The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1872-1881, 1873-05-30
DEMOCRATIC TICKET.
THE MEXICAN INVASION.

The recent conduct Of Col. Mchenzle,
of the United States army, in the invas.
iou Of Mexico, has given rise to much
sharp criticism throughout the country,
and hes called forth an attempt at de.
fence by some Of the Washington jour
mails that are regarded as the sciln-of-
fetal organs Of the administrations Il
appears from the reports which have
been made under the direction Of Nc
Kenzie, that there Is a tribe Of Indians,
who are habiiually cros.Ag fhc Rio
Grande and raiding upon the Frontiers,
stealing, robbing and plundering, -
occasionally taking scalp, vhe2 J,
sary TO accomplish their nalmling puff
poses. Col. Mckenzie, in sSueund Of
the United States troops, q tiat Ts1s-
ular poirt, recently pursued them across
the Rio Grande, into Mexican territory
and beat them severely inP-tharp little
engagement This yi,iatitn Of intcrna-
tional comfy which has the force of in
ternational law, has placed the United
States Government in an awkward pre-
-dicament Mexico Is ! friendly power,
and the Rio Grande i the boundary be-
tween the two Governnents. The Mex
lean Minister, at Washington, has given
out that the attention OF his Govern
ment has never been cllcd to the depre-
dation Of those Indians who seek refuge
on Mexican soil, and that, without hav-
ing first received soms character Of noti-
fication that the citizens of this country
had been pillaged by . hostile force in
habiting the Mexican Territory. it was
fragrant violation q international law
to cross the Rio Grarle with an armed
force.
Writers upon the question of interna-
tional law have laid Il down as rule,
iatitis unlawful to make neutral territory
the scene ofhostility. or attack an enemy
while within it and If the enemy be at
tackled, or any capture made, under neu-
trail protection, the neutral is bound to
redress the injury and to effect restitu-
ton. This principle has been fully re-
cognized in many cases, and was consid-
Grated settled by convention Of Febru-
airy 25th, 1857, called to adjust matters
between the United States and Portugal
The doctrine ofthe United States is, that
no use Of neutral territory, for purposes
of war, can be permitted. The same
doctrine has been iudicially declared in
England ; and thosgh it was understood
that the prohibition extended to remote
objects and uses, such as procuring pro-
visions and other Innocent articles, which
the law of nations solerated. yet it was un-
eluivocally held that no acts, proximate
10 acutual warfare, were in any manner
TO be allowed to be committed on neutral
territory and if the respect, due to neu-
trality, be violated by party,i it would
speedily provoke similar treatment
from the other party, and the neutral
ground would thus become the theatre of
war. One exception to this general doc
trine has been made by a distinguished
author, which seems'to cover the case in
point, which Is that If an enemy be at
tackled on hostile ground, and flee within
the jurisdiction Of neutral State, the
victor may pursue him, and inflict such
punishment as would have been Permis-
sable on hostile territory. Others have,
however, maintained the more satisfacto-
ny doctrine, that when the flying enemy
had entered neutral territory, he is i'm
mediately placed under the protection OF
the neutral power. The most distin-
guished writer, Vattel. maintains that
there is no exception to the rule, that
every voluntary entrance into neutral
territory, with hostile purposes, is ALSO
lutely unlawful. Daniel Webster, in
his diplomatic correspondence with the
British Minister. supported the doctrine,
that to justify hostile entrance upon
neutral territory. there must exist a ne
cessity OF self-deience, instant, leaving
no choice of means, and no moment for
deliberation.
Whether these rules of international
law will apply in the case when a nom
adic tribe OF savages assail the frontier
of civilized country, and seek refuge
from a just infection of punishment
within the territorial limits of a neutral
power, may be questioned but certainly
the lSsg IA declared by treaties -betweon
civilized nations. and announced by
courts Of competent jurisdiction, in lis
terms and and letter makes no distinct
ion. hn
1t Is said, however, that the present
administration, if not directly ordering,
at least connivei at the invasion by Col.
Mckenzie, and Is determined to uphold
him in the act. This Is with a view of
afording n pretext for trouble with
Mexico, to the end Of ultimately annex
ing portion Of Der territory. How far
this may be truth or mere surmise doth
not appear. If true. the act Of invasion
can only be maintained by that court of
physical force, wherein the sole maxim
Of ethics Is, that "might makes right"
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
France has bad another revolution,
bat ons which is neither characteristic,
,or IL keoping with her history.
l.. III -.