WRITINGS OF 5AM HOUSTON, 1844
529
a permanent government could be organized, these grants and contracts had not legally ended till the declaration of Texan independence, March 2, 1836. For the five succeeding years, that is till January 4, 1841, there was no law authorizing colonial contracts in Texan territory. But on this last year of President Lamar's administration, a law was passed by the Texas Con- gress, which authorized the President, under defined conditions, to enter into contracts for the colonization of wild lands in northwest and southwest Texas. The act was amended, January 16, 1843. It was under this act and the amendment that Peters' colony in north Texas, and the Fisher-1\Iiller Colony (better known as the German Colony), the colony that settled the valleys of the Perdenales, the Llano, and the San Saba rivers, were authorized. About this same time Charles Fenton Mercer was given a grant to settle immigrants in territory now composing Kaufman County. See D. G. Wooten (ed.), A Comprehensive H1"story of Texas, I, 430, 826. Walsh vs. Preston, 109 United States, 297-329. This case gives a lucid history of the Mercer contract, also an excellent discussion of the purpose and policy of the Texas colonization laws in general; see Gammel, Laws of Texas, II, 554-557, 851-853, for the text of the cc.Ionization Jaw, and for In 1934 Nancy Ethie Eagleton wrote a master's thesis at The University of Texas entitled, The Mercer Colony in Texas, 1844-1885; it is published in the S011thwester11 Historical Quarterly, XXXIX, 275-291, XL, 35-57, 114-144. that of the amendment. To WILLIAM E. JoNEs 1 Executive Department, Washington, January 26h., 1844 To the Honorable W. E. Jones/ Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, &c., &c. Sir - I have the honor in reply to your note of the 24h. instant, as chairman, &c., to refer you to my message to the Honorable House of Representatives of the 1st inst. The Committee on Foreign Relations having availed themselves of the opportunity of examining all the correspondence in the State Department on the subject referred to in your note, it is presumed they are in possession of all the information concerning it which it is in the power of the government to afford. I do not deem it compatible with the public interests at this time to transmit "copies of all correspondence" in relation to the matter, as nothing of a definite character has yet been accomplished. Although the documents required are to be used in secret session, the Executive has reason to apprehend that some use might possibly be made of them not contemplated by the Honorable Congress, as he is informed undue means have been adopted recently by a number of indi\'iduals, members of the House of Representatives, to obtain possession of some public correspondence. He alludes to the fact that a call
:
Powered by FlippingBook