Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-12-20
COMMUNICATIONS.
For the Enquirer.

TEXnS-l NO. VIII.
The doctrine under examination, which dis
,insuiscs between dc jure and dc facto So
yeraipnIy. and which il is commended has no place
ia The code of International law, will appear upon
examination 10 be one exclusively of the NUM-
cipal law of England. Even in that country tis
OF doubtful and uncertain existence restricted by
the best writers within very narrow and not very
precise limits, and when correctly interpreted IS
not susceptible of application TO the controversies
which arise between independent nations.
Such as is, this doctrine originated in the dis
ouied SUGGESTIONS for the Crown OF England,
which for So many years, unsettled all the tounda-
tions OF social order, and deluged The country
with blooI. Blackstone furnishes us with sue
cnct view Of lis origin in the first volume OF his
Commentaries, and other distinguished English
common law lawyers either refuse any counte-
nance 10 i, as principle OF law, or 50 inerpre;
IL meaning or restrict is application, as TO leave
!, li,,,s more than a nominal existence. Black
stone informs MS, that "the Crown descended re-
cularly from Henry W. 10 his son and grandson,
Henry " and VI; in The latter OF whose reigns
the House OF York asserted their dormant title,
AMI ailer mbruias the Kingdom in blood and
confusion for seven years together, .! last estao-
lished il in the person OF Edward Nv. At his
accession 10 tine throne, aher breach of the
succession that continued for three descents and
above ,hreescore years, the distinction Of King
i. jn,s and King lie facto began 10 be first taken,
IA order tv indemnify such as had submitted to
the lale establishment, and to provide for the
peaec os The Kingdom, By confirming all honors
conferred, and all acts done by those who were
now called Usurpers, not tending to The dislnherl-
son uf The rishall heir. In Statute |, Edw. ~,
e. l., The three flen!ies are styled "late Kings Of
England successfully, in dede and not Of ryghte.
And in all line charters which have met with of
King Edward, wherever he has occasion TO speak
Of any OF the line of Lancaster, he calls them
"nuper de facto G, non dc juYe reyes anglia"
Such is the account of the introduction of this
phrase into the municipal code OF England, and
The view which il exhibits is corroborated by the
interpretation which Lord Coke had long before
given TO il; an interpretation. which if correct, al
once precludes the idea of Incorporating II into
the code Of International law. Lord Coke says.
that "a King dc fae0 is one that is in actual pos
session of Crown, and hath no lawful right 10
the same; in which sense, il is opposed 10 King
dc jue who hath right 10 Crown, but is out Of
possession" Blackstone, in his tth Commcn,a-
ries, adopts fully this Interpretation, and speaks
Of "Usurper who hath got possession OF
the throne" as the King de facto and illustrates
his idea, b. 2uttnglhe case of "the King ofPol2nd
or Morocco invading the Kingdom and BY any
means obtaining possession OF the Crown.
Surely those who have intcrpolaled this phrase
into the law of nations and applied tito questions
and 10 parties with which il has no rational or
jus. connex ion, must have equally misapprehend-
I'd lis true Specification or its appropriate place
II pre-supnoses previous Judgment upon the
on,y question over which no foreign power has
or can rghtfully exercise any jurisdiction, The
question OF right in the one part and absence OF
RICH, in the oiher TO apply it 10 The position
which Mexico and Texas occupy, il admits OF no
other Specification than is expressed in this para
nItb ts
possession and enjoyment OF sovereignty, It IS
cnly dc Eacto; for "she has no lawful right to the
same" il belongs, dc jare, TO Mexico, because she
4hath right. but is out of possession" Upon this
question Of right, we confessedly have no right,
as a nation, 10 decide although it will be difficult
90 find a citizen Of the United States who will de-
nv the Justice of The case to be with Texas. One
OF our most distinctly expressed doe ines-oDe
uniformly maintained throughout on entire MS
foyy. under each successive admins lton, I'M
der all circumstances, ant every party-is that,
which asserts the right of every nation to govern
itself in its own way, without the intervention OF
foreign powers-and the absence OF all right on
the part of Foreign Governments 10 interfere III
the domestic controversies Of other nations
These were the principles announced as those
by which we were animated during the struggle
between Mexico and Spain. and they are SO dis
,inctly statedby Mr.. Van Buren,, when, in 1929,
he held the otlcs oil Secretary oI State, ds W su-
persede the necessity, al this time, Of making fur
iher citation, which, however, might be ALMOST ,9
Van Buren, 10 Mr.. Butler, dated 10th October,
1893, he says: "The United States. drawn by q
community Of views and feelings towanisa young
nation, engaged, as they once had been, in a
struggle for Life and death-for independence and
Ireedom-continued TO sympathise with Mexico;
and nothing but their immutabie principles, OF
non-interference in the domestic conce'n ofo:her
nations, and of inviolable neutrality towards bel
iigcrents, prevented them from extendins he,P-
ing hand TO the young Republics OF America
"From the moment that, consistently WIN lneli
ru,e Of conduct, and the established principles Of
pub,ic law. they could consider Mexico and Spain
rs two distinct nations, which fate had forever Sc
para,ed. the United States pronounced the iree
dom of America; and their Congress, with
uuanini.v of which The history OF Legislation al