^'**«J^ Author . Title Imprint. ]0 — 47372-2 0I»0 SPEECH OP HON. THOMAS J. RUSK, OF TEXAS, ON THE 1 BOUNDARIES OF TEXAS DELIVERED IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 27 AND 28, 1850. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1850. THE BOUNDAUIES OF TEXAS. The Senate having resumed the consideration of the Compromise Resolutions offered by Mr. Clay, on the 25ih of January — Mr. RUSK said: Mr. President: I have stood ready ever since I have held a seat upon this floor, to vindicate the right of my State to the territory to the Rio Grande, and as far as the forty-second degree of north fatitude, which is the subject-matter of the third and fourth resolutions offered by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Clay.] No occa- sion has presented itself before now in which this matter could be investigated, and final action of an authoritative character take place. I was gratified, sir, that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, who, I regret to perceive, is not in his place, should have brought forward these resolu- tions. There are, among these resolutions, sev- eral which cannot have my support, without important amendments; but the distinguished po- sition which their author occupies, and the condi- tion in which the country is placed at the present moment by sectional disputes, rendered his inter- ference peculiarly fortunate. Allow me, sir, here to remark, that the condition of things is much more serious than seems to be generally supposed, and [ regret to observe that, notwithstandmg the excitement on this subject, there exists a sort of apathy in regard to the consequences likely to en- sue. I was glad, therefore, that the honorable Senator from Kentucky lent the weight of his name to anything which might furnish a ground of discus- sion, and enable us to settle the difficulties that now agitate this country, and are rapidly bringing us to the verge of sectional strife. It is time, sir, that this should be done — that we should meet this question. It has been long enough a hobby upon which political partisans, destituteofany other merit, may ride into powe ■. It is due to the Union itself — it is due to that fraternal feeling which should exist all over this broad country — it is due to the East, to the West, to the North, and to the South — that we should march up like men, meet this question fully, and at once settle it, in accord- ance with the principles of the Constitution, and in the spirit in which that sacred instrument was framed. I shall proceed at present, sir, to the considera- tion of the third resolution of the honorable Senator from Kentucky, reserving what I may have to say upon other subjects until I shall have established the title — which I conceive to be indisputable — of Texas to all the territory as far as the Rio Grande. The honorable Senator's resolution proposes to curtail that territory; and so much has been said upon this point, that it is, perhaps, best for me to go back and trace it from the beginning. I find, sir, that in discussing the title, (which in fact has its origin in the Revolution of Texas,) here and elsewhere, the ancient limits of Texas, according to the geographical distinctions by which that country has been known, are constantly re- ferred to. If we go back, we shall find that Florida, including Texas, according to a map published by John Senex, in London, in 1710, was bounded on the east by the Atlantic ocean and South Carolina, on the south by the Gulf of Mexico, on the west by the Rio Grande and New Mexico, and on the north by the 38th degree of north latitude sepa- rating it from Canada, or New France. Accord- ing to an authority published in 1721, Louisiana was bounded on the east by Florida and South Carolina, by the Gulf of Mexico on the south, by the Rio Grande and New Mexico on the west, and by Canada, or New France, on the north. These, sir, were the original boundaries. But here let me draw the attention of the Senate for a tnoment to an extract (which I will ask the Clerk to read) from an eloquent speech, on this very subject, delivered by the honorable Senator from Kentucky in 1820. The Secretary read the extract as follows : "The iiecoMdres(ilutioiicniii;)relifii(1ed three propositions — the tirgt of wliich whs, that the eqiiivHieiit granted by Spain to the United States for the province of Texas, was inade- quate. To deltrniine this, it was necessary to estimate the value of what we jjave and of what we received. Tiiis in- volved an inquiry into our claim to Texas. It was not his purpose to enter at large into this subject. He presumed the spectacle would not he presented ot questioning, in this branch of the Government, our title to Texas, which had been constantly maintained by the Executive for more than fifteen years past, under three several Administrations. He was, at the same time, ready and prepared to mal«e out our title, if any one in the House were tearless enough to con- trovert it. He would, for the present, briefly state, thai tlie man who is most fannliar with the transactions of this Gov- ernment— who largely partic ipated in the formation of our Constitution, and all that has been done under it — who, be- sides the eminent services that he has rendered his country, principally contributed to the acquisition of Louisiana — who must be supposed, from his various opportunities, best lo know its limits — declared, fifteen years ago, that our title to the II io del Norte was as well founded as it was to the island of New Orleans. (Here Mr. C. read an extract from a me- moir presented, in 1805, by Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney, to Mr. Cevallos, proving that the boundary of Louisiana extended eastward to the^ Perdido, and westward to the Rio Del Norte, in which they say: 'The facts and principles wliich justify this eoriclu>i ri, iire so satisfactory to their Gov- ernment, as to convince it that the United States have not a better right to the island of New Orleans, under the cession referred to, than they have to the whole district of territory thus described.') The title to the Perdido on the one side, and to the Rio del Norte on the other, tested on the same principle — the priority of discovery, and of occupation by France. Spain hail tirst discovered and made an establish- ment at Pensacola — France at Dauphine island, in the bay of Mobile. The intermediate ?pace was unoccupied ; and the principle observed among European nations liavinj; con- tiguous settlements, being that the unoccupied space be- tween them slmuld be equally divided, was applifd to it, and the Perdido thus became the common boundary. So, west of the iMis.