The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1858-02-03

Stephens Of Georgia.
The House having resolved itself into the
Committee Of the Whole on the state ofthe
Union, and resumed the consideration OF the
Presidents annual message r.F-
Mr.. MONTGOMERY said: -....-,.
! Mr.. CHAIRMAN: | rise not for the purpose Of
indulSing in declanatIon, but simply to discuss,
in legal manner, the points which have been in
controversy before this committee. The ven
! cradle gentleman from Mississippi Mr.. Quit
man, distinguished alike for his military glory
and his ability as a statesman, has assumed the
position upon this floor. that the law of nations
does not prevent our citizens from ban,ling them
selves together 10 invade the territories of other
nations with which we are at peace. From that
position entirely dissent. lie also contends
that the Constitution OF the United States does
rot grant to Congress any power whatever to
pass law to prevent our citizens from these
aggreSsons. From this also dissent. enter
my protest against both these positions They
are not correct. 1t is Strange doctrine for
statesman to advocate, that when we have con-
cluded a treaty of peace with another nation,
that treaty is binding only on our Government
and not upon our people; that the treaty ofpeact
amounts only to compact which binds the
powers Of this Government, but not the powers
of the people. maintain that the true doctrine
is that wheI oar Government is at peace with q
nation, every citizen is also at peace with that
nation; that what the nation cannot do no citi-
zen can do. Sd .Ett r.. ..
The Government Of theUnted States cannot
invade the territories Of that nation, nor can any
citizen Of this Government invade them. The
treaty of peace is as broad as the nation and EN-
braces every individual in il; and not only every
citizen but every resident Of the country is bound
by that treaty ofpeace. Nobody has any more
right to Violate it than the nation ITSELF
The gentleman says that the Government has
no right to interfere in the case of individuals
who go from one country to attack ano' her ma
ton. deny it. say that this nation is bound
fol. every individual init who attempts acts of
hostility against n nation ith which we are at
peace If man in Canada should arm himself
and pass into our border with the intention Of
attacking our countrymen and violating the peace
Of the land it would lie as much the duty ofthe
authorities Of Canada to en- force as if that man
had arrayed around him thousand men, armed
like himself We are bound Cor the act of every
citizen within our limits Every individual
within our limits is bound by our treaties OF
peace; and when We are at peace with a nation
every individual under the Government is also at
peace with it. No one has rights as an indi
vidual which we have not as nation; aud we
have none as a nation which do not belong TO
each one as an individual. -............ ..
| 1t would be Il m0nStrOuS and DANGEROUS doc
trIne, indeed, 10 promtltga il this Union, that
when we are at peace with another nation, cur
citizens can band themselves together TO attack
| that nation notwithstanding ,hc treaty ofpeace.
1t would I've Il monStrouS doctrine 10 teach that
one MN, or twenty men, OF cn'rhouSand men,
or tile vast millions Who people our extended
domains can arm thcm>elyes, with the gentle.
inan as their leader, liyou please, and mach in
I 4 body to attack ancighboIiug nation with which
we have treaty Of peace. | care not, however,
whether there is a t1eq'y Of peace existing be-
tween us ami that nation or not; il matters noth-
ing in the argument. Peace is the natural con.
liton Of q Lation; it is the natural relation
which one nation bears TO another, and war is
the unnatural condition. And whether there is
a treaty or not, still our citizens have not the
| right, unless there iS a declaration Of war, to
nlrch armed bands into another country to
violate its laws and make war upon its citizens
! Mr.. QUIpMAN. Will the gentleman from
Pennsylvania permit me for a momeut to state
that took no such position. contend simply
for his position; that it is no violation, where
there peace between two nations, for an ind-
vidual, or for Il number Of individuals, to commit
hostility against the individuals of the other ma;
tion-not against the nation itself. And Task
the gentleman if lie recognizes the authority oi
Vattcl, one of the abest writers on the ktw of
nations? lie says book 2, chap, Z, sec. 10;
"Ihe quarrels OF ofaHether cannot deprive me Of
the free dspost on OF my..rghts in the pursuit Of
measures which | judge advantageous to my
country. Therefore when 1t is custom in a
nation in order for employing and exercising its
subjects, to permit levies of troops in favor ola
| Power in whom it is pleased to confde, the en-
elny fthis Power cannot call these pormissiqns
| hostilties." " ole cannot
even claim, with any right, that the like should
be granted him." NC. ai* H#, - =
"'rhe Switzers grant levies, Of troops to whom
they please, and nobody has thought proper to
quarrel with them on this head" @'"
Mr., MONTGOMERY. In reply to the gen
tleman from Mississippi, / beg leave to read rurb
er from the same book. The only difference
between us is, that the gentleman did not read
far enough npon the page. If. he had read far
enough he would have found the doctrine was
con.ending for, and that the law ofnati6ns does
not sustain the position lie assumes. IIc says:
'"Sec.72. Bat, on the other hand, the nation
or the sovereign ought not to suffer the itzens
to do any injury to the subjects ofanother State,
much less to offend that State itself; and this,
not only because no soverei IN ought to permit
those who arc under his command to violate the
precepts Of the law ofnature, which forbids all
Iinjuries,-but also because nations ought mu
tualiy to respect each other, to abstain from all
oflense, from all injury, from all wrong--in a
word, from everything that may be ofprejudice
to others. II a sovereign, who might keep his
subjects within the rules OF justice and peace,
suffers them to inure a foreign nation, either in
its body or it's members, he does no less injury
to that nation than il he injured it himself b In
short, the safety ofthe State and that of human
Tsociety, requires this attention from every SOW
Eereigh. lfyou loose the reinS to your subjects
Easainst foreign nations these will behave III the
same manner to you; and, instead of that friend
Ilyinterc0urse which nature has establishedsbe
tween all men, we Shall see nothing butYone vast
and dreadful scene of plumber between, nation
and natonn oi i1lssE1 s"o4!s '"ll "oa''I'
4 Iadopt the language ofthc learned writero
the law ofnatlons as my reply to the gentleman
from Mississippi. The paragraph quoled by thS
Egentleman from Mississippi from The law Of ma
tons refers TO cases where such custom as i
spokencofinthe extract has grown up Tht
general law is the very opposite. He squotess'
Especial exception, and - reply ON the genera
rule, Now,sir, weshaye ihtylaw Of nations up
Ion, the subject That being the positio we 40
Il clpy towards Nicaragua, the, question arises
what rights and power have other nations wliict
are notgaarahtiedtto us byeoar Constitutional
Issit possible, as,e isy eontendel 9orao thatsthi
mighty nation l. an sFesptiqnit 70 sather s spa
4 tons on tho globe, and has not the CONSTITUTION
al power to enforce the law Of nations? fsit pos
sible that American d zons can Stand ,nRon III
~ w. ~. ~