The New York herald., 1846-04-21

by protestsons Of friendship bringing into play every
kind Of device and arthce and appealing alternately to
TSe sacredness Of the obligations OF treaty is felt
necessary to be insisted upon by the government Of
Mexico Her very existence depends upon it. This is
made evident by the concluding terms of Mr. Sdslll
letter Of the hs s h na me Do. IN
the President ad interim OF Mexico will be to re
suit in the establishment Of cordial and lasting amity be-
.'Cordlal and lasting amity" was pledged 70 Mexico
by the treaty ofamty ratified by the United States 5th
April ss. In the iace o. i the United States have an.
the language employed by antecedsnt diplomatsts it
has ever been one OF the most cherished articles Of the
has ths absolute and unconroa6le right TO dvsst
himself Of land eassume fneed bel his allegiance aod
sssS Is ne thinks the advancement Of his for
That is ell very good; but Mexico denies to the 60
vernmsnt ofths United States the right to usa the c
zens for whom acts accomplish usurpaton of tern.
tory IN the face Of treaties. PAClFlCATOR.
1t will be seen by this view OF the Mexican case,
as represented by the Mexicans themselves, and by
their friends, that the whole train Of reasoning and
argument by which they sustain policy towards
the United States, is based upon mere assumption
an assumption offact or of law-of argument or Of
opinion. The conduct of the United States in rela-
ton to Mexico has been considered just, un.
friendly, and unwarranted because it is assumed to
be in violation OF a common treaty between the two
countries, at time when Texas was part OF the
republic OF Mexico. Here exists the great error in
argument Of the Mexican governments and her advo-
Gates. In controversy between two European 60
vernments conducted upon these technical rules Of
conventional law-aw too which does not recog-
nize the first principles OF human rights, it may be
all very well and very strong, to place the whole at
fair in dispute upon the terms of treaty. But the
United States justifes her conduct towards Mexico
In the matter of the annexation of Texas upon the
same broad grounds Of human rights and human IL
berty upon which the existence of Mexico herself is
established as an independent power. The
rights OF the people of Texas had been tram
pied under foot by the central government
OF Mexico the people revolted, and insist
ed upon establishing their own independence.
Their independence was recognized by the three
greatest nations of the world! BY the indisputable
rights of revolution, conceded in the case OF the
United States, in l776-and Of Mexico herself
Texas became invested with the sole and indefeas-
bic power of establishing her independence, and
shaping her destiny as she chose. All argumen nts
IN the case, founded upon mere treaty between
the two republics Of Mexico and the United States,
are the merest packthreads in existence, when
brought into contrast with the great-the eternal
prlnciples-the rights of revolution and independ-
cnce! If the United States Government should
change the form of this confederacy, and violate
the first principles OF the Constitution OF ~, the
border States of Michigan or Vermont, would have
the right to dissolve their connection with it. They
would have perfect indefeasible right of doing
what Texas has done-a right which is not given
up by the sovereign people Of any State when they
enter into our Union; and which no State OF
Mexico surrendered to the central COVE rnn,ent
of that country.
II is trfng in the extreme, and boys play in this
enlightened age Of the world, to argue this question
as the Mexican Government, or lis advocates, have
done IT Is perfect waste Of time arguing upon
lns controversy, upon sucn principles as they bring
forward Texas is part OF THIS Union, upon the
very same principles which estab. shed the inde-
pencence, both oi Mexico herself and of the United
States And II all the other States of Mexico, in
GLIDING California should determine to follow this
signal example, their course will be as firmly de-
tended by the people OF this country as that in re-
ference to the independence of Texas-the original
revolution and independence of Mexico from Spain
-or the U. s. revolution of l776 against Great
Britain.
TAXATION OF DEBTS OWING TO NoN-REsDENTs
OF THE UNITED SrATEs.-The bill, entitled, "An
act to subject to taxation certain debts owing 10
non-residents Of the United States," which was re-
ported in the House Of Assembly by Mr. Chatfield,
from the committee on the judiciary, has been or
dered to third reading to-day; and we learn from
our regular correspondent, that there can be no
doubt OF Its passage through that body. The con-
currence OF the Senate, we trust, will not be SO
readily obtained The object of the bill under con.
slderatlon is to revive the act of April 27th 1893,
with this limitation that it shall only effect the non
esldens OF the United States, and not embrace the
of the State merely. By what prlpci-
Die OF right or justice, bona.fde debts owing
o the citizens OF other nations, with whom we are
On amicabe terms, can be taxed in this manner.
We are at loss to know. Itwould seem to us most
partial and unjust legislation, derogatory to the
character OF the State, and injurious to the interests
of commerce. 1t is idle to say that the best policy
Of a government is to impose all burdens upon
foreigners which it can possibly shift from the shoul-
ders OF Its own citizens, for in effect such result
is impracticable. It, by way Of illustration, an in
habitant OF New York buy one hundred dollars,
worth OF property from an inhabitant OF France, he
must pay the full amount of value received, and no
species OF legislation prevent the course of the
natural laws Of honesty between debtor and Gre
ditor The statues Of the State Of New York NAV
impose tax of any amount on such debt, but
the debtor will have TO ray it. II tax of six per
cent should be levied on all debts owing TO nom
residents, the resident will have to pay the nom
resident one hundred and SIX dollars for what he
can purchase at one hundred dollars now. This
result is inevitable, and is for this reason that we
oppose the passage of the bill in question. 1t is
nothing more, in fact, than new restriction upon
commerce, and an interposition Of new obstacles in
the way of those mutual accommodations of time.
Nc, which are SO beneficialy practised by the mer
chants OF all civilized nations in their intercourse
with each other.
COMMON CouNcn-A TEMPEST IN TKApor -
we nave had the annual farce played by the quasi
economists OF the corporation, as a glance at the