The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-11-08

ever to pay the Suffering citizens" Of the United
States what she owes them.
II, then, for the sake of argument, we admit thai
the United States has perpetrated wrong upon
Mexico in reference to Texas,--in what possible
manner does this affect the obligations Of these liza
biities How does il impair the correlative duty Of
this government, often and so distinctly recog'
Missed, to enforce the payment Of these debsi Both
remain in full force. Mexico is bound to pay, and
the United States is bound TO enforce the payment
Even if it were plain beyond controversy that Mex
leo was injured and insulted by the annexation oil
Texas--if that act merited all the Billingsgate
cacy Of the lnteligencer are accustomed TO bestow
upon it--still we repeat, Mexico is under every
obligation to compensate for the injuries she
has perpetrated upon the "poor claimants" Two
wrongs will not make a right If Mexico has
received injury and injustice from our govern
ment, it furnishes no excuse for her originally
wrongful acts, for her refusal to repair injuries
committed by her. But the Ihtelgencer well
knows that the United States asserts the justice and
legality of its conduct with distinct emphasis,
and as clear conviction as Mexico does. 1t well
knows that this opinion is sincerely entertained
by men of as pure integrity, unsulied honor, as
scrupulous veracy, and as enlightened minds, as
any in the land by men whom the lntelgencer
,could not dare individually to characterize "des-
perate political gamblers" or as "Texas specula-
tors" These are general categories, which--how
wisely, or how truly, or how courteously, we leave
others to judge-he Intelligencer applies to all who
differ with 1t in opinion upon question in which it
is at least plain that the honor and reputation Of the
country are deeply implicated. The use of such
epthets is one of the common resorts Of vulgar i'm
pertinence. II lis unbecomng what the editors of the
Intelligencer at least assume to be-courteous gentle
men. It adds nothing to the force of argument, and
is a contemplate substitute for it,
The language quoted from the lntelgencer inn
plies, in the most distinct manner, that the govern
ment of the United States had choice open to it, Of
either acquiescing in the "quiet execution of the
stipulaons" in favor Of their 'ssuering citizens "
the "poor clamantsr or Of yielding to the influences
of desperate political gamblers and Texas specu-
lators." Such is the plain import of the language
used. If this is not its Specification it is without
meaning
insist upon direct and explicit answer to our in
quiry, whether such is the meaning of the language
citelthen call with the same dstinctness, for the
further answer to this,Where is there the slightest
foundation for the assertion that our government
ever had the option which is stated'-when it in
its power by any means, by any action or inaction,
to secure to Suffering citizens" sthe quiet exc
cution in their favor Of the engagements into which
Mexico had entercd-that it ever did prefer to this
high duty " the interests of political gamblers and
Texas specuatorsi" Such accusations are either
true or false. If true-and they are uttered with
such knowledge of their truth can alone justify
the expression--the evidence is accessible, and we
demand its production. lift is not, and cannot be
produced, we submit to every honorable man to
draw his own conclusions, and to stamp with APP
propriate character the individual who, without
evidence and in the face of notorious facts would
controversy with foreign nation, impute to his
own government what the language of the Intelli-
gencer implies.