The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1846-06-11

The government was prisoner al the time,
and in duress. But will il be SAID that that
circumstance rendered its obligation the less
obligatory We are now at war with Mex
leo. Our armies will soon march into the
heart of that country. trust they will PEN
citrate as far as the capitol, and capture the
army. people, and government--make them
all psisoners of war, and keep them in duress
until theg shall conclude treaty of peace
and boundary with u.s.. by which they shall
not only recognise the Rio Del Norte, but
such other line as we shall choose TO dictate
or accept. t a
Will the gen tleman from Massachusetts
contend that treaty made under those
circumstances, would not be binding, be-
cause forsooth, the government was aprison-
er at the time? How is a conquered nation
ever TO make peace, if the gentleman's doc
trine is to prevail? They refuse 10 make
peace before they are conquered, because
they hope for victory. They are incompe-
tent to do afterwards, because they are in
duress! Surely an unfortunate and defeated
belligerent would be in most lamentable
condition. Too imbecle TO resist, disarmed,
conquered, still incompetent to make treaty
Of peace, and adjust the matter in dispute
on such fair and equitable terms as mag
unanimous foe shall propose, because the war
of aggression which they commenced has
resulted disastrously, and made them cap
tives! fear that if this doctrine shall pre-
vail, these gentlemen will soon have THAR
Mexican friends in a most piiiable condition.
Perhaps, if that government should be reduc-
ed TO captivity, these gentlemen would re-
quiro that our armies should retire within
our own territory, and set the government at
liberty, before negotiations Of peace could
be opened. This may be their view of the
subject, but doubt whether il is the view
which the American government or the
American people will deem il their duty to
act upon. Our crude notions Of things may
teach US that the city Of Mexico would be
the most suitable place to form treaty Of
peace.
The acts of government de .facto are
binding on the nation as against foreign ne-
tons, without reference TO the mode in which
that government was established whether by
revolution, usurpation, or rightful and consti-
tutional means.
Mexico herself was nothing but govern
ment dc facto in the strict legal sense Of the
term at the time of the Texan revolution
She had revolted from Spain in 1921, and
had successfully maintained her national ex-
istence, but her independence was not recog-
nized by the mother country until December
1886. Yet we had recognized her independ-
ence as government de facto in the mean
time, and had entered into treaties of COM
merce, as we'll as of boundary. These trea-
ties were made with the existing government
for the time being whether constitutional
republic, military despotism, or dictator
ship. We never pretended to inquire into
the question whether the government had
been rightfully formed or not; 1t was sufi-
cient for our purpose that il was the existing
government dc facto So il was with Texas.
She became independent de facto in 1886,
aud VIC rUvoguized hor independence as such
Immediately afterwards; and so did England,
France, and most ofthe great powers Of the
globe. All other nations formed treaties
with her as government de fdcto, without
requiring who had been right and who in the
wrong in her revolutionary struggle.
1t is immaterial, whether Mexico has, or
has not, since repudiuted Santa Annals treaty
with Texas. 1t was executed at the time
by competent authority. She availed herself
of all its benefits. BY virtue of it, she saved
the remnant of her army from aunihilation.
Underit she was enabled TO remove in peace
and security all her soldiers, citizens, and
property beyond the Rio Del Norte. h'
20 &c &C
which | can give the gentleman, to show that
Mexico has, at recent date, recognized the
Rio Del Norte as the boundary. The men,
bers of the last Congress will recollect that
much was said in debate on the treaty and
resolutions for the annexation of Texas,
about an armistico which had been entered
into between Texas and Mexico, for the ces-
sation of hostilrties:' The proposition was
proposed and acceped;a and in the proclama-
lion of the President of Mexico announcing
its existence, the Mexican troops were d-
rected to retire from Texas to the west bank
of the Rio del Norte, and did so in pursu-
ance of that Armistice. Here we find a
clear and unequivocal recognition Of the Rio
del Norte as the boundary of Mexico as late
as 1914. What stronger evidence could we
have of the establishment Of boundary line
than this train of facts, reaching back as far
as 1885, and all tending to two points-frst,
that Texas has always claimed the country
west ofthe Nueces, and exercised Jurisdiction
over all sections of it occupied by her peo-
pie, and secondly, that Mexico has on all
occasions, recognized the Rio del Norte as
the boundary?-
We add the brief statement of the wrongs
endured, in spirit Of forbearance, by this
country from Mexico, as given in Mr.. Polk's