The Arkansas banner., 1844-07-31

in respect to the Stewarts, many other nations made treaties with him, as rightful head ot England, in less than one year after he be- came protector. Such as that with Denmark September l5th, 1654, when he had been protector only since December l6, i653, and in 1854 with Sweden, Portugal, and France (3d col of treaties, 67.)
 The possession of power, l grant, must not be merely anomeatary, and unsettled or changing, butapparently firm (1Iartin's Law of Nations, b. z, chapter l. And he was well known to multiply his treaties in order 10 strengthen his claim of right.
 In this way, he soon became so fully seated in power, and the nation so acquiescent, and the Stewarts so incapable of disturbing him, that his treaties of alliance and sessions, as well as other treates-like those of Bonaparte to us of Touisiana, in less than two years from his acknowledgement by other powers must he regarded as right and valid. " hat Stewart or Guelph since have dared to violate any of Gr0mwell's treaties as not made by de jure government, so far as respects all foreign powers What Bourbon has, since 1903, veutured to attempt to vacate NaPo- Icons treaties of cession with us as well as other powers, for not being made by a de jare government, looking to the rest of the world
 But there is much more ill the present case as to the dc jure government of Texas, Ii we regard its origin and our system of politics. Texas had been, as we before minated, an independent and sovereign State, with an ex- cellent separate constitution, neal two yems. Hertmon, during part of this period, with the Mexican conlederacy, does not alter thls. She has since broken no obligation as to that coniederacy, but they have all been broken by her opprcssors; and these last are the real rebels and overthowers of the confederacy, and not she Texas had reason, authority, and law-al to resist the assaults ot Mexico for enslaving her to new consolidated sys- tenn IIereHorts 10 maintain her independence under those assaults have been as righaul as ours in 1776 She has, since 1886, been in- dependent even of the eonfederacy, and been de jure, as well as de facto, sovereign gov ernment; and though, in l837, the union with her might have been more likely to expose us to war, and hence not prudent, it would. in the other view, as dc jufe.haye been per fecdy iustifiable, if her government then had appeared 10 be settled, mature, and efficient
 It is most extraordinary, that the right oI Texas to cede to us her territory without the consent of Mexico, would now be made by those, who, in 1925 and 1929, did not ques- ton the right of Mexico, dc jure as well as de facto, to cede Texas without the consent of Spain.
 I 4, f. +l flotoiic Mexico, though revolutionary, and with in- ternal disturbances under Spanish supremacy between the Cfeoles and others, from ISlC 10 1921, yet never sought nor asked inde- pendence of Spain; and both parties Vied ii loyalty to her. til Iturbde's detection, and tho declaration of independence, made at Iguala 24th February, l821-{4 Slate Papers, SIS 835, and Foot2s History, 94, 96, 99) The troops and power of Spain were driven from the capital and most ef the cities during tha year; but the castle of Ulloa, at Vera Cruz continued in the possession of the mothel country, when we recognized her indepen- dence in 1922, and when we first applied to re-purchase Texas in 1925. as extending to the Rio del Norte. The constitution of Mex leo admits that her independence never com menced till 1891, being giuea ID ,NeTico 4H October, 1891, fourth gear of indePea- deHce"-f2 Kennedy, 443A Yet in only one year after the adoption of the constitu- tion--only four after her independence was declared. and but three after 1t was recognised by us, all short of what prevails in Texas now-Messrs. Adams and Clay thought she had the de iHre right 10 cede territory to us, without asking the consent of Spain, and without needing the adoption of any Wal then existing.
 How could that be legitimate, if Texas after being an independent State near twenty years, and separated from Mexico eight years cannot now be allowed as de jure competent to negotiate for selling her territory without the consent of Mexico' Like facts apply tc 1929; and they are appealed to now, not fol taunt or recrimination, but as evidence that the ablesl minds then, and the most expe- rieneed diplomatsts, had entire confidence that such cession as Is now before us could be accepted with propriety, and yindieated before the morality, religion; and law of tho whole civilized world.
 The only other differences material to the argument are, that in 1895, Mexico had been recognized by not half so many other nations as Texas has now, and had maintained her independence for only about half as long a period; and that the revolution in Mexico was then progressing, not in all respects hn- ished-hermdependency unsettled, notfrQl- her soil invaded and occupied by her enemy, not free from hostile fletcher laws despotic, not liberal-her people agitated by internal broils and factions, not united or peaceful and Santa Annals government much like what Bolivar considered his in Peru-not settled, but ta camp; for (said he) "mg administration caa only be called C campaign" fl fortiori, then, can Texas cede now de jure, if Mexico could then. Butanother difference, still more potential i'll its influence rather than argumen- ailye in force, is, l admit, that nobody then stood behind Spain to back her up; while now we sec, or seem to see, the shadows of tngland's thousand ships of war in the wake oi Mexico, and hostile to our success from other causes too deeply well known 10 need recapitulation.