral wealth. I saw the other day 
 in a paper a statement that those who have been workinir lier placers during; the past winter 
 have realized from len to fiiteeii dollars per day- Lieuteiiani Abert, of the ene;ineers, who ex- 
 plored the country, says that not long since two lumps of gold were found below Santa Fe, one 
 of the value of §900, and the other :J700. Dr. Wiiclezenus, as cientific German miner, who 
 examined the country, tlius deserib.-s its mineral wealth: 
 
 "A third much neglected branch of indu.-try in New Mexico are the minfu. Great many now 
 deserted mininic places in New Mexico prove thai, mining wa.-^ pursued with greater zeal in the 
 old Spanish times than at present,, whicli may be accounted for in various ways, as the present 
 want of ca|iital, want of knowledge, iii mining, but especially the unsettled state of the country 
 and the avarice of its arbitrary lulers. The mountainous parts of New Mexico are very rich 
 in gold, copper, iron, and some silver. Gold seems to be hmnd to a large extent in all the moun- 
 tains near Santa Fe, south of it in a distance of about 100 miles, as far as Gran Q,uivira, and 
 noiih foi about J20 miles up, to ihe river Sangre de Cristo. Throughout this whole region gold 
 dust has been abundantly founi oy the poorer classes of Mexicans, who occupy themselves 
 with the washing of this metal out of the mountain streams. At present the old and the new 
 placer, near Santa Fe, have attracted most attention, and not only gold washes, but some gold 
 mines toe, are worked there. They are, so far as my knowledge extends, the only gold mines 
 
12 
 
 worked now in New Mexico. But as I have made from Santa Fe an excursion there for the special 
 purpose of examining those mines. I must refer the reader, in relation to them, to that chapter of 
 my narrative. As to the annual amount of gold produced in New Mexico, I am unable to give 
 even an estimate; but as nearly all tlie gold of New Mexico is bought up by the traders, and 
 smuggled out of the country to the United States, I believe that a closer calculation of the gold 
 produced in New Mexico could be made in the diiferent mints of iheUnited Slates than in Mexico 
 itself Several rich silver mines were, in Spanish times, worked at Avo, at Cerrillos, and in the 
 Nambe inoimtains, but none at present. Copper is found in abundnnce tliroughout the coun- 
 try, but principally at Las Tijcras, Jemas, Abiquiu, Guadelupita de Mora, &.c. I heard of but 
 one copper mine worked at present south of tfie placers. Iron, though also abundantly found, 
 is entirely overlooked. Coal has been discovered in different localities, as in the Raton moun- 
 tains, near the village of Jemes, southwest of Santa Fe, in a place south of the placers, &c. 
 Gypsum, common and selenite, are found in large quantities in Mexico ; most extensive layers 
 of it, I understood, exist in the mountains near Algodones, on the Rio del Norte, and in the 
 neighborhood of the celebrated "Salinas." It is used as common lime for whitewashing, and 
 the chrystalline or selenite instead of window-glass. About four days travelling (probably 100 
 miles) south southeast of Santa Fe, on the high table land between the Rio del Norte and 
 Pecos, are some extensive sa// Znfces, or " salinas,''' from which all the salt (muriate of soda) 
 used in New Mexico is procured. Large caravans go there every year from Santa Fe in the 
 dry season, ;ukI return with as much as they can transport. They exchange, generally, one 
 bushel of salt for one of Indian corn, or sell it for one and even two dollars a bushel." 
 
