the infliction of the wrongs could not escape responsibility resulting from the acts of the late political organization. Demands for an apology and an indemnity were duly made upon the local de facto authorities, but they were not answered, the place being virtually in control of those who had been the chief actors in the incidents narrated; and on July 13, 1854, Captain Hollins, after public proclamation of his intention, bombarded and destroyed the town. His course was upheld by his Government, President Pierce, in his annual message of Dec. 4, 1854, maintaining that the community in question, being well provided with arms, possessed the power and had shown a propensity to do mischief; that, "not standing before the world in the attitude of an organized political society, being neither competent to exercise the rights nor to discharge the obligations of a government, it was, in fact, a marauding establishment too dangerous to be disregarded and too guilty to pass unpunished, and yet incapable of being treated in any other way than as a piratical resort of outlaws or a camp of savages depredating on emigrant trains or caravans and the frontier settlements of civilized states." See 46 British and For. State Papers, 859, 866-872, 875, 877, 878; 47 id. As to Punta Arenas, see Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, April 7 "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 28th ultimo, in which, referring to the recent destruction of San Juan de Nicaragua by the United States ship Cyane, you present in general terms a demand for reparation to those respectable citizens of Nicaragua who suffered, as it is alleged, grievous losses of property by the bombardment, and also to the Government of Nicaragua for the total destruction of her only Atlantic port. "In reply, I beg to submit that it is scarcely credible, as your note seems to imply, that any considerable number of respectable citizens of the Republic of Nicaragua had taken up their residence or placed their property among those whom you properly characterize as 'the pseudo sovereigns,' the authors of all the scandalous excesses that have been consummated at that port-San Juan-a place, as you admit, held by usurpation against the sovereign authority of their 6 own Government. These citizens for whom you make reclamation must have lived in treasonable association with the open and avowed enemies of your country, and if engaged there in business they must have been incorporated with that community which you describe in such severe but probably just terms. They knew, for notice has repeatedly been given, that the town would be punished for its misdeeds, and they had every opportunity to withdraw from it or to communicate to Captain Hollins after his arrival their claim to be separated from the guilty if they were not implicated with them, but they took no step to have their lot distinguished from that of the abandoned and lawless dwellers at that place. It is unreasonable now to complain of Captain Hollins for not making the separation which they refused to make for themselves, or to furnish him with the means of making the discrimination. They deliberately united their fortunes with men who you admit deserved the chastisement which they received, and consequently involved themselves knowingly and necessarily with their criminal associates. All the circumstances considered, I cannot believe that the Nicaraguan Government will so far forget what is due to itself, and must be evident to its clear sense of justice, as to urge any claims in behalf of those who associated themselves with the usurpers of its territory. Nicaragua may think herself kindly treated if she is not held responsible for the acts of those who were permitted by her to occupy her territory and perpetrate deeds injurious to friendly powers while within her jurisdiction. She owed it alike to herself and to these powers to have driven the band of marauders settled at San Juan from her acknowledged soil. If she has the indiscretion to open an account with the United States upon this matter, this Government will be at liberty to make her responsible for all the injuries its citizens have suffered from those occupying her territory. Having neglected to expel these intruders and regarding at least a part of the persons at San Juan under her protection, she is answerable by the well-established principles of international law for the injuries other nations have suffered by their misconduct. "If Nicaragua chooses to maintain the position you assume in your note to me, that her citizens who incorporated themselves with the community at San Juan are still in friendly relations with her and entitled to her protection, then she approves by an implication which she is not at liberty to deny [the acts] of that political establishment planted on her own soil and becomes responsible for the mischiefs it has done to American citizens. It would be a strange inconsistency for Nicaragua to regard the organization at San Juan as a hostile establishment on her territory and at the same time claim the right to clothe with her nationality its members. H. Doc. 551-vol 2-27 "Assuming, as it is respectful to do, that you have duly appreciated the consequences of the step you have taken, I infer that the Government of Nicaragua, by claiming the right of protection over the persons at San Juan, will not hesitate to acknowledge her responsibility to other states for the conduct of the people which she has permitted to occupy that part of her territory. "I take the liberty to ask you to furnish this Government with the views of that of Nicaragua upon the subject of its responsibility for the conduct of the people at San Juan de Nicaragua." