The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-07-15

snaip by the treaty OF 1919, oy wh'eh uo 49,
va substituted for the Rio Del Norte a. our
boundary"
The senator from Missouri also says, SIR thSt RE
sident Jackson never sought 70 soquie' ,asa he
s1ruetons 10 our Minister at Mexico, III io<'' .ns
tsrri,ory 10 the Del Norte, but eoniempi''eo u''
desert west Of the Nueees a. the oouiaaiS
Here MIR. Brsros read 81 extract from we ues
match of Mr.. Van Buren,, when Secretary oi "'"N'
IN 1929, verifying this
Mr. Bn.rsg continued. That is all true, mr
President but what the lnstruc tons o. ie'',
dent Jackson TO our minister IN 1917 ~, only
then instruct him 10 purchase OF Mexico hol o"y
the territory TO the Del Norte, but also the eouu,
emb, aced within five degrees OF latitude on lhe
Pacific, being part OF California Here Is inc Id
slruclisn:
You are TO endeavor first TO obtain the following
boundary which Is considered The most eng oie
Beginning the Gulf OF Mexico, proceed ao"t VIZ
eastern bank OF the Rio Bravo del Norse TO the jim
parallel of latitude, and thence along mat Paaei
the Pacific"
And what hos General Jackson since wrilien on
the same subject and with reference 10 The aequisi
ton of Texas at this time
la his letter to A. V. Brown, he says
"Remember also, that If annexed TO the United
States our rssera boundary would be the RIO Gran
de- which is Of itself fabrication, account OF It's
| extensive barren and unhabitabe plains
Senators know that the river often spoken oil,
is called indifierenly Rio Bravo, Rio Grande, ana
Rio del Norte. | see also, sir, on some old maps,
that Texas is bounded on the southwest by the Del
Norte The act OF the Txian Congress SO declares
it, and does the 5tb article OF the agreement sign
ed by Santa Anna IN 1886, and We are now estopPed
from denying it, haying-with the act oil Texas De-
fore US which is but copy of the 5th article OF the
agreement with Santa Anna-admitted it by acknow-
lodging her independence a republic, as division
Of the earth of certain defined limits constituting
sovereign state. But, sir, If Texas has conveyed
more than she owns II does not vitiate the grant Tor
| that part she does rightiully own.
THE TREATY WAS MADE SECRET.
| Another objection, Mr. President, the Senator
from Missouri makes the treaty, is that was made
secretly. In answer to ib-, would inquire II all
treaties are made in secret Those for the acqu-
ton of Louisiana and Florida were, and the late trea-
" of Washington also. 1t is the usual mode OF nego-
tiang them. The object of negotiation might be
defeated was it not This very project Of annex
| alton may be defeated by the order of the Senate
making the documents and papers accompanying II
public. The interference OF another power may be
provoked by it, say nothing of the just of Of
fence ii may give to Texas should IT be rejected
II does not seem 10 me correct policy to make such
matters public until the Senate has finally acted
Still think, Mr. President that it would have been
quite proper for the Executive 10 have taken the ad
vice Of the Senate before he made this treaty. This
body was in session. and il would have been respect
iul 10 IL, anu more the III
Executive had advised with 1t. But, IN the exercise
OF his powers he has not deemed il expedent 10 dc
SO and as, by the practice Of the Government, be
can take the Initiative he IS net to be censured FOL
doing so in this instance.
Another objection, Mr. President and which stand:
prominent in the speech Of the Senator from Nilsson
RI as to the ratification of the treaty is, IN the Ian
guage Of his hrst resolution that its ratification would
be adoption of the Texan war with Mexico by
the United States and would deyolve its conduct anc
conclusion upon the United States.
Is THzaE ANY WHICH WOULD ADOPT D,
RAT!FYISC THE TREATY
1t will be SEEM sir, by the peculiar phrsseology
the resolution, that fact is assumedthat OF the
istence of war-which insist is not proved TO ex
st. 1t is incumbent those who sustain the reso
luton to prove ii, they holding the affirmative AND
il must be proved L. be war. If waged BY Mexico
against Texas justly waged, AID in the la full prose
| cution Of some right by that means This has no
been shown, as | humbly conceive. The Senator
insists, 10y ratiyiDg this treaty, we would DO, 'rs
f,oio, war with Mexico that 1t would be un
Just war; unconsitutonaliy made, and upon a veal
and grougdless pretext
Now, first TO the fact Of the existence Of wal
at all. Nations cannot be said to be al war-whct
implies action free, battles sieges, and the like
when no hostile act Is done by Them although the,
may be at enmlty. Should France arm hersei
against as at distance of four thousand miles from
u.s. and do no act, attack none of our ships forts
harDors, could II be said being waged b,
her Couj IT be said, with any proprie,y Of Ian
guage, that actually existed between US we at tn,
same lime being perfectly passive | should ihinl
not
The senator from Massachusetts mir. Cboa,el re-
ers US to Grotus, and Ruthe rforth's Commentarie,
on his WORK, for the definition Of war. Grotius
wrote more than two hundred years ago and Ru
therfOrth about one hundred since then many intel
polaons have been made the LAWS Of nations, anc
on the laws of war and peace.
Grohus says:
ILL
has so prevailed TIA not the act but the state and
disposition, now goes by that name so that war i
the state or disposition of those considered in thai
resPecD who dispute by force Of arms"
Ruthe forth, in commenting upon this passage
says;
"Wsr, therefore, in the common use of the word
signifies not only act, but state or condition.
And upon this account the word contention in the
definition oil war, Is TO be understood TO signify the
state or condition Of those who though they are moi
scu.ly mskiog u.e of force, have some matter OF
dispute subssting between them rhieh can D, decide
By other mtGns and who are therefore determine
10 take every fair opportunity Of using these means
Tor the decision of -
Taking, then, this text AMI the commentary to
gether, and applying them TO the condition of the age
In which We live, nations cannot be at war onl,
when they are actually waging 1t by force for ever
matter OF dispute subsising between them NAV
be decided by other means than by war-as nv no
COLLATION., by arbiiraon, by mediation and by friend
ly congresses or conferences aud ~ modern davs
subsIsting disputes decided.
| Natel defines 10 be
That state in which a nation prosecutes its rich,
by force We also understand by this term the &c,
itself, or the manner Of proseouti right by force
out IT Is common, and indeed more proper, ia trea.
Use on the law OF war; TO understand this term in
sense We have given tn
According to this definition, there must be action
mere state condition OF enmity which nav RI
out into actual war, is not sufficient ihe "righ,r 90
sert' d, must be prosecuted by force
Testing the condition OF Mexico and Texas a,
ms Juneture by This definition, and no war is sub
slsthg between Them. Since the Year 1910 mhen