3 7 3ir F 392 .B7 B18 Copy 1 T E X A S ' CX A I M T O N E W M F. Y T n A — LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SPEECH 014 647 108 MR. BALDWIN, OF CONNECTICUT, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1850^ On the ctaim of Texas to JVew Mexico. Mr. BALDWIN said: Mr. Presidekt: I am in favor of the amend- ment of the Senator from Missouri. I think that if the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine for the appointment of commissioners to agree with commissioners from Texas upon a line of bounilary between the territory of the United States and Texas is adopted at all, it should be adopted with the restrictions imposed by the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. I am opposed to the whole scheme of establishing the limits of the territory of the United States and Che territory of Texas by a conventional bound- ary in the manner proposed by the amendment of Che Senator from Maine, because I believe it to be a question that ought to be settled by that high tribunal established by the Constitution, with am- ple powers for the adjustment by judicial ad judica- don of all controversies in which the United States and the States of this Union are concerned. I believe that the proper mode of settling this con- troversy, is, that which was recommended by the iate President of the United States, of referring it io the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which has already acted upon similar ques- tions between different States of this Union, and in a manner satisfactory to thern all. It has been said by the Senator from Texas that this tribunal is an unfair one, because it is a tribunal constituted by the Government of the United States, and the controveray will be between the Government of the United States and the State of Texas. But, sir, is there anything more unfair in the exercise of judicial' power by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the settlement of a controversy between the Government and a State, than there is in the exercise of the same power in the settle- ment of a controversy between the Government and an individual? All controversies between the United States and individuals are settled before the courts of the United States. It is to be equally presumed, in the one case as in the other, that they will be settled fairly and impartially by that high tribunal whose independent position and tenure of office protect it from all suspicion of par- tiality; and there is no reasonable, no well-founded objection to that tribunal being appealed to, to ad- just and settle a controversy of this character be- tween the Government of the United States and one of the States of this Union. The objection that the parties' are unequal, wou'd have much more force when the controveriiy is one between the Government and an individual, since the par-' ties in that case are still more unequal. But, sir, ii has been said to be beneath the dii-- nity of a sovereign State of this Union to submit a controversy relating to her boundary to any ju- I dicial tribunal. I do not know whvit should be regarded as beneath the dignity of'Texas, when Massachusetts and Rhode Island.and New Jersey, and other States, which formed the original ele- ments of this Union— when States which united in the establishment of the Government under which we live— have not deemed it beneath their dignity. Why is it, sir, that we are told at this late period, by the youngest sister in the Confed- eracy, that it is beneath her dignity to appear before a tribunal to which the other States have appealed wiih confidence for the settlement of their controversies r Mr. RUSK, (interposing.) The honorable Sen- ator is mistaken in what he has said about there being an idea that it would derogate from the dig- nity of the State of Texas to appear before the Supreme Court. Mr. BALDWIN. I am not certain that the honorable Senator himself has urged such an ob- jection; but I am quite sure that the idea has been suggested by some gentleman who has spoken on the subject here. Mr. RUSK. If the honorable Senator will al- low me, I will explain what I did say. It was this: that the Supreme Court of the United States had not jurisdiction of this case, by consequence of the special agreement between Texas and the United States contained in the joint resolutions of annexation. By these resolutions a special tribu- nal was selected. There was an agreement that the right to settle this matter of boundary should be submitted to the treaty-making power Mr. BALDWIN. The honorable Senatorfrom Texas now waives all other objection, if I under- stand him, to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States for the settlement of. this controversy, but insists that a different mode of adjustment was agreed upon in the joint reso- lutions of annexation tendered to and accepted by Texas. But what was the object of that provision in the joint resolutions? Texas had been neao- tiatmg with the United States for her admisswn into the Union. A treaty had been formed. That treaty had been rejected by the Sen ite. Resolutions were then proposed for the admission of Texas into the Union with her rightful and proper boundaries, providing that " the territory ' properly included within and rightfully bet(m^ng ' to the republic of Texas might be erected into a ' new State, with a ret.ul)lican form .-.f govern- ' ment, to be rdopted by the people of f.aid repub- • lie, by deputies assembled in convertion, with ' -he onscnt of the exietinir gnvernmt.it, subject 't> the adjustment by the' Government of the ' I. nited S.ntes of ail questions of boundary that 'might arise with other governments," That • 7S8G: %':' 73/8 provision had no, relation whaievei- to any contro- versy that might arise between the Uniud 'Stales and Texas in relation to the risihtful boundary of Texas. If the lr« at y-maUrg power fnihd to set- tle the boundary question by a peaceful nfgotia- tion.suchas wasthen anticipated with ttie Republic of Mexico, and war intervened, by which a large acquisition of territory was gained by the United States, far exceeding; any limits that bad been claimed by Texas, how can it be said that that provision in the joint resolutione — which was in- troduced merely to avoid any ground of complaint on the part of Texas, if the United Stales, in ad- justing the boundary with Mexico, should relin- quish a portion of her claim— precludes the United States, now that a much larger territory has been acquired by cession from Mexico, from appealing to the proper judicial tribunals for a decision oY her rights? Mr. President, what is it that we are now pro- posing to do.' To appoint commissioners, not for the purpose of ascertaining and establishing the true boundary line between Texas and the terri- tory of the United States, but commissioners who are to be invested, according to the original pro- position, with power of agreeing with commis- sioners to be