{"character_count": 7104, "word_count": 1265, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9781000018119812], "ccnet_perplexity": [769.0999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
|, pamphlet sets out the decisioU!o oG the supreme Court of the Unitsd Satesin the case Ot tne do claim, and the Clark claim ID FlotsoSs 1" s..S

 that in such cases (the performance 2. sns

 tio0 becoming impossible by the act Q. Oo1, oa tne

 ,hl;c oDomv or inc arantor) the condition becomes GSch.r0ed, the grant is absolute, or the party may have time after the cessation o the oosCacae 10 A~ | 6l the terms. .A. ,..a l trsotv all these grants, amounting to seventy or eighty millions of acres, equal to three or TOUT sucn 1 States as Kentucky are claimed to be valid; and ] that claim would go to the claims, tor the treaty annulled none. The Florida treaty of lSls. an- nuled the great grants to the Duke of Alagoa, the Count Punon Rostro, and Don Diego Vargas, and they are not recognized by the courts but at omit fed to name the claims of Ared0ndo and Clark and these have been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and 1t was notorious that members of Congress became rich upon the shares ofthese grants. The grants. MT. B. sa'd' coiaecteo into the hands of Beales stood upon the same foot ing with that to Aredondo. They were not annol. led by the late Texian treaty. None were annuueo by it. All the grants were confirmed whlch were good under the laws of Texas and the taws oI AeN as so far as the right of property IS concerneds are the laws of Spain and Mexico, and Coanoila ana Texas, under which the right of property accr9eu'

 MT. B. said the Presidents message communlea- ting the treaty to the Senate was as untrue m reia tion to the granted and to the vacant lands m leXaS as it was in every other particular Instead O! TWO hundred millions of acres. there were only elghty four millions of acres m the rest was the one half in Tamaulpas, Coahuila, Chihuahua, and New Mexico, and had been granted away cen- turies ago; and the other half in the wild country of the Camanches and the SiesrG Obscure moun- tains and must be fought or bought from these ln- dians before 1t be possessed, and wlli be then found to be coveredby Beales forty five million acre grant. Instead of thirty seven millions of acres granted, every inch of Texas proper, and all the Indian country besides, was granted away. Instead of one hundred and thirty millions of acres ofva- cant land there was no vacant land for even the sterile mountains and barren prairies had been granted to spectators to sell to the United States and in Europe, and the assumption to pay the scrip

 debts of Texas in consideration of the vacant lands, was naked and fraudulent assumption to pay ten millions for nothing-and that to stock jobbers who | had given two cents, and five cents, and seven cents in the dollar for the caims and whose agents were at Washington infesting the Capital, the Presidents house, and the Department of State ,and doing all that was in their power to sustain the trea

 ty, and to pull down the Senator who despised them and their scrip. The treaty was fraud in

 not annuing the great grants, made for considera- tions not fulfilled and for not sealing the depreci- ated scrip debt. It was fraud in these particu-

 lars but this fraud created voracious and camor-

 ous interest for the treaty. Mir B. said the rarl-

 otic people of Missouri were mistaken in supposlns

 that every body were like themselves, actuated by

 laudable motives in wanting Texas, because it was geographically connected with the United States, and essential to its political, commercial, and 4 cal system. There were others who wanted it for very different purposes-the disunioniss, for exam

 pie, who wanted to use it for separating the slave l holding from the non slayeholdng States; Presi- dential intriguers, who wanted it to make and un-

 make Presidential candidates and land speculators and stock obbers ,who wanted to enrich themselves. Throughout his speech, MT. B. presented it as

 the design ofthe Texas Treaty not to get Texas in-

 to the Union, but to get the Southern States out of

 it, and showed that the whole treaty, and all the

 correspondence relating to it, was studiously and artfully contrived for that purpose. To pick a

 quarrel with Great Britain, and also with the non-

 slaveholding States on the subject ot slavery, was

 the open and continued effort. To present the ac-

 quistion of Texas as Southern, sectional, slavc- holding question, wholly directed to the extension

 perpetuation and predominance of slavery, was his

 express and avowed object. And after all this open

 effort to make the Texas question slave question: the admission of the Texian States into the Union was to be submitted to House of Representatives

 where there was majority of forty six members l from the non slaveholding States What could all this be for except to have the Texan States refused ] admission, and pretext furnished the southern States for secession! All this was so well under- stood in South Carolina that the cry of '' Ieras Dis,sni0n" was raised in that quarter not only be- fore the treaty was rejected, but before it was made

 Let it not be forgotten, said MT. B. that treaty I not, and could not admit Texas as State it only admitted it as territory. The question of admit ting the States would have to come on afterwards in Congress- and the admission being previ. ously made sure of, then the secession from the North and adhesion to Texas was to become the "rightful remedy" Texas being in the Union as territory by the supreme law of the land treaty, her non-admission by Congress would become a breach of that supreme law, and many under those circumstances were counted upon to secede who would otherwise abhor secession

 l Mr. B. said he saw the first signs of this scheme of disunion during the session of Congress in 1S42 43. He saw other signs of it in the summer of 1s43 and by the end othe late session of Congress, l the signs had become so thick and clear that he was able to denounce it on the floor of the Senate. l His reply to Mir McDufie on Saturday, the 18th | of June, was the first public denuncation of this l new treason against the Union. He had denoun. ced long before to many persons, and particular

 ly at the late session of Congress to Mr. Aaron V. Brown, member of Congress from Tenncssec, ,who had vcariouly obtained the Texas letter from Gen. eral Jackson, and who seemed to be vicariously charged with some enterprise on himself, and

 He had foretold at the commencement of the ses-

 sion all that he had proclaimed at the end of it,.

 He knew the treasonable design and the Presiden.

 tial intrigue, long before he proclaimed it in the Senate. He could not speak out until the signs were sufficiently developed to command the atten- } ton and the credence of the public. Before the

 end of the session this was tEe case. Believing in the strength of the Texas question, and that the

 patriotic sympathies of the people might bind them

 to the consequences of rash counses, the old nuli-

 6ers and disunioniss of 1892 went boldly to work toaccomplish the deslgn which they admit they be- gan too soon then.

 | nf