Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-02-23

ders, repass the Florida line. Shall we
cease TO pursue them when we reach tia,
line? Il there any principle Of national
law. which tells us that, in our pursuit;
thhs far we shall 60 and no fariher2 Il
these questions must be answ cred in the
affirmative, then is the right Of self de-
fence mere mockery; then, indeed, are
we III The situation Of man, against
whom ferocious wild beast islet loose,
and who, bound hand and foot, is cut off
from the means Of destroying him.
1t 1t should be said, that Spain in bound
by treaty 10 restrain them, let il be re-
nembered thai there was time WHEN
there was no treaty. AT that time il will
mol be pretended that Spain was rrspan-
siblc for their acts Of hostility they are
no, her subjects, but community, as
has been shewn. sovereign in its eliarac-
ter. though subject to some limitations.
At the time then which have spoken OF,
anterior fo the date of the treaty, If the
Seminole Indians had invaded the United
States, and we had no right to pursue
them into the territory which tkey occu
ped, we should hayeprescnled the singu
lar SITUATION of a people invaded, whilst
The invaders themselves, bv reason of
their situation within the territorial limits
of our arms, and yet that other power
not responsible for their acts. Before
the treaty, then, we should have had
right 10 have crossed the line if so, il
cannot require argument 10 prove, that
treaty made will, view 10 increase our
secnri'y--to make another nation a qua
rantse to that security, cannot have the
effect OF abrogaiing The great inherent
rights, which we before possessed, of de-
tending ourselves.
think, sir, ! have now sufficiently
shewn that, asst respects Spain, we had
rIghi Ia cross The line: bui, as there is
another and distinct principle upon
which IL may be justified, Twill briefly
call the attention of the committee TO il.
Without meaning 10 make literal quota
ton, refer them to Vaticl, b. 3, c. z, $.
1873, for the principle which I now adj
vance: THAT, if neighboring nation
afford To defeated enemy retreat
allow him time TO recover, and watch a
favorable opportunity To make second
attack upon the territory OF one Of tine
belligPrenis, i, is not only breach of
neutrality. but it gives The belligerent
right 10 enter his territory in quest of his
enemy, and thus 10 make il the scene OF
war. Now, sir, think that the evidence
before lis abundantly makes out The case
which has just been stated. Ii this be
SO, then there is clear justification.
even supposing that the Indians did not
occupy the territory, and that they had
no sort OF claim 10 it. Upon thi, point,
Hen, tender 10 gentlemen this dilemma,
from which, II seems 10 me, there is no
escape. II it be considered the territory
of Indians, then we rightfuIly pass into
II, upon the principles which | first adj
vanced. II, on The contrary, ii be re-
garded as the territory of Spain, then we
rightiuily passed into it, upon the ground
OF The breach Of her neutrality, in the
counienance and and given TO our defeat
ed enemy, and the consequent, right which
belonged 10 us, as a bclligereni, 10 pursue
that defeated enemy into the territory Of
a power giving that .ountenance and aid.
have finished my view OF The question,
as between ilie government of the United
STATES and Spain, and will now take up
the other aspect Of the same question, as
between our government and its officers.
VIII attempt 10 shew, that there is lit
lie doubt upon The subject in This point
OF view, as IN the one which have Just
closed. Ike Seminole Indians had pass
ed The iine--l'ad plnndered The property
and shed Tie blood OF our citizens; they
had invadea us: The war, npon our pari.
then was defensive one. The whole evil
dcnce upon The subject being before the
cn,nmiiiee, shall not detain them will,
the tedious process OF referring TO il in
detail those facts which | think are pro
ven, | shall refer TO them as such, and
shall assume them as the basis of NV ar
gumenf. As 10 The elimination ouihe part
of the indians, that our ciiizcns comm,
ed the first ontrages, am satisfied iIIa,
such is not The fact, ana that The war was
as Jhst rs II was defenSire, on our part.
shall forbear, however, 10 trouble the
committee with any remarks upon that
subject, because, whatever may have led
TO ~. II was defensive war ~ fact, mas
much as we took mp arms 10 repel an at
tack which had been made uponus Con-
sIderiDg The question in this point Of view,
the committee viii even anticipate me-, in
assigning he reason Why no Il claraiion
OF war. by Congress, was necessary IL is
oil the nature OF defensive wars, not 10 re-
quIre declaration, though nations some
Times publish a cOnuieT-maniteslO, setting
forth The Justice = their cause, with view
10 interest Other powers in their favor
yet, The moment war is made against
them, that moment they prepare 10 reppl
II, and, in so doing, they are warranted
by all the writers on public law, and the
eternal principle Of selfdefence. Accord
ingly, Congress by an act passed in 1895.
have empowered the President, whenever
ihe q. 5. are invaded or even in itnpi.
neDt danger efihvasion to call out the mi
liiia, for the purpose OF repelling it. Tie
gentleman from Kentucky ,(Mr. Johnson.)
had called this perpetual declaration Of
war with slight variation of terms, he
was correct: il was perpetual declaration
OF a readiness for self detcnce anh perpet-
ual authority 10 the President in The event
either OF actual invasion, or i'm u,nenf dan,
ger OF il, TO call the physical force of the
rnnillrH In lIn ipl1 To- nr.l.I "a frI... L..