which it is clearly established that the Rio del Norte was the western boundary of Louisiana, and so considered by Spain and France both, when they owned the opposite banks of that river. The venerable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Adams] in that famous dispatch reviews all the authorities on either side with a clearness and ability which defy refutation, and demonstrate the validity of our title in virtue of the purchase of Louisiana. He went farther, and expressed his own convictions, upon a full examination of the whole question, that our title as far as the Rio del Norte was as clear as to the island of New Orleans. This was the opinion of Mr. Adams in 1819. It was the opinion of Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney in 1805. It was the opinion of Jefferson and Madison-of all our presidents and of all administrations, from its acquisition in 1803 to its fatal relinquishment in 1819. I make no question with the gentleman as to the applicability and bearing of these facts upon the point in controversy. I give them in opposition to the supposed facts upon which he seems to rely. I give him the opinions of these eminent statesmen in response to those of Almonte and his brother Mexican general. Will the gentleman tell us and his constituents that those renowned statesmen, including his distinguished friend [Mr. Adams], as well as President Polk and the American Congress, were engaged in an unholy, unrighteous, and damnable cause when claiming title to the Rio del Norte ? I leave the gentleman from Ohio and his venerable friend from Massachusetts to settle the disputed point of the old boundary of Texas between themselves, trusting that they may agree upon some basis of amicable adjustment and compromise. But, sir, I have already said that I do not deem it necessary to rely upon those ancient anthorities for a full and complete justification of our government in maintaining possession of the country on the left bank of the Rio del Norte. Our justification rests upon better and higher evidence, upon a firmer basis-an immutable principle. The republic of Texas held the country by a more glorious title than can be traced through the old maps and musty records of French and Spanish courts. She held it by the same title that our fathers of the Revolution acquired the territory and achieved the independence of this republic. She held it by virtue of a successful revolution, a declaration of independence setting forth the inalienable rights of man, triumphantly maintained by the irresistible power of her arms, and consecrated by the precious blood of her glorious heroes. These were her muniments of title. By these she acquired the empire which she has voluntarily annexed to our Union, and which we have plighted our faith to protect and defend against invasion and dismemberment. We received the republic of Texas into the Union with her entire territory as an independent and sovereign state, and have no right to alienate or surrender any portion of it. This proposition our opponents admit, so far as respects the country on this side of the Nueces, but they deny both the obligation and the right to go beyond that river. Upon what authority they assume the Nueces to have been the boundary of the republic of Texas they have not condescended to inform us. I am unable to conceive upon what grounds a distinction can be drawn as to our right to the opposite sides of that stream. I know nothing in the history of that republic, from its birth to its translation, that would authorize the assumption. The same principles and evidence which, by common consent, give us title on this side of the Nueces, establish our right to the other. The revolution extended to either side of the river, and was alike successful on both. Upon this point I speak with confidence, for I have taken the precaution, within the last few minutes, to have the facts to which I shall refer authenticated by the testimony of the two most distinguished actors (one of whom I now recognize in my eye) of those thrilling and glorious scenes. Upon this high authority, I assume that the first revolutionary army in Texas, in 1835, embraced soldiers and officers who were residents of the country between the Nueces and the

Rio del Norte. These same heroic men, or so many of them as had not been butchered by the Mexican soldiery, were active participators in the battle of San Jacinto on the 21st of April, 1836, when Santa Ana was captured and the Mexican army annihilated.

Although few in number, and sparsely scattered over a wide surface of country, and consequently exposed to the cruelties and barbarities of the enemy, none were more faithful to the cause of freedom, and constant in their devotion to the interests of the republic throughout its existence. Immediately after the battle of San Jacinto Santa Ana made a proposition to the commander of the Texan army (General Houston) to make a treaty of peace, by which Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas, with the Rio del Norte as the boundary. In May, 1836, such a treaty was made between the government of Texas and Santa Ana on the part of the Mexican nation, in which the independence of Texas was acknowledged, and the Rio del Norte recognized as the boundary. In pursuance of the provision of this treaty, the remnant of the Mexican army was permitted, under the orders of Santa Ana, to retire beyond the confines of the republic of Texas, and take a position on the other side of the Rio del Norte, which they did accordingly. Mr. J. W. Houston. Was that treaty ever ratified by the government of Mexico?

