Tri-weekly journal. (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1847-188?, 1848-02-10
from Houston's Official Senate Roportl
SPEECH OF MIR. PEARCE, of Maryland.
on TnE TEN REGlMENT DILL.

! Delipercd IN the Il. y. Senate lJth Jan, 1913.
Mr.. PEARcE. Like my colleague, am anx-
ious TO maintain the honor of my country, 10
vindicate her reputation from the least blem-
/ ish, and particularly TO rescue her from any
probable charge of apacous aggression, of
gmsping cupidity, and lust Of conquest. But,
| In my opinion, this cannot be done by merely
affirming the justice of a war, in the Justice
and constitulionHlity of which have no faith;
much less can il be done by sustaining the Pre-
sident in a course by which, in my opinion
we should be practically subverting the consti-
tuition, Wrestling from Congress, 10 whom alone
the constitution has condded them, the issues
/ of war and peace, making him the supreme
controller Of atlairs-making him, in fact, il
we look at the matter in view Gifts consequent
ces, the master Of our fate, and the more dan
gerously so because he rules, under the form of
free institutions, in the spirit Of despot.
Sir, do not pretend TO deny that the United
has just claims against Mexico for indemnity
due TO our citizens; but ! do deny that those
claims were the cause OF this war, or that they
would be the just cause of any war. deny
that they would have justified Congress in de-
claring war against Mexico,
The President has panded before us an ex-
aggeTated statement OF these claims, as il they
were the causes of the war; and yet he affirms
that Mexico brought on the war by her illegal
and unjust act of shedding American blood up
on American soil. Sir, these claims against
Mexico for indemnity due to onr citizens have
existed Tor series OF years, II is true, some for
a longer and others for shorter time. But, |
ask, if Mexico has resisted pertinaciously the
payment Of these claims, | ask, If the resist
ance or neglect on the part of Mexico is even
comparable to that which we have experienced
at the hands Of stronger nations; and ask, if
it becomes us to adopt one rule or measure of
justice in regard to weak nation and another
rule OF right In regard to strong and naughty
| people? j trust there is no Senator who win
not repel with scorn such an imputation. Yet
| fear, we are about to forget the rule ofequal
ity in regard to this particular transaction.
Now, in 1889, Mexico entered into con-
vention with us, by which she agreed to form
a commission for the ascertainment of the
claims due to our citizens. The commission
sat, and adjudicated many of the claims, but,
being limited in point of time, they were not
all decided. Some of them, not receiving the
confirmation of the commissioners, were refer
red TO ar umpire, and some were not acted on
at all. Well, Mexico did not withhold from
us, or refuse the payment of those claims which
were admitted by the commissioners On the
contrary, she manifested disposition to meet
the payment, by levying forced contributions
upon her citizens for that purpose, and conclu-
ded another convention in 1913, providing for
the organization of another commission for the
adjudication of the claims not settled by the
first. In consequence of her embarrassed con-
ditlOn and exhausted treasury, Mexico was un-
able to make payment of the adiudicated claims
as stipulated; but she entered into an grange
ment with General Thompson, the minister of
the United States to pay the claims by install
ments, showing that she acted in good faith,
al ~>.;sh li.sIySsi itlsl.~lI
ment. She paid allsthe arrears of interest at
eight per cent, and three instalments Of princi
pal, nor was it until the negotiation of the an
nexation treaty, the expulsion of Santa Anna
from power, and hisex from Mexico, that
lthey failed to make the payments. Whether
annexation was the cause of such failure, or
whether il arose from their inability to pay,
cannot undertake TO say; but think the latter
the more probable cause. One thing is certain
that Mexico made great efforts, andif she did
not make punctual payments, it was rather to
be attributed to her distressed condition than to
any want of faith.
i Well, who is there that does not recolect
that we ourselves have been delinquent in this
reference to the claims OF Great Britain against
US? ! refer to the debts due the British mer-
chants recognized by the treaty of 1888, and
not paid, | believe, for twenty years after that
date. remember, too, sir that our claims
dkdllSl OlCdl 11llbdiL III -uC OAA
at the close of the war ofl8l2 were not settled
finally till 1886, although provided for in the
treaty of peace. Who does not recollect the
claims for spoliations by Naples and Denmark,
! and the more remarkable case Of spoliations BY
France, the most fragrant of all committed by
the wantonness Of power-in very scorn of our
|, rights-without theslightest justification, and
persisted in, repeated. and boldly offended
with the most Offensive effronter, and yet
endured by this country through successive
2 Administrations from 1906 until 1881, when a
1 distinguished gentleman. who was formerly a
member of this body. Mr.. Rives of Virginia, }
negotiated the treaty of indemnity, and then
France, adding further wrong to the heaped
!, up injury which we had sustained so patiently
: withheld the paymen. Of the money for four
years longer? Gen. Jackson did, indeed, in
: 1885, address Congress on the subject, and sug-
! gest reprisals as proper mode of redress, and
4 he asked three millions of dollars to-be placed
. at his disposal to enable him to act as circum-
y stances might require. But Congress neither
i adopted his accommodation of reprisals. nor
D voted him the three millions, and the Senate
!. chose rather to allow he defeat of the forti6-
: cation bill.
!. Sir, France was not eeble--heT treasury was
not exhausted; she was the most elastic power
in Europe, as was infested by her immense
. payments made to the allies after the sestora-
\ ton of the Bourbons. Yet, sir, we submitted
! to all this from France and it was only ia 1885
xx-a racovp rcd from her the that