The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-12-04

To the Editor Of the Unton.
WASHINGTON Dec A, 1871


National lntelligenccr Of this morning
Everything proceeding from Albert Gallatin will com
large mass OF persons who have neither the me nor tn
knowledge nor the requisite for nve sgang th
questions on which he writes | have intention a
present to enter into general examination of this pam
phlet; but consider it my duty guard the public
against the erroneous conclusions which may De draw
from the views there expressed on one point not tn
least important in the consideration OF the present dif1
culties between the United States and Mexico NEAR
the conduct of the Mexican government IN refusing TO re
ceye our envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotena
ry sent to il in November, 1877, which MIR. Gaatin de
tends perfectly accordant with justice and the usage
OF nations
On this subject he writes
sBut the main question was, whether Mexico should
Mr.. Sde in the envoy
and minister pleaipoentlary to reside in the republic
agreed receive commissioned on the question,
which had arisen from the Texas and that unit
this done the suspended diplomatic intercourse coult
not be restored and residing minister enipoenary be
admired
tended negotiation should be carried by residing envoy
sxtsoIIdinasy a9d minister plenipoenay is altogehe
unmieigbie The questions issue might have been dis
cussed and settled easily fully and satisfactorily by
residing IS wa Ru
ever diplomatic relations have been superseded by
appointed Tor ha special purpose who are personally am
ply protected by the law of nations but who
received as resident ministers ill after the peace has
stored the ordinary diplomatic intercourse Thus the
Of peace of 1888 between France and England. nego
taed and concluded Paris by British commissioners
whom would have been deemed absurd to admit resi-
dent envoys or ministers before peace had been made
1.-The only distinction which possibly be made be-
tween the Two cases is that there was not yet actual
war between Mexico and the United States. But the
nexation OF Texas was no ordinary 1t was
most clear act of nnpovoked aggression; deep and
offensive injury in fact, declaration of war; if Mexico
only resorcd to suspension of the ordinary diplomatic
ations IL would seem as If our government had consd-
cred this of unparalleled audacity which Mexico
must be compelled before any negotiations Tor the
insult 10 the government and the nation which must
honor 0-'' $50 "''s' "''''
Mr. Gallan here asserts, that agreeaby to the usages
OF civilized natons treaties of peace aioays nego-
tdted by commissioners appointed for that special pur
poses and that such received
In proof of which, he CITES the treaty of peace Of 1883, be-
tceen Great Britain and France Is negotiated and con-
GUIDED at Paris by British commissioners whom ,coud
fore peace had been made
These are strange assertions and more than strange
absolutely Observation-Disclosures proceeding from one
the Hon. Albert Gallatin. The first assertion may at
once be shown to be utterly by reference the
very treaty cited by him example in proof. The
treaty is now before me, and It's preamble read that
his Britannia majesty and his Christian majesty, ami
mated by the mutual desire of acceleratng the reesab
ishment of peace, &c. have appointed and constituted
their plenpotenares charged with concluding and sign
ing the denltve treaty OF peace, viz the King OF Great
Britain the most iustrious and excellent Lord George
Duke and Earl OF Manchester, &c, Privy Councillor of
his Britannia majesty and his ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenlpoenary his Christian majesty" The pre-
llmnarles to thus treaty were moreover negotiated and
signed by Mr.. Aeyne FitZherbert, Minister Penipo-
tertiary 10 has SAID majesty the king of Great Britain "
no COMMISSIONER whatever being named on either
SION Nor has any treaty been concluded between Great
BRITAIN and France, between either OF those nations and
Spain at the seat OF government of either of the contract
ing powers, the beginning of the last century, if
ever, by any person bearing the title of commissioned,
ana mol accredited under some OF the ordinary dplo
matte designations, such as Ambassador, Envoy, Minis
ter plenpotentiary or Charge dAfaires Allthe trea
ties between those powers 100 land probably all OF
of vOf
Treaty OF Fonainebleau, of Madrid, of the Escural, of
Aranuez of San defonso, OF London of Windsor, &C.,
bear the signatures OF persons invested with
other of the aforementioned titles When negotiations
for peace have been conducted at place not belonging
to either OF the pares unless general congress Of
penipotentiares has been there assembled commission
ers have been chosen for the business, minister
supposed TO be always accredited to some government
Thus much with regard to Mr. Galatin's first asser-
ton and the instance cited by him in proof of itrender
ing superfuous any observation the distinction which
he makes between the uniformly employed,
according to his statement in negotiating treaties OF
peace and RESIDENT enjoys or MINISTER'S That there
is no difference in character between such resident
boys and those of the rank employed in nego-
tations during war, is certain though the func-
tons Of the latter are of course considerably limited
by the cessation OF all treaty stpulations Missions
Tor treating on peace can only be instituted IN vir-
tue OF special agreements between the governments of
the nations al war; but such agreements always provide
distinctly for the enjoyment by the ENJOYS OF all the prv
eges and immnncs to which they would be entitled in
tune OF peace. Thus In the fruitess negotiation between
Great Britain and France in 761, when NJ de Busy
despatched to London and Mr. Stanley Paris each
munster pfenip0teatary, it specially provided be-
tween the two governments that each minister should
Joy in the country to which he sent, ''the same
privileges if the two the midst OF peace,
as well with regard to the intercourse OF life as
IN maintaining correspondence with their courts and the
other courts OF Europe and lastly, for the despatch of
their courers, and with respect to all the Prerogaves
and franchises in general incident to their characters
Mexico not at war with the United States when
our last envoy sent to that country in November,
1915; she had only, Mr. Gaatin says, resortcd 10 a
suspension of the ordinary diplomatic relations In what
do these ordinary diplomatic relations consist And
what consequences may from suspension OF them
Two nations in amy with each other, secured by
treaties which specify the terms of that amy In order
to conduct the official intercourse which should be kept
up between their governments matters OF daily occur
each party maintains person residing at the seat
Of government OF the other charged to chan
mel or this intercourse and to represent his gov
eminent in the protection of its people, to explain, and
to promise in its name under certain resctlons and,
when specially empowered, TO enter into new engage
ments, which il is bound to fulfill Such Intermediates
peace between two parties occupying adjoining terrific
ries, or having such intercourse with each other; and
the government which, under such circumstances with
draws its representative, assumes heavy responsibility.
Every difficulty previously existing becomes thousand
fold less remediable; and rles which might have been
diplomatic agent and the minister of the State TO which
he is accredited, magnied into serious causes
Of discomfort Yet this responsibility was assumed by
the Mexican government; and when that OF the United
States endeavorei this obstacle to the restor
alton of good understanding, by sending an envoy ex-
raordnay and minister plenpotentary TO treat on the
questions in dispute, he was repused on the ground
that he was not commissioner specially limited TO the
discussion OF one or more questions
This of Meyiro Callafin defends