Mr. Douglas. I am not aware that it was ratified by any body on the part of the government of Mexico except Santa Ana and his subordinate officers, for the very good reason that he was himself the government at the time. Only one year previous he had usurped the government of Mexico, had abolished the Constitution of 1824, and concentrated all the powers of government in his own hands. To give stability to the power which he had acquired by the sword, he called a Congress around him, composed of his followers and adherents, and had himself formally proclaimed dictator of the republic, and, as such, clothed with all the powers of government, civil and military. From that moment the government of Mexico was a republic in name, but a military despotism in fact. She had no Constitution, no government, except the will of the dictator, and the instruments he chose to select to execute his will. In this capacity, he marched his armies into Texas for the purpose of reducing those people to subjection to the despotism which he had established, and exterminating the last vestige of freedom which remained in his dominions. The Texans flew to arms in defense of their liberties, in defense of the form of government which they had established for themselves by their state Constitution of 1827, and the national Constitution of 1824, in pursuance of the provisions of which they had been admitted as a sovereign state into the Mexican confederacy. The Texans had taken up arms in support, and Santa Ana for the destruction, of the Constitutional government in Texas. While engaged in this work of desolation with fire and sword, committing butcheries and barbarities unknown to civilized warfare, Santa Ana fell into the hands of the heroic Houston and his gallant little army, a captive to those whom he was striving to reduce to captivity. Then it was that the tyrant became a suppliant―a suppliant for his life and liberty -at the hands of those he had doomed his victims. Then the dictator bent his knee in prayer for mercy, and sued for peace, offering to recognize the independence of Texas if he could be permitted to rescue the remnant of his followers from destruction, and remove them beyond the Rio del Norte. A treaty to this effect, as I have already stated, was subsequently entered into in due form; and, in pursuance of its provisions, the Mexicans evacuated Texas, and retired beyond the Rio del Norte. This treaty was executed by Santa Ana as the government de facto for the time being, and, as such, was binding on the Mexican nation.

Mr. J. Q. Adams. I desire to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois if

Santa Ana was not a prisoner of war at the time, and in duress when he executed that treaty.

Mr. Douglas. Santa Ana was a prisoner and in duress, and so was the entire government of Mexico, for he was at that time the government de facto, clothed with all its functions, civil and military. The government itself was a prisoner and in duress. But will it be contended that that circumstance rendered the obligation less obligatory?

Mr. Adams. It is a strange doctrine that the acts of a prisoner while in duress are to be deemed valid after he has recovered his liberty.

Mr. Douglas. We are at war with Mexico. Our armies will soon march into the heart of that country. I trust they will penetrate as far as the capital, and capture not only the army, but the government itself in the halls of the Montezumas, that we may make them all prisoners of war, and keep them in duress until they shall make a treaty of peace and boundary with us, by which they shall recognize not only the Rio del Norte, but such other line as we shall choose to dictate or accept. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts contend that a treaty made with us under those circumstances would not be binding, because, forsooth, the government was a prisoner at that time? How is a conquered nation ever to make peace if the gentleman's doctrine is to prevail? Take the case of an absolute monarchy: the king is captured in battle at the head of his army. Both parties may then be willing to settle the dispute, but no treaty can be made because the king is in duress, and, of course, the victor would not release his royal prisoner until a treaty of peace had been executed, lest he might continue hostilities, and, by the fortunes of war, triumph in the contest. This doctrine would place all unfortunate belligerents in a most deplorable condition. They refuse to make peace before defeat, because they hope for victory. They are incompetent to do it afterward, because they are in duress. Surely a defeated nation would find itself in a lamentable predicament. Too feeble to resist, disarmed, conquered, and still incompetent to make a treaty of peace and adjust the matter in dispute on such fair and equitable terms as a magnanimous foe might propose, because the war of aggression which they had commenced had resulted disastrously, and made them captives. I fear, if the gentlemen on the other side succeed in establishing their doctrine, they will soon find their Mexican friends in a dilemma truly pitiable. Perhaps, if General Paredes and his military government should be reduced to captivity, these gentlemen would require that our armies should retire within our own territory, and set the prisoners at liberty, before negotiations for peace should be opened. This may be their view of the subject, but I doubt whether it is the view which the American government or the American people will feel it their duty to act upon. Our crude notions of things might teach us that the city of Mexico was a very suitable place for conducting the negotiations. I must, therefore, be permitted to adhere to my original position that the treaty of peace and boundaries between Santa Ana and the Texan government in May, 1836, was binding on the Mexican nation, it having been executed by the government de facto for the time being.

