Arizona silver belt., 1886-08-21

cannot see how a conflict between the
United States and Mexico is to be
avoided, after the knocking of Of the
chip from the shoulder Of Mexico by
the United States There are various
te8&6ns why there Is no apparent pos
sibility of an immediate conflict, the
chief of which is that Congress alone
is invested by the constitution with
power to declare war and that august
b6dy is not in session and many of ITS
ni6thbet5 are now on a protracted
drunk, AZ erOss-road groceries, in their
respective districts. II, however, hos
tilitiss should become inevitable be-
fore tie time set apart for the begin
ming Of the next session Of Congress,
that body w6uld be called together by
the President, in special session, as
was done by President Lincoln in
1861, at the commencement Of the un-
pleasantness between the North and
South. The power of Congress, is
potent in other respects TO hold a be-
hgersnt or foolish President in check
II alone taT make appropriations for
the support OF ARMIES, or to add to the
armed forces Of tie c5aRtry. Nor
would the President be justified in ac-
eeptIng volunteers without Che an
th6rity of Congress. A shot Illegally
AteS subjects the offender to punish.
ment for a violation Of the Ia.A Of ma.
tions. When Congress shall have de-
cided that there is cause for war, a
blow cannot be struck until the proyi-
sion of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidal.
so, for the adjustment of such differ
ence as is presented in the Cutting
case, is resorted to for an amicable ad-
justment. War may or may not come
as result of the Cutting affair, but it
can not formally begin except by the
authorization of Congress, after more
or less careful deliberation, unless the
Mexican forces should tempt fate by
crossing she Rio Grands and invading
the United States, which is to the last
degree improbable. Even in that
emergency Congressional action would
be sought before offensive operations
would be begun beyond the ridding
Of our Territory of the forces of the
enemy.
The status Of the Cutting case has
been so thoroughly discussed that it
seems TO be well understood, but not
that of Arresures, and therefore we re-
fer to it with view of plainly i'm
pressing upon the minds of our
readers what were the legal rights
and obligations?
AS to the Arresures (or Rasures)
matter the facts, as reported by the
press, appear to be, that Arresures
was Mexican citizen, that he, sever
81 years ago declared bis intention Of
becoming a citizen of tho United
States; that be returned to Mexico;
that he remained in Mexico for years
thereafter; that he was accused Of
horse stealing in Mexico; that about
two months prior to his arrest he es-
capped to the Emitted States; that he
was captured in the United States by
officials of the State of Texas that up
on the order Of Texas county Judge,
duly appointed an extradition agent,
he was taken across the boundary by
the Texas officers and by them delly-
cred to a Mexican official by whom he
was summarily shot. This seems to
Be the whole of the matter. 1t is sta
ted, TO be surs, that there was person.
al'enmity between ArresRres and the
Mexican by whom be was executed,
and that death Is too great d penalty
for the offence Of %hiEh he was &C.
cused. Whether this. BE- fitte Or not
does not affect the questions at issue,
for the latter depend upon legarrights
and obligations and not upon senti-
ment. Hence, the proper query,
What were and are the legal rights
and obligations in the matter of Ar.
resures?
In the first place, upon the facts re.
ported, ArreSures was clearly not en-.
titled to protection as an American
citizen. Article /, of the Treaty rati.
fed February /, 1869, provides for the
naturalization of Mexican citizens in
the United States, and theh' declares
in express terms that "The deelara.
ton of an intention TO become a citi.
zen of the one or the other country
has not for either party the effect Of
naturalization" 1t appears therefore
that ArreSures was a citizen of Mexi.
co and not q citizen Of the United
States, and that by express covenant
between the two countries his decla.
ration Of an intention could not have
the effect Of releasing him from his
Mexican citizenship, or of making him
a citizen of the United States. More
than this, even if his declarations of an
intention had gwen him any claim
upon the Uuitsd States, he had eyi.
IDENTITY forfeited it by his own conduct
II is stated on good authority that af,