 This vast mineral wealth will be developed by an American population, and especially by 
 slave labor. The richest of these mines are on the east bank of the Rio Grande, commencing 
 about thirty miles south of the city of Santa Fe- 
 in connection with the boundaries of New Mexico, I feel constrained to notice a speech of 
 the Senator from Missouri, (Colonel Benton,) which I find in the Intelligencer of this morning, 
 which surprises me much. He says : 
 
 "This is what Humboldt .says of the eastern boundary of New Mexico ; and his map illus- 
 trates what he says. He places that boundary, as it leaves the Rio Grande del Norte, at about 
 twelve miles below the mouth of the Puerco, in west longitude )04, and in north latitude 295, 
 and thence northeastwardly to the head of the Rio San Saba, a branch of the Rio Colorado of 
 Texas, in north latitude 32° 15', and in west longitude 101 This i.s the line he gives as found 
 in the special maps drawn up by engineers in the service of the King of Spain, and preserved 
 in the archives of the Viceroyalty in the city of Mexico. Further than that he does not trace 
 it; but that is far enough for our purpose. It is enough to show lliat New Mexico, under the 
 Spanish Government, extended as lar east as 101 detjrees of longitude, covering the whole 
 course of the Puerco, and entering what is now the county of Bexar, in Texas. * 
 
 " So much for Humbodlt : Now for Pike. He says, at page 5 of his appendix to the journal 
 of his journey through New Mexico: ' New Mexico lies between 30° 30' and 44° of north lati- 
 tude, and 104 and 108 degrees of west longitude, and is the most northern province of the king- 
 dom of New Sp:i in.' ********** 
 
 "I proceed with the possession of New Mexico, and show that it has been actual and con- 
 tinuous from the conquest of the country by Don Juan de Oiiate, in 1595, to the presi'nt. * 
 
 "These are the actual possessions of New Mexico on the Rio Puerco. On the Rio del Norte, 
 as cut off by the committee's bill, there are, the little town of Frontera, ten miles above El 
 Paso, a town besran opposite El Paso, San Elizario, twenty miles below, and some houses lower 
 down, opposite El Presidio del Norte." 
 
 Such are the statements of the honorable Senator as to the present boundaries and present pos- 
 sessions of New Mexico; and if made by one of the younger members on this floor, he would 
 sink 'town under the imputation of gross ignorance of his subject, or a wilful intention to 
 misrepresent the "truth of history," and do injustice to a just claim. Furtiieron, he says: 
 
 "The map of Dr. Wislizenus, which I now produce, agrees with Hiynboldt and Pike, ex- 
 cept in the correciion of slight differences in longitudes and latitudes, wht'ch his accurate instru- 
 ments enabled him to make, .uid which have no practical consequence in this examination." 
 
 Now, the map of Wislizenus does not profess to delineate with accuracy the civil divisions, 
 as the Senator well knows; but, at page 40 of his work, he gives the southern boundary of 
 New Mexico, as it now exists, as follows: 
 
 " The settlement of El Paso was commenced about 1680, when Governor Otermin, of New 
 Mexico, and his party were driven from Santa Fe to the south by a revolt of the Indians. Some 
 Indian pueblos, which received them well, already e.Kisted in ilie fertile valley; but this seems to 
 have been the first Spanish settlement. 
 
 " El Paso belonged, under the S|)amsh Government, to the province of New Mexico ; at pre- 
 sent, to the State of Chihuahua. The latter State claims, as its northern limits, towards New 
 Mexico, as already stated, 32° 30' latitude north, a Ime which by Mexicans is supposed to fall 
 near Robledo, our first camp on the river in coming out of the Jornada. El Paso itself, accord- 
 ing to iny own observations, lies in 31° 45' 50" north latitude." 
 
 Was it quite candid in the honorable Senator to exhibit the map of the author in opposition 
 to his text.= 
 
13 
 
 Upon the subject of the civil divisions of iN'ew Mexico, Lieut. Abert procured from the Stale 
 department in Santn Fi", and pulilitfhed in liis report, ilie following decree circulated by the gov- 
 ernor of that department, issued ni ]844. and extracted by the departmental assembly, and 
 which has the force of law in .Vlcxican jurisprudence : 
 
 "Marino Martinez de Lejiiza, incvct brigadier general, and constitutional governor of the 
 department of New Mexico, lo its inliabiiants, sends greeting, that the assembly of the depart- 
 ment has agreed to dccrct- ilic rollowni;;: 
 
 • • _ « • , 
 " Soiillieastern dislricl. 
 
 " Art. 9. This district is divided into two counties, called Valencia and Bernalillo. The cap- 
 ital is Valencia. 
 