-issippi, La Salle, acting under France, in 1683 or 1683, first discovered that river. In 1685 he made an establishment on the Hay of St. Bernard, west of the Colo- rado, emptying into it. The nearest Spanish settlement was Panuco, and the Rio del Norte, about the /nidway line, became the common boundary. "All the accounts concurred in representing Texas to be extremely valuable. Its superlicial extent was three or four times greater than ihat of Florida. The climate was delicious, the soil fertile, the margins of the rivers abound- ing in live oak, and the country admitting of easy settle- ment. It possessed, moreover, if he were not niisinformed, one of the finest ports on the Gulf of Mexico. The pro- ductions of which it was capable, were suited to out wants. The unfortunate captive of St. Helena wished for ships, commerce, and colonies. We have them all, if we do not wantonly throw them away. The colonies of other cinjn- tries are separated from them by vast seas, requiring great expense to protect them, and are held subject to constant risk of their being lorn from their grasp. > ur colonies, (m the contrary, are united to, and form a part, of our conti- nent ; and the same Mississippi, from whose rich deposit the best of them (Louisiana) has been formed, will trans- port on her bosom the brave, the patriotic men from her tributary streams, to defend and preserve the next most val- uable — the province of Texas." The title of Texas, Mr. President, is derived, as I have already said, not fronn geographical dis- tinctions, but from the revolution. No one will dispute that a war between two nations unsettles all boundaries. In such cases, they are to be es- tablished either by the sword or by treaty. It is well known that, in the year 1835, war broke out between Texas and Mexico. In that war, before the final Declaration of Independence, a battle took place between the Texan and Mexi- can armies at Ssn Antonio, in which the Texan troops were successful. General Cos, the com- mander of the Mexicans, entered into a capitula- tion, and abandoned the country with his forces; and thus early did Texas make her mark, and as- sert her claim to the territory as far as the Rio del Norte; and, in so doinjj, I think she acted wisely in taking a hint from the speech of the honorable Senator from Kentucky. I now send to the Secretary's desk the capitu- lation which took place on the occasion referred to, which he will be pleased to read. The Secretary reacj the capitulation, as follows: Capitulations enlcreiHuto by Gcnerul Mid ra- tion due his high dignity, and to a person so di-tiniiuishid in the annals of American I'istoiy. and for whose preservation the entire nation is interested by gratitude, and because he IS chief of it. " His excellency the President jiro tem. counts upon you' excellency's directins all hU efforts to saving the remainder of the army, by concentrating it, so as to rt nder it more re- spectable, placing it in a coKvenient place for receiving provisions, (or which the most eflicacioiis measures are adopted. The preservation of Bexar is of absolute neces- sity, in Older that the Government, according to circumstan- ces, may act as they see fit. "The fate of all the prisoners is very interesting to the nation; and it is recommended to your excellency to en- deavor to alleviaie it, giving authority from this moment to j propose exchanges, and to preserve for this purpose, and because humanity exacts it, the lives of the prisoners made, j and that may be made, from the enemy. Your excellency j knows the circumstances which may resu t from an impru- dence committed in this affair; but the Government fears nothing as regards this, because it knows how great is the ! skill and zeal of your excellency for the best service of the country." General Filisola obeyed the directions here given him by the Secretary of War; he saved the | hfe of the President, some eight hundred prisoners, and, what was of still greater consequence to the Mexican Government, he saved the army upon which its very existence depended. All this was done by his sanctioning the treaty. Here is what he says on the subject at various times. In his defence, dated lOih of June, 1836, among other things, he said: " His excellency, [Santa Anna,] in my humble opinion, in the treaties he agreed upon, and that I had the honor to send your excellency, acted U'ith entire libcri), ami had nothing more in view than thi- interest of his country." In a previous dispatch to his Government, he says: " If the enemy, under these critical circuniatanres, should have met us on the only road that was left, nothing woulil remain but to die or surrender at disereiion. The army is without clothing, the arms ruined, anmiunition of every kind in a very bad condition, and horses ami mules badly used in the extreme. We have neither physician norapoihecaiy ; we are threatened with the epidemic of the season, added to the innumerable snflerings which the army