The republic., 1851-09-12


be supreme, or abandon the idea of sovereign
ty. So much for foreign States.
On what ground is il that we condemn the
conduct and course of the abolitionists and the
Northern "sympathizers" who believe in law
higher than the Constitution, and propose to
apply it to the internal affairs of the slavehold-
ing States? 1t is simply the ground of non-in-
reference. In common parlance, because it is
none of their business. They have nothing to
do with them. Good fellowship and good
neighborhood demand that they should let their
brethren alone, independently of all constitution
al provisions. In the relations in which the
States stand to each other, and the residuary
sovereignty in their domestic affairs which the
States retain, it would be violation of good
neighborhood to interfere in these matters, if
the Constitution had failed to recognise and to
contemplate the existence OF the domestic in
stitution to which we refer. Still more imper.
alive becomes the duty when the Constitution
is expressly framed with the fullest recognition
of its existence, and the implied admissions all
through the instrument that slavery in the
States is the business of the State in which it ex-
lists, and that other States have nothing further
TO do with it than to fulfil the constitutional
obligations imposed on them Of the extradition
of fuglives.
| If this doctrine of non interference is sound
among confederated States, bound together for
and regulated by a common Constitution, a for
tiori is it sound with regard TO other nations OF
the world, Of different manners, morals, insti-
tutions, and forms of government, with whom
we have only such relations as are created
| by the general law of the world, or by
have treaty, and this treaty stipulates, in the
first article, that "there shall be firm and in
vioable peace and sincere friendship between
his Catholic majesty, [of Spain, his success
sors and subjects, and the United States, and
their citizens, withoaa exception Of persons
and places" This treaty is made, by the
Constitution, the g SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND" 1t operates directly as the su-
preme law on every citizen of this republic,
| and binds him to an inviolable peace and a
sincere friendship, not only with the subjects
of the Spanish crown, but with her Catholic
majesty of SPAIN. IL the statute of 1918 were
repealed tomorrow, such expeditions as those
of LOPEZ would still be in violation Of the su-
preme law. They could not be justified on the
ground that other nations have winked at such
expeditions--or that they are not opposed to the
law of nations-because they are opposed to our
l., tba =.
SO plain, positive, and peremptory as to require
no gloss or commentary to render it inteligible
to every man who can read.
| But there is another portion of our treaty
with SPAIN, the treaty of 1895, whose provi-
| sions, with certain exceptions, were incorpo-
rated by adoption in our treaty of 1919, to
which we desire to call the attention Of the
country:
"ARTIcLE XIV. No subject of his Catholic
majesty shall apply for, or take any commits
sion or letter of marque, for arming any ship
or ships to act as privateers against the said
United States, or against the citizens, people,
or inhabitants of the said United States, or
against the property of any of the inhabitants
of any Of them, from any prince or State with
| which the said United States shall be, at war.
Nor shall any citizen, subject, OF inhabitant
Of the said United States apply for or take any
commission or letters of marque for armng
6 any ship or ships to act as privateers against
the subjects of his Catholic majesty or any of
them, from any prince or State with which
the said king shall be at war. And if any
4 person of either nation shall take such com
missions or letters of marque, he shall be pun
isited as q pirate"
| 1t was not deemed necessary to stipulate in
detail that our own citizens should not be per-
mitted to fit out hostile expeditions to cruise
| against the subjects or the government Of SPAIN.
1t was not deemed necessary to include spe-
officially in the above prohibition the carrying
on of an armed expedition from our own shores
against the territories of SPAIN, or the accept
ance of a commission from man known only
| to her laws a rebel and traitor. Those
cases were provided for by the first article of
the treaty But when the supreme law of our
country denounces as "pirates" men who in
times of war accept commissions, or letters of
marque, from nation hostile to SPAIN, what
would be its language in regard to men who in
| time of peace accept commissions from SPAN
lsH outlaw, and commence hostilities under no
flag except that of rebellion and treason against
a sovereign to whom they were bound to OBJ
serve sincere friendship and "inyiolable
peaceW
Grant to the sympathzers" all that they
have contended for. Admit if you please that
the law Of 1918 is too harsh and stringent in its
provisions, and ought to be modified or repealed
Admit that the modern custom of nations, if not
| the law Of nations, winks at and tolerates the
fitting out of armed expeditions to take sides in
the domestic struggles of foreign States in a
| condition of civil war. Admit that a civil war
was raging in CUBA, that our ''sympathizing"
countrymen had knowledge of this fact, and that
LOPEZ had been invited, or had volunteered to
take sides with the party opposed to the reign
ing government. Admit all this-imagine a
state of facts and of law applicable to them, en-
tirely different from the reality, and the sym
pathizers do not advance a step towards
I. IL -