appointed by the State of Texas upon a conventional line, regardless of the true bound- ary heretofore existing, and of agreeing upon the cetablishmenl of that conventional line upon such ttxrm and considtr aliens as they shall be able to settle between themselves in regard to it. Now, sir, I am utterly opposed to any such power being conferred upon commissioners, or ex- ercised by this Government in any form whatever. If Texas is the rightful owner of this tenitory, let Texas have it. I do not wish to purchase it from her with a view of converting it either into free States or slave States. If it belongs to Texas, I deny, sir, that there is any power conferred by the Constitution to purchase this territory for any such purpose as has been indicated during the present discussion. Senators who have advocated that provision in the bill which is intended to be carried out by this amendment have declared, that in their opinion, the purchase of any portion of the territory claimed by Texys would be a recog- nition of her title. That was claimed by the hon- orable Senator from Alabaina, now in the chair, [Mr. King.] It was claimed by the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Berrien,] who has addressed the Senate upon this subject. The con- temp'ated purchase, then, is not to be made, in this view of it, for the purpose of removing an incum- brance — an embarrassment — from the title of the United Stattfs, but it is to be made under the idea that we are purchasing from Texas that which she now owns, and of which, by the very act of pur- chase, we are said (o recognize her ownership — purchasing it for the purpose of remitting it into the territorial condition, in order that it may be erected into a State hereafter. Where is the pro- vision in the Constitution for the purchase of teri ritnry from a Slate for any such purpose as this.' What would be thought of proposing to the Stale of Virginia to sell for a pecuniary consideration a portion of her domain, with the people inhabiting jt, to the United Siates, to be erectui afterwards into a State.' — whether a slave State or a free Sti:te, if-- entirely immaterial as regards 'his point. If we are to purchase this territory from l'cx;u' under such circum3t;inc»8 as to recognize thereby her title, can it be distinguished in any pa licuLn from a eiraildr puicbasefrom Virginaoraoy other State of a portion of her adrr itted territory } If we prorpfd upon the idea of establishing the true boundary, we do not theiehy recognize the title of Texas to that to whirh she relinquishes her claim: for we receive the re.=sion merely to remove an m- mmbrance from the title to territory which we now claim to belong to the United Slates. In such a case we recognize no right of Texas; but if wt purchase it as the territory of Texas, We might ae well make a piirrhase of territory from any other State in the Union, for the purpose of converting it into a new State. I have listened, Mr. President, very attentively to the arguments of the honorable Senators frorr. Texas in vindication of their claim to jurisdiction over a large portion of the territory claimed by New Mexico; and, sir, they have not, in my judg- ment, advanced a single step towards the estab- lishment of the title they have claimed on the Upper Rio Grande. Let us examine for a few moments the grounde of this claim. There is no pretence on the part of the Senators from Texas that any portion of thie territory was within the original limits of ancieni Texas. Nobody pretends that. There is no pre- tence that it was within the limits of the State or' Coahuila and Texas. No portion of the ancien: State of New Mexico was included within thf limits nf the Mexican State of Texas, or of Coa- hui'a and Texas. Texas, in the year 1845, being a portion of the Mexican Republic, of which New Mexico was also a province or a Territory, revolted, and, by a suc- cessful revolution, rer.deied herself independen: of the Government of Mexico, breaking oft' for- ever her connexion with that Republic. What die- Texas acquire by her successful revolution.' She acquired the sovereign power — the right of selt- government for her people within the actual limits of Texas, as she was at the time when she estab- lished her independence. She acquired still an- other right — that of obtaining, by conquest and by treaty, additional territory from Mexico, with whom she continued to be at war after the estab- lishment of her Independence. To whet extent, then, did Texas carry her conquests after she be- cnme herself a sovereign State, and capable of ac- nuisitioni" What did she add — what has thie Government admitted her to have added to hex original territories.' I propose to examine thai question for a moment. If Texas has acquired any title to New Mexico, it must have been either by conquest or cession from Mexico to Texas, or it must have been by conquest and cession to the United States for the benefit of Texas. And here, sir, I am willing to admit that if t.lie Government of the United Statei? in all its branches, competent to decide this ques- tion, went to war with Mexico for the purpose of vindiratine tbe title of Texas, or of the Unilecr - States in the right of Texas, to this entire territory, |] and acquired it in that way, the Government of 11 the United States may by estopped by that aci from setting up any tiile in herself, in iier own right, tn the territory so acquired. Not, sir, thai the Executive, or any (^^ the subordinate officere of thfi United States have the power to implicate this Government by the admi.'jsion that this acqui- sition was made for the benefit of Texas, or of any other RtBie whatever. But if the Government of the United States, if the legislative department of this Government — which alone is competent to do so — h ive declared war for the purpose of vindica- ting the title of Texas (o I\e\v Mexico, theri it .3 vill present the question of estoppel that has been urged by Senators who have discussed the subject of that title. What, then, are the facts, sir? When Texas negotiated for admission into this Union, it was well known that she had asserted a claim to juris- diction up to the sources of the Rio Grande. But did the resolutions of annexation admit that claim ? Not at all, sir. Nothinsf could be more carefully worded to exclude any such pretence than the language of the joint resolutions, it was provided that " the territory properly included within and rightfully belongina; to Texas might be erected into anew State." Why " territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to Texas," if it was intended by the United States that Texns should come in with the boundaries which she had thought proper to claim? The language used in the joint resolution shows that although Consress, when they passed it, had notice of the extent of the claims of Texas, they intended to limit her to 3uch boundaries as she had actually acquired and possessed in March, 