{"character_count": 5622, "word_count": 992, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9668999910354614], "ccnet_perplexity": [737.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
: lions. however soon most of them, as well as Cromwell and Bonaparte, became dethronea

 But the senator from Massachusetts says there are three stages in reaching de Jure power. First. a revolution; second, recog- nition by others; and thirdly, an acknoWl- edgement by the old authorities, or an utter abandonment by them of their claims. But neither such cknowledgementnors such aoan- donment took place by the Stewarts as to Cromwell, or the Bourbons as to Bonaparte; and vet their acts have de jure bound. both in England and France as to all other natlohs'

 IL is iast so as to a revolution like lloliahd' Mexico, or the United States, or in one view Texas; separating portion from the ola government, and forming of a new one, and declaring its independence. Does nothing but the acknowledgment of the parent power, or an utter abandonment of is claims, enable the separated and independent portion to per form de jure acts as a nation, and bind It's people and acquire rights of them of the rest oi the world. as if a de 5ufe government? Ger tainly. Certainly Holland. Mexico, and the United States, all as well as Texas, have claim ed to be de jarc long before such acknowl- edgment. Holland dated her independence seventy years before Spain recognised It

 Our independence dates from l776, and not it's recognition by England ill l783. So that of Mexico. from 1891 and not 1886, it's recognition by Spain. So Belgium, from i 1890 and not afterward, when recognized by ! Holland And so does Texas from 1856, and not any future period, when Mexico may admit it.

 All of them have acted on such claim before a reconigtion by the parent govern- ment as right; and our assumed power to resist oppression and establish new forms of government, without the consent of our op- pressors, is mere vapor, and the American system baseless, if that assent, express or | implied. is necessary to make our acts as to the rest of mankind dc jare. Popular go- vernments are never inclined to such nice distinctions, especially when these are un- friendly to pupular rights But l admit that the recognition of a new government, or the second stage in the gentleman's growth to a de jnre condition, does not require other na- lions to go farther unless they please, and depart from neutral position, or by any act, not required by public duty, become exposed to actual war; and that it has been customa- " with other nations, including ourselves, not to go any farther.-(4 State Papers, 646, 84S.) But this grows out of the absence of < any mofire usually to go farther, and out of the pendency of belligerant State between the old and new nation, in which we might become uselessly involved; and not from the fact the new nation Is not, de jUre as well as de facto sovereign power as to all other nations, and, as such, competent de jnre to do all which other belligerents may. Herein lies the error or fallaey of the reasoning on the other side. Martins Law of Nations, p. 77, substantially confirms these views, by holding that if d government Is established de fdcto, foreign powers have no right to say 1t Is not one de jure.

 4 recognition of independence of another power, standing alone, obliges our courts to treat them so, and to give them and their citi- zens all rights of property and jurisdiction, and sovereignty, as in any other case. It is de j1ere as well as de fi1cto. in the most crit ical and solemn forum of another nation.- | q Kent, 25.

 Yet some senators, after all, seem to think it but (. dn armed iqaSurrectioa," or, as Russia denominated the independence of Mexico and South America, but x criminal combinations of seditioas subjects against their Legitimate kings. But 1t is neither the American side of the question, nor that proposed by Mir Webster himself

 " Mexico (says he) may have chosen tC consider, and may still choose to consider Texas as having been,, at all times, since 1895, and as still continuing, a rehellious province; but the world has been obliged tc take different view of the matter.

 'And it must be added that the constitu ton, public treaties, and the laws, oblige tht President to regard Texas as an independen State, and its territory as no part of the terri tory of Mexico.n-(See Letter of July, 1842

 Nor IS this merely theoretical. On two occasions we have practically recognised thr power of the de facto governments on tht west of Us to be de jHre, so as to make perma nent compacts with us concerning the boun daries of their territory, long before they were acknowledged assoyereign by the paren country.

 Thus, l2th January, 1928, we completed with Mexico treaty regulating the limit O the territory contiguous to Us, without ask ing the consent of Spain, though she ther made urgent claim to Mexico, though the latter had been independent but seven years and though her separate sovereignty had no then been acknowledged by Spain, and it was not till 1886

 So, again, in 1888, Aprl25, we made asimi- lar treaty of limits with Texas, as to her terri tory, without consulting Mexico, and when her-de jare rights were as much in question as now. Some have asked if the right to cede was clear in lS37, as we'll as now, why the proposal then was not accepted3 Simply, because the danger of war was then greater, and the hope of permanent independence was less.

 The character and prospects of the war with Mexico in 1887 were very different from the condition of things now; and our exposure much greater then to be involved in difliulty of taking a cession so soon after one greet invasion, and amidst the prospect of another, and without any long abandon.