The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-28

ponds all intercourse between the elzeDs of the bel
igerents and that as general rule no contract be-
tween them can be valid; and yet ransom has al
ways been regarded as valid, Notwithstanding one
party with his property was in the power Of the
others and contracts OF ransom have always been
enforced. Besides, Santa Ana, when he returned
to Mexico, denied that he had acted under duress
when he made the treaty Of which We speak, but
affirmed that he had acted freely and without CON
straint and the public documents sufficiently attest
the fact.
But there is another and high consideration on
which this contract In binding. In early times the
law OF nations permitted prisoners VI 10 be put
TO death, and any victor who took pptives, accord
ing to his convenience or to circumstances put them
TO death. or converted then into bondsmen; or, as
an act of generosity. froey dismiesod them. But
in the progress OF eiyzaIicn the g1rs Of this law
have been relaxed; shll, however, there exists,
as recognised in the Law Of nations the isr
tahonis. Even in the humane and civilized
warfare waged between this country and Great
Britain in 1912, this law Of retaliation was re-
eognised by Mr.. Madison, and il the contin-
gency had happened, it would have been enforced.
When Great Britain, under the claim of her doc
trine of perpetual allegiance, threatened to put to
death certain American soliers who had been made
prisoners and who were damned natives Of the
realm, Mr.. Madison promptly answered that they
were soldiers Of the American army, protected by
the flag under which they fought, and that for every
American prisoner put TO ieath, he would, by way
of retaliation, see that ten British prisoners should
share the like fate. The threat had salutary re-
suit and the barbarous Of enforcing the Ter
talOnis against innocent persons, who had no power
TO control the action of their commanders, was
spared All writers on International law, however,
admit that those who ar, guilty Of offences and
cruelties in the conduct II war, may rightfully
be made the victims Of the er faiions Look, then,
at the humanity in that il spared the guilty, and
also, for the same reason, at the validity Of the uea
ty with Santa Ana.
or all the horrors Of warwsged in modern times,
those frthe Texan revolution, on the part Of Mex
leo, were the most barbarous. Even Indian war
fare fails to surpass the Guelties exhibited. Her
armies seemed TO study a nfnement Of barbary in
the conduct Of the war. Who can remember the
the Alamo; who can remember the manner in which
prisoners shot down in cold blood; who
can remember the thousand horrors and
atrocities committed during that war, all, too,
in perfect contempt of the rules Of civilized war
| fare, and not say that Santa Ana and his myrml-
dons who went with him to receive the visitation of
Gods vengeance at San Jacinto, not the prop
er subjects of the sternest retrbution II the Texan
government had yielded 10 the clamOrs of the Tex
an people, whose hearts beat spontaneously respon-
sive the dictates Of national law, and had sacri
| feed these barbarians-these armed bandits, with
their mercless cheftain at their head-who does
| not believe that all Christendom, although il might
have been matter of regret to have witnessed such
in the 18th century, would in view of all the
| facts, have said that il was Justly done'
In good morals and upon just principles, there
fore, this treaty is binding, in thai 1t mtigated
the horrors Of war and advanced the great In
terests of humanity. Thus far have urged the
validity Of the treaty, upon the supposton that
Santa Ana was clothed with plenary authority to
bind Mexico. There is, however, another conside-
ration, granting that he was not invested with
authority to make final treaty, which proves that
! in good faith and in moras-yea, more, according
! 70 the law of nations-that Mexico was bound by
npAa oh
effect She received all the benefits which the trea
~ stipulated in her favor. Her soldiers with their
| arms, were restored to her. Her captive chief
magistrate spared and allowed TO return home.
Receiving and retaining these benefits under the
| treaty, she was bound to respond to the
other stipuations and allow to Texas those benefits
which were the correlaiive of those which she en-
| oyed under the compact. lfshe intended to reject
| the treaty she was bound to return the prisoners
with their arms 10 Texas, and place matters in the
condition that they before the, conclusion Of
| the treaty. She cannot, at the same breath, claim
| the advantages, and reject the equivalents upon
which those advantages were granted under the
| treaty. .....
| Mr.. Chairman, you remember the celebrated
treaty made by the Roman general with the Sam
Mites after the defeat of the former at the Furca
Caudina his army had been made to pass under.
| The Roman general concluded treaty of peace
| with the Samnites, in consideration OF which, re.
serving hostages for its execution, the Samnes
agreed to allow the Roman array To return home.
The treaty on one part was in effect, executed. The
| Romans however, refused its execution on their
part. They said that their generals had no author
ty to make treaty Of peace. The Samnites, on the
other hand insisted that the treaty was valid, and
that it ought to be executed the part of the Ro
mans; or, that the Roman army should be returned
| to the status in quo before the treaty was made
do not propose to go into an examination of this
historical point; have referred to it only because
writers national law have used it as text upon
which to comment in ascertaining the extent to
which nations bound to observe treaties OF which
they have taken the benefit. ...
Grous contends that if an individual, without au-
thority, makes treaty with foreign nation, and his
own nation refuse to ratfy it, it is bound to put the
other party in the condition in which it was before
the treaty was made Other writers take the same
view and contend that il nation takes the benefit OIL
treaty and afterwards disavow it, and do not make
return of all the benefit she has received, she should
| be held, by the law Of nations, to the execution Of
the treaty. and though there may be no tribunal by
which il be enforced yet that not to execute the
treaty, under such circumstances, would be just
cause of war. Vatte does not go exactly 10 ina
extent He says:
II confess however and freely acknowledge that if the
enemy who suffer entire army to escape on the ah o. a.
agreement concluded with the general who unprovided
with sufficient powers, and simple sponsor confess say
that If the enemy have behaved generousyn they nave
% az on requires that the state
should either raty the agreement or conclude new urea
| lust and reasonable CONDITIONS aDauhR even
preensons the public welfare will alow"-pat
| al. s. 2l2 p. 225 o.. . = ~. H.
Now does not the Texan treaty fall within, and
conform to- this requisitioni Did the Texans exact
rigid or improper conditionsi Was not retaliation
forborne to be executed when it might justly have
been enforcedi A whole army rescued and restored
to its country! 1t does seem proper, when Mexico
has received all the advantages Of the treaty on hei
part, has refused to make another treaty and
has refused to return to the possession OF eS.
as all the prisoners who escaped by means OF the
treaty-that, according to the law of nations, the
treaty should be regarded as valid and binding-ever
supposing that Santa Ana was not clothed win au
thorty as the head of the trcaty-making power.
But if all this does not prove clear and unque,s
tonabe title in Texas to the country between tnt
Nueces and the Rio Grande, il does at least prove
strong equitable title Say, then, according TO .h'
second proposition which has been contended Tor
that the country is in dispute; was the Executive o
our country justified in throwing the army forward
from Corpus Christi to the banks of the RIO Grande
Rather, would ask, could he be testified If he ha'
not done soi -, 49,