The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-02-19

Justiiying the supposiion that Mexico Inleadrd 10
imrair IN he slightest degree the rights OF Iatis-
dua's, either gal or equitable, perfect iachc4te
10 prop rty Of any kind IA the territories ", whra
tne treaty was negotiated, il had been proposed
10 Mexico 10 coutiscate by il, or 10 sanction the
conhscsuon by legislation { the Gnited SAFES.
perry, equitable or legal, of Mexican citizens
or others in these countries, and vest the pro.
perty so eonfscsted IN the United States, such
proposition would have been secuted as infa.
nous. If such stipulation had been inserted in the
treaty by the negoiiators, il would have been lu-
stantly expunged with scorn by The United States
Senate, when the treaty was submitted for its ad-
vice and consent as 10 les ratit cation Such proyi-
sion would have shocked the moral sense OF the
civilized portion of mankind. So tar from any thing
being iIferrable sgainst claimants to lands in the
ceded territories from the striking of the 10Th
article of the treaty by the Senate, and so far from
anything being found in the treaty az ratified usti
tying Congress for The passage Of any law impair
ing or iDiurlously affecting the titles of Mexican
grantees TO their landed possessions, of unustly
molestipg or disturbing those who were permissve
occupants of lands without written grants anterior
TO the sson, the entire treaty. (and especially the
Slh end 9th artcles) displays the manifest inten-
lion of both parties TO protect all the rights Of in
dviduals TO property IN those territories according
10 the Mexican laws. The two articles specified
contain no less than three distinct clauses, by
which the faith and homer Of the United States Is
solemnly pbghttd for the prote ction and security
of those rights. Article eighth declares
Mexicans now established in territories previously
belonging to Mexico and which remain for the
within the Limits of the United Btatee, As defined
by the present treaty shall b free to continue where
they reide or to remove at any time TO the Mex
lean republic retaining ne property ~hich hsy posessf
IN The sdts territories dposrIs thereof an removing
the proceeds where they please without their being
susected on that account TO any contributions tax
And, sgsin, the 81 clause says
In the said territories property Of every kind now
"ssy rss,1eted RI. present owners. sss heir. Of
these, and all MexieAns who may hereafter acquire
said property BY contract, shall enjoy wit respect to
it, guarsntees sQusy ample il the belonged to
cit zsps of the United States.
The 9th article declares that
M.xcsns who in the territories aforesaid shall not
preserve the character OF citizens of the Ne xcan
public 70 what Is stipulated in the pre-
c.dng article stAl be incorporates into the union
time be judged Of by the Congress OF the United
sates to the enjoyment Of all the rights Of citizens
constitution; In The meantime shat be maintained
aud protected in free e. ymtnt n their liberty aud
PEI and securtd in the tree exercise Of their religion
without reetriction.
These provisions are but de c.aratory Of an in
accordance with. the established precepts Of the
laws of nations. The Supreme Court OF the United
States has declared in several cases, that without
any express stipulation for the protection of private
rights of property in treaty of cession the laws
Of nations would sford full protection TO indivi-
dusls. In the case of the United States vs. Sou
lard, Peters, 81, that Court says
by the treaty By which Louisiana acquired
the United States stipulated that the iohsbitsuts OF
ded territories SHOULD protected the rree
enjoy mt Of their property The United States as
just nation regard this stipulation as the avo~a OF
principle uhish touid hare been held equally sacred
aHho. gh ii nod MOI been inserted in the hsoty.n
The term property, as applied to lands, comprs'
b. n6s eey speties 0 tie, inehoafe complete IL Is
.upeoe.d TO mbrsce those rights which lie in
tract those which are .xecufory, as " ell those
~bs executed. In this respect, the relations OF
the inbsbitsnts of Louisiana to their is
rot changed. The new government takes the place OF
that which has passed away
So in DE- lassus W.. The United States 9 Peters.
H.
