The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-08-05
ADVANCE OF THE TROOPS OF THE UNI
TED STATES.


our quotation the article which it cites from the
NEW York Courier and Enquirer" 1t is courte-
AZ which is scarcely due to this last named Jour-
nal. which has spared pains, omitted no oppor-
unity, of venting its spleen upon the Union"
We confess there is some little appearance Of fall
.,;nc and falling back ON the part of the lnelli-
osrcer in this movement. II had declared itself
most decidedly in favor of the advance of the
American troops into Texas, for the purpose of re-
,,n;no any Mexican force which might be adj
,.ocing in the territory between the Nueces and the
Rio del Nore 1t justified the measure upon the
cround that we had "inchoate" right to the coun-
49,, Il made this declaration in the very face OF the
d,,Craceful disclaimer of the "New York Courier
and Enquirer" whose editors would have folded
their arms and quietly the TEXANS overrun by
the Mexican troops, because they had thrown them
calves into our arms, assened to propositions
ofapne xaton, and had drawn down upon their heads
This storm of Mexican aggression by our own act.
The "New York Courier and Enquirer" would have
SEEN. too, the territory to which we had acquired
this "inchoate" right wrested from us by foreign
invader and not an arm lifted in its defence, until
Congress could have convened, (and that period
could scarcely have been before November,) and
declared ,car against Mexico; and even then the de-
bate might have been prolonged from day to day, by
the wings, upon the ground that We had no just cause
If war against Mexico. The Courier was startled at
first and its fire partially silenced by the bold front
assumed by the National Intelgencer; but when the
circular of the Secretary of the Treasury appeared,
the Courier took some courage from its contents,
and now attempts to show that, if we could not send
our cus,om-house officers into Texas, we could not
send cur troops;-if we could not consider the
country one with us for the one purpose, we
could not for the other! The "Natonal Intelli-
gencer," if not staggered by the sophism of one
Of its "best friends" appears somewhat shaken.
| 1t now comes out with sdewind declaration, that,
I'm coming to this conclusion, we did notvery nicely
examine the constitutional authority of the Execu-
dver and ntimaes that the opinions which it origi
nay expressed upon the subject of the troops, if
does not now abandon them, yet are not alto
eeher so decided as at first; that they are now
"avowed with sincere Difference for opposite opin-
ions expressed in quarters entitled to respect"
that it almostn mot quite) "dstrusts Gts) own judg
ment when we find it opposed to those Of some of
our best friends" and that not pretending to play the
part of fugeman in this matter, but leaving its fell
ow-soIders to take their own course it grants them
dispensaon from its orders, and rather excuses
them for not following in its original footsteps The
lnleigencer leaves it to be understood that if the
other whig papers please to make war upon the adj
minisration on this score, it will not thwart their
Attacks but it desres (its) readers not to be Afu
enced by tits own) single opinion on this subject"
(single! when, in fact, the opinion of the New
York Courier and Enquirer might almost be
called "single;D and it now, therefore, by way
of encouraging them to prosecute the war against
| The administration, recommends the obser-
vaons of the New York Courier "to the read.
er's candid consideration" In word, the Ihtelli-
gencer has placed itself in somewhat awkward
Embarrassment yprecipitatey expressing opinions,
the political consequences of which it had not
weighed with sufficient circumspection. But to
the article Of the National Inteligencer, and its ac-
compartment, the N. Y. Courier and Enquirer:
From the National Intelligencer of yesterday.
"TFIE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF TEXAS.
1--WE have had occasion to intimate our opinion
that after the formal invitation to the government
and people Of Texas themselves to, and be-
partof the United States the placing of troops
the borders Of atterritory to protect it from APP
pretended invasion, appear to to be an almost
necessary consequence of the formal acceptance of
that invitation by the other party. In coming to
this conclusion, we did not very nicely examine the
constitutional authority of the Executive to take this
step, which is indeed not specifically authorized by
any law But, remembering that Congress and the
people Of the United States had acquesced in Pres
ident Tyer's making, under a pending treaty, and
after its rejection effectively the of the
army and the navy the executive is now doing, we
yeded-perhaps too easily--our assent to this dis
position of the public force, under compact now
actually made and in progress of execution.
Nobody can be more thoroughly convinced than
We that in passing the act of annexation, the Con-
gress of the United States exercised authority not
granted TO it by the constitution, and which, there
fore, at least unless exercised by the treaty power,
| reserved to the people Up to the last hour of
the discussion Of the act Of annexation, resisted
+ Its passage with all our power; but, as in the case
OF the violation of the constitution by the adms-
sion of illegally elected members into the House of
Representatives, we resisted it in vain. Overpow-
cred by numbers, the act having passed, consid
cred 1t, until 1t be repealed annulled by the Su-
preme Court, or by convention of the people, as
the law of the land, which il il duty TO submit
F TO- whilst 1t is the duty of the Executive to take
| care that be faithfully executed
| This impression is avowed with sincere defer
ence for opposite opinions expressed in quarters
' ltled to our respect; and we almost distrust our
own judgmen, when we find opposed to it those of
some Of our best friends. Not desiring readers
be influenced by our single opinion on this sub
ect we subjoin some observations from the New
York Courier and Enquirer, whose views of the
subject do not entirely agree with ours, but which
we do not the less recommend to the readers candid
consideration:
From the n. Y. Courier and Enquirer Of Aug. 2,
a TEXAS FOREIGN couNrRy.-lt will be remembered by
nose Of readers who take interest in the remarks
hs! occasionally made what consider the illegally
The march of the troops OF the United States into Texas
make battle with any Mexican troops that may be sent
mere That we founded objection the fact that as yet
was not part and parcel Of the United States; and
therefore that the plea OF the President that he only
ung IN defence of what he considered virtually portion
| o ms country, invalid.
o. we have denied all along that Texas and the United
eaes could be amagamated and made into people,
pAo some specific legislation ad hoe and have asked In
h lot the proof that any such legislation has been had
lhat any authority in law constitution exists for the
assumed by the Executive Of sending the troops OF
we United states out Of and beyond territory make
war upon foreign nation
Among our illustrations OF the fact that Texas and the
.Lled states not yet people said that
.nue laws, for instance not in force in applicable
ieha therefore by analogy other laws; and
mat Texas was still in regard to the United States