The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-10-17


following elegant extract. We pray our readers to
mark il, as specimen of the spirit IN which the
leading wing journal sees fit TO discuss the action
and the rights of government, and ofour gallant
army, just crowned as it is with the laurels OF
recent and hard-won victory in a just and neces-
sary war. Here is the lntelligeneer's homily. One
doubts which to admire the more, its exquisite legal
logic or its equally exquisite patriotic feeling;
Conquest itself has it's rules its limits il is
but rapins II made BY ia,Oiess men, IL seizes upon
what Il likes as our administration is doing; 1t
sumes not merely military but civil possessioni II
claims TO deal, not only with men as Embodied ana
armed adversaries under the iaios Of civilized ear,
but with non-combatants, private property the laws,
the authorities, everything, and, IN hne, TO be
supreme.
'Now, every armed ineursion into country does
not, because It's native government may for the time
have fed, or been overthrown, confer the right OF
setting up TO which its peoples obedience may
be required. On the contrary, they have rtghf,
recognised By all nations Of remaining faithful 10
their own rulers their own nationality, no matter
how much, for the time, cloven down and trampled
on. Merely "a This sense Dsn and as against the peo-
pie Of hsrieaa proviaes, the United States could ae-
quirs by the capture Of Santa Re, no sueh rights as
President POlkhas attempted eroeise.
"Can II epr acquire them' Niyer, by mere
force that can egitimatize no possession. Arms
are nothing but arms, and the opposite OF law or
right The region occupied Is ether sui jluis dispose
be By but Itself Il Is sub diiio aeri,ls, the
eOnsenting dependency cfths superior poeer And this
or that must have surrendered Il in form and by
compact before its sovereignty can have passed
away TO armed possession. A negotiation ending
in peaceful consent, and conducted and ratified by
our Executive and Senate, could alone give us, The
United STATES, (not the President any legal right
poIoer Ia .Nsto .hsrieo; and when thus obtained,
Congress must first provide by law for It's exercise
the Executive, meantime, having no power there
but the military one.
"lnstead ofall this-too plain to be disputed when
once stated-ths Executive has done everything iOheh
not only International right, but all eur oon lnos for.
bid lie has set up power which the United
States themselves have yet preence 10; ne Is tr-
eising in manner totally illegal for he has joined
in the person Of a military ofhcer-Who with us
cannot be civil funciionary--all other authorities
legislative, judicial, and executive. None OF these
could he yet confer; TO accumulate any OF them
would be monstrous, even could he separately con-
fer them. Yet, see, that most sensitive Of all
nervous things, strict construction, is now, as all
these rrodigious things, AZ conveniently hard oil
sense as the neither milstonep ~
1t is, perhaps, only waste Of time to point out
the odious folly of all this Had any democrat been
bold enough to predict that leading wing journal
would venture to stigmatize our war with Mexico
as 'rapns," and gallant officers and soldiers as
"latoless men" the prediction would have been re-
garded as an extreme specimen Of partisan calumny
Yet here are the very words, set down distinctly and
unblusbingly in the National" whg journal. The
same paper in the same sentence reiterates its
charge substantially, that our army and our govern
ment are violating "e iacs Of civilized ,oarr' This
is only dsgraceful to the spirit and feeling Of the
Inteigencer. We can now understand why II ex-
erted itself TO the to stop the volunteers, who
under the authority Of Congress, and at the call Of
the President, were rushing to rescue Gen. Taylors
army on the Rio Grande. In the view of the Intel
Igencer, Gen. Taylor and his soldiers "ia,oits
men engaged in rapins" and, Of course, deserved the
fate, which seemed, for a moment, to hang over
them. We doubt whether any Mexican journal
has thought fit to go quite far this in it's abuse Of
our army and our government.
We have, however, become accustomed to the
Inteigenccr's railing, and have learned to bear IT,
though not without disgust. But the legal lore and
logic Of the lntelligencer yet harder to endure
Witness the utter nonsense of the second and third
paragraphs of the above extract. The people of a
conquered province "may remain faithful to their
own rulers, however complete the conquest may be-
And this is right Recognised by all natons!" The
capture Of Santa Fe gives right TO hold it as cap
tured! Arms are always the "opposite of law or
right" That is to say, war is ever just, or just
Iy prosecuted. But why go on exposing such worse
than school-boy puerities' In themselves fit mere
Iy to be laughed at, they can awaken feeling of
scorn and indignation only, when, as in this in
I'll ,oLa tba shapo If facfiaua calumnu
and embody treason against the cause of their coun
try, for the sake of heaping utilization upon its gop-
srnmenH .......
With these views of the Inelligencer's article, it
may well be supposed that we are not particularly
sensitive to the structures which puts forth upon
what it is pleased to term the "extinct inexbility
Of our constitutional doctrines. Those doctrines
| have undergone no change. Our CONSTRUCTION" Of
the constitution is now as 'srict" as we have ever
declared it to be. We have never doubted the right
of government to make war, and to conquer ter
ritory, and hold it in military possession. That is
the right which the present administration is exer-
cising in the war with Mexico. We are happy to
assure the Intelligencer that it is right entirely in
conformity with our "strict construction of the
constitution. The power of permanent annexation
by military law is another question And upon
that question we should despise ourselves if we
could condescend to compare our ideas Of strict
construction with those ofthe politicians who, like
the Intelligencer, advocate swarm of implied
powers including national bank and Id genus
| omne. a. ."E..a."
The Inteigencer, not content with attacking us
as it finds in the "Union," lets fly another shaft,
aimed at us through another journal, in the course
and character of which we may be supposed to feel
an especial interest. We are in no degree RESPONSE
BILE for the views of the Richmond Enquirer neither
directly nor indirectly do we interfere in the man.
agement Of that journal. We may be permitted to
say that in judgment, the Enquirer is quite com
petent in its present hands, to fight its own battles
against all the force which the Intelllgencer can
muster against it. We may add, that we have seen
nothing in the columns of the Enquirer, under it's