Mr. Adams. Has not that treaty with Santa Ana been since discarded by the Mexican government?

Mr. Douglas. I presume it has, for I am not aware of any treaty or compact which that government ever entered into that she did not afterward either violate or repudiate. The history of our treaty stipulations with her furnishes ample ground for this presumption. I have not deemed it necessary to inquire what particular acts of disavowal, if any, have been since adopted by the Mexican government. It is sufficient for my purpose that the treaty was entered into by competent authority at the time of its execution. The acts of a government de facto are binding on the nation as against for

eign nations, without reference to the mode by which that government was established, whether by revolution, usurpation, or rightful and constitutional

means.

Mr. Adams. I deny it. I deny the proposition.

Mr. Douglas. I will not enter into an elaborate discussion of the laws of nations on the point with the learned gentleman from Massachusetts. I will say, however, that I understand writers on international law to lay down the principle as I have stated. Certainly the practice and usages of all civilized nations sanction it, of which history furnishes innumerable examples. Does the gentleman deny the validity of the acts of the British government in the times of Cromwell because it was a mere government de facto, established in blood, in violation of the English Constitution? Many of the most important treaties affecting the destiny of Europe were made with the British government during that period; and who ever heard of a European sovereign denying their obligation or failing to claim the benefits of them? More recent and memorable instances may be found in our claims of indemnities against France, Naples, and Spain, for injuries which we sustained during the French Revolution. We did not permit these countries to exonerate themselves from the obligation to make us compensation upon the pretext that Napoleon, Murat, and Joseph Bonaparte were military despots, who had ascended the thrones through blood and violence. We recognized them as the heads of those governments de facto, while seated on the thrones of the legitimate kings of those countries, and subsequently held the nations responsible for all their invasions of our rights. Spain, Naples, and France have each acknowledged the obligation and granted indemnities. Will the gentleman deny the validity of the purchase of Louisiana upon the ground that it was made with a usurper, who was afterward taken prisoner and dethroned ? With as little propriety may he reject Santa Ana's treaty with Texas, and our treaties with the presidents and dictators of Mexico, who have successively and alternately seized the reins of that government at short intervals, and banished or beheaded their predecessors, and changed the forms of government to suit their purposes. In these and all similar cases the usages of the civilized world sanction the doctrine for which I contend, that the government de facto, for the time being, is recognized, and the nation held responsible for its acts, without inquiring into the means by which it was established, or allowing the obligation to be dissolved by subsequent revolutions or disavowals. I am not now discussing the question whether the distinctions attempted to be established in England on the termination of the Wars of the Roses, between the rival houses of Lancaster and York, were well founded or not. I do not pretend to say whether it is a settled principle of the laws of nations that there is such a distinction between governments de facto and governments de jure as some gentlemen insist upon. I wish to avoid all immaterial issues, for I have had no opportunity for investigation or preparation on these points. All I insist upon in this discussion is that the acts of the government de facto, for the time being, are binding on the nation in respect to foreign states. It is immaterial, therefore, whether Mexico has or has not disavowed Santa Ana's treaty with Texas. It was executed at the time by competent authority. She availed herself of all its benefits. By virtue of it she saved the remnant of her army from total annihilation, and had her captive dictator restored to liberty. Under it she was permitted to remove, in peace and security, all her soldiers, citizens, and property, beyond the Rio del Norte. The question is, had she a moral and legal right to repudiate it after she had enjoyed all its advantages?