 " Art. 10. The county of Valencia comprises Valencia, San Fernando, Tome, Socoro, Limi- 
 tar, Polvadcra.s, .Sabinas, Elaines, Casa. Colorada, Cilioletta, Sabino, Parida, Luis Lopez, Be- 
 len, Lunes, Lentes, Zuni, Acoma, and Rito. Cminty scat, Valencia. 
 
 • •»»•» 
 
 "This decree shall be made known to the governor, that he may carry it into execution. 
 
 "JESUS MARIA GALLEGAS, President. 
 
 "Juan Baptista Vigil t Maris, Secretary. 
 
 " By virtue of the premises, that this act be published, circulated, and made known to all 
 whom it may concern, tor its most active observance and fulfilment. 
 
 " Palace of the Governmeiit, Santa Fe. 
 
 "MARIANO MARTINEZ. 
 
 " Jose Felix Jubia, Secretary. 
 
 ''June 17, 1844." 
 
 Now the most southern of these towns on the east bank of the Rio Grande, Parida, is placed 
 on the accurate map of Abert, north of degree 34, and the most southern on the west side, Luis 
 Lopez, a few miles south of that line. All south of that is left out of tlie jurisdiction of New 
 Mexico, for the plain reason that this department had no claim to it under the Mexican organ- 
 ization. This decree, although not binding on Texas, would be conclusive without any thing 
 further upon the people of N''w Mexico ; but in their plan of a territorial government, they 
 have expressly ratified it, and do not set up any claim beyond it. They say: 
 
 " Sec. 7. Until the legislative power otherwise direct, the territory of New Mexico shall 
 retain the division of counties and districts eslablished by the decree of the department of New 
 Mexico, of June 17th, 1849," (1844.) 
 
 This shows that the people of New Mexico not only have no possession, but assert no 
 claim, below the 34ih. And yet the Senator claims all below, as far ns 29J degrees, as the 
 present territory and pos.sessions of New Mexico. Mr. Benjamin E. Edwards, a lawyer 
 and excellent Spanish scholar, residing in San Antonio, who examined this .subject in the ar- 
 chives at El Paso writes thus in relation to the boundary of New Mexico : 
 
 "If it should be decided that New Mexico is entitled to a separate existence, either under 
 a territorial government or otherwise, an attempt will no doubt be made to establish her 
 southern boundary somewhere in the vicinity of Ei Paso, as it has been laid down on al- 
 most all the maps published in the United States, and tai'itly recognised by Mexico in the 
 treaty of Guadalupe, where reference is made to Disturnell's map us a correct authority. This, 
 however, is far from being the true boundary of New Mexico, as can be shown by documents 
 in existence in the archives of Chihuahua and El Paso. By these, it appears that the line cross- 
 es or leaves the east bank of the Rio Grande at a point in front oi the mountain (designated as 
 one of the landmarks) which forms the southern limit of the "Jornada del Muerto." Thence it 
 runs in a direction & little norih of east to the "Ccrro Redondo," a remarkable dome-shaped 
 mountain; thence, almost in the same direction, to the " Sierra Capital," or "Cerro Blanco," 
 which, as its name signifies, is the most prominent peak in that region of country ; thence, so 
 far as I could discover, due east to the Pecos. From the Sierra Capital, I could not ascertain 
 that there existed any prominent landmark, though it is probable, if I could have pursued my 
 investigations further, some such would have come to light, as the Mexicans seem to have pur- 
 sued the same system in public as in private affairs, of making natural objects the indications 
 of boundary to land or territory. 1 have in my possession a copy of a grant of land made 
 within the jurisdiction of the State of Chihuahua in the time of the Emperor, under the coloni- 
 zation law of the "Junta Constitucional" of 1823 This land lies some distance above the line 
 claimed by iN'ew Mexico, and has always been acknowledged as belonging to Chihuahua." 
 
