按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
to such an issue。 When that evidence is analyzed； it is all
included in the following propositions
（1） That the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Louisiana as
we purchased it of France in 1803。
（2） That the Republic of Texas always claimed the Rio Grande as
her eastern boundary。
（3） That by various acts she had claimed it on paper。
（4） That Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas recognized the Rio
Grande as her boundary。
（5） That Texas before； and the United States after； annexation
had exercised jurisdiction beyond the Nuecesbetween the two
rivers。
（6） That our Congress understood the boundary of Texas to extend
beyond the Nueces。
Now for each of these in its turn。 His first item is that the
Rio Grande was the western boundary of Louisiana； as we purchased
it of France in 1803； and seeming to expect this to be disputed；
he argues over the amount of nearly a page to prove it true； at
the end of which he lets us know that by the treaty of 1803 we
sold to Spain the whole country from the Rio Grande eastward to
the Sabine。 Now； admitting for the present that the Rio Grande
was the boundary of Louisiana； what under heaven had that to do
with the present boundary between us and Mexico？ How； Mr。
Chairman； the line that once divided your land from mine can
still be the boundary between us after I have sold my land to you
is to me beyond all comprehension。 And how any man； with an
honest purpose only of proving the truth； could ever have thought
of introducing such a fact to prove such an issue is equally
incomprehensible。 His next piece of evidence is that 〃the
Republic of Texas always claimed this river ＇Rio Grande＇ as her
western boundary。〃 That is not true； in fact。 Texas has claimed
it； but she has not always claimed it。 There is at least one
distinguished exception。 Her State constitution the republic's
most solemn and well…considered act； that which may； without
impropriety； be called her last will and testament； revoking all
others…makes no such claim。 But suppose she had always claimed
it。 Has not Mexico always claimed the contrary？ So that there
is but claim against claim； leaving nothing proved until we get
back of the claims and find which has the better foundation。
Though not in the order in which the President presents his
evidence； I now consider that class of his statements which are
in substance nothing more than that Texas has； by various acts of
her Convention and Congress； claimed the Rio Grande as her
boundary； on paper。 I mean here what he says about the fixing of
the Rio Grande as her boundary in her old constitution （not her
State constitution）； about forming Congressional districts；
counties； etc。 Now all of this is but naked claim； and what I
have already said about claims is strictly applicable to this。
If I should claim your land by word of mouth； that certainly
would not make it mine； and if I were to claim it by a deed which
I had made myself； and with which you had had nothing to do； the
claim would be quite the same in substanceor rather； in utter
nothingness。 I next consider the President's statement that
Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas recognized the Rio Grande as
the western boundary of Texas。 Besides the position so often
taken； that Santa Anna while a prisoner of war； a captive； could
not bind Mexico by a treaty； which I deem conclusivebesides
this； I wish to say something in relation to this treaty； so
called by the President； with Santa Anna。 If any man would like
to be amused by a sight of that little thing which the President
calls by that big name； he can have it by turning to Niles's
Register； vol。 1； p。 336。 And if any one should suppose that
Niles's Register is a curious repository of so mighty a document
as a solemn treaty between nations； I can only say that I learned
to a tolerable degree of certainty； by inquiry at the State
Department； that the President himself never saw it anywhere
else。 By the way； I believe I should not err if I were to
declare that during the first ten years of the existence of that
document it was never by anybody called a treatythat it was
never so called till the President； in his extremity； attempted
by so calling it to wring something from it in justification of
himself in connection with the Mexican War。 It has none of the
distinguishing features of a treaty。 It does not call itself a
treaty。 Santa Anna does not therein assume to bind Mexico； he
assumes only to act as the PresidentCommander…in…Chief of the
Mexican army and navy； stipulates that the then present
hostilities should cease； and that he would not himself take up
arms； nor influence the Mexican people to take up arms； against
Texas during the existence of the war of independence。 He did
not recognize the independence of Texas； he did not assume to put
an end to the war； but clearly indicated his expectation of its
continuance； he did not say one word about boundary； and； most
probably； never thought of it。 It is stipulated therein that the
Mexican forces should evacuate the territory of Texas； passing to
the other side of the Rio Grande； and in another article it is
stipulated that； to prevent collisions between the armies； the
Texas army should not approach nearer than within five leagues
of what is not said； but clearly； from the object stated； it is
of the Rio Grande。 Now； if this is a treaty recognizing the Rio
Grande as the boundary of Texas； it contains the singular feature
of stipulating that Texas shall not go within five leagues of her
own boundary。
Next comes the evidence of Texas before annexation； and the
United States afterwards； exercising jurisdiction beyond the
Nueces and between the two rivers。 This actual exercise of
jurisdiction is the very class or quality of evidence we want。
It is excellent so far as it goes； but does it go far enough？ He
tells us it went beyond the Nueces； but he does not tell us it
went to the Rio Grande。 He tells us jurisdiction was exercised
between the two rivers； but he does not tell us it was exercised
over all the territory between them。 Some simple…minded people
think it is possible to cross one river and go beyond it without
going all the way to the next； that jurisdiction may be exercised
between two rivers without covering all the country between them。
I know a man； not very unlike myself； who exercises jurisdiction
over a piece of land between the Wabash and the Mississippi； and
yet so far is this from being all there is between those rivers
that it is just one hundred and fifty…two feet long by fifty feet
wide； and no part of it much within a hundred miles of either。 He
has a neighbor between him and the Mississippithat is； just
across the street； in that directionwhom I am sure he could
neither persuade nor force to give up his habitation； but which
nevertheless he could certainly annex； if it were to be done by
merely standing on his own side of the