1845, when the joint resolu- tion was passed. What else was done, sir? Con- gress, when they proposed the admission of Texas, were not whol'y unmindful of the great fundamen- tal principle upon which this Government is based. They were not unmindful that this Government is founded upon, and maintained by, the assent of the people, and that the people cannot, consist- ently with the theory of our institutions, be con- strained to submit to any form of government to which they have not freely assented. When, therefore. Congress in 1845 proposed to Texas to come into the Union, what did they propose? That she should come in with her rightful bound- aries, and with a republican form of government CO be adopted by the people of that republic. Who were " the people of that republic?" Were the people of New Mexico, comprising a population of 90,000, a portion of the people of Texas at that time? If they were, why sir, was that constitu- lion presented to Congress as a constitution adopted by the people of Texas, when the whole of the people of New Mexico were excluded from any participation in its adoption? I should like to hear an explanation upon that point. H^w is it that we had presented here, in December, 1845, a document purporting to have been adopted by the people of the republic of Texas in convention, when 90,0 lO of those who are now claimed to have constituted a portion of that people were never in- ^rited to cooperate in its formation ? Is this the re- publicanism of the nineteenth century ? Is this the ner in which States and people are to be brought into this Union? Is this indeed, the manner in which the Congress of the United States, who oassed the joint resolutions of 1845, had a right to suppose they would be treated by Texas ? Did they expect to have palmed upon them, under the pretext of a constitution adopted by the people of Texas, a document under which the people of New Mexico were brought into this Union, and with no participation whatsoever in the act by which they v/ere thus transferred from one juris- diction to another? If that be so, then, sir, we have a people, who have li%'ed under their own laws for centuries before Texas came into exist- ence, brought into this Union, without their assent, as mere appendages to Texas, without any oppor- tunity being afforded them of saying yea or nay to the act by which their allegiance was transferred to a foreign Government. No, sir-, Texas well knew at that time that no part of New Mexico was rightfully included in her limits: and therefore it was that she did not notify the people of New Mexico to participate in the formation of her constitution preparatory to her admission into the Union. I will not charge it upon the people of Texas, that they intended to dissemble, to conceal from the Congress of the United States, when they brought their constitu- tion here for approval, '• with proof of i's adoption by the people of that Republic," the fact that the people of New Mexico, the larger portion of the republic, had not cooperated, or been invited to coofierate, in its adoption. Well, sir, if Texas, when she came into the Union — if when she adopted her constitution in 1845, Texas did not embrace New Mexico, how has she since had the power of adding new acqui- sitions to her domain ? Texas, after she came into this Union, had no power to acquire territory by trea'.y; nor had she any longer the power of wa- ging war, as an independent State, for its acquisi- tion. The war and the treaty which ensued, were the war and the treaty of the Government of the United States. The blood that was spilt in the acqui- sition of the territory of New Mexico and California was the blood of the people of the United States. The money which was expended, in pursuance of the stipulations of that treaty, in purchasing the cession of those territories was drawn from the common Treasury. What pretence of right is there, then, if Texas did not own this territory when she accepted the proposal tendered by the joint resolutions, for her present claim? She has done nothing by which she could have acquired it since. That territory, if not owned by her then, could come to her only by treaty or conquest. She could have obtained it herself in neither of these ways, and the United States had no power, if the territory did not belong to Texas, to wage a war of conquest to acquire it for her. But, sir, it has been stated in the course of this discussion by the honorable Senator from Virginia, whom I do not now see in his seat, but who usually sits nearest to mfl. [Mr. HnNTER,] that it was understood by the Executive of the United States, when Texas was admitted, that her jurisdiction included the territory claimed by her on the Upper as well as on the Lower Rio Grande, and he said that the in- structions given by Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Slidell indicated the same opinion. Sir, these instructions indicate the very reverse. Mr. Slidell did claim, and he was authorized by the President of the United S'ates to claim, as the President himself asserted in his message to Congress, that Texas extended to the Lower Rio Grande, comprehend- ing the territory below Paso del Norte, between that river and the Nueces. Upon what did the President ground his claim? He said it was a part of (he original Territory of Louisiana, ceded to the United States by France. He spoke of it as a reannexation of that which had been aban- doned to Spain by the treaty of 1819. That was the language of Mr. Polk and of the friends of annexation generally. It was a reannexation of Texas. Did he mean to indicate, when he spoke of a reannexation of Texas as of territory which was originally a partof the province of Louisiana, that that province had ever comprehended the capi- tal of New Mexico, or any portion of its terri- tory? Did anybody ever pretend that New Mex- ico formed a part of the old province of Louisiana? New Mexico which had been settled by the Span- iards long before the discoveries of La Salle, which conferred upon France the title to Lotjisiana? But, 4 eir, to the lelier of Mr. Buchanan. In that letter, adilresfied to Mr. Slidell, November 10, 1845, eight rnonihs and moie after the pHs.sing of the resolu- tiofis of annexation, lie writes thus: " The CoriprtPF of Texas, hy the act of Decrinhcr 19, If 33, liave tli dared ilio Mn dt-l ^ oite, trniu its niuutli to its Bource, to lie a limiii(Jar> ol lliiit R. puMic. " In riqard to ihe right of Texas to the h.iuiidary of the Del Norte, Ironi its nioiilh tn the I'aso, there eaiinoi,"it is ap- prt heiidert, he any ver) serious doubt. It would be easy to establish, by the authority of our inosteiiiiiieiit s-tntesmm— at a time, too, when the question of the boundary of the province of Loui^ialla was better understood than'it is at present— that, to this extent at least, the Del Norte was its western limit. *' It cannot be denied, however, that tJie Florida treaty of February S2, 1819, eededto Spain all that part of ancient Louisiana within the present limits of Texas ; and the more imporuiiit inquiry now is, what is the extent of the territo- rial rights which Texas has acquired by the sword in a righteous ref-istancc lo Mexico.'" Here he is looking to the sword as the only source of power which Texas could rely upon for the extension of her domain. Then, after going on to speak of the battle of San Jacinto, and the establishment of her independence, he says: " It may, however, he contended, on the part of Mexico, that the Nueces, and not the Rio del Norte, is the true west- ern boundary ol Texas. 