 The people of New Mexico, in their plan of a territorial government, or rather instructions 
 lo their delegate, Mr. Smith, have declared that they are bounded on the east liy the State 
 of Texas. Col. Benton admits, that Texas owns territory there which is not in dispute, but 
 says it is a narrow strip. New Mexico extending to the 101 parallel of longitude, and again 
 cites Humboldt, and again his author coniradicis him, and shows that New jMexico is the nar- 
 roiv strip. According to Black's translation, Humboldt says of New Mexico: "This province 
 is from south to north 175 leagues in length, and from east to west from 30 to 50 leagues in 
 breadth ; and in its territorial extent, therefore, is much less than people of no great information 
 in geographical matters are apt to suppose even in that country." And he might have added, 
 
14 
 
 much less than some persons in this country of great pretensions to geographical knowledge 
 "are apt to suppose." 
 
 It is but justice to Humboldt to say, that as to latitude and longitude, he followed the Spanish 
 geographers, whom our own engineers of the army on observation found to be extremely inac- 
 curate. For instance, they place Santa Fe on their maps north of 36° 30', whereas Col. Emory 
 shows that it is nearly a degree south. 
 
 Muehlenport, a German, who was 8 years in Mexico, and published his work in Hanover in 
 1844, gives the 105° 37', as the eastern boundary of New Mexico. This would extend far 
 beyond the actually inhabited part in the most prosperous days of the province; and it is well 
 known that the Spaniards, as a general thing, did not extend the bounds of their provinces much 
 beyond the line of their settlements. Although the authors disagree about the latitude and lon- 
 gitude of the boundaries of this province, they all concur that it was a narrow territory, confin- 
 ed to the vallies of the Rio Grande and the Pecos. But the Missouri Senator seems to reject as 
 superfluous all law since Tucker's Blackslone. which he produced, flourished aloft, and read 
 the titio to the Senate, and all geography since Humboldt, which he said he had in French, but 
 would not exhibit in open Senate out of pure mercy to Mr. Clay. 
 
 The objects of Col. Benton, in this misrepresentation of history and geography, are quite 
 transparent. He wishes to recommend himself to his new allies, the free soilers, by proving 
 against the fact, that this slave territory is within what was, at the close of the war, a free pro- 
 vince, and urge upon the Government to retain </i.e /jos^essiou in o[)position to Texas. He also 
 desires to deprive Texas of the El Paso country for another motive. The altitudes returned by 
 Col. Fremont, in his survey of a railroad by the way of the frozen regions to the Pacific, prove 
 that by that route the stationary power will be so great that his fiivorite route is altogether im- 
 practicable. The road must come south, and leave the Rio Grande in the neighborhood of El 
 Paso, which is in the United States, the overland key to the Pacific — a southern key which 
 Texas will never place in free-soil hands, not even in the grasp of the Senator from Missouri. 
 The truth is, that so long as Texas holds to her territory, she can dictate the locality of the 
 railroad to (he Pacific. This Col. Benton sees clear enough, and therefore offers 15 millions for 
 the territory embracing El Paso. But this road is worth more to Texas, not only than ]5, but 
 fifty millions. If properly located it will be her road to wealth, greatness, and power. 
 
 THE TITLE OF TEXAS. 
 
 It is not my purpose to enter again into the argument as to the title of Texas to the source 
 of the Rio Grande. I shall content myself with repeating, briefly, some of the most prominent 
 facts in the history of the title. It rests, 1. On the treaty with Santa Anna, in 1836, which is 
 a good treaty, because ratified by his generals, who were not prisoners of war; and Filisola had 
 power to treat by express authority of his government; and Mexico having taken the benefits of 
 the treaty, could not, under the law of nations, repudiate it. 
 
 2. On the act of the Texas Congress of December, 1836, under which her independence was 
 acknowledged by the United States and the other powers, all of wliich are, by that recognition, 
 estopped from denying her boundary. It was an essential element of her nationality. 
 
