Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1838-01-16

duty 10 myself 10 correct The mistake into which | have
fallen, ns far rs my subsequent information and reIlec.
ton show In be proper.
Mr.. Whittlesey of Ohio suggested that the House
now proceed to the private bills.
MIR. CambreIeng objected, because he preferred occu-
RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.
The House then resumed the consideration Of the fol.
lowing resolution submitted by Mr.. Adams on The 18th
ult.
ResoLucd, That the President of the United States be
requested tn communicate TO this House a copy and
translation Of The pamphlet in the Spanish language,
stated in The report Of the Secretary of State 10 this
House, 10 have been printed and circulated by the late
Minister of the Republic Of Mexicn, Gorostza, before
his departure from this country, md the name Of a di.
plomaiic func,iounry from a foreign Government who
communicated q copy Of said pamphlet 10 the Secretary
Of State.
The question pending was the motion of Mr.. Howard
10 strike out all that part relating In the name OF the d..
plornatic funciionary, after the word "country,' in the
eighth line.
Mr.. Shells did not rise for tho purpose of entering
into the merits of tie whole subject under debate,
but solely for the purpose of repelling and protest.
ing against the allegations which had been made against
the citizens Of the South. ives, in relation 10 The revulu.
lion in Texas. With regard 10 The resolution itself, he
did not see of what benefit il, could be 10 the country,
as its principa object was 10 call for n copy of a Pamph.
let, every word Of which had been already read by eve.
ry member Of The House. But he had risen 10 protest
against certain conclusions which had been drawn, re-.
nccting on the conduct Of citizens whom, he had the
honor 10 represent. II had been asserted in the course
of debate, that The citizen rs of the Southwest had parti.
cipated in the affairs Of Texas, in direct violation Of the
laws of neutrality between this country and Mexico
Such was not the case. lie would contradict The charge,
and affirm that The citizens Of the South west had nei.
lher in punt of fact or law participated in The revolu.
ton Of Texas. He would assert that there was not
one man in fifty who left the United States for Texas,
but who went with The bona fde intention of becoming
q citizen Of Texas. 1t was true they had taken with
them arm and ammunition, but this was after they had
expatrialed themselves; and were they, under those cir
cums,ances, TO be blamed for carrying means with them
to defend The country of their ~adop,ion' Such indi.
viduals as went from that quarter were no longer our ci-
tizens: they were citizens Of Texas, and from the first
had engaged in that cause with the bona fde intention of
uniting themselves with that Government. But there
was not the least comparison between the circumstances
attending the movements in The South. west, and those
Of the Northern frontier. The individuals who left The
y. States to render assistance to Texas did SO after the
war had commenced, were invited so to do by the Go.
vernment Of Texas. They therefore could not be charged
with violating the laws Of Texas, because they had mere.
ly accepted an invitation held gu, 10 them BY that Go.