Herald of the times, and Rhode Islander. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1846-1849, 1846-06-11

meDt OF Executive usurpation. i say
SIR, will countenance no such doctrine
! will submit to no sach dogma. Uode
The peculiar circumstances Of the case
] will speak and speak as freely thi
day as would have spoken on Monday
last. And though the gentleman iron
Illinois very modeslly brands those as
towards who voted against the declara
lion of war. will assure him that have
the moral courage TO speak my owr
sentiments and neither his dogmaica
declarations, nor the awful mods of his
head, shall restrain me. ] will speal,
as think, regardless Of the frowns OF
sneers of that gentleman or his friends
] make no pretensions to bravey bu,
II frequently requires more moral cour-
age TO stand alone, or with a small mi.
nority, than it does to follow the multi
tude in the moment Of popular excite
ment.
Mr.. Chairman, | was one Of The four
teen who voted against the passage OF
the war bill Ivoied against it for vari-
Gus reasons and, among others, for
this: ! believe the preamble, and lis
repetition in the first section Of the bill,
to be untrue. The preamble is as fol-
lows Whereas, by the act of the Re-
public of Mexico, state of war exists
between that government aud the United
States.
Now, Sir, | regard this preamble as
utterly false-as whole, and false in
each of It's recials. 1t is not true that
war existed before the passage Of that
act. There had been a collision be-
tween our troops and those Of Mexico /;
but a collision of forces in a single in
stance, aud al n particular point, does
not amount TO war, in the legal and
constitutional sense Of that term. BY
the constitution Of this country aud Of
Mexico, the power ia declare war is
vested in Congress, and not IN tho Pres
ident or the commanding general. We
have no authority far saying that the
Mexican government had declared war,
and we know that our Congress had
given no authority TO The President to
march his troops upon disputed terri
tory in possession Of the Mexicans.
There is also manifest distinction be-
tween hosl,lities and war When war is
proclaimed by the constituted authority,
the whole nation and the world are bound
TO take cognizance of it, and 20 govern
according To the rules of
constitutional and international law
But there may be outbreaks OF collisions
at n particular point, hostllties within Il
limited sphere, and even letters Of
and reprisas may be granted
to one or more injured subjects, under
certain circumstances, and with suita-
bic limitations, without being in state
Of war; in the legal sense Of the term
When war exists neutral nations are
bound TO take notice of it but the same
is not true in every case Of hostility
We have several examples in our own
history which will illustrate this dis;inc-
lion. The attack upon the Chesapeake
by an. English cruiser, before the lnte
war with England, was an act OF hos
Iilhy, but neither nation regarded il as
war The same is true OF the destruc-
ion Of the Caroline on the Canadian
The capture Of Monterey, a
Mexican town upon the Pacific, by
Jones, in l843, is another
case in point. Each Of these cases
shows that there may be acts Of hostility
between the forces Of two powers, and
yet the relations Of peace may be pre-
served. The declaration therefore, that
war existed, is not sustained by facts
We had no evidence Of its existence at
hat time on the contrary, all the ovi-
dence We had before us went to sustain
the opposite CONCLUSION. could not,
therefore, subscribe to the declaration
that war already existed. =
The preamble states not only that
war EXISTS, but that it exists by the act
pf the Republic Of Mexico. This de-
claraiion ! believe TO be untrue. Mexi-
co, with all her faults, has not, IN this
case, been the aggressor. The state
men, which ascribed the war to the acts
If Mexico is clearly and concIusively
contradc,ed by the facts in the case,
might 90 back TO the commencement
pr the resolution 10 Texas, and SHOW
hat the governmen, ofihc United States
have noi maintained policy strictly
neutral, as they were bound 10 do. But
in the act Of annexation, we no, only
violated our own organic law, but violst-
ed our faith, pledged to Mexico by
solemn treaty. But, sir, will not rely
upon that act, unjust as believe that to
have been. will :ake the case as II
stood after the joint resolution was pass
ed and believe that oar conduct to-
wards Mexico is entirely indeicnsIble,
Texas was anne 8ed 10 lbP United, States
md on the supposIlion thai that act was
valid, what did i include I What did
we anncxi The Old province ol Texas
was bounded on the southwest by the
Nueccs, which dors rot approach within
onc hundred and City mIics of the posi-
ion occupied hy Gen. Taylor. The
Texas which has been annexed To the
United States was the old province Of
Feyas; the Texas which formed one Of
."Sincc tho delivery of Tho Speech. we have
received the Manifesto of Pat,des dated 'Na.
iional Palace or Mexico, April 90, iSiG, only
,nc day before the collision on the Rio 6rnndr,
10, ,,.t,,rh "A, snVs tnnst emuhntruII, Il solemn.