1 need not furnish you arguments to controvert this position. " The case is different in regard to New Mexico. Santa F6, its capital, wasstt led by the tSpaniards more than two cen- turies ago; and that province hat- been ivtr since in their possession and that of the Republic of Mexico. The Texans netxT have ccn^tered or taken possession of it, nor have its people eier bien repr esent ed in any of tlieir legislative as- semblies or conventions." Here, then, Mr. Buchanan proceeds, after as- serting the title of Texas lo the Lower Rio Grande, to deny in detail every source of power upon which Texas could rely — every argument which could be urged in behalf of Texas, to extend her limits to the Upper Rio Grande. She had never conquered it; she had never taken possession of it; this people had never been represented in any of her legislative assemblies, nor in the convention which formed the constitution under which Texas came into the Union. 1 think, then, sir, that the honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter] will find nothing in the letter of Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Slidell that countenances, in the slightest de- gree, the title now set up for dominion over any portion of New Mexico. He excludes it. But what does the President authorize him to propose ? He says: "Should the Mexican authorities prove unwilling to ex- tend our boundary beyond the Del Norte, you are, in that event, instructed to offer to assume the paj inent of all the just rjaims of citizens of the United States against Mexico, should she agree that Ihe line shall be established along the boundary defined hy the act of Congresa of Texas, approved December 19, 1836, to wit; beginning at ' the mouth of the Rio Grandi'; thence up to the princip;il stream of said river to its fource: thence due north to the forty-second degree of north latitude.'" He offers to pay to Mexico ^§6,000,000, by as- suming the payment of the claims of the citizens of the United States against Mexico, provided she would cede to the United States that part of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, which it is now in- sisted was already within their actual boundaries. Is this in accordance with the ustinl policy of our Government — a Government which went lo war ■with Mexico to vindicate, as it is said, the title of Texas to the Lower Rio Grande— to offer to pay to Mexico caims estima'ed to amount to six mil- lions ol dollar.*, for a cession of terriiory lo which our title was equnliy clear? No, sir; with such a claim of title no such proposition ai' that could ever have been made with honor by the Govern- ment of the United Slates. No such proposition ever was inade by the United States, under a be- lief that the territory for which this sum of money was offered was territory to which Texas had al- ready established her title. This whole claim of Texas lo the Upper Rio Grande amounts to nothing more than this: Texas, while engaged irs war with Mexico for the establishment of her own independence, was naturally desirous of ex- tending her dominion as far as the Rio Grande. She hoped, if she was successful in the conduct of the war, to be able to acquire dominionto that extent by the force of her arms. She was not struggling, so far as her claim to the Upper Rio Grande is concerned, to vindicate her title to any territory that she then owned or had ever pos- sessed; but she was strugglirg to acquire by the sword, an addition to that domain, the sover- eignty over which she had already established by the sword. She had not -succeeded in her effort. No army of Texas had penetrated New Mexico. No Texan, as it has been already remarked, had set his foot upon that territory in hostility to the government of New Mexico, except as a prisoner of war. Mr. President, I understand that the claim which was at one time set up in behalf of Texas, growing out of the convention made with Sante Anna when a prisoner, is abandoned. No one who will examine that instrument, and see what it purports to be upon the face of it, and will fol- low up his inquiries and learn when it was first presented for its consideration, will fail to perceive that not the shadow of an argument can be drawn from it ill favor of the extension of the claim of Texas. Did the Congress of the United States, by any act of theirs, ever recognize or admit the claim of Texas to the Upper Rto Grande ? So far from it, Mr. President, Congress, on the 3d of March, 1845, three days after the passage of the joint res- olution, passeti an act allowing a drawback of duties on foreign merchandise exported to Chi- huahua and Santa Fe, in New Mexico — declar- ing, therefore, npon the face of your statute-book, that Santa Fe was no part of Texas, but was in Mexico. Congress certainly did not then con- sider this as a part of Texas The President, in his war message to Congress, did not speak of it as a part of Texas. He had instructed Mr. Buchanan, months after the passage of the joint resolution, to treat with Mexico for the purchase of this territory, and Mr. Buchanan had diisi. claimed any pretence of title to New Mexico, ae 1 have already shown frorn his letter. But it has been said by the Senator from Texao, [Mr. RosK,] that the war was declared to vindi- cate the title of Texas to the Rio Grande. I do not deny, sir, that by the act of Congress whicfe constituted the declaration of war, the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was re- garded as American soil; but it was the Lower Rio Grande only that was treated as a part of Texas. To that extent it was, indeed, conceded by that act (as Mr. Buchanan had before insisted n his letter to Mr. Slidell) that Texas had bceo successful in vindicating her claim, or in adding lo her original domain. Whatever may be my opin- ion in regard to it — and I certainly entertained & very different opinion at the time — Congress and the Executive did give countenance to the claim of Texas to the Lower Rio Grande. But, sir, nc department of this Government ever recognized, anterior to the ratification of the treaty of Quada- lupe Hidalio, any tiile of Texas lo the Upper Rio Grande. Then, Mr. President, what have we here? We have the jnint resolution of Congress requiring that the people of Texas, who are invited to come into this Union on giving their