 3 The convention between this Government and the Republic of Texas of 1838, carried out 
 by the act of the United States Congress of 1839, makes the former boundary between the Unit- 
 ed States and Mexico the future boundary between the United States and Texas, which is the 
 very boundary of the Texas act of 1836 and the treaty with Santa Anna. The convention de- 
 clares : 
 
 "The treaty of limits, made and concluded on the 12th day of .January, 1828, between the 
 United States of Ameriia on the one part, and the United Mexican States on the other, is bind-, 
 ing upon the Republic of Texas, the same having been entered into at a time when Texas formed 
 a part of said United States; and wherea.s it is deemed proper and expedient, in order to pre- 
 vent future disputes and collisions between the United States and Texas, in regard to the bound- 
 ary Itetween the two countries, as DESIGNATED by that SAI D TREATY ,'that a PORTION 
 of the sarne should be run and marked without unnecessary delay," &c. 
 
 It was then provided that commissioners " sliould proceed to run and mark that portion of 
 the said boundary which extends from the mouth of the Sabine, where that rivfy- enters theGulf 
 of Mexico, to the Red river." 
 
 The convention further provided, among other things, " And that the remaining portion of 
 the said boundary line .shall be run and marked at such time hereafler as may suit the conve- 
 nience of the contracting parties," &c. Thi.s convention was m.uie with reference to the act of 
 the Texas Congress of 1836. It is a clear and express recognition of the wh'de boundary of 
 Texas of equal dignity with a treaty. The opponents of the Texas title always remember to 
 forget this compact. In the celebrated case of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, it was held that 
 where States once agreed on a line it was binding, and when a river was mentioned in a com- 
 pact as boundary, it was ruled to mean the river in its whole extent. The rule applies with 
 much greater force in this instance. If there were nothing in the ca.se but this convention, it 
 would "be forever conclusive against the United Slates. 
 
 4. Pending the negotiation for annexation, the Secretary of War instructed General Taylor 
 by order of the 15th of June, 1345, which was in substance repeated on the 30th of July : 
 
15 
 
 "The point of your ultimate destination is the western frontiers of Texas, wliere you will se- 
 lect and occui)y, on ur mar the Rio Grande, such a site as will consist with the health of the 
 troops, and will be liest adapted to repel nivasiori, and protect what, in the event of annexation, 
 will be our western border." 
 
 Thus this Government look possession nf the Rio Grande country in the name of Texas, as- 
 serting it as the frontier of that Stale. 
 
 5. it is well known that Mr. Donalilson, pending the negotiation of annexation, and during 
 the session of the Texas coiivi-iuion which consummated it, gave repeated as.surances to the au- 
 thorities of Texas that the United States would not only recognise, but maintain, the title of 
 Texas. In his letter to this Government of the lllh of July, 1345, he says : 
 
 "The boundary of Texas, as difined by her statutes, runs up ihe Rio Grande from its mouth, 
 in the sea, to iis source, cutting ofl' portions of Taniaulipas, Coahuiln,and New Mexico. Above 
 the point on ihe Rio Grande, where it enters New Mexico, there has been no occupancy by 
 Texas: and it is obvious, si. far as that region is concerned, nn military movement could have 
 taken it out of the category in wlii<-.h it is left by the terms of our joint resolution. So, what- 
 ever may have been the success o\' the attempt to drive the Mexicans from Loredo and other 
 lower points, the difficulty would have remained the same in regard to the extensive Santa Fe 
 region above. 
 
 " But, while from such views I encouraged no aggressive movement on the part of Texas to 
 take forcible possession of the Rio Grande, I have nevertheless omitted no opportunity of satis- 
 fying all [larties here that the United Stales uwuld in good faith maintain the claim, and thai I had 
 every reason to believe they vwuhl do so successfully " 
 
 Such were the solemn assurances and pledges of this Government, through its accredited 
 minister, pending the negotiation They are a part of the compact, and prove conclusively its 
 intent and meaning. Can this Governnunt disregard them now.' 
 
