I now proceed to examine the President’s evidence as applicable to such an issue.  When that evidence is analyzed, it is all included in the following propositions: 

(1) That the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Louisiana as we purchased it of France in 1803.

(2) That the Republic of Texas always claimed the Rio Grande as her eastern boundary.

(3) That by various acts she had claimed it on paper.

(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 1803 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.  His 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 republic’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.  Though not in the order in which the President presents his evidence, I now consider that class of his statements which are in substance nothing more than that Texas has, by various acts of her Convention and Congress, claimed the Rio Grande as her boundary, on paper.  I mean here what he says about the fixing of the Rio Grande as her boundary in her old constitution (not her State constitution), about forming Congressional districts, counties, etc.  Now all of this is but naked claim; and what I have already said about claims is strictly applicable to this.  If I should claim your land by word of mouth, that