Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-06-28

and independent State, and first andchieiest among
them, that of regulating and dSpoSing OF her Own
destinies.
But il has been contendei that the acquisition Of
Texas would involve breach OF faith towards
Mexico, and We are referred to the language OF
Aour treaty of amity and commerce with Mexico
in 1882, wherein, both nations agree 10 maintain
pcace and amity with each other, in all TIC eTiea'
Yet their possessions md tcrriories" The first Oh
servation which occurs upon this argument Is,
that if there any foundation Tor IL Ii certain
~ comes much too late in the day. now. The breach
of faith, here alleged if there were any, has been
long since committed Il was committed IN me
very acknowledgment of Texan independence;
for the acknowledgment OF the political sovereign
" Of Texas necessarily involved a recognition oi
her rieM of domain over territory, once "a pos
session. of Mexico, but which ceased to be so, ac-
cording 10 the acknowledged principles OF the law
OF nations BY the very fact of the separation ana
independence of Texas. If there Were breach OF
faith in this towards Mexico or if there be breach
ofiaith now in treating with Texas as having So
vereign right 10 dispose of The territory claimed by
her, it was equally committed By England, by
France, and by all the powers who have recoS-
niZed the independence OF Texas; Tor II Is inpoS-
sible to draw a line between the political ana inc
territorial sovereignty OF an independent STATE
England has especially and directly recognized
This fisM of domain in Texas by earnestly pa
trunizins and prosecuting stated by TIE homo
rable Senator from Mississippi, (Alr. Walker)
an almost barunidl claim OF one OIL her subjects,
under a grant of several millions OF acres de-
rived from the Government OF Texas. The I.
States, acting upon the same principle which IN
duced them, BY treaty with Mexico in 1857, 10
acknowledge as her limits the boundaries pre-
viouslv established between Spain and them by
the treaty of 1919, has since, by treaty OF limits
with Texas in 1888 solemnly recognized the
same boundaries as defining the territory oil lex
as and entered into sipulations for the actual de-
marcation of them as SUCH by Joint commission
ers of the two countries. | repeat, therefore, II
there were any foundation for the imputaon OF
a breach of faith towards Mexico, IN regard 70
the erritor0i sovereignty over Texas stu asset-
ed nv her. (as think have shown there Is not
the slightest the imputation attaches as much 10
England TO France and the other powers who
have recognized TIC independence of Texas, as 10
the United States and is wholly o5S0tste III lis
application Ia The present stale oil things.
Its also argued, that 10 receive Texas into the
Union would h to enter unustiiably and against
the principles OF the law OF nations, into war eX-
listing between Mexico and Texas. But where Is
the evidence of any such war between these Two
powers as the law of nations declares necessary IN
order to give rise to the legal conSeqnences-tothe
rights and responsibitieS-ota state OF war! l
before us. 1t is true that Mexico has never re-
coenized the independence of TeNas-;hat no for
NAL articles ofpeace have been as yet concluded
between thcm-but look in vain for any proof OF
regular organized sustained war between them.
Ii appears from the documents before Us, that Tor
more than six years after the achievement or her
independence By the battle OF San .lacno, mot
hostile foot To use the language oi Mr.. Webster,
chad found rest within the territory OF Texas =
mad
from anv attempt 10 re-eStabSh her authority III
Texas-that al last in the summer of 1912, some
two or three 'marauding" expeditions were made
into the territory of Texas which 'retreated more
rapidly than they advanced and in retaliation OF
them, one or two sudden and transient irrupons
had been made into the Mexican borders from
Texas-but that since these irregular and eXpi-
ring efforts of border enmilv, there had been again
no more than year past, a total suspension OF
hostile operations, with no indication OF any or
eanized or efficient purpose OF resumin9 them.
