Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-03-28

/
us toward Hayti, il would be right IN us toward
England, France or Spain; and it would be
| right in any foreign power toward us. If it
| were right in us toward Hayti, then might
England, France Spain or Hayti herself do
| the same to us. Imagine foreign fleet
anchored off Alexandria, while the admiral,
pulling ashore in his boat, hurries tC the execu-
tive mansion, and then, after announcing a
| friendly visit, points to his war ships, visible
| from the windows and menaces their thunder.
Or, TO be more precise, suppose the Haytien
navy to return the compliment here in the Po-
| tomac. But Just in proportion as we condemn
any foreign fleet, including Hayden fleet doing
| this thing, do we condemn ourselves. The case
| is clear. We did not treat Hayti as our peer.
| The great principle Of the equality of nations
we have openly set at naught 10 eXtenuate
this plainIouuage have heard it said that,Iin re-
lations with Hayti, we are not bound by the same
| rules of conduct applicable to other nations SO
| have heard, and this, indeed, is the only posi-
bic defence for the outrage. As in other days 1t
| was proclaimed that black had no rights
| which white man was bound to respect, so
| this defence assumes the same thing OF the
| black republic. But at last the black man has
obtained equal rights, and SO, | insist, has the
| black republic. AS well deny the one MS the
other. By an act of congress, drawn
by myself and approved by Abraham
Lincoln in the session OF 1862, diploma
tic relations were established between the
United States and Hayti, and the president was
expressly authorized to appoint diplomatic rep
resentatiyes there At first we were represented
by commissioner and the consul general; now
il is by q minister resident and consul general.
Thus, by act of congress and the appointment
ola minister, have we recognized the equal
| rights of Hayti in the family of nations, and
| placed the black republic under the safeguard
| of that great axiom of International law, which
makes it impossible for us to do unto her what we
would not allow her to do unto us. In harmo-
| ny with the United States, the Almanac de Go
tia, where is the authentic if not official list of
| nations entitled TO equal rights, contains the
| name of Hayti. Thus is the black republic en-
| rolled as an equal and yet have we struck at
| this equality. How often have pleaded that
| all men are equal before the law, and now |
| plead that all nations are equal before the law,
| without distinction Of color.
Applying these principles to existing facts al
ready set forth, it is easy to that the belliger
ent intervention of the United States in the in
ternal affairs of Dominica, maintaining the
uSurper Baez in power, especially against
| Cabral, was contrary TO acknowledged princi-
pies of international law aand, that the belliger
| ent intervention between Dominica and Hayti
| was of the same character. Imagine our navy
playing the same fantastic tricks on the coast of
France which 1t played on the coast OF st. Do
| mingo, and then still further, imagine it enter
ing the ports of France it entered the ports of
Hayti and you will see how utterly indelensibe
was its conduct. In the capital Of Hayti it COM
United an act of war, hardly less fragrant than
that of England at the bombardment of Copen-
| hagen. Happily blood was not shed, but there
| was an act of war, Here refer to the authori-
| ties already cited, and challenge contradiction.
| To vindicate these things, whether in Dominica
| or in Hayti, yo1 must discard all acknowledged
| principles of international law and join those,
who, regardless of rights, rely upon arms. Gro
| thus reminds us of Achilles, as described by
| Horace:
| -"Rights he spurns
As things not made for him, claims all by arms;
| and he quotes Lucan also, who shows Il soldier
| eXclaiming:
"Now Peace and Law, bid you both farewell"
| The old Autigonus, who, when beseging city,
| laughed at a man who brought him disserta-
| tlon on justice, and Pompey, who exclaimed,
| "Aml who am in arms to think of the laws =
| these seem to be the models for our govern
ment on the coasts of San Domingo.
