The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-05-23
For the Union.
MExICO-No. IL.

yum, oupiesseo u the Mexlcdn government on the
2lst of March, 1888, recapitulatng the causes of
complaint for which redress was demanded, viz:
The Punishment and ruin of M. Galix in Tehu-
antepeo under pretexts which were not stated, and
probably not even invented until long after the act
was committed and which were Immediately ascer-
tanned to be both false and calumnous In this
transaction judge who had been already condemned
by a superior tribunal for prevarication, was a
prominent actor:
The persecution and ruin of M. Darenton, in
Tampico, by decisions subversive Of the rights of
nations, and of the legislation of the republic. In
this affair." judge who had been accused before the
tribunals of Vera Cruz of causing death by poison
ing, and had evaded by fight the proceedings di-
rected against him, was conspicuous:
The sequestration of the goods of M. Arbel, in
Tampico, at the instance Of party who refused to
let it be known who he was, which sentence of So
qucsation has continued for three years. in conse-
quence ofthe illegal failure to provide in that depart
ment tribunal Of appeal:
The prolonged imprisonment and barbarous treat
ment of Mr.. LIE Dos by the instrumentaity Of Judi
cial papers, which were forged and recognised as
such by the.superior judges In this affair, officers
of the army, who constituted the tribunal, figured
as those guilty Of these falsi6cations.
The reclamations continually pressed by the min
lister of France against these various outrages have
been as constantly repealed by the Mexican authori-
ties. If France has been able to obtain occasionally
the suspension for brief period of these niqutous
proceedings against her Subjects it has more rarely
been able to obtain cessation of them, and never
to procure any reparation for those that had been
committed The continuation during so long pc
Rod of such state Of things, be explained and
accounted for only by the continued good feeling on
the part Of France and by the change in the systems
of negotiation successfully established with her by
the Mexican authorities.
The first of these systems consisted in recogni-
tonby Mexico of the justice of the complaints pre-
ferred by the French legation; in expressing in
stronger terms than even France herself employed,
the indignation felt by Mexico for these outrages
upon the subjects Of his Majesty in palating every
case ofwrong, by urging the limited advance which
the country had made in civilization, the civil dis
sensons, together with the and defects in the
legislation, the imperfect organization of the admir-
istration well of the army Of the tribunals Of
justice, the inexperience of the public functionaries
of all classes, &C.. and finally, and above all, this
system consisted in the promise of reparation, i'm
ploring, however, delay, in consequence Of the
deranged state their finances which enreaties the
generous and friendly disposition Of France would
not permit her to refuse.
The second system has had more recent origin,
and more brief duration. 1t has had several bases
in succession. l. To make these complaints the
subjects of discussion, which promised to be never.
ending from the unheard-of dilatoriness with which
the Mexican ministry furnished their communica-
tons on the application of the principles of the
universal rights of nations, which the French ega-
ton had cited to sustain its reclamatons 2
When these discussions, and all the delays which
Mexico could int rpose were brought to close, by
answering these eferences to the universal law Of
nations, by opposing to them the Mexican rules of
law, and by repellng every description of complaint
for the denial Of justice, illegal sentences scandaous
exactons of certain magistrates upon the sole rea-
that under the Mexican constitution, the Judi
cia power was independent of the executive, which
had authority only to call into action the admins
tration Of justice, but to direct or supervise
whatever might be the causes of complaint against
|
which they were sustained. 3. To elude the OBJ
ectons urged against these novel doctrines by the
most fling and dilatory answers, or by silence
absolute and continuous, and connivng at the same
time at the repetition of similar acts as those in
which these complaints had originated. 4. To stig-
matise false and calumnious the reclamations of
the subjects of France against the different authori-
ties of the republic, without discussing either the
acts the proofs which established these outrages,
and satisfying themselves with the pure and simple
denial of the allegations by the parties nculpated
S. To indicate, at times, the intention of exciting
against the Franch claimants fresh prosecutions, for
the purpose Of sitting their complaints, or at least
Of abandoning them to the tender mercies of the
very parties whose conduct gave rise to the recla-
nation. 6. To denounce, without any discussion
Of the allegations themselves, or of the proofs by
which they are sustained, offences against the
Mexican people and government the complaints Of
the French legation on behalf of their fellow sub
jects, and, under this pretext, to employ language
insulting to the legation, and sometimes to its
government. 7. Finally, and to complete this sys-
tenn Of operation, to repulse in mass the reclama-
tons of France and the principles upon which they
rest, suggesting, on the other hand the preposter-
GUS proposition Of submitting the entire subject to
the arbitrament Of third power, as if the matter
merely involved those ordinary questions Of doc
trine or of interests upon which doubt might be en-.
ertained and, on the contrary, did not grow out of
outrages upon the security of persons and of prop
erty, which can never be submitted to arbitration in
conformity either with public private right; or as
IL the dignity and the obligations of France could
ever permit it to submit to third party, even as
matter of form, (for it is not possible to suppose
there can be any diversity ofopinion among civilized
nations upon such questions) to decide whether the
spoliaons the volences the assassnstions Of which
her subjects have been the victims are or are not
titled to ample remuneration,