The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-07-17


can rebels. The whole current OF Mr. dc Bocanegras
marks In the direction il the independence
OF Texas had not been acknowledged u has been ac'
knovlelgcd il acknowledged in 1897, against the
rcmonstrance and protest OF Mexico and most of the
acts o. any importance Of which MIR dc Bocanegra
plains flow necessarily from that recognition He speaks
of Texas still being an integral part Of the territory
ofho Mexican Republic " but he cannot but understand
that the United States not regard il. The real com.
plant OF Mexico, therefore, is in subsistence neither
nor less thm complaint against the recognition OF
Texiau independence.
anil not quite jus, TO connc IT to the United states to the
exemption OF England France and Belgium, unless the
Uni.c states having been the first to acknowledge the in.
dependence of Mexico herself to be blamed setting
example for the recognition of that OF Texas. But
is still true that Mr.. de Bocmegras specification OF his
grounds OF complaint and rcmonsancc Is mainly conhn-
ed to such transactions and occurrences the natu
raj consequence OF the political relations existing between
Texas and the United states Acknow Lodging Texas 10
be an Independent nation the government Of the United
States of allows and encourages lawful trade and
commerce between the two countries f articles contra.
band of he found mingled with this commerce. while
Mexico and Texas begerrnt States Mexico has the
right 10 intercept the transit of such articles her enemy
This is the common right of all begercns and belongs
to MeNco IN The same extent as TO other nations But Mr.
dc Bocanrgra is quite well that is not the practice
of nations 10 undertake prohibit their subjects by
previous laws from tracing in articles contraband ofwar
such trade carried at risk of those engaged in
under the liabilities and penalties prescribed by the law of
nations, or by particular treaties. II be true therefore,
that citizens of the United States have been engaged in
commerce by which Texas enemy of Mexico. has
been supplied with arms and munitions war the govern
mcnt OF the United states nevertheless not bound to
prevent it. could not prevent without manifest depar
urc from the principles of neutrality, and is in way
answcrabe or the consequences. The treaty of the 5
OF April 1881 between the United States and Mexico,
self shows clearly how little foundation there is
the complaint of trading with Texas if Texas is TO be
gardei public enemy Of Mexico. The sixteenth
tcle declares II shall likewise be lawful for the aorc
said citizens respectively TO sail with their vessels and
merchandise before mentioned and to trade with the
liberty and security from the places ports and Ravens of
those who are enemies OF both either party without
any opposition disturbance whatsoever, not only di-
Tccy from the places OF the enemy before mentioned to
neutral places hu, also from one place belonging to an
enemy 10 another place belonging enemy whether
they be under the jurisdiction OF the same government
nm Ter several"
Tn, 18th article enumerstes those commodities which
shall be regarded conland of war. hut neither that
amy other imposes either nation any duty of pre-
venting by previous regulation commerce in such art
cics Such commerce is left To its ordinary fate accord
ing to the law of nations. II Is only therefore by insist
ing as Mr.. de Bocmcgra does insist, that Texas is still a
part OF McKee, that he maintain any complaint Let
II be repeated therefore, that if the things against which
he demonstrates be wrong they have their in the
original wrong Of the acknow ledgment OF Texan indie
pcndencc But that acknowledgment is not likely to be
retrortcd.
There be doubt all that for The last ears the
trade in articles contraband of between the United
States aud Mexico ha, been greater than between the
United States and Texas II is probably greater the
present moment Why has not Texas right to complain,
ofthi,} For reason certainly but because the pcms-
sion 10 trade the actual trading by the citizens Of Co
ycrumaa in articles conraband of war is breach Of
neutrality.
Mr.. de Docanogra processes himself unable comprc
bend how those persons Of whom he complains have been
able cyale the punishment ccci them by the
laws of the United States but he Goes not appear to have
clear idea OF the prnc pies provisions OF those laws
The duties of neutral nations in time ofwar are prescribed
by the law OF nations which is Imperative and binding
upon oil Governments and nations not unrcquently
ablish municipal regulations for TIE better
of the conduct of their subjects or citizens
This has been done by the United States, in order to
maintain with greater certainty strict and impartial
lray pending war between other countries And where
violation of neutral duties they exist by the law
Of nations breach OF its own laws has been brought
to the notice ofhc Government attention has always been
paid to il.
