The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-06-12

Has she mol been formally recognized as such oy
the leading powers of Europe and America-by
England France. and Holland. as we'll as the
Unted S ates Does che not govern herself
and has she moi constantly governed herself by
her own authority and laws" from the hna
achievement of her independence on the field oil
SAL. into, which was promptly followed oy me
aiop.s,n at . written constitution, and c"h'pie'e
organization Of civil government under ~ down
to the present day BY every criterion men, anu
according To the highest authorities OF puo'c 'aw'
she has all the rights. whatever they De, o' So
yer-ign and independent State, and hrst ana
chietest aa'ng them, that OF regulating anu u''-
posing nf her own desnes
R,n !, has been commended that the acquisition
of Texas would involve q br-dch OF faith towards
Mexico and we are referred to the language OF
our treaty # amy and commerce with Mexico
in 1892, wherein. both nations agree to maintain
peace and amity with each other. Gin all the er-
tent Of their possessions and territories The
first observation which occurs upon this argument
is, that. if there we're any foundation for it, it
certainly comes much too laie in the day, now.
The breach at faith, here alleged, if there were
any, has been long since committed. twas COM
united in the very acknow ledgment of Texan In
dependence for the acknowledgment of the po-
litical sovereignty of Texas necessarily involved
a recognition Of her right Of domain over terri
toy, once "a p, session OF Meyico but which
CCdScu W uc 81, dCCOIuluS " 'hC oSh"o"'CoS'u
principles of the law of nations, by the very tact
Of the separation and independence of Texas. Ii
there were breach of faith in this towards Mexico,
or if there be breach OF faith now in treating with
Texas as having sovereign right to dispose OF
the territory claimed by her, it was equally com
mtted by England, by France, and by all the
powers who have recognized the Independence of
Texas; for it is imp ssib'e to draw line between
the ,litica and the territorial sovereignty of an
ind Enrland hos lly nd
directly recognized this right Of domain in Texas
by earnestly patronizng and prosecuting, as stated
by the honorable Senator from Mississippi, (Mr
Walker,) an almost baronial claim of one of her
subjects, under grant of several millions of acres
derived from the Government of Texas The
United States, acting upon the same principle
which induced them, by treaty with Mexico in
1882, to acknoW ledge as her limits the bounda-
ries previously established between Spain and
them by the treaty of 1919, has since, by treaty
of limits with Texas in 1888, solemnly recogni-
zed the same boundaries as defining the territory
OF Texas, and entered in stipuations for the ac-
tual demarcation of them as such, by joint CON-
missioners of the two countries. repeat, there
fore, # there were any foundation tor the imputa-
ton of breach of faith towards Mexico. in regard
to the territorial sovereignty over Texas still as
sarted by her, las think have shown there is not
the slightest) the imputation attaches as much 10
England. to France, and the other powers who
have recognized The independence of Texas as to
the United States and is wholly obsolete in its
application to the present state of things.
1t is also argued that to receive Texas into the
Union would be to enter, unjustifably and against
the principles of the law of nations, into war
existing between Mexico and Texas. But where
is the evidence of any such aoar between these
two powers as The law of nations declares neces-
sary in order to give rise to the legal consequences
Ito the rights and responsibilities state of
war! confess, sir, see none in any of the in
fprrnation before us. 1t is true that Mexico has
never recognized the independence Of Texas
that no formal articles of peace have been as yet
concluded between them-but look in vain for
any proof of regular, organized, sustained war
between Them 1t appears from the documents
before u, that for more than six years after the
achievement Of her Independence by the battle of
San Jdclnto, not hostile font,' to use the lam
guage of Mr.. Webster, :" had found rest within
tie territory Of II xae''-that during all that Pc
riod Mexico had '.refraned from any attempt 10
re-establish her authority in Fexas-that al last,
in the sunni # of 1912, some two q three "ma-
raudng" expeditions were made into the teri
tory Of Texas, which " retreated more rapidly
than they advanced" and in retaliation of them,
one or wo sudden and transient Ir:up,ions had been
made into the Mexican BORDERS from Texa>--uut
that since these irregular aud expiring efforts OF
border ennty, there had been again, for more than
a year paSl, d toldl suspension o nOStlle opera
fioee, with no indication OF any organized or eff
Glen purpose of iesu,nng them.
But in the absence Of actual war and f,c's con-
sttuling legal slate Of war, recourse has been
made 10 The va ue and general language Of Off
cia papers 10 make Out CONSTRUCTIVE war 1t
must be recoecied, however, that payer ,onr
is Of no more validity than paper bio, k ,de; and
il is remarkable that in those passages both of Mr..
Webslers despatch and Of the Presiden S mes
sage, which have been referred to, as admitting
pending war between Mexico and Texas, the
war spoken Of is described and characterised by
the very circumstance which, according to the
best authorities upon public law, make The case
OF an iHrgitma,e and informaI war, giving rise
TO none Of the rights or dui Of regular war.
Vauel says legitimate and formal warfare must
be carefully distinguished from those llegtimale
and Informal wars, or rather predato,y erp d.
fions, undertaken either without lawful author
lty, or without apparent cause, as likewise with
out the usual formalities, aud solely with view