Bu in the absence of actual war and facts con-
s,;tutins legal state of war. recourse has been
had TO the vague and general language OF official
papers 10 make out a copStruc'trc war. IL must
be recolecied however that pGgey lrar is Of no
more validity than a paper biOck0fc-and II Is re-
markable that III those passages both oi Mr.. WEB
sters despatch and of the Presidents message,
which have been referred TO- a. admitting pend
war spoken Of is described and characterised by
The very circumstances which, according 10 the
best authorities upon public law, make the case
Of an WcsuiWdte ami informal icar, giving rise
10 none of the rights or duties Of a regular war.
Vatte saws Legitimate and formal warfare must
Ire carefully distinguished from those Legitimate
and informal wars, or rather PREDATORY crPcdt-
tons undertaken either without lawful authority,
or without apparent cause Is likewise without
~,
plumber" Hc then proceeds to siyc several in
stances of iliesitmate wars. analogous in their
character and pr;ncipi, 10 the border incur>ionS
of Mexico and Texas, and concludes by saving,
that these two species OF war are to be carefully
distinguished, as the effects and rights arising
from each are very different Now, il will be
seen BY reference 10 what Mr.. Webster and the
President say upon the subject OF an existing
war between Mexico and Texas. that they both
describe il as consisting of these very 'Predatoy
.nc,ost0nS' or "t.rpedifions' which Vattcl ex-
pressly saws do not constitute '4egi'imatc war
or give rise TO any OF the "cgcctS oad rights oil
I legal state OF war
Much has been said, Mr.. President, about the
armiNicc, which, ii is said, was agreed TO some
twelve months ago between Mexico and Texas.
and is alleged TO be still virtually subsisting, as
admitting state Of war between these two pow
crs. Without remarking on the apparent contra
dcton OF relying upon the suspension OF war 10
prove the existence Of war, nothing Is more OBJ
yious, | think, on looking into the papers which
have been communicated 10 us on this subject,
Than thai the war had come completely 10 an end
by the inability of the parties 10 prosecute II often
siveiy--that il had thus expired by lis own eXhauS-
;ion-and that the forms OF an armistce had been
resorted TO solely 10 disguise this TACT and TO
make the termination OF the war, which was an
event already consummated appear tfs result OF
mutual and temporary agreement What our
late able and successful Minister al Mexico
iGen. Thompson) says on the subject IN des-
patch dated as recently as the ii ot February
last is 50 direct 20 the point and 50 conclusive IN
itself that will content myself with merely read
ing il TO the Senate:
lit" (the arnisiice) SAYS he, was only a de-
vice on the part of Santa Anna TO relieve him
from the difficulty in which he had involved him
self BY his threats and promises Of reconqucrinS
Texas, which he knows perfectly well, is impos-
sible. There may be other marauding foray>,
like that OF General VOL, retreating more rapid
~ than they advanced. But as TO any regular
and reasonably sufficient force invading the coun
trv. The thing is impossible, and will not be al
temp,ed. They cannot raise money 10 support
suci an army two months. My opinion is, not
withstandng all their yaporing and gasconadc,
that the most agreeable thing To Santa Anna
would he an authoritative inlerposi!ion OF oar Go
yernment to put an end TO the war, as he would
then say that we wcfe too strong for them 10 con
tend with"
But, Sir, even if there were war-tormal and
actual war-betwcen Mexico and Texas. what
gtiaeiglc Of the iaw Of nations is there that would
be violated, as has been constantly but sraui-
,ously assumed in this debate, by third power,
nc she thought her duties to herself 10 her neigh
bor. or TO the cause Of humanity required IT, be-
coming party. am very tar from coanSeil'nS
such course in the case OF the United States
But am now considering the question as depend.
mo on the lar Of nations atone, the authority oil
which has been very often invoked in this debate,
without attending sufficiently to that distinction
Of IDEAS so important to be preserved in such dis
cnss;ons Is there anything more common, in
rho nsages of nations than powers at warslrensth-
ening themselves, when they can, by alliances