The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-06-18

the arguments adduced in favor of the Ameri-
can title upon two grounds: First, upon the
general proposition that no Washington news
paper can express an impartial opinion where
the public printing is one side and the pub
lie interest on the other. The second. that the
right of the United States to Mesilla Valley
has been relinquished by the act of its commits
Sion confirming the boundary.
This general proposition having been in tho
present case Limited to ''the Union of last Sat
which, with three -fourths Of it's adj
Veft'sements to be paid for from the Federal
treasury, and Its editors paid from the scan-
dalous profits OF the Congressional prictinu-
undertakes to correct and resuke the Tri-
67ae with respect to 'the Mesilla Bound
sfy.' We have left to that journal the
task OF reeonciing its duties as public journal
with Its alleged obligations as stipendiary.
For ourselves, We are content to leave the
patriotism of our opinions to be determined NV
lhe iac's and arguments adduced to support
them.
we may remind the Tribune. however. that
paper which, like itself, is the acknowledged
organ OF sectional party, $50 fax as its own
popularity or profits depend upon the patronage
Oh the sectional sentiment Of which it is the ex-
Pohent-llaole to the same imputations which
II SO gratultousy bestows upon others.
But we differ with the Tribune as to the
rights and interests of the country so far as
they may be involved in the Mesilla question.
We also differ with the Tribune as to the
obligations OF the Government in regard to that
question, and we differ in relation to the i'm
Portance of the territory in dispute
We think that the sympathies of the United
States for Mexico have been abused. Mexico
Is weak power, and we should do her no in
justice. But the whole history of our relations
with that nation shows that she has occasioned
US more diplomatic difficulty than almost every
other nation. This may be all our own fault
But the complaints of our citizens from very
early period, the notorious insecu rity of pro-
perty and life In Mexico, with the instability
OF her government, raise fair presumption
that, although she may be weaker power than
ourselves, 1t does not follow that she should be
always right; nor will an imputation of being
IN the wrong necessarily rest upon our Gov
eminent for differing with Mexico in the in
depreciation of an international question
We differ also with the Tribune in its con-
structlon of the patriotic maxim, sour coun-
try, always right; but our country, right or
wrong" We do not consider it the maxim of
''s ruffan." Patriotism at once reconciles, as
1t has occasioned, the apparent inconsistency
OF the sentiment. Is not the maxim perfectly
just! When the period arrives that we must
support or oppose the action of our country, we
must side with it or against it. In such war
every nOn-cOmbatant is an enemy. When a
contest arises with another power the particu.
lar dispute is merged IN the general obligation
of every good citizen to defend his country
He may have deemed her wrong in the origi-
nal dispute, but when her honor or existence
are menaced, his absolute obligations supersede
his particular opinions upon the merits of the
contest.
Have we no illustrations of the obligation to
sustain sour country, right or wrong2" 1t is
we'll known that there were, previous to the
last war with England, many misguided per-
and even criminal on the part of the United
States. Yet when the war commenced many of
those persons became the most resolute advo-
Gates of It's vigorous prosecution. Now, if our
country was "wrong" in commencing the war,
1t must have been equally so in pursuing it.
The purists, therefore, who condemned the
first act, could not, in consistency, have ap-
proved any subsequent one.
The opposition of many Wings to the origin
of the Mexican war proves the meaning Of the
maxim which the Tribune condemns 1t is
believed that there were as many Wing as
Democratic soldiers engaged in that war; nor
was there any attempt to embarrass the Gov
eminent by any want of legislative co-opera-
tiOn on the part of the Wing party, which
voted all the supplies necessary for carrying on
the conflict.
But II 1t be wrong to support our country
without regard to the justice of her position,
Is 1t not equally wrong to oppose the action
of her constitutional agents in the same indis-
criminate manner2 We infer that such is the
position of the Tribune in regard to the Me
silla question, because, as we shall subsequent
ly show, Its argument does not maintain the
proposition, and because the motive attributed
to the United States in contending for the dis
Puted territory is rapacious appetite for the
territory of our neighbor. This is shown by
the suggestion wouldn't it be grand specu.
latlon to get up another foreign war in order
To enlarge by a narrow strip on the south the
area of this delightful Possesson?"
Shall we add another reason for doubling the
imPartiality of the Iribtne2 We do not re-
member that it advocated the position taken by
the Department of the Interior under the ad-
ministration Of Mr.. FILLMORE, when the sub
Ject was before the Senate and the action of
the Department condemned. We therefore
affirm the general principle that indiscriminate
opposition to the acts of a government because
1t may be administered by our political oppo-
nents is alike wanting in patriotism and in
wisdom. We have stated our argument upon
the first, and we deem it obnoxious to the
second objection, because we must therefore be
often placed on the wrong side, and may incur
the irnnutsfion of beinU more uDder the in fIu-