The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-08-28


proceeding authorized by law in that country
kEolcn to your statute book" Mr.. STEPHENS
is too good a lawyer not to know that there are
laws in abundance not known to the statute
book, and that no such restriction as that they
should be found on its pages is contained in the
statutes making it the duty of the PRESIDENT
to secure their observance. The law of ma
tons is not found upon the statute books, yet its
provisions are none the less deemed obligatory
upon the Federal Government and upon the
States 1t is regarded like the hnc merchant, as
part Of the common, unwrtten, or as 10 most APP
prehensions it would be more ineligible to say,
unenacted, law Of each of them. BY virtue Of
It's provisions, the laws Of New Mexico, as
subjugated province, continue in force until
superseded by the Legislation of the conqueror
They are laws, by the acquiescence Of the
Federal Legislature, as eiiectually as if trans
ferred to its statute books. OF course it is un-
necessary for us here to examine, which Of
them, as political in their character may be
overruled by our Constitution. 1t suflices
that any are left, such, for example, as those
regulating the acquisition and transmission Of
real property, in respect to which no question
is Inooted
Are not these and others of the same nature
in force in New Mexico to the same extent, and
with as high claims to the support of the En-
ecutive, as if they were translated and incor-
porated word for word into the blue covered
volume of session laws annually sent forth from
the press of the public printer These laws
have, in point Of fact, been quietly administer
ed at Santa Fe, and the proposition to establish
the jurisdiction of Texas is a proposition to
dispace them and substitute the laws of that
Slate--to displace judicial tribunals existing
under the ancient law of New Mexico, and
substitute those holding the commission of
Texas. Is not this opposing and obstructing
the laws of the United States? Is it any an
swer to reply, as Mr.. STEPHENS does, Con
gress as yet have provided no government;
they have given the people there no law de-
fining rights, or courts for the redress of
wrongsW Is not the law the gift of Congress,
SO long as it continues, solely in virtue of its
permissve acquiescence, its refusal or inability
to give new law2
Mr.. AsHMUN showed, by quotations from the
speeches Of Mr.. Seldom and Mr.. INGE, that
the late President was charged by them with
superseding laws which he was bound to
maintain, by reason of his imputed respon-
sibility for the conduct of the people of
California in establishing a new government.
The laws of California were no different in re-
spect to their obligation from those of New
Mexico. 1t is true, that in the case of Califor-
MIA there was no opposing claim to override
these laws by the code of State. But in the
remarks Of Mr.. STEPHENS, to which we have
referred, he takes no such distinction and urges
his objection as applicable, if New Mexico is
conceded to be Territory of the United States
In that point of view we consider it answered
If these views are sound, as we think Them
there is no necessity for discussing the effect of
the treaty in relation TO the PRESIDENTS duty
The point made by Mr. STEPHENS under this
head is, that the PRESIDENT cannot assume
the fulilment of its obligations, when those
obligations do not rest upon him alone, but upon
the Government, in all lis departments. The
treaty is guarantee of protection to the New
MeXicans in the free enjoyment Of their liberty
and property, prior to and until the time, 'to
be judged of by the Congress of the United
States" that they shall be admitted to all the
rights Of citizens. Mr. STEPHENS says:
"The obligations Of this treaty as to the rights of
liberty, property, and religion on the part of the
Mexicans, rest not upon the President alone, but
upon the Government of the United States-he
idic- making, The lar. eIpotnding, and The lao
erecuting potous conformity. The law making power
must first speak. Laws defining rights and wrongs
must be first passed. Courts must be instituted TO
expound those laws, and marshals must be duly
appointed TO execute their mandates. And if the
execution Of the laws thus passed be opposed by
combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the
ordinary Of judicial proceeding thus sstab.
lshed, then, and not fH then, would the President
be justified, under existing laws, to resort to the
military force for the protection Of the rights
cured by that article Of the treaty"
Can Mr.. STEPHENS mean that there are no
rights Of liberty and property in New Mexico
until they are created or defined by Congressl
Are these words without meaning till Con
gress shall aflix onel Did Mexico stpulate for
something which signifies more. OF less, OF no
thing, according to the Interpretation which the
Legislative department of the power with which
she was contracting might adopt? The argu
ment comes 10 nothing, as it seems 10 us, unless
these questions can be answered in the aflirma.
tive. Grant that the treaty imposed duty up
on all the departments of our Government as
Mr.. STEPHENS emphatically puts it's that
any reason why the ,c-crecUting po,cer should
withhold the discharge Of any portion Of that
duty to which it is competent, without the pre-
sent assistance Of the others indeed, but in vir-
tue Of powers previously conferred by the lie
gisature.
FLY the suggestion that laws must be passed
defining rights and wrongs, il is meant that
there are no laws till laws are enacted by Con-
gress, we come back to the point from which we
started. Mr.. AsHMUN showed, we think. very
clearly, that il the argument of Mr.. STEPHENS
is carried to a legitimate conclusion. the Ex-
ecutive could not at the present moment inter
nose fpr tho nrnfecfiot nf tho nh ,C