The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-15
THE CASE, AND THE REVERSE OF

Alter Mexico had acknowledged a system Of out
RACES in violation of treaties and of national law
after she had two or three times promised to pay
several millions of dollars for these outrages, and
then broken all her promises-after she had pro-
hostility, and had followed up that proclamation by
breaking off her own diplomatic intercourse with
US, and sending our minister home-after she had
10 violation of her promises to the contrary, refused
settle her disputes with us by negotiation and to
make or to entertain any proposition whatever for
such settlement - after she had mustered an
army on the banks of the Del Norte, avowedly
to take possession of Texas by conquest not to the
Nueces merely, but to the Sabine-for Mexico
a,this moment claims that her title up to the Nueces
is rust the same as her title up to the Sabine-after
all these things were known to have taken place,
General Taylor was ordered to prevent and repel
INVASION on this side of the Del Norte, and to take
on this side of that river the best position he could
find to accomplish that purpose of defence.
1t is alleged that this order, issued by the admin
sation was act of war, in violation Of the con-
sutution of the United States!
We do not deem it necessary at this stage of our
affairs with Mexico to refute this allegation by any
elaborate argument. 1t is the constitutional duty
Of the President of the United Saes..to repe nva-
sion. No man has yet alleged, so far as we know,
tina, Mexican invasion of Texas, if permitted by
u.s. could haze stopped at the Naeces; or would have
thought Of stopping there; or would have deemed
stself in any way bound to stop there by any
treaty by any principle of public law, or by any
limitation of it's own claim. The claim Of Mexico
is, in terms, that she owns Texas up to the Sabine,
She makes not the slightest difference in any Of
her State papers between her ownership mp to the
Nueces and her ownership up to the Sabine In q
great multitude of State papers OF old date and of
the most recent date, Mexico says that Texas-aH
Ttras-is her soil. This claim to the tohole Of IeraS
is the claim on which she refuses negotiation. On
this claim, and none other Amonte threw up his
home.
Now, Texas being one Of the United States, let
US suppose for a moment that the administration
had suffered Mexican army, upon this claim TO
the whole Of Texas, to pass the southwestern
statutory boundary Of that State without any at
tempt at resistance or prevention: what howl
of obloquy would have been raised by the OPP
ponents Of the administration, and by their Jour
nals How should we, in that case, have heard
through the whole length and breadth of the land
IN Congress and out of Congress, in newspapers and
in pscards that the President Of the United States
ought to be impeached for malfeasance Of Office, il
not for traitorous recreancy to the rights of the
country in not repeing nor attempting 10 repel an in
pa,ion as the constitution empowers and requires
him to do
What in the case we have supposed, would have
been the state Of thngs' The Mexican army would
have taken up and fortified its positions, first on the
borders and then in the heart Of the Texan territory
If unressted it would, in pursuance Of all the pre-
yious diplomatic svowals and action Of Mexico,
have pressed on to the extent Of its claim. The
question whether the President Of the United States
has violated the constitution is the simple question
whether it is his duty to stop invasion, If he can,
q, its outset, or to stopt sOnechers raidioGy in its
career.
At this moment, while some OF the wing jour
mails, and some few wing members Of Congress, are
dsnouncing the President as having involved the