assent to the conditions it proposes, shall come with a re- publican constitution adopted by them in conven- tion. We have the great fact, that Texas presented her constiiuiion for our approval without consult- ing N«w Mexico, or inviting her people to par- ticipate in its formation. Here, then, was an aban- donment by Texas at that time — an utter abandon- ment of any pretence of title to New Mexico. Whatever claim she had before made, whether by the declaration on her statute-book, or other- wise, she must be deemed to have abandoned it, when she presented her constitution, adopted by { a different people, as the constitution required by | the joint resolution, and to be acted upon by this Govertjment. | We have, then, not only the cotemporaneous | conduct of Texas, but of the people of New Mex- I ico, also, who were all this time quietly reposing under the protection of their own laws, and had never thought for one moment that any other power than the republic of Mexico had any right of do- minion over them, except that which was exer- cised by their own departmental legislature. We have, then, the most cogent evidence, from the cotemporaneous conduct of the Congress of the United States, of the Executive of the United States, and of all the departments of this Govern- ment, as well as of the government of Texas, and of the people of New Mexico, that New Mexico never did, in fact or of right, form any portion of the republic of Texas. But this is not all, sir. After the war was de- «!ared, an army was sent by the United States to conquer New Mexico and California, and General Kearny, who commanded that army, received special instructions in regard to his proceedings from the Secretary of War, by direction of the President. And what were those instructions They were utterly inconsistent with any claim of Texas to the jurisdiction of New Mexico. Gen- eral Kearny was directed " to assure the people of those provinces (New Mexico and California) that it was the wish and design of the United States to provide for them a free government, with the least possible delay, similar to that which exists in our Territories; that they will then be called on to ex- ercise the rights of freemen in electing their own representatives to the territorial legislature. " Gen- eral Kearny, in obedience to these instructions, issued his proclamation on entering Santa Fe to the people of New Mexico, assuring them that they should be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties, and at as early a period as possible, should receive from the Government of the United States a territorial form of government, with the privilege of choosing their own local legislature, and of enjoying all the rights and privileges per- taining to the Territories of the United States. How, ihen, can it be claimed, consistently with the public faith, v.'hen New Mexico, immediately upon the issuing of this proclamation, submitted to our arms without the spilling of a drop of blood, as General Kearny informed General Wool — upon what pretence of justice or fairness can it be urged that New Mexico was conquered for Texas, in order thai it might be annexed ts an appendage to that Siate? No, sir; the provinces of New Mexico and California were conquered by the Government^of l^e United States in their own behalf, and the people of both were alike promisei the same protection and tne same rights that the other territorial governments of the United States enjoyed. But this is not all. After New Mexico had thus submitted to our arms, a treaty was forned and ratified. And what^s the language of that treaty ? " Art. 9. The Mexicans who, in thu Tenitorie'i afore- ."^aid, shall not preserve the character ot tilizens of the .Mf xicaii R^■()ulllic, conformably witti wli,.t is tupulated ir, ihe preceding arllcle, shall lie incorporated into ilic Uniou or the United Stales, and be admilled at llie proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United Slates, according to tlie principles of the Ciinstitutioii, and in the mean time shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion, without restriction." Will it be claimed, Mr. President, that when this treaty was formed with the Republic of Mexi- co, and when it was ratified by the Senate of (he United States, it was our secret determination that the people of New Mexico, whom we found in the enjoyment of the rights of self-government ae a free people, were to be deprived of those rights, thus stipulated by the treaty, and turned over to the tender mercies of Texas, to be kept or to be sold as might best suit the purposes of Texas ? Is this the stipulation of the treaty .' Did the New Mexicans, who had been promised by Kearny the rights of self-government— did the Republic of Mexico, which represented their interests— sup- pose for a moment that the Government of the United States meditated so gross a violation of the public faith as to receive them into the Union upon this pledge, with a view to turn them over to the State of Texas, between whose inhabitants and the inhabitants of New Mexico a most implac- able animosity existed } " The Me.xicans who, in the Territories aforesaid, shalll not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Re- public, shall be incorporated into the Union." &.c. Yes, sir, the people of the Territory of New Mexico were promised at the proper time (to be judged of by Congress) that they should be ad- mitted into the Union of these States. And we have heard, in the course of this discussion, the expression of different opinions in the Senate, as to whether the proper time has arrived or not for their admission, in pursuance of this stipulation. Yet, according to he claim of Texas, they have been members of the Union since the year 1845, when they were solemnly admitted with a consti- tution adopted for them by the people of Texas without their knowledge or assent. According to this claim, we were so well satisfied with the pro- priety of admitting them at that time, that we re- ceived them willingly, and without inquiry, into the Union; while now we have been discussing, more or less, for months, and questioning the pro- priety of their admission, on the ground that the inhabitants of New Mexico are not competent to come into the Union as a State, however compe- tent they may have been to administer their own affairs, in their own way, before the treaty. There is no consistency in this course of pro- ceeding. But the Senator from Texas inquires, were they ceded to the United States as organized communities? Was new Mexico ceded as an or- ganized community? I answer. Yes, unques- tionably she was, and with a eovernment de facte in full operation; and the Government of the United States so understood it. Congress, after t^at cession, passed a joint resolution, introduced by one of the Senators from Virginia, [Vlr. Ma- son,] inviiing and offering facilities to induce em- I igration "to the Territories of New Mexico