has undergone; and should this misfortune take place, the men will perish vvitlniut the lea^t assistance, in the ii/idstofdifCouiagenieiit, and abandoned without even the consolation of spiiitual as- sistance; Jor uehave not a single chajikdn to say D'l.ssjcrvs. Cavalry sick, bagga};e, mules, everj thing that arcoiiipnnied the army, was a confused mass, without any d's'i'^f ''O" and without being able to move from the place where tlity were caught." In his dispatch of May 31, 1836, alluding to this treaty, General Filisola says: " r do not mention other reasons, perhaps more convinc- ing; and, in fine, 1 think I have saved the whole army fiom a disaster, and the national decorum fiom a positive dis- grace." This, then, sir, was the condition of General Filisola; this was the condition of the Mexican army, and a part of the terms of the treaty was the salvation of that army; the life of the Presi- dent was to be saved, and the prisoner.'^ we had in our camp were to be saved. These were the terms ; and the cimditions, being made known to General Filisola, were sanctioned by him, the Mexican Government directing him, and giving him full power and authority for these objects, and directing his attention to the accomplishmeni of them. He had no other means to accomplish them but to sanction this treaty. He did so, and transmitted it to his G.)vernnient. That Govern- inenl was mute until they had received all ilie ben- efits of the treaty. They had saved their army, they had saved the life of their President, and the prisoners who were in our camp. They had in fact received all the benefits intended to be secured to them; and never, until their army is safe upon the western bank of the Rio Gratide, do we hear a vi'ord about repudiation. And yet, under all these circumstances, we are flippantly told, it was a treaty made with prisoners, and therefore not bindmg. Now, sir, after receiving the benefit of the treaty, could Mexico, without national disgrace, repudiate that treaty ? Or can the Government of the United States avail itself of this quibble, and take half the territory of the State of Texas, under the sanction of an act of the Mexican Government, which was disgraceful in the eyes of the civilized world? If this were all — if we stopped here, can this Govern- ment, with due respect to its reputation, avail it- self of a iiiere quibble — a quibble which disgraced Mexico.' It seems to me, clearly not. Texas, in the year 1836, passed a law, defining her boundary according to this treaty, every article of which we had fully complied with, extending her limits lo the Rio Grande. Il is not worth while to take up the time of the Senate by reading that law. Mexico herself did not entirely disregard this treaty; for in the controversy which they still kept up with us, they always regarded the Rio Grande as the dividing line, and the question betvveen us never was debated as to the line of New Mexico or the Nueces; but it was " the whole or none — the Sabine or the Rio Grande " General Woll, who was in command of that division, on the 20th of June, 1844, issued a proc- lamation, in which are to be found these words: "20th June, 1844. "3. Every inilividunl who shall be found at the distance of one !eai;ne liom the left bank of the Rio Bravo, will be regarded as a favorer and aceompUce of the usurpers of that part of the national territory, and as a traitor to his country, and, i.fter a summary military trial, shall e pun- ished as such. ADRIAN WOLL., General of Lri»ade." Shortly after, the resolutions under which we were annexed, were presented to the State of Texas, for her consideration. A treaty was entered into by the then President of the Republic of Texas, Mr. Jones, and the Mexican Government. By the terms of that treaty, the independence of Texas was acknowledged, upon condition that she would annex herself to no other country, but leaving the question of boundary to be determined by an umpire. The Legislature of Texas unanimously, without a single dissenting voice, rejected that treaty. Then, sir, next in the history of this matter, comes our annexation; and here, Mr. President, allow me to read from the annexation resolutions: " Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Slides of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth cons(Mit that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the Repuhlic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be c.illed the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union. " 2. Jlnd be it, further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guaranties, to wit : First, said State to be formed subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other govern- ments ; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evi- dence of its adoption by the people of said Repuhlic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the tirst day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, said State, when ailmittel into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports, and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence, belong- ing to said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may be- long to, or be due and owing said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabil- ities 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 ; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third, new Slates of convenient size, not ex- ceeding four in number, in addition to said Stale of Texas, and having sutlicient population, may hereafter, by the con- sent of said Slate, be formed out of the tcirritory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degress thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitteii into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall bo formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary