enemy, who might send detachments at any moment to make destructive inroads. It would be necessary to have both sides of the river, without which, it would be a bad boundary. If we confine ourselves to the east side of it, the inhabitants on the other bank, in case of hostilities, can at any time call in the aid of the Mexican Government. Collisions will be unavoidable, and Texas will be continually threatened, unless we keep up, at great expense, a permanent force along the line. But taking the mountains as the boundary, we could keep Mexico in her shell, until the valley shall be filled by American and European population. There is, no doubt, unappropriated land; but, even supposing the whole to be claimed under grants to the church, and to individuals, these might justly be subjected to forfeitures and confiscations, partial or total, in case of refusal to own allegiance. The tenures of all these lands are, in their nature, feudal; that is, the fee is in the sovereign, whoever that may be, and subject to be resumed and regranted at the pleasure of the sovereign. The tenure or holding, is not allodial as with us; it is rather political or military, if I may so express myself, than legal.[3] This subject is not generally understood among us, and it would occupy too much space to explain it more fully. If Mexico compels us to conquer the country described, we must annex it, but cannot do this without republicanizing it first; and this, again, cannot be done without abolishing the feudal system, and changing the tenure of the lands. Still, I am no advocate of conquest; I would rather take the boundary of the Rio Grande by fair treaty, than hold the States bordering on that river, by the rights of war, which are regarded by all barbarous nations, and by Mexico herself, is the highest, and most glorious of all titles. Footnote 3: I speak of the large grants, the smaller are allodial, as also, the grants on condition of settlement.