and California." How came those contiguous Ter- 6 iritoriee to be known anrf designated — the one by (the name nf New Mexico, and the other by the name of California? How came the people there to be described in the action of our own Congress as separate communities? Bpcanse they lived under aeparate systems of laws, administered by officers having jurisdiction over their own Territories; be- cause they were, in fact, separate communities, and were therefore referred to, not as a Territory, but as distinct Territories, by the treaty which ceded them to the United States. Their lerrrito- rial faws, the rights of the people acquired under their territorial governments, and their territorial officers, remained. They continued to be organ- ized communities. Not only so, sir; but the Ad- mioistrntion of this Government which received from Mexico the cession — the Administration of Mr. Polk — treated them as organized communities, and instructed its military officers in California to continue in the exercise of their functions as civil and military g-overnors, by the presumed assent of che people to the continuance of the government de facto which had been thus exercised over them dur- ing the war. They recognized thereby that they were not then forgetful, as Texas is and has been, of that great right of self-government which. lies at the foundation of all our institutions. They did not regard these military governments as continu- ing by force of any power which the President of che United States could communicate, as he could during the war, but as continuing by the presumed assent of the people — acknowledging that, until the Congress of the United States intervened to give to that people a new government as a Terri- tory, the right of sovereignty, so far as its exer- cise was necessary for their protection, continued En them, and, until they chose to alter the govern- ment which they found existing de facto, it should be treated by this Government as remaining by their presumed assent. It would seem to follow that whenever that government should fail to af- ford reasonable protection to the people — that whenever that assent, thus implied, should be withdrawn, and those communities shou'd mani- fest a desire to form a different government, in the absence of any action of the Congress of the Uni- ted States for their protection — the same power which gave vitality to the continuance of the mil- itary government would give vitality to the new government, equally founded upon the consent of the governed, and equally subordinate to the ju- risdiction of Congress when brought into exer- cise. Mr. President, reliance has been placed by the honorable Senator from Texas upon the fact that, after the conclusion of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mr. Marcy, while Secretary of War, gave instructions to the military officer in com- mand of Santa Pe not to interfere with the authori- ties of Texas in any efforts they might m^ke for the organization of civil government there — for that the A Jministration had not taken issue with Texas upon that question. But are the instruc- tions of the Secretary of War — are the instructions of the Executive competent, after the acquisition of territory by a treaty, to transfer that territory and the people who occupy it, from the United States to one of (he separate States? Who gave that authority ' Congress never authorized any cession of this territory to Texas. Congress has passed no act recognizing any authority of Texas ovtr any portion of the territory. It was trans- fe>Ted by the Republic of Mexico to the Government of the United States; it was paid for from the pub- lic Treasury; the possession was received by the authorities of the United States; and there was but one duty for the Executive to perform. That duty was to protect the people residing upon these Territories in the possession of all their rights, until Congress should decide what should be their fu- ture condition. But if. has been said that we received Texas into the Union while a war was pending between Texas and Mexico, and while Texas was endeavoring to assert, by the force of her arms, her title to New Mexico, as declared by hercon>'titution — in other words, when Texas was seeking to conquer New Mexico; and, therefore, the United States, having become involved in this war in consequence of the annexation of Texas, was presumed to have car- ried it on as the agent of Texas, and paid out the money from the public Treasury for the acquisition of this Territory as the agent of Texas, and for her sole benefit. This has been urged on the pre- sumption that Texas could have conquered New Mexico, if she had not herself been ceded and annexed to the United Slates; that Texas, in her then condition, could have marched an army eight hundred miles from her capital throueh the inter- vening desert and the Jornada del Maerto, and waged a war of conquest successfully upon the inhabitants of New Mexico! Mr. CHASE, (in his seat.) They tried it once. Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, sir, they had tried it once; and those who made the attempt came up missing to Texas, though New Mexico,! believe, was able to give an account of them. But let us see, for a moment, what was the condition of Texas at this time. Mr. Upstiur, then our Secre- tary of State, in the course of his correspondence with Mr. Murphy, our charge d'affaires in Texaa, un ler date of August 8, 1843, thus describes it: " Pressed hy an unrelenting enemy on her borders, her treasury exhausted, and her credit almost destroyed, Texas is in a cnndilion to need the support of other nations, and tooht.iin it on terms of wreat hardship and many sacrifices to herself. If she should receive no countenance and suj)- pnrt from the United States, it is not an extravagant suppo- sirion that En!;land may and will reduce her to all the de- pendence of a colony," &c. Mr. RUSK. If any agent of Texas represented that, he has done just what has been done a thou- sand times — slandered her. Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Murphy, in his reply to Mr. Upshur, under date of September 24, 1843, writing from Texas, says: " If the United States preserves and secures to Texas the possession of her constitution and present form of govern- ment, then have we gained all that we can desire, and also all that Texas a-ks or wishes." This, to be sure, is the language, not of a Texan, but of the charge of the United States, then resi- ding at Galveston. But it shows what, in the judgment of competent observers in and out of Texas, and concerned in the measure of annexa- tion, was the then actual condition of Texas. Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. President, if the gen- man will allow me to make an explanation, I think I can satisfy him. 1 can assure the gen- tleman that at the very time this correspondence took place, Texas had the recognition of her inde- pendence guarantied to her by England against Mexico. England and France both guarantied to defend her against the consequences. This waa at the very lime she was recognized, and had been for three months previous to the time when this correspondence between Mr. Upshur and Mr. Murphy took place. Mr. BALDWIN. It ia enough for my pre.seot purpose that in 1836 Texas liad set up her claim to include within (ler own iimiis the greater part of the population of New iSdexico; that the war continued frcim 1836 down to the year 1845, when Texas acceded to the proposals for her union with the United States; and that in all fliai period Texas had not succeeded in taking one single step towards establishing her claim or pteletice to a title in New Mexico. Mr. HOUSTON. If the Senator will allow me to make a short explanation, I think 1 can sat- isfy him. In the year 1842 'I'exas carried her arms over the Rio Grande and took Guerrero and Other places, and returned. F'rom that time until the annexation, the enemy never crossed the Rio Grande with any hostile force — never. Mr. BALDWIN. Am I to understand the honorable Senator from Texas to say that Texas ever sent a hostile army into the limits of New Mexico : Mr. HOUSTON. They sent it across the Rio Grande, where it suited their operations. Mr. BALDWIN. Was it into the limits of New Mexico. Mr. HOUSTON. No, sir; it was in the limits of Texas, as contended for. Mr. BALDWIN. Was it in the ancient limits of Tamaulipas or of New Mexico .' Mr. HOUSTON. They went up to Tamaulipas, where it crosses the river, and Chihuahua. The army crossed the river at Guerrero, and look that place in 1842. Mr. BALDWIN. I believe fam right, then, Mr. President, in saying that they never set hos- tile foot within the limits of the ancient province of New Mexico. Mr. CHASE, (in his seat ) Nor of Coahuila Mr. BALDWIN. No; nor of Coahuila, which is much lower down the Rio Grande. And yet, for that period of nine years before the annexation, it stood upon the statute books of Texas that they claimed all east of the Rio Grande to its source. 1 deny the- fact upon which the argument of the Senator from Texas was based, that the Govern- ment of the United States ever assumed, during the progress of the war with Mexico, the duty ol maintaining the title of Texas by force to the Upper Rio Grande, or that they ever admitted that Texas had any title there whatever. What, then, Mr. President, is this attempt on the part of Texas.' And how does it look in the face of the civilized world .' Texas, a member of the Republic of Mexico, revolted from the tyranny of Santa Anna for the purpose of recovering for her own people the privilege of self-government. In her struggles throughout the contest, she shared largely in the sympathies of the friends of freedom. Oii-^inaliy the iniiabitants of Texas proclaimed to the world that they w< re engaged in a contest of arms to establish their lighis as freemen to the piivileges secured to them by the Mexican constitution of 1824. Texas maintained that position. She became a fiee republic. And what wag her first act, after establishing her own freedom? To as- sert upon her statute-book that she had a right to govern, not only the people within her own terri- tory, but to hold the people of New Mexico, a province containingat that time, 1 believe, a larger population ilian iexas herself, in subjectmn to her. She asserted a right, though she never exercised it, to extend her laws to New Mexico, to legislate for tl-.at people without their coi/Sir.t, and without inviung their participaTion, or giving '• them the privilege of repreaenlalion in her legis- lature. And now that New Mexico has been ceded to the United States as the result of the war with Mexico, Texas is here setting up the claiiii thai she has a right to hold these people of New Mex- ico in subjection, against their assent. Is this the principle for which my friend from Texas fought so valiantly upon the field of battle which signal- ized the siruggle in which his people v;ere en- gaged ? Was it in order that they might conquer^ and subdue, and govern as dependent vassals the free people of a neighboring province? Was thif the triumph achieved at Sim Jacinto, which es- ablished ihe independence of Texas ? If it was, sir, it was a triumph over the great principle. \)f liberty, first established and promulgated to the world in a practical form by our ow(i ' Declaratior, of Independence — a Declaration founded uponand vindicating " the transcendent truth of the* in- alienable sovereignty of the people," and which abrogated at once all pretensions to dominion, as- serted on no higher principles than those w hich prevailed in the dark ages, justifying the subjeq- tion of people by conquest to the government of another people, without their consent. Sir, such a struggle as this would have been unworthy of Texas and of the cause in v. hich she waa pro- fessedly er)gaged. Biit, sir, for what object has Texas asserted her right over New Mexico? Is it in order that she may govern the people of New Mexico better than they can govern themselves? Is it that she car. give them better protection, in regard to all their civil rights, than they can obtain under a terntoria! government to which they have been accustomed, or as a separate State, under a government admin- istered by themselves? No, sir, this is not the purpose of Texas. What, then, is it? Why, she wants an acknowledgment of her title to the sovereignty of New Mexico, in order that she may transfer it to the United States for a pecuniary consideration. The government of the United States, then, has waged a war with Mexico, con- quered the province of New Mexico, promised liberty to its people, purchased from Mexico out of a common treasury a cession of that territory, and now it is to be delivered up to Texas, in order that Texas may sell it again to the United Stale? to pay the debts of Texas which accrued during her own revolution. That, sir, is the character of the claim; that is what the Congress of the United States— that is what the Senate of the Unites States — in the middle of the nineteenth century, are called upon to sanction; that is the purpose for which it is now proposed to you to send out your commissioners to agree with Texas as to the terms and conditions upon which she is to cede to the United States her claims to New Mexico. Sir, [ trust no such purpose as this will ^be sanc- tioned by the Senate. ., But, Mr. President, it has been said that there are precedents for the proposition submitted by the Senator from Maine. It is said that the same ihmg was done in reference to the Mississippi ter- ritory claimed by the State of Georgia and by ihe United States as the fruits of the revolutionary contest S'r, that case is entirely unlike the pres- ent. The State of Georgia, after the termination of the revolutionary war, c!;ifmed territory iyirg beyond the recongniz^d limits of that State. Ottitc Stdtfs which held