At early period of the Texian revolution strict orders
given by the President oil the United States TO all o
the south and south estern frontier 10 take
that those laws should be observed and the attention Of
the Government OF the United States had not been called
any specific violation Of them since the manifestation
the part of Mexico OF an intention to renew hosttcs with
Texas and all officers Of the Government remain charged
with the strict and faithful execution of these laws On
occasion complaint made by the representative
OF Texas that armament was fitted out in the Unite,
| ststes for the service OF Mexico against Texas.
Two vessels Of war, it alleged built or purchased
the United States for the OF the Government Of Mex
ico and well understood as intended TO be employed
against Texas equipped and ready to sail from Tho
waters OF New York. The case was carefully enquret
into official examination made and legal counsel in
voked appeared TO be OF great doubt but Mex
left the United States with the whole part of their
mcnt actually board The admnisi alton of
handed Justice the impartial execution of the laws
towards all parties, win continue to be observed.
II forces have been raised in the United States, or yes
sells fitted in their ports for Texan service contrary to
law instance OF which has yet come TO the know
ledge OF the government prompt attention will be paid
the first and 10 all which may be made known
to it, As to advance loans, donations Of money OF
goods made by individuals to the government OF Texas
its citizens Mr.. de Bocanegra hardly needs to be in
formed that there nothing unlawful in this 50 long
Texas peace with the United States and that these
things which government undertakes TO restrain
Other citizens equally at liberty should they be so in
same means sill less can The government of the Uni
ted States be called upon interfere with tina opinions ut
tered in the public assemblages of free people accustom
the independent expression of their sentiments,
suling violation Of the laws OF their country or
its duties a neutral State Towards the United States
Mexico and Texas stand in the relation ndcpen
dent States at OF the character of that war man
| kind will form their own opinions and in the Unite
States at least the uerance Of those opinions cannot
| suppressed
The second part of NJ de Bocanegras complaint is thu
stated" No does the Mexican governmen in tn
exercise Of lis rights which it cannot and does not desr
TO enouncc prepare means 10 recover possession us
cd from it, than the whole population Of the IT, States
pecally in the southern States is In commoton and y
the most public large portion of them is direct
| ed upon Texas"
And how does Mr.. de Bocanegra suppose that the go
vcrnmcnt of the United States prevent, or is bound
undertake to prevent the people from thus going TO Tex
as7 This is emigration; the same emigration, thougl
not under The same circumstances, which Mexico nvite
Texas orc the revolution. These persons. far
is known 'c the government of the United States repai
to Texas citizens Of the United States but
ing TO be s-cb citizens and changing at the same tim
their allegiance and their domici Should they return al
ter having entered into the service of foreign state still
claiming TO be citizens of the United States it will be 70
the authorities Of TIE United States to deter
mine how far they have violated the municipal laws
the country and what penalties they have incurred III
government OF the United States does not maintain,
never has maintained, the doctrine of the perpctuity
| natural allegiance And surely Mexico maintains II
such doctrine because her actually existing government
like that Of the United States is founded in the prncpl
that men may throw of the obligation OF that allegianc
| to which they are born.
The government of the United States, from its Origin
has maintained legal provisions for the naturalization
such subjects Of foreign States as may choose to com
hher and make their home in the country and renoun
cling their former allegiance and complying with certain
stated requistonsto take upon the char9ce
of citizens of this government Mexico herself has law
granting equal facilities to the naturalization OF foreign
| crs.
On the other hand the United States have not passed
any law restraining their citizens native or natural
ized from leaving the country and forming poitoai ,ea
tons elsewhere. Nor do other Governments, IN modcrr
times attempt any such thing. II Is true that there are
Governments which assert the principle oipcrpetuai ale
glance vet oy en- in cases where this is not rather mat
ter Of theory Than practice, the duties OF this supposed
continuing allegiance lc to be demanded OF the subjcc
himself when within the reach Of the power ofhis forme
f;ovennent aud oNigencies may arise, and are no
attempted 10 be enforced by the imposition Of prev lou
restraint prcycning from eav ing their country