“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 Nueces, _between_ 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 1819, 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. The outrage upon common _right_, of seizing as our own what we have once sold, merely because it _was_ ours _before_ we sold it, is only equaled by the outrage on common _sense_ of any attempt to justify it. “The President’s 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 public’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_.