The gentleman from Massachusetts attempts to apply the legal maxims relative to civil contracts to this transaction. Because an individual who enters into a contract while in duress has a right to disavow it when restored

to his liberty, he can see no reason why Santa Ana could not do the same thing. I shall not go into an argument to prove that the rights of a nation, in time of war, are not identical with those of a citizen, under the municipal laws of his own country, in a state of peace. But if I should admit the justness of the supposed parallel, I apprehend the gentleman would not insist upon the right to rescind the contract without placing the parties in statu quo; for it must be borne in mind that Santa Ana was a prisoner according to the rules of war, and consequently in lawful custody. Is the gentleman prepared to show that the Mexican government ever proposed to rescind the treaty, and place the parties in the same relative position they occupied on the day of its execution? Did they ever offer to send Santa Ana and his defeated army back to San Jacinto, to remain as General Houston's prisoners until the Texan government should dispose of them according to its discretion, under the laws of nations? But I must return from this digression to the main point of my argument. I was proceeding with my proof, when these interruptions commenced, to show that the Rio del Norte was the boundary between Texas and Mexico, and has been so claimed on the one side and recognized on the other ever since the battle of San Jacinto. I have already referred to the fact that the country west of the Nueces had her soldiers in the Texan army during the campaigns of 1835 and 1836, and that the treaty of peace and independence between Santa Ana and the Texan government recognized the Rio del Norte as the boundary. I have also referred to the fact that the Mexican army was removed from Texas, in pursuance of that treaty, to the west bank of that stream. I am informed by high authority that General Filisola received instructions from the authorities in Mexico, who were exercising the functions of government in Santa Ana's absence, to enter into any arrangement with the Texan government which should be necessary to save the Mexican army from destruction, and secure its safe retreat from that country; and that, in pursuance of those instructions, he did ratify Santa Ana's treaty previous to marching the army beyond the Rio del Norte. My friend from Mississippi, before me (Mr. Davis), who has investigated the subject, assures me that such is the fact. My own recollection accords with his statement in this respect. These facts clearly show that Mexico, at that time, regarded the revolution as successful as far as the Rio del Norte, and consequently that the river must necessarily become the boundary whenever the independence of the new republic should be firmly established. Subsequent transactions prove that the two countries have ever since acted on the same supposition. Texas immediately proceeded to form a Constitution and establish a permanent government. The country between the Nueces and the Rio del Norte was represented in the convention which formed her Constitution in 1836. James Powers, an actual resident of the territory now in dispute, was elected a delegate by the people residing there, and participated in the proceedings of the convention as one of its members. The first Congress which assembled under the Constitution proceeded to define the boundaries of the republic, to establish courts of jurisdiction, and the exercise of all the powers of sovereignty over the whole territory. One of the first acts of that Congress declares the Rio del Norte, from its mouth to its source, to be the boundary between Texas and Mexico, and the others provide for the exercise of jurisdiction. Counties were established, reaching across the Nueces, and even to the Rio del Norte, as fast as the tide of emigration advanced in that direction. Corpus Christi, Point Isabel, and General Taylor's camp, opposite Matamoras, are all within the county of San Patricio, in the State of Texas, according to our recent maps. That same county, from the day of its formation, constituted a portion of one of the congressional districts, and also of a senatorial district in the Republic of Texas; it now forms a portion, if not the whole, of a representative district, and also a senatorial district, for the