The stipulstions Of the treaty ceding Louisiana to
the Usited States soT ding that protection securi
ty TO elaine under the FreLch or Spanish government
to which the set OF Congress refers In the first
sscopd and third articles They extended to all pro.
perty until l.u,isia bees me INT mber OF he Unen;
into which The sbshts were TO be Incorporated
,oon Yossiole eLd admitted to all the rights, sd
vaptagss in munities Of citizens Of the United
States. The perfect inviolability and security Of
property IL smoDg the re rights
The sht Of property l. protected and secured by
the treaty and principle lie better settled in this
country, this that an ineoa, s 70 lands % properly
tisr ght would have been facred Independent OF the
The ,svsr.Igu Who acquires an inhabited coun-
try acquires full dominion over it, but this dominion
supposed TO divsst the vested rights OF ind
viduss to property. The lar gusgs OF the treaty
cedirg bouirars, 'xcladss airy idea Ct Interfering
So in Mitchell ct al vs.. United States, 9 Peters.
III
whi had bee pre- ented to the superior court OF
Middle Florids under the provisions of the acts Of
Congress for the .elemt mt OF land claims in Florida
that the grantee did Lot acquire under the Indian
grants iegGi title to the land Held, that the acts
OF Congress submit these claims to the sdjudics
Of this court a court Of equity; snd taose acts as
otter ard uniformly construed In its repeated tecs
on, confer the ,ame Jurisdiction over tapsrsct, in
hoqfs :, nc,pf,,. ufss. Lgal and perfect and
r.ouir. the court TO decide by The same rules on all
claims submit.ed 10 IL whSih.r legal or equitable
Also in United States vs. Percheman, Peters,
5l:-
Even in cares Of conquest, II is very unusual for
the conQu.ror to do than 10 diplac. the sove-
reign and assume dominion over the country. The
mtdsrn ufage Of nations w"ich has become lav
would be violated that esnse OF justice and Of sht
which lie 6ckno~l.ds, and felt by the whole civilized
h. s,perslIy a,eat.d and private raht. annuled
change In the sovereignty Of the country by the
Fierida treaty The people change their aiiesnsnes
their relation to their ancient sovereign dissolved
but their relations to each other and their rights OF
property !, main updistuibsd. Had Florida changed
it's cove reign by sct coptainirg stipulation re-
sp.cting the pre- p.ry of individuals the right Of pro-
prrty In all those Who became subjects or citizens OF
the n.w government would have been unaffected by
tn. change. IL would have remains ed the same as
under the ancient sovereign,
"rhe Language Of the second article OF the treaty
between the United States and Spain Of the 2ld FEB
rusry 1919 by which Florida was cedsd TO the United
Stste., conforms 10 this general principle
,,,...Iv Ear m. sscnyiiy 10 private pro.
p.rty which the iers and us1ges ~ nations w1nid igih
evf tgrress stipulation hare conferred construction
ro,itivs yords rsquire would seen TO be admissible
without II, the titles Of individuals would remaia as
valid under tie new gcVrnments ~ they "tte uubcA
the old And III ZEE tiss 30 far at least they
might be asserted In the court, Of the
United ststes, Independently Of this article
See likewise, IL Peters, 4lo, Stroller vs Lucas.
By the federsI cons tituton, the treaty l. the SUI
pft me law Coneress cannot rightfully enact any
law avoiding ansl evaoing the fair and honest and
faithful iulh mtnt 81 its stpulatlohs above qao'ee,
according 10 their spirt. The ueay - 70 os eA
rounded, ard is TO be execute and sustained, &C.
corcirp TO the laws of nations. Congress cannot
rghtfully enact any law With respect 10 The coun-
tres acquired by The rtsty, contrary 70 The laws
If nations. such acts would be null and void.
Tt rights of properly made inviolable BY the laws
OF NATIONS; and which the United states are boun
to respect and protect by the Ieaiy, are not merely
what common law lawyers designate a. lega
rights, e., complete, perfected, vested, and aoso-
lutte titles, but equitable nights Gas they are
t,ru cd by the common law are also included
No statesman or juTist Of intelligence VII den
this, however common Law attorneys, IN or out OF
Conart ~, who have derived their learniag on such
subjects mostly from some nan pvtUs tade mtcum
,,.y he d,stosed 10 diScues the point. The CiyIl