ser- vitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited." Under these resolutions, Texas agreed to submit all questions of boundary between her and other Governments, which evidently mean Mexico, to the Government of the United States. Now, does not everbody know that this matter could be set- tled in no other way than by the President and two thirds of the Senate, the treaty-making power.' Here, sir, is the compact; it is a plain one, offered to Texas on the one side by the United States, and accepted by her. It will not be contended that any other department of the Government, except the treaty-making power, has any jurisdiction of the question of the boundary. This is a hir2:e power, and may, in its exercise, involve the question of ex- istence itself. Has it ever been contended that such authority exists either in the Executive, in the Su- preme Court, or in any portion of the Government, except the treaty -making power.' Texas was not bargaining for any more difficulties than she had already on her hands. She was conceding to this Government the power of determining her bound- ary between her and Mexico; she was not trying to find another claimant to her soil. She was, by her own consent, willing to place them in the con- dition of judges. But, sir, the honorable Senator from Kentucky said, if I remember right, that if the United States was trustee for Texas, before she could claim this territory she must pay her portion of the expenses of the war. Now, sir, this would be introducing into our system of Gov- ernment an entirely new principle. You tie Texas hand and foot. She cannot defend her own terri- tory without your act; and yet, if a war grows out of defending that territory, she must pay a part of the expenses. Well, sir, be it so. She has paid a portion of those expenses; she has sur- rendered to you her nationality; she has given you jurisdiction to the Rio Grande; and, more than that, sir, in the war which followed, and for the expenses of which she is to be held responsible, she furnished you with more men to fight it than any other State of the Union, save and except her sister State, Louisiana. And is this to be counted for nothing.' Why, sir, take up the principle laid down by the honorable Senator from Kentucky: if it is to be applied to Texas, it ought to be ap- plied to all the other territory. You may possibly be able to settle the whole controversy on that principle, in proportion to the amount which each State is benefited by the war. In that proportion will each State have to bear the expenses; and what will be the result .' We have acquired much valuable territory, of which the non-slave- holding States have appropriated to themselves nearly the whole. Carry out this principle, and if they have to pay as much as is charged on Tex- as, it will amount to a round sum. This Govern- ment will make money enough to go on for years without a resort to taxation of any sort. But there is one thing certain: this Government agreed to become a judge in the controversy between Texas and Mexico, and we voluntarily submitted to it. The honorable Senator derives the power of this Government to settle the boundary in this way: He says that authority was vested by Texas in the Government of the United States to settle this controversy with Mexico ; that, having done so, this Government succeeds to all the claim which Mexico had ; that tlierefore the United States Government has a right to settle the contro- versy for itself. I ask, is this so? Is there any fair construction of the agreement between Texas and the United States which can give this Govern- ment the power to present in its own behalf the adverse claim of Mexico.' In fact, can the United States creditably, and with a due regard to its rep- utation for honor and justice, do so.' I object to the connection of the Texas boundary with the question of slavery, whether on the part of the North or the South. I appeal to something higher than mere considerations of party or sections in this matter. I am surrounded by honorable men, selected from their respective States, because of their high reputation, acting under the solemnity of an oath ; and I ask nothing from the feelings or prejudices of any particular Senator, but appeal solely to the ideas of strict justice implanted by the Creator in the mind of every man, to take this question before that tribunal, and settle it without 8 reference to the question of extension or non-ex- tension of slavery. And I think I have the right to make this appeal, so far as Texas is concerned; and I feel that I have the right to see it respected, for the reputation of this Government for justice, not to Sdy for magnanimity. No such power was granted to the United States by Texas, in relation to this boundary, as is claimed by the Senator. The honorable Senator from Kentucky, thought proper to say that the boundary was unfixed and unsettled, and that it was for us now to settle it. Now, I take issue with him here, and say that it is fixed and settled, and that this Government can- not unsettle it. Shortly after the annexation was consummated, as all well remember, Mr. Slidell was sent to Mexico by the President, to adjust this boundary difficulty between Texas and Mexico; and this, sir, was the first step taken for the pur- pose of adjusting these matters. Here allow me to read an extract from the instructions of the President, under which he went out: Mr. Buckanan's mstruetions to Mr. Slidell, dated November 10, 1845. "This question of boundary may, therefore, be adjusted in such a manner between tlietwo Republics, as to cast tlie burden of the debt due to American claimant.