 6. It has lieen said that the United States conquered New Mexico, and held it by title of con- 
 quest. Such is not tlie fact. General Kearney, in his first speech to the people of New Mexico, 
 August 15, 1846, at Vegas, as t'oimd in Emory's report, declared: 
 
 " .Mr. Jilcalde and people o/A'eio Mexico: 
 
 " I have come amongst you, by the orders of my Government, to take possession of your 
 country, and extend over it the laws of the United States. We consider it, and have done 
 so for some time, a pan of the territory of the United States. We come amongst you as friends, 
 not as enemies; as protectors, not as conquerors. We come amongst you for your benefit, not 
 for your injury." 
 
 What was this but an assertion of the Texas title, and how else had it been for some time a 
 part of the territory of the Utnted States.' The President of the United States admitted, on ap- 
 plication of the Governor of Texas, that the United States held the country in subordmation lo 
 the title of Texas. This appears by his special message of July, 1848, in which it is quoted as 
 follows : 
 
 " In answer to a letter from the Governor of Texas, dated on the fourth of Jamiary, 1847, the 
 Secretary of State, by my direi-tion, informed him in a letter of the 12th of February, 1847, that 
 in the President's annual message of December, 1846, ' You have already perceived that New 
 Mexico is at present in the temporary occupation of the troops of the United States, and the 
 government over it is military in its charai'ter. It is merely such a government as must exist 
 under the laws of nations and of war, lo preserve order and protect the rights of the inhabitants, 
 and will cease on the conclusion of a treaty of peace with Mexico. Nothing, therefore, can be 
 more certain than this temporary government, resulting from necessity, can never injuriously 
 affect the right which the President believes to be justly asserted by Texas to the whole territory 
 on this side of the Rio Grande, whenever the Mexican claim to it shall have been extinguished 
 by treaty.' " 
 
 Without a violation of all law and justice, this possession cannot now be set up against Texas. 
 
 7. The title of Texas was aasirted by the declaration of war by Congress, that a state of war 
 existed by Mexico, which consisted only in Mexican soldiers crossing the Rio Grande and com- 
 mitting hostilities near its banks. To deny the title now is to change the character of the war 
 into one of aggression and conquest, and bring unmerited reproach upon the country. 
 
 8 Pendine: the negotiations for peace with Mexico, our commissioner, Mr. Trist, asserted 
 the Texas title, and said: " Until ascertained by a compact orasreement, definitive or provisional, 
 between the United States and Mexico, the boundary between the two republics, when consider- 
 ed by the United States with reference to the national obligation to protect their territory from 
 invasion, could be none other than that revij boundary which had been asserted by Texas herself.'''' This 
 assertion was carried into the treaty with Mexico by attaching to the treaty, and making a part 
 of it, a map which conformed exactly to the claims of Texas, and placed New Mexico on the 
 west bank of the Rio Grande. This is absolutely conclusive of the question. It was the inten- 
 tion of Mexico, in this treaty, to redeem her faith pledged to Texsis in the treaty of 1836, as ap- 
 pears by the declaration of her commissioners, who negotiated the treaty with the United States 
 in their address to their countrymen. 
 
 "The intention (say the commissioners) of making the Bravo a limit, has been announced by 
 the clearest signs for the last twelve years; and it would have been impossible at the present day 
 
16 
 
 to change it. ^fter the defeat of San Jacinto, in Jlpril, 1836, that was the territory which we stipulated 
 to evacuate, and which n'e accordingly did evacuate, by falling back on Matamoros. In thin place was 
 afterwards stationed what v}as called the army of !he north; and though it is true that expeditions and 
 incursions have been made there even as far as Bejar, we have very soon retreated, leaving the intfrme- 
 diate space absolutely free. In this state General Taylor found it, when, in the early part of last year, 
 he entered there by order of his Government.'''' 
 
 9. Texas being admitted into the Union with certain and specified boundaries, Congress has 
 no more power to legishUe upon or disturb them than those of any other State, any further than 
 it is given by tlie resokitions of annexation. Congress has nn more power over the boundaries of 
 a State of the Union than those of a foreign State. Tliis is the settled doctrine of the country, 
 and was asserted even by Col. Benton; in debate in the Senate, on the 14tli May, 1844, he said: 
 " The Republic of Texas acts by its name, and passes itself to us in the whole extent of all the 
 limits and boundaries which it asserts to be its own." 
 