To the point that the usurpation of war pow
ers is contrary to the constitution Mr.. Sumner
quotes from Judge Story, the Federalist, and
other authorities, and compares the precedents
of annexation in our history, showing that, UNI
like the present, they were all except the case of
Texas, in harmony with the requirements of
the constitution. Of the case of Texas he says:
1t had two stages, first under an unratied
| treaty, and secondly, under joint resolution of
congress. What was done under the latter had
| the concurrence of congress and the president,
| so that the inchoate title Of the United States
| was created by act of congress, in plain contra
diction to thepresent case, where the title, what
| ever it may be, is under an unratifed treaty,
and is created By the president alone. Here is a
| manifest difference not to be forgotten.
| But it is not to be disguised that during the
pendency of the treaty, and before its ratifca-
| ton by the senate, there was an attempt by
| John Tyler, aided by his secretary of state,
| John e. Calhoun, to commit the United States
to the military support of Texas. Suffice il to
| say, that there was no collision or belligerent
| intervention; but only what Benton calls an
"assumsit" by Calhoun. On this "assumpst"
the veteran senator, in the memoirs of his thirty
years in the senate, breaks forth in these indig-
| nant terms:
"As to secretly leading the army and navy of the
| United States to Texas to fight Mexico while we
were at peace with her. it would be crime against
heads might be brought to the block If presidents
and their secretaries like constitutional kings and
minister's should be held Gapitally responsible for
capital crimes" Benton, Thirty Years. View, VOL
| Ii. p. 642.)
The indignant statesman, after exposing the
| unconstitutional charlatanry Of the Eattcmpt,
| proceeds:
"And that no circumstance of contradiction or
folly should be wanting to crown this plot of crime
and imbecility it so happened that the same Gay
| that our new secretary here giving his written
assumpsit to lend the army and navy to fight Next
| co while we were at peace with her, the agent,
| Murphy, was communicating to the Texan govern
ment in Texas, the refusal Of Mr. Tyler, through
MI Nelson, to do so, because of It's unconstitution.
atty" Ibid, p. 64S1
Again he says
"The engagement to fight Mexico for Texas while
| we were at peace with Mexico, was to make war
| with Mexico! piece of business which belonged
to congress, and should have been referred to them
and which, on the contrary, concealed from
64s.J " ''''''-' ''N f'>'''' '-''N' p
In the face of this indignant Judgment, writ
ten more than decade after the attempt, and
| being already the uudying voice of history, the
"assumpsit" of John G. Calhoun will not be ac-
| cepted as proper example for an executive.
| But there is not word OF that powerful utter
ance by which this act is forever blasted that is
not strictly applicable to the "assumpsit" in
the case of Dominica. As in the first there
was an engagement to fight Mexico for Texas
| while we were at peace with Mexico, which was
| nothing less than war with Mexico, so the pres
ent engagement to fight Hayti for Dominica,
| while we are at peace with Hayti, is nothing
| less than war with Hayti. Nor is it any the
less "a crime against God and man and our own
| constitution" in the case of Hayti than in the
case of Mexico.
President Polk, in his annual message of De-
| cember, 1916, paid homage to the true principle
when he announced that the moment the terms
of annexation offered by the United States, were
accepted by Texas, the latter became so far
part of our country as to make it our duty to af
ford protection and defence" Exec. Doc. House
OF hep, NO. A, p. 10, twentieth Congress, second
SESSION. And accordingly he directed those
military and naval movements which ended in
war with Mexico. But it will be observed here
that these movements were conditioned on the
acceptance by Texas of the terms of annexation
definitely proposed by the United States, while
our title had been created by act of congress- and
not by the president alone.
Therefore, according to the prccedents of our
history, reinforced by reason and authority
does the "assumpsit" of the treaty fail. l for
bear from characterizing it. My duty is per-
formed if / exhibit it to the senate.
But this story of violated constitution is not
yet complete. Even admitting some remote in
initessimal sembance of excuse or apology dur
ing the pendency of the treaty, all of which in
sist is absurd beyond question, though not en-
tirely impossible in quarter unused to consti-
tutional questions and needing them little-con-
ceding that the "assumpist," inserted in the
treaty by the secretary of state, had deceived
the president into the idea that he possessed the
bingly prerogative Of declaring war at his own
mere motion-and wishing to deal most gently
even with an undoubted usurpation Of
the kingly prerogative so long as the
secretary of state, sworn counsellor