The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-12-06

usurped portion of territory which belongs to Mexico by
a right which she will maintain at whatever cost"
On the 4th Of June, lst5, President Herrera issued
procamaton, announcing the intention of Mexico to
resist by arms the annexation Of Texas. and affirming
That the law United States in reference to the
annexation of Texas the United States does in
destroy rights that Mexico has, and will enioce upon
that department."
Affixed TO this proclamation, and published with it,
were DEGREES of the Mexican Congressone setting
forth that hs Mexican nation calls upon all her children
TO the defence of her national independence !" and the
other announcing that the government would "eaH to
arms all The forces Of the army according to the authority
granted TO it by eristing ldtcs."
On the oath OF April, 1915, Paroles issued amanesto,
expressing the determination in regard TO the
which his government had taken Immediately upon its
accession to power in the beginning Of that gear, and
while Gen Taylor was still at Corpus Christi In this
manifesto Paroles says:
"On resumng, in the beginning of this year, the heavy
ponsbty of guiding the destines of the nation during
short PERIOD DETERMINED REsoLUrELY TO CHANGE IT'S roL
cY FROM AND PERNcroUs SYSTEM OF TEroRIziNG
Which has been Observed to regard to the United States OF
america, notwithstanding the perfdy Nth phch that goo
prepared for the OCCUPATION TEXAS its treac
poaon of the eristing treaties chich guaranteed the
hifs OF rePu0ic, AND THE INsIDous ACT BY WHICH
INCORPORATED ONE OUR DEPARTMENTS CON-
FEDERAcY."
"The old grievances, the offences against the Mexican
nation which have been necessarily repeated since 1886
had BEEN cGNsUMMATED A MIN
to DC accredited near government IN the character
of residing minister, BETWEEN THE
TWO REPUBLICS SUFFERED THE
DEFINITE ACT OF THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AT
TINE Mr. SLIDEIL APPEARED, TROOPS
UNITED STATES WERE OCCUPYING OUR TERRITORY"
In n,anifaetp tba D of Anil
1885, and protesting to state his policy and the grounds
of it, since he assumed power in the beginning of
The year. he further tells us that at that me he HAD
SENT ORDERS THE GENERAL-IN- CHIEF OF THE DIvI-
SION OF OUR NORTHERN FRONTIER, TO ACT HOSTILITY
&C.
We might multiply these citations at pleasure. But
hese establish our point and show that Mexico did ac
ept the annexation "a declaration Of acar The in
ference from these facts, taken in conneXion with Mr..
Galatians doctrine that annexation our part dec
aaton of war; obvious and irresistible 1t is this that
when the present administration came into power, 1t
found an actual eristing with Mexico upon its
hands. The two nations were, upon Mr.. Gallatin's
view, most manestly beHigerents-each having all the
rights and all the duties OF begeent against the other
On the 4th OF March, 1885, Congress had, Mr.. Gal
atins showing, declared by the act of Annexation
an act which, he says, 'more than treaty of often
ve and defensive aiance" And in view Of this act of
war, Mexico had taken up arms.
Are the wings prepared to admit ths-or they DEM
it, without rejecting Mr.. Galatins whole arguments If
they admit with Mr. Gallatn that the of xation
placed both Mexico and the United States in the attitude
and clothed them, respectively with the rights of bege
nts, ciat all the scg camor against the march to
the Rio Grande7 Was not that movement, in ucp of ac-
ual erist,ng 1rar, just wise, and fully authorized
measures What means, too, the whig clamor against
the President as having plunged the country into the war
without consulting Congress'
But again if the act of annexation act of war
"a declaration and commencement of the our
pat-then how stands Mr. Gallatin's view OF only
us and proper policy to secure peace' Here it is
here at least is all that, in Mr. Galatins opinion, is
strictly required" OF by this doctrine for the pres
nt"
For the present. nothing is strictly required than
adopt the principle of status ante 6eLm; or, in other
ords the Mrican territory and to provide for
payment of the indemnities due citizens"
The status ante bsllum what is that state before the
W, if the annexation of Texas was the commencement
the war; Why, clearly on that view, to adopt the
principle of status ante bcum is not only 'to evacuate
territory of Mexico" but also to annul and undo the
nnexaton of Texas Is not this the inevitable infer
from Mr.. Galiatns propositions And is it not also
ey clearly reductio ad absurdm? Can any doctrine
true which leads to such conclusion'