The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-05-10
MEXICO.-No. 9.

MEXICO-No. 2.
The inquiry which has been proposed is, what
course ought the United States to pursue in the
present position Of affairs between her and Mexicoi
The question assumes, as its basis, the now-exisng
circumstances between the two nations. II assumes
that now the question is to be answered, now the
course is to be determined. Before Mexico shall
have further committed hersef-before affairs have
taken direction which it might be difficult, if not
impracticable to change-how are we to act'
| As has been shown, the citizens of the United
States have claims to very large amount (probably
to the extent Of at least ten millions dollars upon
the government of Mexico. The validity of these
claims has been recognised by both nations, and
the national faith Of the United States has been
pledged that the payment of them must and will be
insisted on. Mexico has taken offence on collat-
era and independent question, and closed the ordi-
nary channel of national intercourse.
| The government of the United States has been
compelled in consequence Of the hostile demonstra-
tons on the part of Mexico to despatch powerful
squadron to the gulf, prepared to prevent resis,
any warlike movements. The naval force In the
Pacific is, of course, apprised Of the posture OF
affairs. Troops have been assembled on our south
ern frontier ready to act circumstances may de-
mand
These proceedings, however, are purely and ex-
| cusivey defensive. Unless Mexico should com.
mence hostilities nothing will be attempted on our
side. The presence of an imposing force on her
seaboard, and Of an army on her nothern frontier
may operate to deter Mexico from the egregious
folly of declaring war; but it is impossible to antci
pate what her wilfulness may lead to.
| As regards our own course, it would be equally
unwise and unbecoming for us to wait for the deve
opment of her views and conduct. Ourproceedngs
should be independent of her movements, and die
tated alone by regard to own rights, duties and
interests. The history of our country furnishes .
precedent for our instruction, and points out
which, at the time, commanded the general appro
baton of the nation and of the world.
| In 1893, during the administration of General
Jackson a case almost parallel occurred. BY the
| treaty Of July 4, 1881, France had stipulated to
pay twenty-five millions of francs in satisfaction Of
the claims Of American citizens on that govern
ment, for illegal seizures of their property, and
violations Of their rights. The money was to be
paid by instaments of certain sums at specified
periods The King of the French, who had con
cluded the treaty, used every exerton, and employ
ed all his influence to obtain from the Legislative de.
partment an appropriation to enable him to fulfil
the terms Of the arrangement. From causes
| beyond his control, he had been unsuccessful in
these efforts. Payment was withheld; and a draft
drawn by the American government on France was
returned protested for non-payment. President
Jackson, keenly sensitive upon every subject con-
nected with the honor and dignity Of the nation,
transmitted communication to Congress, in
which he employed language that gave Of
fence equally to the French government and
the French nation. Under the influence Of this
irritation, France withdrew her minister, rendered
his passports to representative at her court,
and suspended all diplomatic intercourse with the
United States. Thus far, the cases are strkingly
analogous; but great and important differences exist.
The subject of the treaty arrangements was the
same in both instances-it was the claims of pri-
vate citizens Of the United States for awless nju.
ries inflicted upon their persons and property by a
foreign power. In both cases the validity Of these
claims, and the obligation TO compensate for these
wrongs, had been secured by positive treaty stipu
latons. In both cases these conventional arrange
ments had been violated, and payments which had
been promised were withheld. The ground of COM
plant which was raised was in both cases, purely
collateral In the one, France took offence at the
language employed by the President, in an official
communication to Congress In the other Mexico
has taken umbrage at the proceedings relative to
Texas. In each case the offended party resented
the supposed wrong by the suspension ofdiplomatc
intercourse Here, however, the parallel stops. In
regard to France, no cause of complaint existed
against the executive The King and his ministry
had faithfully done all in their power to comply
with their engagements; they had recognised the
binding force Of the treaty which they had signed;
they employed all the constitutional means they
possessed to fulfil their obligations they had failed
in their efforts merely by the omission of the legs-
lature to make the necessary appropriations; and
they gave the most satisfactory assurances to the
United States that they would Persevere in their ex-
ertions to fulfil their engagements.
How widely different has been the conduct of
Mexico! And what a contrast does il exhibit TO the
manly and honorable course Of the French govern
menti From the moment Il was appraised Of the re-
suit of the board of commissioner every effort has
been employed by the Mexican executive to rouse a
feeling of erasperafon and hatred against the oov-