The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-10-12

ana, eVent, The prosecution
war. will not now occupy the time OF the Senate by
referring minuely to the correspondence showing this to
have been the design of the government but
particularly to The letters Of the Secretary Of War to Gen
under date OF August 30h, 1915, OF January l3h
and March Cd, 1916.
Now deny that il was in the power of the executive
department of the government to authorize the comnand-
ing general to engage in aggressive operations Every
thing that was necessary to epel the attack OF foreign
enemy, to defend the army OF General Taylor, II was
the duty OF the Executive 10 authorize the commanding
general to do, But to carry aggressive operations
implies something more It implies denomination on
the part of the executive department to avail itself OF the
first movement OF hostility or menace as justification
for and aggressive warfare for other purposes upon
Congress. and 10 Congress alone Would Congress at at
that time have declared this for the purpose OF OBJ
tanning satisfaction from the Mexican republic of the
claims of citizens No believes it. II would be
inconsistent with the whole OF policy that has
been pursued, and the conventions that have been formed
and acted upon by both with regard to these
claims In 1899, the two governments entered into
convention for the adjustment of The claims OF cti
In 1913 there another convention and in 1914
another, which only left incomplete by the Interrupt
ton OF diplomatic relations, occasioned by the annexation
of Texas Sir at the very time that this government
taking steps for the annexation of Texas the Mexican
government, according TO the statement OF min
ister at Mexico, adopting all the in its power
TO enable IT to meet its engagements And but for the
consequences which resulted from the annexation OF
Texas this Union, there be little doubt that the
terms OF that convention would have been faithfully full
| filed
Although it is unquesonably true that the Mexican
government has committed many and fragrant wrongs
upon citZens-w rongs which have been aggravated
by her long and unreasonable denial of Justice during
period when she had the ability make satisfaction Tor
them am nevertheless OF the opinion that Mexico also
not without just cause OF complaint against
government in respect TO the measures which were pur
sued against her reonstances for the
of Texas while at war with that republic. And in my
opinion, these OF complaint have material bear
ing upon the question to the terms which it would be
honorable for demand and just for Mexico yield
in the settlement OF this controversy. When Texas
annexed to this Union, and when the preliminary steps
for annexation we're taken we had treaty Of peace with
violate its letter spirit have said that at the time of
the annexation of Texas, in disregard of the remon-
strances of the Mexican minister, there to be-
lieye that Mexico was exetng herself to the utmost OF
her power, involved she was with her immense debt
of 5 900 000 TO come TO honorable adjustment and
satisfaction of claims In September, 1874, the
American minister at Mexico wrote to Mr. Calhoun, then
Secretary OF State that The two last nstaments were
! paid, and
would thereafter be prompt in meeting engage
under the treaty than it had heretofore been and
should otherwise, il viii be owing 10 real ina
bty raise the means"
And in letter dated July O. 1915. he says that in an
interview with Santa Anna on the 18th OF September
'c assured him that ne caused arrangements be
made which would enable the meet the flu
ture instruments promptly as they fell dae."
| And Santa Anna himself in letter to Charles Cal
aghan of New York, dated Havana November 49, ls45,
declares
the treasury the period when he entered into
| II
whole nations that each and every OF the ci,ize
sh9ald conlro,e acoang 10 has means to NE pay nent OF
| Our recognition of the independence of Texas
righu and gave just OF complaint to Mexico
She IN fact independent and whether so de Jre or
not il was not for us 10 inquire But less the
right of Mexico, if she deemed proper, TO continue her
with Texas till it should be terminated BY satisfac
tory treaty of peace. And our treaty Obligations OF
friendship with Mexico were incompatible with an
alliance with her enemy, much more with her ncorpora-
ton into the Union
administration in 1897, when the first proposition
made for the annexation OF Texas:
80 long, said Mr.; Forsyth, in his answer TO General
Hunt, las Texas shall remain at war while the United
the Texan minister penpoIentiaIy necessarily involves
States bound Mexico by treaty of ami,y and
merce, which will be scrnpulousy observed their part
so long reasonably hoped that Mexico will per
form her duties and respect our rights under it. The
United States might Justly be suspected OF disreg ard OF
the iriendy purposes of the compact if the overture
General Hunt be reserved for future
sderation, as this would imply deposition part 10
espouse The quarrel Texas with Mexco-a disposition
wholly with the spirit OF the treaty-with the
uniform policy and the obvious welfare Of the United
States"
When in 1915, the United States regardless of these
considerations and OF the remonstrances OF the Mexican
minister, identified her interests with those OF Texas,
while the latter republic at war with Mexico IT can
be denied that Mexico had some cause to suspend her
diplomatic intercourse. The grievances OF which she
complained deeply felt by her peope-the more
deeply because the avowed object of the United States
perpetuae the domain OF slavery over the immense
and fertile regions which Mexico had declared should be
forever free. This clearly avowed in all the cor
respondence OF government with the public Junction
aries of Texas and, indeed it distinctly declared by
Mr. Upshur then Sencretary OF State, his letter to MIR
Murphy of the Sh OF August 1S43 that few calamtes
could bea this country 10 be depored than the abo
ltion, under British influence, of domestic slavery in
Texas
What could be adapted in higher degree to excite feel
ings of deep and settled hostility the minds OF the Mex
lean people, than witness the consummation OF the
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF their republic by the annexation OF
Texas to the Union for such caused
Yet, Notwithstanding the continued between Mex
leo and the right OF Mexico to
Tesubugate Texas, if she could had been distinctly
knowledged by our government-he annexation oil
Fexas deemed important for the protection OF the
peculiar institutions of the South that the United States
willing to effect il the hazard OF war. Its
value deemed incaculable, and the emergency too
| pressing to wait for consent.
But though the of Texas gave just cause OF
complaint to Mexico, as an act incompatible with our
treaty stpuatons, 1t did not my opinion create though
it gave occasion for the which exists between
Mexico and the United States Texas, from the time OF
her annexation ceased to be power capable OF holding
relations OF peace Her separate existence
merged in the Union; and it was for Mexico 10 decide
whether she would regard measure which deprived her
of the power of resubugang her revotcd province or OF
treating with her on the terms of separation act oil
war on our part or not
She had substantial interest in thus holding on to her
revoted province; for Mexico at that time indebted
to vast amount, amount estimated by MIR. Sdell at
one hundred and fifty millions of dollars, and Texas,
member of The confederacy, was justly bound Tor her
SHARE as well as for the claims of our citizens most
of which originated long anterior to the separation OF
Texas BY the annexation of Texas and her ncorpora
ton into this Union, the necessary result was that she
Al - has