 In his remarks on the Joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas, February 5, 1845, Colo- 
 nel Benton declared, " In fact, when once admitted as a State, she can never be reduced wfithout 
 her consent. The Constitution forbids it." This was his construction of the compact of the 
 resolutions of annexation. 
 
 This compact gave to this Government but one power, that of negotiating the boundary with 
 Mexico. That power would have been extinguished by the treaty in removing the possibility 
 of a question of boundary with Mexico, if the treaty had been silent on the subject. But the 
 treaty settled the question by embodiyngan authentic map, which expressly recognises the bound- 
 ary as asserted by Texas. This right while it existed could only be exercised in a particular 
 manner, that is, by the treaty making-power. It did not pertain to Congress. 
 
 10. It is quite preposterous to assert that the United States, while acting as the negotiator 
 and trustee of Texas, could have acquired the subject matter in opposition to the title of Texas, 
 either by the treaty or otherwise. To impute such an intention to this Government is to charge 
 it with an act which a court of equity holds to be the worst species of fraud. It never permits 
 the agent or trustee to buy or deal in opposition to the principal or beneficiary. 
 
 It has been asserted that the United States, under this power to settle the boundary of Texas 
 with " other governments," was no more the trustee of Texas than the other States. This 
 proves too much. It maintains, that the Government has a general power over the subject of 
 State boundaries, or that the provisions of the compact of annexation did not enlarge the juris- 
 diction of this Government over that question of boundary. It in elfect (Jenies the special 
 limited authority. It makes the Government a party to acquire, instead of an agent to adjust. 
 It arrives at no practical result, because the power must be exercised according to the law of its 
 creation; and one parly cannot settle a controversy without the consent of the other. In short, 
 it isi quite absurd to suppose that the United States could purchase and succeed to the rights of 
 Mexico to this contested boundary without the consent of Texas. This Government did not 
 relinquish any of the boundary of Maine without the consent of that State, aithough Great 
 Britain was in actual adverse possession Was any one so obtuse as to assert that the United 
 States could acquire it in opposition to Maine.' 
 
 11. The resolutions of annexation, in terms, fix the boundary with mathematical precision as 
 to all the country south of 36° 30\ and sufficient north of it for at least one State. They pro- 
 vide for new States, and declare, " And in such State or Slates as shall be forined out of said 
 territory north of said compromise line, (36° 30',) slavery or involuntary servitude (except for 
 crime) shall be prohibited." 
 
 This is a declaration that ihe country north of that line, sufficient for a State, belongs to, and 
 is rightfully included within, the limits of Texas. A title with such a boundary would be sufH- 
 cienlly certain to authorize a recovery in ejectment between private litigants. A surveyor could 
 go upon the ground and set up the metes and bounds. As to all below 36° 30', it is utterly 
 Impossible that there can be any dispute about lines. In his speech of yesterday, Col. Benton 
 says : 
 
 • "The Missouri compromise line was a curtailment of slave territory ; the Texas annexation 
 resolutions were the same." 
 
 How could the Texas resolutions be a curtailment of slavery, if the country which she 
 claimed north of 36° 30' wa.s not her territory by right. > That the intent was to admit Texas 
 with the boundaries claimed by herself, subject only to the right of adjusting them with others, 
 is further demonstrated by the provision of the resolutions that the State "shall also retain all 
 the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be apjilied to the payment of the 
 debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands, after discharging 
 said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct." What limits had the Re- 
 public,..hut those she set up and asserted by her own political action.' It is obvious that the 
 refereni^"T« to them and no other, especially when all the provisions are taken together. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Texas is strong in the legd force and justice of her claim. She will be strong 
 in the sympathy and support of the South, for the precedent which would permit Congress to 
 appropriate any portion of her territory to free soil, would open the flood-gates of abolition 
 upon the institutions oi' every Southern State within the confederacy. I am quite certain that, 
 but for this sectional question, her title never would have been the subject of contest. 
 
 LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 932 929 2 
 
 J