The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-04-14
POLITICAL.
Letter Second, TO Hon. John .. PcndIcton OF yir-
| xlnia.

containing remarks upon much of his speech deliver
ca IN the House OF Representatives as concerns the
claims of citizens of the United States upon Mexico
Hon. John s. Peadieton
And now, my dear sir, will you not be surprised 10
learn mat IN no one OF the upon which you have
anmad yerted, far as nv information extends-and
from being counsel many and personally acouanted
WIN Others, can speak auhoritavey OF the great ma
ory OF me cases involving large amountshee is not
sfSie one whch does not rest absolutely and eXchl-
sivey upon the very foundations of public law which
nave been enumerated, not which would be excluded
oy virtue OF the notifications attached to those PROPOSE
10 descend to more particularly, in every instance in
which was concerned the claimant was a native born
elizen OF the United States having transferred
MS ahesance to any power, engaged no employ
ment not OF acknowledged legality as carried on by an
Amercan citizen; exercising rights recognised by
he law OF nations and the subssng treaties between the
TWO MISUNDERSTANDING no mmunities, demanding no
privileges but such expressly guaranteed 20 him
! by those treaties The convention under which the
board OF commissioners sat- in its very TERMS provided
only for claims OF citizens of the United States The
ln article provided for their adjustment 'accoing to the
principles OF justice, the law OF nations, and the stpula
United States and Mexico The parties were required
IN the memorials to the fact of citizenship and thus
put TINS essential ayennen in issue. Ii the truth OF
verified by evidence In one of the cases alluded to
was The truth OF this assertion controverted in no one
OF them did the Mexican commissioners, furnished in adj
vance with the names of the claimants and the parcu
lars OF Their cases. PRETEND by way OF answer that
the party Mexican citizen, that he owed any kind
Oh alegiahce 70 the Mexican republic, deny that he
was Justly entitled to the character of an American ct
ze and to the immunes and privileges extended him
as such by the treaties between the two governments
In connexon with this point, the only to which
you make any direct application those of Mr.. San
Angelo, whose name is not, however, given, and with
the details of which am not particularly familiar, and
OF MI Parrot, Tor whom acted as counsel In regard
to this last case, you say, Durng this tme7-tha is,
when the acts OF outrage complained of were peeated
-"he was a resident. do not know whether he had
become citizen" The fact of his being resident is
wholly imuaa IN he uue
issue, and upon the only point which could legtmatey
bear upon the right TO the ndemn6cation he Claimed
profess yourself ignorant II you ignorant whether
valid objection existed in bar OF his claim. upon what
conceivable ground was il adverted tor II he was
Mexican citizen, he had no claim under the treaty if he
was not, his claim secured. You seem to have had
access to the memorials of Mr. p; for you refer TO de-
tails which could wish had time to comment upon,
before me Mr. PARROTS printed memorial to the board OF
commissioners, and the first paragraph of that paper is in
the following words: THAT your memoralist is ma
tive born citizen OF the United States and entitled
all the privileges mmunites, and guarantees secured
such citizens by the laws of nations and by the treaties
subsistng between the United States and Mexico; that
he for many years resident merchant of the city
Mexico and Tor the space of two years exercised the
office of consul OF the United States, and also
respects performing the duties of diplomatic agent OF this
government, will appear from certificate to that eff
feet furnished by the honorable Secretary OF State which
believed to be file among the archives OF the board
of which copy is herewith presented" If these ale
cations questioned controversial the fact
has never come to my knowledge. Mr. Parrott is well
known to be citizen and native OF your State, the
known for years officially connected with the govern
ment; and, in addition the facts cited from his memo
rial he has recently and recently as to be within the
brief period of your Legislative member of
the last Congress- been nominated by the Executive, and
confirmed by the Senate secretary of legation to Mex
CO. The individual who furnished the materials for YOUR
comments on Mr. Parrofs case could not have been UNI
informed of any of these facts Where, then, be
found the slightest pretence for questioning the truth OF
his allegation that he American citizen
1t is not less remarkable that among all the claims
comprehended in your last category and upon which you
pronounce the summary Judgment '.almost the entire
amount is for lands in Texas's'the Claims if good for
anything, good for the land, and good against Texas
not against Mexico, and in no view has our government
anything to do with it, for they arcavowedy the ground
of contractyou have been led by misplaced confidence
into series of important You enumerate six of
these thus entitled to condemnation for glarng
defects in the very nature Of the claims as apparent on
Texas" I'd. Because they 'avowedy on the ground
of contract" Now, reference to the four principal OF
these cases speak knowingly and therefore authorta
lively Three out of the SIX, amounting money, ac-
cordng to your estimate, to vi O6 TO, sum certainly
sufficient be regarded constituting material part OF
lands in Texas, in any possible form or manner
Not out OF the whole six Is for the recov
cry of lands in Texas nor is one of the four largest
claims, am unable to speak positively of the remaining
two, which comparatively insignificant in amount,
either "avowedly otherwise founded contract, in
the sense in which have already explained the meaning
of that expression and in the only in which has
any relevancy to the matter under consideration With
the exception, possibly, OF single item in one OF these
claims, and that involving very lnconsideraDle sum,
there is dollar which in any possible aspect be
regarded founded contract In every instance it is
true in which the claim is for violation of the rights OF
property, the claimant has asserted rights which orgna
ted in conact for other way could he acquire such
rights. In setting them forth he has exhibited his title
the foundation upon which they rest thus demonstrating
their legal existence and their validity Still, the sum
and substance the entire ground of his complaint is that
being thus clothed with undisputed and ndisputable
and debared from their enjoyment by acts of violence
and outrage against which he guaranteed by the law
of nations and the positive and perempory stpulaons OF
treaties II is certainly not very complimentary to the
integrity and capacity OF those who professionally have
advocated these claims, who iudically have pro-
nounced upon their validity, that objections thus
obvious, and lying it were upon their very
surface apparent upon their first presentation, and, in
deed as might be inferred from your speech manifest
their bare meution should either have entirely escaped
the notice of these gentlemen, Or if seen, should be ut
erIv disregaded Learned lawyers rarely differ in juig
ment to what are the fundamental and elementary
principles of the science the study of which they have
been for wears devoted they often do differ and widely
as to the absuse and reconcile doctrines which are only
wrought out by long of aborious reasoning and
perhaps still more frequently in the application OF these
doctrines TO the complicated and contradictory statements
of the facts in controversy In the cases, however, 10
which YOU have distinctly adverted there no room
for hesitancy or doubt There contradictory es
tmony to be sfted and practicable reconcied or from
which the true state of facts to be deliberately
tanned The statements and the evidence both and
equally plain distinct and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS principles
of law applicable to them not TO be elaborated by slow
and painful ratiocination All plain, direct, distinct
facts-no room within which TO differ as to the law.
That such was the actual posture of these would