-^, upon their own Government, while it will do no injury to Mexico. " In order to arrive at a just conclusion upon this subject, il is necessary, briefly to state what, at present, are the terri- torial rights of the parties. " The Congress of Texas, by the act of December 19, 1833, have declared the Rio del Norte, from its mouth to its source, to be a boundary of that Republic. " In regard to the right of Texas to the boundary of Del Norte from its mouth to the Paso, there cannot, it is apprehended, be any very serious doubt. It would he easy to establish, by the authority of our most eminent statesmen — at a time, too, when the question of the boundary of the province of Louisiana was better understood than it is at present— that, to this extent, at least, Del Norte was its western limit. Messrs. Monroe and Pincknt- y, in their com- munications of January 28, 1805, to Don Pedro Cevallos, then the Spanish Minister of Foreign Relations, assert, in the strongest terms, that the boundaries of that province ' are the river Perdido to the east, and the Rio Bravo to the west.' They say, ' The facts and principles which justify this conclusion, are so satisfactory to our Government, as to convince it that the United States have not a better right to the island of New Orleans, under the cession referred to, (that of Louisiana,) than they have to the whole district ol territory vvhicli is above described.' Mr. Jefferson was at that time President, and Mr. Malison Secretary uf State ; and you wi'll know how to appreciate their authority. In ttie subsequent negotiation with Mr. Cevallas, Messrs. Mon- roe and Pinckney com lusively vindicated the right of the United States as lar west as Del Norte. Down to the very conclusion of the Florida treaty, the United States asserted their right to tliis exti'nl,nothy words only, but by deeds. In 1818, this Government, having learned that a numberof ad- venturers— chiefly Frenchmen — had landed at (Jalveston, with the avowed purpose of forming a settlement in ihal vi- cinity, despatched George Graham, esq, with instructions to warn them to desist. The follnwini is an extract from these instructions, dated June 2, 1818: 'The President 'wishes you to proceed vvith all convenient speed to that 'place, (Galveston,) unless, as it is not improbable, you 'should, in the progress of the journey, learn that they » have abandoni-d or been driven from it. " Should they have • removed to Mataj^orda, or any other place north of the Rio < Bravo, and witliin the territory claimed hy the United ' States, you will repair thither, without, however, exposing 'yourself to be captured by any Spanish military force. ' When arrived, you will, in a suitable manner, make 'known to the chief, or leader of the expedition, your au- 'thoriiy from the Government of the United States, and ' express the surprise with which the President has seen ' possession thus taken, without uthority from the United ' States, o( a place within their territorial limits, and upon 'which no lawful settlement can be made without their ' sanction. You will call upon him explicitly to avow under ' what national authority they profess to act, and take care 'that due warning be eiven to the whole bodv, that the ' place is within the United States, who will suffer no ' permanent settlement to be made there under any author- ' ity other than their own.' " It cannot be denied, however, that the Florida treaty, of February 22, 1819, ceded to Spain all that part of ancient Louisiana within the present limits of Texas; and the more important inquiry now is, what is the extent of the territo- rial rights, which Texas has acquired by the sword, in a right- eous resistance to Mexico.' In your negotiations with Mexico, the independence of Texas must be considered a settled fact, and is not to be called in question. " Texas achieved her independence on the plains of San Jacinto, in April, 1836, by one of the most decisive and memorable victories recorded in history. She then con- vinced the wiirld, by her courage and her conduc, that she deserved to rank as an independent nation. To use the language of Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, in a dispatch to (jur Minister at Mexico, dated 8th July, 1842: 'From 'the time of the battle of San Jacinto, in April, 1836, to ' the present moment, Texas had exhibited the same ex- ' ternal signs of national independence as Mexico herself, 'and with quite as much stability of government. Practi- ' cally free and independent ; acknowledged as a political 'sovereignty by the principal Powers of the world ; no hos- ' tile foot finding rest within her territory for six or seven 'years, and .Mexico herself refraining, for all that period, ' from any farther attempt to reestablish her own authority ' over that territory,' Slc., &c. " Finally, on the 29th March, 1845, Mexico consented, in the most solemn form, through the intervention of the Brit- ish and French Governments, to acknowledge the independ- ence of Texas, provided she would stipulate not to annex herself, or become subject, to any country whatever. " It may, however, be contended, on the part of Mexico, hat the Nueces, and not the Rio del Norte, is the true west- ern boundary of Texas. I need not furnish you arguments to controvert this position. You have been perfectly famil- iar with the subject, from the beginning, and know that the jurisdiction of Texas has been extended beyond that river, and that Representatives from the country between it and the Rio del Norte, have participated in the deliber.itions of both her Congress and her convention. Besides, this por- tion of the territory was embraced within the limits of an- cient Louisiana. " These, Mr. President, were the instructions under which Mr. Slidell went out to Mexico to settle the questions between Texas and Mexico. It is known that his mission failed. War upon this subject broke out between Mexico and the United States; and after it had been