were there not numerous other proofs of it. But, could the Government of the undersigned, however great may have been its confidence in the sincerity of the intentions of the American Government, when it saw the latter authorizing one of ils generals lo occupy a part of the Mexican territory with his forces, at his own discretion, without the previous consent of or any consultatation with Mexico, and without any other excuse than his own consideration of its propriety-could the Government of the undersigned, he repeats, look upon this authorization in any other light than as a menace of invasion, as a permission ad libitum to violate its territory? By what principle of public law can such a measure be defended? By what treaty? By the treaty of limits? IL was clear that until the third article of that treaty was executed, both parties were bound lo maintain the statusquo. By the 33d article of the treaty of amity and commerce? The obligations contracted in that article by the two Governments, neither are nor can be other than that each should prevent its respective Indians upon its own territory from committing hostilities against the territory of the friendly Power. Had the right to invade the territories of each other under pretext of mutual assistance been conceded, the stipulation would certainly have the merit of novelty; but it would likewise give to the first Mexican general who might reach the Sabine, the right of taking a position at. Natchitoches, or farther still on this side, in order to drive away the tribes of Indians who wander on the other side of the Mississippi, and who might have shown some intentions of entering Mexico. Would the Government of the United States consent to this? If the Government of the undersigned regarded the question in this light, when it referred only lo a possible contingency, which was thought not likely to occur, how will it regard this same act if it should be unfortunately consummated, notwithstanding its own manifest repugnance, its repeated warnings, and its anticipated protests? Hence the Government of the undersigned cannot yet persuade itself of the possibility of such a case; not only from its conviction of the justice of its own cause, but likewise because it confides in the equity of the Government of the United Stales, as the undersigned had already the honor to state to Mr. Dickins, in his said note of the 28th ultimo.
121
Powered by FlippingBook