-· --,
did not, it is argued that it has been judicially settled in the hi(Jhesl tribunals in the United Stales and in England, that, whateve/'may be said against that traffic upon the score of tile moral consequences, it has nevertheless been protected by the laws of all commercial countries, has been claimed by each, and allowed by each, and cannot, therefore, he considered as contrary lo the law of nations. Those States, whose municipal enactments make that kind of commerce unlawful, can, of course, punish their own subjects who may be engaged in it; but they cannot interfere with the_ subjects of other powers found in that trade, although those nations have also prohibited it; because the civil tribunals of one country will not enforce the penal laws of another. But, apart from all international rights or jealousies on this question, the vindicatory sanctions of the law here, against the slave trade, are sufficient to suppress it, without the aid of distant powers. The administration and people entertain no apprehension that any foreign nation will interfere in their contest with Mexico, as they rely upon the policy and example heretofore set by the United Stales and Great Britain, in the struggle between Spain and her revolted colonies; in which, both the former Governments protested against the right of the allied powers lo interpose by forcible means. Our Government went further, and held that any attempt lo extend the peculiar political system of Europe to this continent would be considered dangerous to the peace of its own Stales. The Texans hold that the only exception lo the rule against the rights of interfering by neutral nations, is, when it is in aid of the oppressed, and where the general interests of humanity are infringed by the outrages or evils of despotism; and that Texas, having for years suffered under that condition, is entitled, like the Greeks, to the commiseration of all civilized nations. They say that the revolutionary State of Mexico, since her separation from Spain, has been so boisterous in action, and so contradictory in policy, that, in examining how far this province has the right to a separate national existence, it necessarily involves the inquiry of whether Mexico herself has not ceased to possess a distinct covereignty; that the material attributes of a nation arc, ability to enforce the laws and protect her own institutions; that, even in cases of neutrality, where an abuse of the neutral territory proceeds from the weakness of the soverie~n and her inability lo
4i7
Powered by FlippingBook