The daily national Whig. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1847-1849, 1849-02-13
THE PROTOCOL.

TIL II PROTOCOL.
We are inclined to think, 50 far as we
have examined the subject, the Protocol
does not, in any way, modify or change the
provisions of the Treaty. 1t seems to be
reduction to writing of the assent Of Mexico,
to the explanations made by Mr. Buchanan
OF the amendments, for we cannot find IN
the protocol any ideas differing from those
in Mr. Buchanan's despatch. The two pa
pers are substantially the same, and we think,
il was probably intended they should be.
No objection seems to be made by any body
to Mr., Buchanan's despatch to the Mexican
government, explaining the amendments, as
tending in any particular TO modify or change
the amended treaty, and we do not see how
the Protocol, which is substantially the same,
can modify or change it.
The proceeding is, We confess, somewhat
irregular Protocols usually precede the
action OF governments upon treaties, They
embody the conversations and agreements of
the negotiators Of treaties, and go before the
act that sanctions them. This Protocol might
be more properly called "a Metacol, but be
it dsnominated what it may be, il is evident,
that it is writing embodying the under
standing which the Commissioners Of the
United States and the Mexican Foreign
Secretary had, Of the operation and effect Of
the amendments made to the treaty by the
American Senate The question is,-does
it differ in its provisions from the explana,
| tons given by Mr. Buchanan We repeat,
we cani.ot see, so far a. our examination OF
the question has gone, that it does differ in
any Particular
| But, be il an important Of All unimPortant
paper, il will be asked, why was it not sub
mitted to the American Senate by the Anne
rican President, before he proclaimed the
treaty 10 be the law of the andi The Pres
ident, il seems, did not consider il necessary
to do so, and as he was the sole constitution
al Judge Of the question, il will be for the
House Of Representatives to decide, whether
he judged lawfully and rightiully or not =
For ourselves, we are satisfied with The ex-
PLANTATION he has made 10 the House, for not
communicating the Protocol to the Senate,
because It COMFORTS, so far as we have been
able to examine tue case, with what we con-
ceire to be the true character OF the Proto-
col. But, while we are satisfied that there
was no necessity for submitting il to the SEN
ate, we think that the President would have
done well to have laid It before that body,
Judging with the lights before US. We like
to see each department. Of the government
defer, as much as possible, to each other, in
all things, wherein the combined assent Of
two or more departments is necessary to the
consummation Of a public act. If it be the
unimportant paper which the President con-
tends it is, and which we think it is, so far
as we have been able to look into the mat
ter, ii could not have done any harm to let
the Senate know that which had been done;
but the President judged it to be proper not
to send it to the Senate, and the burden Of
responsibility is upon his shoulders. The
House Of Representatives is capable Of ludg-
ing in their turn, whether the responsibility
was rightly assumed or not, 1t is their duty
to do So.
So soon as all the papers are presented in
a connected form with the original treaty and
with the amendments, we shall take up the
subject with view to inquire more closely,
whether there be really any conflict between
the protocol and the amendments, and in or
der 10 let the reader Judge for himself, we
shall publish parallelism Of the rejected
articles, the substituted amendments, the
protocols understanding Of the latter and Mr.
Buchanan's explanations Of them, But, as
at present advised we think with Mr. Web
ster, that nothing has occurred to change OF
modify or nullify the treaty.