The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-09-05
COM MUNICATi Ms.
For the Union
BALANCE OF POwER-ME-
DlATIoN OF GREAT BRITAIN AND

lhe whole position oil our government, so lar, IN
relation to Mexico, is admirably chosen, and adj
mirably sustained Judging from the past, in these
respects, President and Secretary OF State will
abide the most scrutnzing investigation. With
Mexico we clasp the sword, but do not draw II; her
claim to portion of territory on this side of the
Rio Grande we respect as much as we can consist
emily with our own clear and undoubted rights.
We leave open the door to negotiauon--not for the
cession of any part Of our territory acquired by our
compact with Texas, but TO quiet, by pecunary ar
rangement, on grounds of international law, (Which
will presently be adduced,) the claim, not the right
Of Mexico. Al the same time, for good reasons,
we must decline the mediation OF Great Britain or
France. This we do, because, on the questions
pending between us and Mexico, they have already
acted in manner forbdding the idea Of decision
in accordance with our essential rights. Palpable
acts, on their part, have committed them to course
decidedly subyersive of our rights and interests IN
regard to this question. The declaration of M.
Guizot is itself a warning to us, flaming midway In
the heavens, that interests in II would be sacr-
feed under French mediation. In full conformity
TO the spirit of this declaration, is the fact now
brought TO light by Mr.. Ashbel Smith, the Secreta-
ry of State Of Texas, that Great Britain and France
both formally offered to guaranty Texian indie
pendence, upon condition that Texas should not an
mex herself TO the United States. II will appear
from quotation we are about TO make, relative to
mediation, from Vatel on the law of nations that in
consequence of M Guizot's declaration, and the
highly important fact now fully disclosed and au-
thentcated Great Britain and France do not occupy
that impartial position in relation to the disputed
points with Mexico, which the law ofnatons recog-
nises as essential in mediator.
The quotations we are about to introduce have a
diffusive and most interesting bearing on the chief
points of condensation with Mexico, and decsively
negative the idea of accepting mediation from Great
Britain and France, either of them. Neither the
mediation nor arbitration of either of these powers
nm Desirable n with MeyIco
The following important passage is from Waite,
CHI. Is, p. BAL, Philadelphia edition, 1929.
eff none of the nations who have disputes with
each other think proper to abandon their rights or
pretensions, the law of nature which recommends
peace, concord, and charity, obliges them to at
tempt the mildest methods Of terminating their die
ferences These are first AMIGA lie accommodate
ton. Let every one with tranquility and good
faith examine the subject of the dispute and dis
pense justice; let him whose right is too uncer-
tain voluntarily renounce. There are even occa-
sions where It may be convenient for him who has
the clearest right to it for the preservation
OF peace prudence consists in knowing them. To
renounce right in this manner, is not to abandon
or neglect it, You are under no obligation for
what you abandon; but you make friend by &C.
ding amicably what is the subject Of dispute.
Negotiation is a second method Of peacefully
terminating disputes, in which, without precisely
deciding the Justice Of the opposite preensons they
the thing contested, or they agree to give il entirely
to of the parties, on condition Of certain advan-
tages granted to the other.
"Medation, in which common friend interposes
his good offices, is often found efectual, to engage
the contcndng parties to draw towards reconcile
alton, to come to good understanding, and to
agree either to relinqush their rights, or, if the
affair relates to an injury, to offer and accept a
reasonable satisfaction. This Office requires as
much rectitude prudence and dexterity. The
mediator ought to observe exact impartality; he
should soften reproaches, calm resentments, and
draw minds towards each other. His duty is to
favor what is right and to cause to be restored what
belongs to each; but he ought not scrupulousy to
insist on rigorous justice. He is moderator, and
not Judge; his business is to procure peace; and TO
bring him who has right on his side, if it he
sary, to relax something with view to SO great a
blessing.
'sThe mediator is not the guarantee of the treaty
he has brought to conclusion, unless he has ex-
pressIy entered into the guarantee. This is en-
gagement of too great consequence to burden any
one with, without his consent clearly shown"
His observations on arbitration are much to the
same effect; but there in this difference between
mediation and arhitration: Mediation is the more
comprehensive, and may be offered by third party;
arbitration may follow under the offer Of mediation,
if accepted; but the offer to submit the questions to
arbitration comes from one other Of the principal
parties, and is to be accompanied by an exact emu
meration of the points to be settled by it.
1t is much TO be regretted, that, by the action Of
Great Britain and France heretofore in reference to
Mexico and Texas, they should have forfeited their
claim to that "exact imparality" which Va,,el and
all other writers on the law of nations who treat Of
mediation, lay down as essential TO the position of
mediator. "The mediator" says Vattel, sought to
observe an exact impartiaty;n but how could
France, unless new ministry should totally dis
avow Mr.. Guizots declaration about the "balance of
power" in America, and the interference of France
as disclosed by Mr.. Smith, be regarded as impair
tiaR The developments Of Mr.. Smith also ex-
hibit Great Britain willing participation in the
attempt to check our growth, by effort to form
treaty with Texas upon condition involving the
total separation Of Texas from confederate con-
nexion with us. If she were not willing that
Texas should be a part of confederocy,
now, when the point is settled that she is part
no doubt, if her mediation accepted she
would aim to circumscribe our boundaries and TO
curtail our extension in that direction, as much as
the nature of the case might admit Of Our rights,
in this affair with Mexico, submitted to Great Brit
ain or France, would be, so far this controversy
is concerned, the of under trial before
jury, who had already made up their minds
against him. Unless ready cheerfuly to lose his
case, should he submit 1t under such circumstan-
ces'
II were better that the great European powers
should adopt the ideas of Mr.. Won Smdt Phisel-
kek in his Europe and America" rather than in
terest themselves in distant business as that Of
the balance of power in America; for as that learned
and profound author has remarked, ''they are not
even masters on their own territory; for does not
the kingdom of the Otomans, from the limits Of
Hungary and Transy lvania TO the shores of Asia
Minor, form part of the European soil'" Accord
ing to his system, very ably supported, Europe is
never secure from the attacks of barbariars and
fresh popular foundations, until she again become
mistress Of her entire natural territory and her opposite
shore be reinstated in civilization European man
ners, and friendly commercial intercourse Cesarea,
and Carthage, Cyrene and Alexandria, must arise
again under the egis Of Europe. Miletus, Ephesus,
and Smyrna, must become enlightened and free;
and from Propontis to the promontory Of Rbatium,
chain of Industrious cities must be formed, such
as the ancient world boosted of in Prusa and Nico-
media, Chalc, don, Sir spe, and Trapezus " "Such,
he adds, lis the true colonial system of Europe"
Such is undoubtedly the one necessary to stable,
controlling influence in Asia and Africa; and to
maintain and carry it out, it is essential that she
should hear and respect doctrine in reference TO
our concerns in America. "Laisses nous fare"
AN AMERICAN.
ny 4