The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-04-08

which il is expressed, equally indisputabe The ambi-
guilty TO which alude consists in precisely disiin-
gushing between those obligations and rights which a
contract imposes and confers upon those who are parties
to It, and those which, though originating in the contract
affect the duties and obligations OF strangers to it. can-
not suppose that there exists between any substantial
difference of opinion upon this point 1t may, however,
be advisable to illustrate my meaning
The great mass OF the rights which enjoys in a
civilized community are founded contract 1t is by viz.
tue of contracts that he becomes the of lands and
houses, of ships and merchandise Having acquired this
ownership by contract, he has the rights of an
owner against all the world The rights themselves
originate and founded contract with the for
mer propreior but they having been acquired the
proprietor has become the owner and has succeeded to
all the rights winch ownership coners He is entitled
to the protection of the government within whose jurs-
dicion his property les--in the enjoyment of this
property IN Its preservation from rapne and violence
His title, derived from contract has been perfected and
his rights to security and protection grow out of this
position OF things. When this security is violated by a
mere private wrong he appeals TO the courts OF the
country for redresswhen by the government itself, he
has right to call upon that government for reparaon
If he is the subject of foreign nation, under whose
authority he continues he appeals to that government
10 and IN obtaining redress OF his wrongs Ii the govern
ment, inhctng the wrong upon him does by the act
violate Its treaty obligations with the sovereign of the
injured party that sovereign has the right and under the
obligation which It owes, TO afford protection to all from
whom it claims aegances bound to that justice is
done to him.
Where the right merely in contract and the wrong
complained OF is merely the refusal omission
cute that contract where this perpeated BY the party
to that contract your proposition unquestonaby true
The party has entered into contract the obligations of
the parties measured by the contract ITSELF and those
obligations OF the parties to be ascertaned and enfor
ced under the law which constitutes part OF it. Ii cit
of the United States shall have contracted with the
government OF Mexico for the delivery at a certain time
and place OF certain amount OF military Stores cloth
ing, or provisions, at stipulated price, the government
OF the United States has nothing to do with constituting the
terms of this contract enforcing its performance If he
shall contract with the same government for the purchase
a rl tho I1p,tnd
cannot rghuy lnerpose, beyond its good offices, to OBJ
tain from the party the actual transfer of title
from the other the performance OF the conditions OF sale
This Is, apprehend, what you designed to express
the proposition upon which l am commenting do not
understand you to say that if an American citizen resi-
dent in Mexico shall have acquired the full and absolute
rights to tract of land, ship, any other
description of property by valid and effective purchase
either from the government of Mexico its citizens, that
he has not thus acquired rights sacred and much
within the terms OF the treaty as if be had carried the
same property with him to Mexico; that he has right
recognised and secured to him in his outward taken
from the United States, but different and inferior TO
the return cargo which he has purchased in Mexico to
bring home with him; that the security guaranteed to him
by the treaty eXlssor does not exist accordingly as the
property of which he is the admitted owner became his
another.
The distinction, which have thus with perhaps un-
necessary detail endeavored to illustrate, important
as II Is obvious. have dwe thus long upon it, not be-
cause could for moment entertain doubt that you
would perceive and acknowledge it, but because,
enunclahng your proposition, | was apprehensve that
others might perchance be led into confusion of ideas
upon point which, you will presently perceive is OF
vital interest in this discussion
Exceptions of the same kind, which trust you will
not regard hypercrca might be taken your fourth
proposition. As you have expressed it, ''when citizen
Of the United States leaves hsown country and becomes
resident and citizen oanother,"&c. This phaseoogy,
particularly taken in conneXion with another passage
your speech might excite doubt whether the terms res
ident and csen employed by you of equivalent
import merely cumulative descriptions which must
concur in their application the party to bring him with
in the application OF your legal doctrine. According TO
the universally received principles of public lawaccord
ing to the we'll settled and familiar doctrines of
lava citizen of the United States by passing foreign
land and taking up his residence within the jurisdiction of
another government, loses of his privileges and
rights AS already seen, this principle is distinctly
bodied and recognised BY the express terms OF trea
ty with Mexico Was not, then, the word resident
into your statement of your legal proposition unless de-
signed to be employed necessary incident to be
peradded to the citizen? By laws recognise
fully the right of individual to change his allegiance
to that of his birth, and to another The
laws of Mexico are to the same effect BY becoming
citizen Of Mexico, then, native born adopted citizen
OF the United States dissolves the connexlon which ha
previously subsstel between him and this government
equally his duty of allegiance and his ecipro
cal right of protection.
On this point, Also cannot anticipate any substantial
diversity Of opinion between us. and therefore, subject
these mo catons rather of expression than OF doctrine
| cordially and entirely concur with you in the legal
propositions you have asserted.
With great respect your obedent servant and friend,
RICH. S. COX.
WASHINGTON, March, lS47