prosecuted for some time, another gentleman (Mr. Trist) was sent out for the purpose of negotiating this matter. His instructions were not only similar to those given to Mr. Slidell, but were accompanied by a map, (to which I shall have occasion hereafter to refer,) to act as a guide in any treaty he might make with Mexico. Pending the negotiation of Mr. Trist, it seems that he had somehow agreed to treat, leaving this Texas question unsettled un- til farther instructions from his Government. As soon as this information reached here, this is what was said to him by the Secretary of State: Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Trist. " Department of State, "Washington, October 6, 1847. " Sir : On the 2d instant, there was received at this de- partment, from Vera Cruz, a printed document in Spanish, consisting of eight quarto pages, and entitled 'Contestace oneshabedas entre el Supremo Gobierno Mexicano, el Gen- eral-en gefe del ejercito Americano, y el comisionado de los E-tados Unidos.' This purports to give a history, in detail, of the origin, progress, and unsuccessful termination of your negotiations vvith the Mexican commissioners. The coun- ter-projet of the Mexican Government is, indeed, under all the circumstances, ■ most extraordinary document. Its ex- travagance proves conclusively that they were insincere in appointing commissioners to treat for peace, and that the armistice and subsequentnegotiations were intended merely to gain time. They must have known that the Government of the United Stales never would surrender either the terri- tory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, or New Mex- ico, or any portion of Upper California — never would in- demnify Mexican citizens for injuries they may have sus- tained by our troops in the prosecution of the present just and necessary war — and never could, without dishonor, suffer the Mexican Government to levy new duties upon goods imported into ports now in our actual possession, which had already paid duties to the United States. To propose such term-j, was a mere mockery. And here I ou^lit to observe, in justice to yourself, that we do not believe there is any truth in the assertion of the Mexicin coniinis- sioners, that you had proposed (if the other terms of the treaty were made satisfactory) to refer to your Government, ' with some hope of a good result,' the question of surrend- ering to Mexico that portion of the sovereiijn State of Texas between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, or any part of Upper California." He was dismissed, and ordered home, because he even entertained proposals of that description. I will read, sir, an extract from a dispatch of Santa Anna, after the battle of Buena Vista, to show in what light he regarded this question. Under date of the 27 ih February, 1847, he writes to his Government: " From the impression we had made on the enemy, he did not appear before us for three days; the bearer of the flag, however, arrived witli a proposition IVom General Tay- lor, for an exchange of prisoners, and for our sending for the wounded, who had remained on the field. He also expressed to me the desire which the Americans felt for the reestab- lishment of peace. I replied— in order that he might say the same to his General— that we sustained the most sacred of causes — the defence of our territory, and the preseivation of our nationality and rights ; that we were not the aggres- sors, and that our Government had never offended that of the United States. I observed that we could say nothing of peace, while the Americans were on this side of the Bravo, or occupied any part of the Mexican territory, or blockaded our ports, and that we were resolved to perish, or vindicate our rights ; that fortunf, niiglit not always be favorable to the enemy; and the experience of the 22d and 23d, should con- vince them that it could change." From this it will be seen how Santa Anna him- self, pending these negotiations, and before any treaty was formed, regarded this matter. I will now show what was the opinion of the Mexican commissioners, even after the treaty was made. The.se commissioners, in a communication which they made to their Government, and which was published all over Mexico, declare that: " The intention 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, to change it. ^fter the defeat of San Jacinto, in ^pril, 1836, that was the territory which we stipulated to evacuate., and vjhich we accordin^li) ilid evacuate, by falling hack on Matamo- ros. In this place was afterward stationed what was called the Army of the North ; and though it is true that expedi- tions and incursions have been made there, even as far as Bexar, we have very soon retreated, leaving the interme- diate space absolutely free. In this state General 'I'aylor fouid it whi.'n, in the early part of last year, he entered there by order of his Government." This, sir, is sufficient to show in what estima- tion it was held there. Under this state of things, the Mexicans, after they had broken off this com- munication with Mr. Trist, again opened negoti- ations, and made the treaty, which is now the law of the land. Mr. Trist, in making this treaty, had the instructions of his Government in his hand, and it is idle to say for a single moment, that the question of the Texan boundary did not enter fully into that negotiation. It is charged now, and always has been, as the cause of the war. The establishment of the boundary of Texas was the object of this Government; it had formed the subject of instructions to both our commissioners, and a map had been furnished to Mr. Trist as a part of these instructions. That map I have be- fore me: here it is; and it shows that all of New Mexico is on the v/est side of the Rio Grande, and describes all east of it as Texas. Now, with