western territory under a fiiniiif,r or perhaps a superior title, had ceded them to t!te United States for the coiomon benefit. Georijia was diepoifing of these lands for licr own ('cnefitj and the question arose in regard to the title, ajid 8 an act was passed authorizing the President of the United States to appoint commissioners with power to adjust and determine, with such com- missioners as might be appointed under le^islA- tive authority of the State of Georgjfi, ail inter- tering claims of the United States and that State CO territory situated west of the river Chattahoo- chee, «S:c., and also to receive proposals for the relinquishment or cession of the whole or any part of the other territory claimed by the State of Geora;ia, and out of the ordinary jurisdicfion there- of, under that act commissioners were appointed by the President of t+ie United States, and they agreed with the State of Georgia to relinquish to the United States, for the common benefit, all her claim to the western lands beyond certain specified •limits; and the United States agreed, in considera- tion of the expenditures which Georgia had made lapon that territory, to pay to Georgia, out of the first proceeds of the sales of the lands, the ;hhti of $1,250,000. They also agreed to remove, at the expense of the United States, as soon as it could be reasonably and peaceably effected, the Indian tribes from the lands reserved by Georgia. But the United States did not proceed upon the iidea that they were purchasing of Georgia lands which Georgia owned. They repelled her claim of title. They claimed the land as the fruit of the conquest of the common arms of the country. Their object was merely to remove an incum- brance from the title to territory claimed by the United States — not to purchase it under circum- stances that would recognize the title of Georgia. The commissioners were not clothed with the power of establishing conventional lines at their pleasure. The United States claimed the whole. Georgia had made Mr. DAWSON. With the permission of the honorable Senator, I would like to make an ob- servation. He has read correctly the first article (if the agreement. But the condition under that article was, that so much should be paid to extin- guish the title to the land then in occupancy, which gives something like $1,250,000. Mr. BALDWIN. They were relinquished pre- cisely in the same way that the western lands were relinquished by the States of Connecticut, New York, Virginia, and the other States, the title to them being secured as the fruits of a com- mon war. But Georgia, having incurred expenses upon this territory, was pnid $1,250,000, not in consideration of the land, but in consideration of an equitable claim which she had for expenditures on the territory. I suppose, too, that the stipula- tion in regard to the extinguishment of the Indian titles was grounded on some similar equitable claim, though I an(i not conversant with the par- (l culars. Mr. BERRIEN was understood to state that the considera'.ion which was paid by the United States to Georgia was not inconsistent with the claim which Georgia set up, being accompanied by a stipulation to extinguish the Indian title to the lands lying in the territories reserved by her. Mr. BALDWIN. My purpose in referring to the articles of agreement with Georgia, v/aa to show that the United Sis.t.es did not intend by that transaction to recognize the title of Georgia to the territory to which she relinquished her claim. Jfow, Mr. President, if it is the purpose of th's bill, or of t^ie amendment of "the Senator from Maine, to authorize a purchase of territory from Texas, I will be glad if the genileman will do me the favor to point out to me any power under the Constitution to justify it. I should be glad if the gentleman from Georgia would point out any power under the Constitution to purchase terri- tory from a State, which we recognize as belong- ing to that State, for the ptirpose either of forming a territorial government, or of converting that ter- ritory info another State. Mr. BERRIEN. It is ni>t necessary, I might Day to the Setiatoivto find any primary power ex- isting under the Constitution to purchase land, which is without controversy admitted to be the property of a Slate; it is not necessary to find any such power. No such power is to be exercised by this bill. There are conflicting claims on the part of the United States and of Texas in this case, as there were in the case of Georgia and the United States. Mr. BALDWIN. Allow me, then, to inquire how, by obtaining a cession of her claim to this territory in dispute from Texas, we can be deemed to recognize thereby the title of Texas, so as to make it subject, when ceded, to the laws of Texas.' Mr. BERRIEN. I can answer the gentleman without any hesitation. The admission of con- flicting claims, which requires a cession, is in- volved in the act of receiving the cession. That was the consequence of the cession by Georgia. The United States admitted that Georgia had a claim which it was desirable to acquire to quiet her own title. It was acquired for the purpose of quiet- ing her own. Mr. BALDWIN. I can easily understand how it can be claimed that the Government of the Uni- ted States may remove an incumbrance upon a title j which they claim to own themselves; but I cannot understand how they acquire the power, except for purposes specified by the Constitution, to make a purchase of territory which they admit, by the very terms of the purchase, to belong to one of the States of the Union, whose title they intend there- by to recognize and obtain. But, sir, whether the United States have any power or not, it is inexpedient, it is unwise to exer- cise, or attempt to exercise, any such power. It" Texas owns this territory— if she has a legal right to the dominion — why should we interfere.' Let het exercise it. If it belongs to the United States, let us confer upon the people of New Mexico the rights we have stipulated to confer by the treaty, that they may enjoy them unmolested by the pre- tensions of Texas. I have endeavored to show that it belongs to the United States— that Texas has not a shadow of claim to it. Entertaining this opinion, why should I vote to send out commis- sioners to Texas to corns to an agreement with her on some conventional boundary line? No, sir; there is, in my judgment, but one proper forum for the decision of this question, and that is the supreme tribunal of the land. But if we are go- ing to send commissioners to Texas to decide itj their powers should, in my opinion, be limited to the ascertainment and establishment of the true line of bound iry. excluding frcm the domain of Tfxas any portion of the territory over which Texas did not ( xerriee jurisdiction ut the time of her annexatioa to the Union. I'tiuitA iit UjB CoOi5rc»tj>/i«.l oti.be uiiict. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS il III 1 1 III 1 1 ill I 014 647 108