The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-23
CON REss SION AL.
OF MR.. PENNYBACKER

/ tOf the prosecution OF inc cAirtlhB DS'"SS''
| the United States and the republic OF Mexico.
| Mr.. PENNYBACKER said, as the question was
one Of great importance, he would assign very
briefly the reasons for his vote.
IL is not necessary (said Mr. p 10 the existence
i of state Of war that war should be declared by
BOTH or by even either Of the eOntendlng parties
There is the highest authority on national law for
the support Of this position.
| Bynkershoek (says Chancellor Kent, IN his Com
mentaries on American Law has devoted an entire
chapter to this question, and he maintains that a
declaration of war is not requisite, by the law OF
nations, and that, though It may very properly be
| made, 1t cannot be required as matter OF right.
| The practice rests entirely on manners and magma
nimty, and il was borrowed from the ancient Ro-
mans. All that he contends for is, that a Demand
of what zoe conceive TO be due should be previously
| made. We are not bound to accompany that de.
mand with threats Of hostility, TO follow IL with
a public declaration Of war and he cites many In
stances TO show that, within the two last centuries,
wars have been frequently commenced without a
shock CONTINUES he) il has become settled by the
practice Of Europe, that war may lawfully exist by
declaration which is unilaisral only, or uintota a
declaration on either side. IL may begin with mutual
hOsiiliies Since the peace OF Versailles, IN lT63,
| formal declarations OF war Of every kind seem TO
have been discontinued and all the necessary and
legitimate consequences Of war flow ut once from
state Of public hostlities, duly recognised, and ex-
plieltly announced, by a domestic manifesto or
state paper. In the war between England and
France, In I77S the first public act on the
part of the English government was recalling
lie minister, and that single act was consd
cred by France as a breach Of the peace between
| the two nations There no other declaration Of
tOar, though each government afidIcTds published
manifesto IN yindicaton Of Its claims and conduct
The same thing may be said Of the which broke
out in 1898, and again in 1903; and, indeed, in the
If anla nd formal derlara.
ton OF war, in the ancient style was made in June
l7S6-pigrous hosthtits had been carried on be-
tween England and France for a year preceding
In the war declared by the United States against
England in 1912, hostilIties Immediately CON-
menced on our part soon as the act Of Congress
was passed, without waiting 10 communicate 10 the
English government any notice Of our Intentions
To the same effect (said Mr. p. is the authority
Of Sir w. Scott, one Of the most distinguished
Judges who ever presided in the High Court OF Ad
miralty in the kingdom Of Great Britain. He says'
But is said that the countries not in reali
only am however perfectly clear that was not less
that aeeopn for 100, may sri, ehom declaration
Tde Ills laid down by the best writers the
OF nations declaration Of war by country only
not has been represented mere challenge to be &C.
a hoss. on one side least puts the other party
also into state waT though he may perhaps think prop
| er to act on the defenSirs only"
From these authorities (said Mr.. P.) it is clear
that war may exist, though there may have been no
declaration of it.
Now if this be so, it follows necessarily that the
existence of war may be proved by evidence other
than declaration Of IL A declaration Of war, to be
sure is the best evidence Of state of war, for it is
conclusive upon the subject, and leaves nothing TO
declaration, it follows, Of course, that it may be
proved by other evidence.
What is the evidence, then, before us that war
exists between the United States and Mexcol
II will be remembered by the Senate that, for
years long past, Mexico has entertained hostile feel
| ings towards the United States. She has charged
citizens with wrenchng from her the territory OF
Texas Nay, she has charged our government with
conniying it, if not in fact insugatng it. She pro-
tested against the annexation Of Texas the United
States, and gave formal notice to the government
here that, if the joint resolutions should be passed
by Congress admitting Texas into the Union, she
would consider that act an act of war. On the pas
sage of the resolutions her minister here, by order oil
his government, demanded his passports, and indg.
nantly Withdrew from the country, breathing ven.
geance against the United States. In return, our
| minister at Mexico refused all official inter.
course with that government, and was in effect drv
en- from their country; thus terminating, by the acts
of Mexico, all diplomatic intercourse between the
two countries. Afterwards she occupied hostile
attitude towards the United States marshalng and
organizing armies, issuing proclamatons, and avow
ing the intention to make the United States
either by open declaration Of war, by invading
Texas. These are matters of history, (said Mr.. p.
and would be evidence in a court of Justice, and
much more are they so in political body.
Notwithstanding these things (said Mr.. Pr the
President ofthe United States, actuated by strong
desire to establish peace with that country on thu
most liberal and honorable terms, actually sought
reopening Of diplomatic relations between the two
countries, and sent minister there; and how wal
he treated He was refused to be received not onl,
once, but ttoics; and he was thus compelled to eav
the country These acts of hostile character wer
followed up by concentration Of military forces OF
the right bank of the Rio del Norte, in the towl
and vicinity of Mstamoras, the immediate
boundary between the two countries Our troop
were ordered to that boundary to repel the threaten
ed invasion, and they posted themselves immediate
ly opposite the enemy, on the American side Of thu
river The Mexican general in command notife,
the American general to break up his camp within
twenty-four hours, war would be the result
Nay, he notified him to retire beyond the Nuece
river and in the event Of his not complying, arm
would decide the question. Why was this demant
made, if war was not intended Did he expect t
intimidate the American forces, and cause them t,
ingloriously fee No; no one. can believe that
Why was the demand made, them 1t was mad
because the law Of nations required that it SHOULD
be made before there could be lawfully resort +
i arms | have already said that Bynkershoek con
tends that though declaration of war is not neces
sary to justify aggression, yet IA demand Of ,nho
TOE conceive TO be due shOud De previously MADE.
Here was the demand made; and it was conceived /
be due by the Mexican general that troops shout
: decamp and retire beyond the Nueces. In shor
time after this (only few days. the Mexican gen
era was changed and another appointed TO his plac
that was General Arista the most skilful and &C
complished Of all the Mexican generals. He inform
= ed General Taylor "that he considered hostlltie
had commenced and he should prosecute them al
cordngly." On that day his forces were sent acros
the river into the territory Of the United States, wit
the avowed purpose Of prosecuting the war, and o
that very day the hostile parties met and sixty dre
goons OF the American army, including officers an
men, we're killed and taken prisoners Is not th
war; What evidence will be required Of the exis
ence of war IL Mexico is not bound to make
declaration Of war before war can properly be sal
10 exist, what other evidence can possibly be eS
peced OF the existence Of state of VAR To M
P's mind the evidence was complete to show that
state of war actually existed
But gentlemen say war can only be made by tn
sovereign authorities Of the two nations, and that
this it does not appear that that portion OF IN
!, two governments which represents the sovereis
power, g,oad hi, thing Of making ,par, has assente