the instructions to Mr. Slidell, in the first place, before him; with similar instructions also in his posses- sion; with this map, too, before him, distinctly designating all this territory east of the Rio Grande, up to the 42d parallel of north latitude, as being part of Texas; and with a letter in his pocket, dismissing him and ordering him home, because he even offered to leave anything about the Texas boundary open for further discussion — with all these evidences, is it not preposterous to say, that the question was not among the first which presented itself to the attention of the American commissioner in his negotiations.' What the Mexican commissioners say, is clearly evi- dence, that the question was so understood on their part. Under these circumstances, the treaty was negotiated; and it has also a direct reference to this map — it has, 1 repeat, a direct reference to this map, as follows: Fifth xdrticle of the Treaty with Mexico. "Art. V. The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite to the mouth ofnlie Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emp- tying directly into the sea: from thence, up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boun- dary of New Mexico ; thence westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico, (wliich runs north of the town called Paso,) to its western termination ; thence northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila ; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same ; thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado ; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific ocean. " The southern and western limits of New Mexico, men- tioned in this article, are those laid down in the map en- titled, ' Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said Republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell ;' of which map, a copy is added to this trea y, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned plenipotentiaries. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed, that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific ocean, distant one marine league due south of the souihernmof t point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port, made in the year 1782, by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid, in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutit and Jlfeiiearirt— of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective plenipotentiaries. " In order to designate the boundary line with due pre- cision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground, land-marks, which shall show the limits of both Re- publics, as described in the present article, the two Govern- ments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said bound- ary in its whole course to the mouth of the Kio Bravo del Norte. Tliey shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree, regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary. " The boundary line established by this article, shall be religiously respected by each of the two Republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free con.-ent of both nations, lawfully given by the Gen- eral Government of each, in conformity with its own con- stitution." This map, thus referred to by its title, author, and date, was the one sent out and referred to in the instructions to Mr. Trist, who negotiated the treaty. Not only is it referred to by its caption; 10 but, sir, it is signed and sealed by the connmission- ers, on the part of both nations, and comes back here, part and parcel of the treaty. It came into this chamber as such, and every Senator who was here at the time, will recollect that we purchased a number of these maps, and that they were on every desk here during the discussion of this treaty; and I ask you, now, to show me a single foot or an acre of land which is laid dow'n on this map as New Mexico, east of the Rio Grande. And yet it seems all this amounts to nothing! This map, thus established, referred to, and made part of the treaty itself, and which was discussed here and ratified, as a part of that treaty, is to be arguedoutofit,andonehalf of her territory, accord- ing to that map, taken away from Texas. This may be accomplished: Texas has but a feeble ad- vocate, and she stands opposed by one of the most powerful names in the country — one whose very dictum is law, but if he does succeed in arguing this map out of the treaty, he will have accom- plished what oratory never did before, in my opinion, either in ancient or in modern times. Not only will it perpetrate a deep wrong upon the State which I, in part, represent, but it will ac- complish another thing: it will add a chapter to the history of this Government, which it will be hard to reconcile to our notions of magnanimity and justice. Sir, this question is now up, and it should be determined. It has been the fruitful theme for stump orators all over the United States, and the topic of discussion in this and the other branch of Congress, even when a post-office was to be estab- lished, or when anything in the slightest degree connected with Texas was under consideration. It is now again before the Senate, and 1 call upon Senators to determine this question. It is due to their own reputation, as well as to the State of Texas. Sir, she has nothing else with which to pay her just debts. This territory has cost her dearly, and, indeed, all her rights have cost her dearly. For the sake of those rights she, with less than 30,000 people, was bound to go to war with, and run the risk of extermination from, a nation of eight millions. Her sons went to the field of bat- tle, and her daughters had to leave their homes, and seek safety from a merciless enemy, and from the Indian tomahawk, this side of the Sabine. All these risks