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　street　and　claiming　it；　or
  even　sitting　down　and　writing　a　deed　for　it。
  But　next　the　President　tells　us　the　Congress　of　the　United　States
  understood　the　State　of　Texas　they　admitted　into　the　Union　to
  extend　beyond　the　Nueces。　　Well；　I　suppose　they　did。　　I　certainly
  so　understood　it。　　But　how　far　beyond？　　That　Congress　did　not
  understand　it　to　extend　clear　to　the　Rio　Grande　is　quite　certain；
  by　the　fact　of　their　joint　resolutions　for　admission　expressly
  leaving　all　questions　of　boundary　to　future　adjustment。　　And　it
  may　be　added　that　Texas　herself　is　proven　to　have　had　the　same
  understanding　of　it　that　our　Congress　had；　by　the　fact　of　the
  exact　conformity　of　her　new　constitution　to　those　resolutions。
  I　am　now　through　the　whole　of　the　President's　evidence；　and　it　is
  a　singular　fact　that　if　any　one　should　declare　the　President　sent
  the　army　into　the　midst　of　a　settlement　of　Mexican　people　who　had
  never　submitted；　by　consent　or　by　force；　to　the　authority　of
  Texas　or　of　the　United　States；　and　that　there　and　thereby　the
  first　blood　of　the　war　was　shed；　there　is　not　one　word　in　all　the
  which　would　either　admit　or　deny　the　declaration。　　This　strange
  omission　it　does　seem　to　me　could　not　have　occurred　but　by
  design。　　My　way　of　living　leads　me　to　be　about　the　courts　of
  justice；　and　there　I　have　sometimes　seen　a　good　lawyer；
  struggling　for　his　client's　neck　in　a　desperate　case；　employing
  every　artifice　to　work　round；　befog；　and　cover　up　with　many　words
  some　point　arising　in　the　case　which　he　dared　not　admit　and　yet
  could　not　deny。　　Party　bias　may　help　to　make　it　appear　so；　but
  with　all　the　allowance　I　can　make　for　such　bias；　it　still　does
  appear　to　me　that　just　such；　and　from　just　such　necessity；　is　the
  President's　struggle　in　this　case。
  Sometime　after　my　colleague　＇Mr。　Richardson＇　introduced　the
  resolutions　I　have　mentioned；　I　introduced　a　preamble；
  resolution；　and　interrogations；　intended　to　draw　the　President
  out；　if　possible；　on　this　hitherto　untrodden　ground。　　To　show
  their　relevancy；　I　propose　to　state　my　understanding　of　the　true
  rule　for　ascertaining　the　boundary　between　Texas　and　Mexico。　　It
  is　that　wherever　Texas　was　exercising　jurisdiction　was　hers；　and
  wherever　Mexico　was　exercising　jurisdiction　was　hers；　and　that
  whatever　separated　the　actual　exercise　of　jurisdiction　of　the　one
  from　that　of　the　other　was　the　true　boundary　between　them。　　If；
  as　is　probably　true；　Texas　was　exercising　jurisdiction　along　the
  western　bank　of　the　Nueces；　and　Mexico　was　exercising　it　along
  the　eastern　bank　of　the　Rio　Grande；　then　neither　river　was　the
  boundary：　but　the　uninhabited　country　between　the　two　was。　　The
  extent　of　our　territory　in　that　region　depended　not　on　any
  treaty…fixed　boundary　（for　no　treaty　had　attempted　it）；　but　on
  revolution。　　Any　people　anywhere　being　inclined　and　having　the
  power　have　the　right　to　rise　up　and　shake　off　the　existing
  government；　and　form　a　new　one　that　suits　them　better。　　This　is　a
  most　valuable；　a　most　sacred　righta　right　which　we　hope　and
  believe　is　to　liberate　the　world。　　Nor　is　this　right　confined　to
  cases　in　which　the　whole　people　of　an　existing　government　may
  choose　to　exercise　it。　　Any　portion　of　such　people　that　can　may
  revolutionize　and　make　their　own　of　so　much　of　the　territory　as
  they　inhabit。　　More　than　this；　a　majority　of　any　portion　of　such
  people　may　revolutionize；　putting　down　a　minority；　intermingled
  with　or　near　about　them；　who　may　oppose　this　movement。　　Such
  minority　was　precisely　the　case　of　the　Tories　of　our　own
  revolution。　　It　is　a　quality　of　revolutions　not　to　go　by　old
  lines　or　old　laws；　but　to　break　up　both；　and　make　new　ones。
  As　to　the　country　now　in　question；　we　bought　it　of　France　in
  1803；　and　sold　it　to　Spain　in　1819；　according　to　the　President's
  statements。　　After　this；　all　Mexico；　including　Texas；
  revolutionized　against　Spain；　and　still　later　Texas
  revolutionized　against　Mexico。　　In　my　view；　just　so　far　as　she
  carried　her　resolution　by　obtaining　the　actual；　willing　or
  unwilling；　submission　of　the　people；　so　far　the　country　was　hers；
  and　no　farther。　　Now；　sir；　for　the　purpose　of　obtaining　the　very
  best　evidence　as　to　whether　Texas　had　actually　carried　her
  revolution　to　the　place　where　the　hostilities　of　the　present　war
  commenced；　let　the　President　answer　the　interrogatories　I
  proposed；　as　before　mentioned；　or　some　other　similar　ones。　Let
  him　answer　fully；　fairly；　and　candidly。　Let　him　answer　with　facts
  and　not　with　arguments。　　Let　him　remember　he　sits　where
  Washington　sat；　and　so　remembering；　let　him　answer　as　Washington
  would　answer。　　As　a　nation　should　not；　and　the　Almighty　will　not；
  be　evaded；　so　let　him　attempt　no　evasionno　equivocation。　　And
  if；　so　answering；　he　can　show　that　the　soil　was　ours　where　the
  first　blood　of　the　war　was　shed；that　it　was　not　within　an
  inhabited　country；　or；