Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-12-20
A NORTHERN WING.
For the Enquirer.
TEXAS-fNo. IN.

that when the subsistins Government is changed
in any foreign country, either by revolution or
by a separation of its parts, by the overthrow oil
the former rulers, or by an attempt Of portion
to dsengage itself from an existing connexion
with another part, the new sovereignty is deemed
perfect and absolute, when either II Is conceoeo
by the old sovereign, or is recognized by our own
Executive as having been accomplished IN point
of fact.
This was the policy OF Washington when he
recognized the various phases which the Govern
ment Of France assumed during her Revolution
II was pursued BY every successive admlnistra-
ton from that day to The present. Disclaimlns,
as we uniformly did, all right TO interfere in
the existing struggles, which upheaved the old
established forms Of Government, and over
threw the thrones in most OF The ancient mo-
marches OF Europe, we limited our view
10 those actually in possession OF power, re-
cognized the successive rulers who rapidly rose,
like phantoms, to places of authority, and
as speedily sunk, TO be in turn succeeded by
others whose career was as evanescent. The
thrones OF Naples, Spain and Portugal were vaca-
ted. and the United States uniformly acknow-
ledped the existing sovereignties. They did more;
they as uniformly insisted that the nation was re-
sponsible for the outrages perpetrated upon The
rights Of our citizens, BY what were termed The
intrusive Governments. France was required 10
pistration OF the Directory. the Consulate, the
Emperor; and The house of Bourbon was called
upon 10 paw for wrongs inflicted by their own
enemies, which was finally adjusted by Louis
Philippe Spain Unidentified us for violations OF
our rights BY the French authorities; Naples for
those we had suffered under the reign Of Murat.
This principle is at this time universally recog-
nized as The doctrine the law OF nations through
out Europe, alternately asserted and submitted 10
by every one Of the powers of the old world.
The recognition of subsisling sovereignty IN
foreign nation is a solemn and authoritative
act, 10 be executed BY that department of the Go
vernment to which the Constitution has entrusted
il. When the Executive has thus recognized
the fact Of independence, il is without qualihca-
ton or condition. and is binding upon the nation.
The new sovereign is deemed, 10 every purpose,
sovereign, when either his existence is recog-
nized BY our own Government, or is acknow-
lsdged By the pre-exsiing superior authority
Such was the view judicially taken OF this ques-
ton by the Supreme Court in 1903. Chief Jus
ticc Marshall in delivering the opinion of the
Court, in case involving this point, thus e1-
presses himself:
"The colony of 81. Domingo, originally be-
longing to France had broken the bond which
connected her with the parent State-had declared
herself independent, and was endeavoriDg TO sup
port that independence by arms. France still as
serted her claim of sovereignty, and had employ
ed military force in support OF that claim.
war de facto then unquesiionaby existed between
France and ST. Domingo. ii has been argued,
that the colony having thus far maintained It's
sovereignty by arms must be considered and
treated by other nations as sovereign in fact, and
as being entitled 10 maintain The same intercourse
with the world that is maintained BY other belll-
serent nations In support OF this argument, the
doctrine OF Hatiel has been particularly referred
TO- But The language of that writer is obviously
addressed TO sovereigns, not 10 courts. II IS Tor
Governments to decide whether they will consi-
der ST. Domingo as an independent nation, and
pnhl such decision shall be made or France shall re
linquiA her claim, courts Of justice must consi-
der the ancient course Of things as remaining I'M
altered, and the sovereign power OF France over
that colony as stin subssiing," In that case, the
late lamented Mr.. DuPonceau was questioned
by the Court and in answer observed: "The
question Is. whether France can, by the mere
force of the law OF nations, seize and conflscate
vessels Of neutral nations trading 10 tlayt! IL II
is admitted that the situation OF France with
Hayti is war, il follows that France is at war;
and we are ncutrais. II nculras, we cannot
Judge Of any thing dc inre which is Tho subject oil
controversy between France and Hayti. Hayu
contends that dc juyc she is an independent State
France contends, that dc iurc Hayti is her Deepen
dent colony. OF this as ncntrals, we are not per-
mi,ted 10 Judge We find them at war together,
and al issue on this question oil dependent or In
dependent: we must take them both 10 be right.
Further on he adds, that we have nothing TO do
with the claims of France TO the sovereignty OF
Hayti-"We who are not bound TO support her
dignity, recognize her rights only SO far as they
are sanctioned by the laws of a war of the nature
of that in which she is engaged, and no further ;
and they do not bind us further than the laws Of
wa applied to the particular war existing, ex-
prcssly authorize, but they bind US so far"
This learned inris and few men In this or any
other country have been more distinguished for
large and comprehensive acquaintance with pub
lie law, even during the period when the parties
were asserting their respective claims and preten-
sions fagrantc beiio rested the rights OF either par
IL exclusively upon the laws OF war, and Limited
the obligations of other nations exclusively to
those of neutrality So far as this particular Issue
was involved, we have seen the judgment pro-
nounced by the Supreme Court, That question
is defnitively settled, so far as such foreign ma
lion is concerned by the recognition by the cons-
tutional authority Of an existing Independence
That being taken, nothing else remains but the
ordinary rights Of bellgerents, and the ordinary
obligations OF neutrality.
1t has thus, it is apprehended, been conclusive
ly demonstrated by the highest authority recosni-
zed in our land the opinions and acts OF our most
eminent statesmen, the opinions and judgments OF
our ablest jurists, that even were an active war
now in prosecution bstween Mexico and Texas,
| Tor The purpose Of the recovery By the former OF
her alleged sovereignty, had such eyer existed,
vet from the instant the United States, in good
faith, acknowledged the independence of The lat
ter, we are bound 10 regard them as equally right
in the contest and our only obligation is TO ex-
tend 10 them equally the same measure OF justice,
and that is 10 be regulated BY their respective
rights as belligerents, and our duties to each OF
| them, as ascertaned BY the laws OF neutrality.
The only question, then, which remains open
upon this point is, whether the United States may
lawfully and without afordingjustc OF offence
to MEXICO as belliserent, in good faith purchase
Texas from her present owners; or, with The as
sent of her people according 10 theft institutions
unite her 10 ourselves :
Upon This point we have authority equally
high as any we have cited TO sustain our previous
views During the Administration Of Mr., JET.
ferson, the U. States opened negotiations for The
purchase of Louisiana from France. Great Bri-
tain meditated military expedition for the pur-
pose of subjugating that province to her own do
1ninion, and the question naturally presented 1t.
self how will England regard this acquisition OF
territory which she entertained every hope
| of subiugating to her own dominion from
| foreign enemy. Anticipating an objection
from hi, quarter, Mr. Madison, on the
18th Nav, 1909 addressed to MIR, Livingston
our Minister in France. despatch, in which be
4 saws: "As The question may arise, how far, IN
state of war; one Of the parties can, OF right con
vev territory to neutral power and thereby de
prive il. enemy of the chance Of conquest, Incl
dent 10 war, especially when that conquest may
have bean actually projected. il IS thought props'