and dangers were incurred in defence of this boundary. Yes, sir; she stood by it then, and since she has been annexed, it has been fully respected by this Government — in proof of which, allow me to refer to President Polk's messao-e of 24th July, 1848 : " Under the circumstancps existinc diirinj the pendpticy of the war, and while the whole of New Mexico, as^ claimed by our enemy, was in our military occupation, I was not un- mindful ot the rights of Texas to that portion whicli she claimed to he within her limits. In answer to a letter from the Governor of Texas, dated on the 4th of January, 1847, the Secretary of State, by my direction, informed him, in a lettet of 12ih February, 1847, that in the President's annual message of December, 1846, 'you have already perceived that New Mexico is at presentin the temporary occupation of the troops of the United States, and the government over it is military in its character. It is merely such a govern- ment as must exisi, under the laws of nations and of war, to preserve order and protect the rights of the inhahiianis, and will cease on the conclusion of a treaty of peace with Mexico. Nothing, tlieretbre, can he more certain than that this temporary government, resulting from necessity, can never injuriously affect the right wliich the President be- lieves to be justly asserted by Texa.- lo the whole territory on this side of the Rio Grande, whenever Uie Mexican claim to it shall have been extinguished by treaty. But this is a subject which more properly belongs to the legislative than Uie executive branch of the Government.' The result of the whole is, that Texas had asserted a right to that part of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, which is believed, under the :icts of Congress for the annexation and admis- sion of Texas into the Union as a State, and under the Con- stitution and laws of Texas, to be well founded ; but this right had never been reduced to her actual (wssession and occupancy. The General Government, possessing exclu- sively the war-making power, had the right to take military possession of this disputed territory, and, until the Ulle lu it was perfected by a treaty of peace, it was their duty to hold it, and to establish a temporary military governii ent over it, for the preservation of the conquest itself, the safety of our army, and Uie security of the conquered inhabitants." And also Mr. Polk's annual message of 1849, relating to Texas, New Mexico, and California: "The existing condition of California, and of that part of New Mexico lying west of the Rio Grande, and without the limits of Texas, imperiously demand that Congress should, at its present session, organize territorial governments over them. " Upon the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty of peace with Mexico of the 30th of May 1 .st, the temporary governments which had been established over New Mexico and California by our military and naval commanders, by virtue of the riglUs of war, cease to derive any obligatory force from that source of authority ; and having been ceded to the United States, all government and control over them, under the authority of Mexico, had ceased to exist. " Impressed with the necessity of establishing territorial governments over them, 1 recommended the subject to the favorable consideration of Congress in mymessase commu- nicating the ratified treaty of peace, on the 6th of July last, and invoked their action at that session. Congress adjourned without making any provision for their government. "The inhabitants, by the transfer of their country, had become entitled to the benefits of oui laws and Constitution, and yet were left without any regularly organized govern- ment. " Since that time, the very limited power possessed by the Executive has been exercised to preserve and protect them from the inevitable consequences of a state of anarchy. The only government which remained was that established by the military authority during the war. Regarding this to he a lie facto government, and that, by the presumed consent of the inhabitants, itniiahtbe cnntinued temporarily, they were advised to conform and submit to it for the short inter- vening period before Congress would again assemble and could legislate on the subject. The views entertained by the Executive on this point are contained in a communication of the Secretary of State, dated the 7th of October last, which was forwardrd for puljlication." The claim of Texas to this territory has found no question from Mexican authorities, and has found none, except in the United States. This territory is her's by every title — it is her's now. She owes just debts, and she cannot yield it with- out a full compensation. She will make no threats against this Government. She will use no threatenins: language; but she is under obligations to her creditors — nay, to the widows and orphans of those who fell in the achievement of her inde- pendence — which it would be disgraceful in her to forget for a single moment; and she will insist upon those rights, as secured to her in the resolutions of annexation, and the treaty which followed them. I appeal, therefore, to Senators, to come up and meet this question fairly, and on its own merits — to avoid mixing it up with the question of slavery or no slavery — and to decide the question on prin- ciples of justice. This is all that Texas asks; and this is what she has a right, under the terms of annexfition, to expect from the United States. Mr. Rusk here gave way to a motion, by Mr. Cass, for an adjournment; which was agreed to. Thursday, February 28, 1850. Mr. RUSK. Mr. President: I completed yes- terday, the remarks which I desired to offer, and 11 presented the facts which I proposed to present, in regard to the third resnhuion offered by the Sena- tor from Kenliicl