The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-08-10

The Union returns to the examination Of the
Presidents message and the letter OF. the Sec
rotary of State in answer to Governor BELL,
treating them for that purpose as one document.
1t valves any extended criticism upon their
style, contenting itself with the statement upon
this head, that they are ''not very superior In
any respect to the State papers which emanated
from the cabinet of General TAYLOR" This,
doubtless, is intended as mild condemnation.
Taking it in that sense, and regarding it as
even more charitable judgment than its
thor, perhaps, in the plenitude of his good ma
ture, intended, controversy on the point may be
declined without depreciating the literary abil-
ity Of either cabinet.
The Union comes to the substance of the
matter by an inquiry into the cases in which
the Executive has the power conferred on him
by the Constitution to call forth the militia.
These are to execute the laws of the Union, to
suppress instructions, and repel lnvasions. 1t
chooses to take the cases in the inverse order,
and thinks that the power, in the contingency
contemplated, cannot be found in the last be
cause, it says, no one pretends that the United
States will be invaded if Texas endeavors to
extend her authority to the Rio Grande. This
must be upon the supposition, by the Union,
that the word invasion is necessarily restricted
in its Specification to the incursion of hostile
force from the exterior.
This is probably It's primary, perhaps It's only
Legitimate sense Taking it so, let us see how
the Constitution bears upon the action of
State. We dislike to refer TO any particular
State, or to specify the particular acts which
could alone bring Texas within the scope of
those Executive duties which this discussion
turns upon. We dislike both, because the
question ought not TO be complicated with any
sectional or local feeling, and because, even if
those measures now under consideration in Con-
gress, 10 obviate all chance of the danger,
should fail, we should still have confidence that
the things of which we must speak would never
pass from hypothesis into action.
The Constitution provides that no State
shall, without the consent of Congress, keep
troops or ships of war in time of peace. OF en-
gage in war unless actually invaded or in such
imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
This is the supreme law Of the Union, with
the execution of which, as well as of its less
solemn laws, the Executive stands charged
The reference to il affords key 10 the reasons
which influence the Union in inverting the
order Of the cases of Executive interp0sition
from their constitutional enumeration. We
may parody the language Of the Union
and say; no one pretends that the State
Of Texas is invaded or in imminent danger Of
it, Even if the inhabitants of New Mexico
were TO levy military force, with intent to
dispute the claim of Texas, the latter could
not, in the sense 10 which the Union restricts
the term, be regarded as in danger of invasion.
The case would then arise, if Texas should
be found to keep troops OF 10 engage in war,
in which the PRESIDENT is required to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed
VIII it be said that marching an army across
the staked plains, with every imminent and
preparation for hostilities with every opposer,
is not engaging in war; II it be not, then
the case does not arise in which the public
force could be called upon to act, and as
I'll the last step is taken that is necessary
10 make an actual engagement in war. Bot
there must be point which il is painful
to scrutinize about, OF TO imagine as being
reached, where war would exist, unless in the
particular case distinction may be taken on
the score that the proceedings were incidents
in the suppression Of an insureetigr. We are
not called 10 dispute that a State has the right
TO suppress an nsuuection within its scknow-
lodged limits and Jurisdiction, although it may
require large armies and desperate battles, with
out justifying Federal interpositiou except up.
on its own invitation.
But insuuection, in its very etymoogy, i'm
plies a rising against an existing power actually
in operation over and controlling the insurgents
This cannot be prcdcated Of the people about
Santa re with any more propriety than those
on the opposite side Of the Rio Grande. If they
are in instruction against Texas now, they
were so before the Mexican war. Can people
be put into insuuection against power which.
whatever its rghtful authority may be, has
never been exerted over thefnl There was
time when the legislature of Texas extended its
boundaries TO the Pacific. The law was ar
rested by the veto Of General Houston Sup
pose it to have received his sanction, would it
have placed the inhabitants Of the east bank Of
the Rio Grande in the attitude of insurrcction?
But what more has actually been done to affect
the condition of those who live in New Mexicol
The Union says that no one pretends that il
the State Of Texas should attempt 10 extend her
authority to the Rio Grande, it will be case
Of insurrection under the Constitution. We
suppose this meant the upper waters Of the
Rio Grande in the neighborhood of Santa
Re. In that case something might depend
upon the mode by which the attempt should