government. Now who in point of fact, not of right, that we arc lo consider, and the actual possessor, if but for a day, or a month, is politically the owner. We are reminded of our treaty with Mexico; and have we not a treaty with Spain, in the very same words, relating to the same country, and why was this disregarded in favor of Mexico? The treaty was considered at an end by the fact of l\'lexico becoming the actual possessor! Whal is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. In acknowledging Texas, we act on the same principle on which we acknowledged Mexico, notwithstanding a subsisting treaty with Spain. This is not the case of a civil war, where two parties occupy different portions of the same country, and where individuals of any country may volunteer for either side, as we see the constant practice in Europe, without implicating the neutrality of their respective governments. In feudal countries, where the subject is supposed to be the property of the Sovereign, and may be forbidden to go abroad, or may be recalJed at the pleasure of his master, something may be done to preserve the private as well as the public neutrality. But this is not applicable to the United Stales, where every man may come and go, or stay where he pleases; and this singly, in companies, armed, or without arms. Any law in derogation of this natural right would meet with a strict construc- tion, and any act of the magistrate, without express law, would be an arbitrary assumption of power. The only law on the subject is the act of 1792, and nothing but the most forced construction can bring it to bear on a case like that of Texas. That law forbids the setting on foot within our own limits, warlike expeditions to invade the territories of nations at peace with us. This was to prevent a kind of land piracy, or robbery on an extensive scale. It originated in the fear of Spain, or expeditions which might be fitted out in Kentucky, to plunder New Orleans by way of retaliation for the plunder of American citizens at that place, and ought to be repealed or be considered obsolete, for there are no reciprocal laws of the kind either of Great Britain or Mexico; they leave us to protect ourselves. But the law, I repeat, is inapplicable, for the emigrants do not march from our country to invade a power at peace with us, but to afford them assistance, and in consequence of express invitation. Those who cry out shame, for not putting a stop to the march, or emigration to Texas, forget that in our country, this can only be done according to law - and where is that law? - There is no law to require passports, refuse clearances, to stop men from passing our frontier, to forbid them armina themselves and marching through our country peaceably, and 0 going where they
89
Powered by FlippingBook