Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1847-01-02
A POINT OF HISTORY.


In our third Number on the Presidents Message
lin this paper of Saturday LAST we undertook to
yindicate the truth Of point Of History from what
we coDceived to be wrong view Of it in the Presi-
dents Message. We regret that the indiscretion Of
the government paper obliges US to recur to topic
which we supposed that we had finally dismissed.
Our statement Of the real estimate put at the time
upon President JAcKsoN's recommendation to Con-
gress, in February, 1887, to authorize letters Of
marque and reprisal against Mexico, is pronounced
in 9" the Union" of Friday night to be I" the very
most forlorn and desperate Statement" that the
National Intelligencer has yet made; adding some
thing about Roorbacks" which we do moi very
well comprehend, not having the Slang Dictionary
before us, but which seems TO intend the meaning
that we should be careful not to make statements
which the "record contradicts. This, we are
happy to say, is an offence, which, had it been as
carefully avoided by the Message and by the gov
eminent paper it has ever been habtually by the
National Intelligencer, we and our readers would
have been spared this further trouble, we Of re-
stating the facts, and they Of reading further
exposition Of them.
The view which we have presented Of this mat
ter is not that Gen. JACKSON did not recommend
Letters of Marque and Reprisa, but that Congress
paid no regard to the recommendation, passing il
by, and recommending, instead, further negotiation
with Mexico and that the Presidents statement
that difference of opinion upon the subject exist
ed in Congress at that time strictly true only in
sense, viz that all concurred in the ineapedicy
of the measure recommended by the then President
Committees both Houses, composedn each House
of majority Of the Presidents political friends,
made Reports, in which they declined seconding
the recommendation and these reports were unani-
mously adopted in both Houses. If there was any
sentiment in either House favorable to the Presi-
dents recommendation, it was not expressed either
by vote orspeech. The present Secretary of State
the organ of the Administration in the Senate, being
then Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Re-
lations, was himself opposed to the course recon-
mended by the President, and gave in his place in
the Senate very good reasons for being SO one of
which we will state from the record Register
Of Debates, vol. xii, page 9s4) in his own words I:
"The committee acre unanimously of opinion
that the 34M article of our treaty acint Merico
REQUIRED that a demand should be made under
its provisions, before resorting either to or
to reprisals. This article was one of peculiar
nature. 1t might have been impolitic to agree to
it at first y; but it was now part of our treaty,
and its acquisitions MUST be held sacred"
On the same day, on the consideration OF the
Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr.
CLAY, also member of that committee, took occa-
sion to make some remarks, which, though brief
stand as recorded Evidence that if no difference Of
opinion upon the subject existed in Congress at the
time, was upon the point only of the inexpediep-
cy and want of sufficient ground for the recommen-
dation of the issue Of letters of marque and reprsa
We quote again from the Register Of Debates, vol.
xii. p 9s2, as follows:
"Mr. CLAY rose and said that he supposed the
only question which would be presented to the
Senate would be upon the resolution, recon-
mending further application to Mexico, DC.
He had risen merely to say that he concurred
with the other gentlemen who composed the COM
mitee upon the subject under consideration. He
agreed WITH THE REST OF HIS COLLEAGUES that
the controversy with Merico HAD MADE OUT NO
CASE JUsTIFYINo RESORT TO WAR FOR
THE ISSUING OF EEPRIsALs /; and he thought that
renewed efforts should be made to obtain redress
before it should become necessary to declare war
against Mexico to vndicate the honor and interests
of the country. He felt bound TO say that, whilst
he concurred with the committee, which he bellev-
ed was unanimous in adopting the resolution, he
did NOT agree entirely wih the body Of the report.
He thought the case was made out rather stronger
against Merico Than The correspondence Of the
Government Wih that country justified And he
must say, in all candor and truth, that the depar-
ture of our representative from Mexico, under the
circumstances, was harsh, abrupt and uncessa-
ry,' &c. &c.