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marcoleta, Nicaraguan min., Aug. 2, 1854, That the Government of Nicaragua has declined to enter into a conven- 66 (5) PURSUIT OF PREDATORY INDIANS AND OTHER MARAUders. $219. In a memorandum to Mr. Gorostiza, Mexican minister, April 21, 1836, Mr. Forsyth, as Secretary of State, referring to the contest in Texas and to apprehended Indian hostilities, and to the intention to send General Gaines to the frontier for the purpose of protecting United States territory as well as the surveyors of the two countries who might be engaged in running the boundary, said: "Should the troops, in the performance of their duty, be advanced beyond the point Mexico might suppose was within the territory of the United States, the occupation of the position was not to be taken as an indication of any hostile feeling, or of a desire to establish a possession or claim not justified by the treaty of limits," but only as "precautionary and provisional," to be " abandoned whenever (the line being run and the true limits marked) the disturbances in that region should cease, they being the only motive for it." April 23 Mr. Gorostiza made an extended reply, in which he maintained that the taking by General Gaines of any position “beyond the known limits of the United States " would "not only affect the rights of Mexico as an independent nation, but also injure its interests," and that the holding of "the position taken, even though it be included within the assigned limits of Mexico, until the disturbances in Texas should cease, would be equal to a real military occupation of a part of the territory of Mexico, and to indirect intervention in its domestic affairs." Mr. Forsyth, April 26, answered that his notice "was not intended to express the intention to occupy a post within the acknowledged, known limits of Mexico, but to apprise Mexico that if General Gaines should occupy a position supposed by each Government to be within its limits, that occupation would not be used either as the foundation of a claim or to strengthen a claim-the sole purpose being to enable this Government to do its duty to itself and to Mexico." April 28 Mr. Gorostiza expressed satisfaction that Mr. Forsyth's opinion, as he understood it, coincided with his own "on this capital point, . . . that General Gaines's troops will not take a position on any ground known to be beyond the limits of the United States; and as a natural consequence . . . that such position can in no case be on ground previously possessed by Mexico, and, of course, within its known limits." Mr. Forsyth, May 3, 1836, replied: "Except in case of necessity, General Gaines will not occupy ground not indisputably within the limits of the United States. In case of necessity, whether the possession of the ground he may occupy is now or has heretofore been claimed by Mexico cannot be made a question by that officer; he will take it to perform his duties to the United States, and to fulfill the obligations of the United States to Mexico. The just and friendly purpose for which he does occupy it (if he should do so), being beforehand explained to Mexico, it is expected will prevent either belief or suspicion of any hostile or equivocal design on his part. It is not intended to be the assertion of a right of property or possession." Mr. Gorostiza expressed his regret, and stated that he would send copies of the correspondence to his Government, to the end that such orders might be given to the commander of the Mexican army in Texas as would prevent difficulty. On May 9, however, Mr. Gorostiza, having learned that General Gaines was authorized, in case of necessity, to advance his troops to Nacogdoches, which his instructions declared to be within the limits claimed by the United States, protested against the order as involving a possible violation of Mexican territory. In a reply, May 10, Mr. Forsyth said: "General Gaines is not authorized to advance to Nacogdoches, but he is ordered not to go beyond that point. The terms used limit the authority given, and were chosen with the express intention to avoid misconstruction of the motive of the advance. To effect one of the great objects for which General Gaines is sent to the frontier, i. e., to fulfill our treaty with Mexico by protecting its territory against the Indians within the United States, the troops of the United States might justly be sent into the heart of Mexico; and their presence, instead of being complained of, would be the strongest evidence of fidelity to engagements and friendship to Mexico. Nor could the good faith and friendship of the act be doubted if troops of the United States were sent into the Mexican territory to prevent embodied Mexican Indians, justly suspected of such design, from assailing the frontier settlements of the United States." 25 Br. & For. State Papers, 1089, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, The treaty obligation above referred to is that which was embodied in See Moore, Int. Arbitrations, III. 2430 et seq. "You will perceive that Mr. Gorostiza, in his conference with me, distinctly admitted our right, in the event of hostility to the United States by Mexican Indians, to invade the territory of Texas, either to prevent intended injury or to punish actual depredation. In a note written subsequently he seeks to avoid the force of that admission, by confounding the principle upon which it obviously rests with the right of making war for a violation of treaty engagement. You will find no difficulty in showing to the Mexican Government that it rests upon principles of the law of nations, entirely distinct from those on which war is justified-upon the immutable principles of self-defence upon the principles which justify decisive measures of percaution to prevent irreparable evil to our own or to a neighboring people. "The grossness of the error of placing it on the right of war, as also the folly of relying upon that mode of redress, you can render obvious, by supposing that hostilities were, under present circumstances on the frontier, about to begin. Our fellow-citizens, of all ages and classes, are to be exposed to massacre, their property to destruction, and the whole frontier to be laid waste by those savages Mexico was bound to control. Until these evils happen, on Mr. Gorostiza's theory, we have no right to take a position which will enable us to act with effect; and before we do act, according to our promises under Article XXXIII. of the treaty, after the frontier has been desolated, we must demand redress of Mexico, wait for it to be refused, and then make war upon Mexico. We are quietly to suffer injuries we might prevent in the expectation of redress-redress from irreparable injuries from Mexico, who did not inflict them, but who was, from circumstances, without the power to prevent, as she would be after they were inflicted, without the power to redress them. To make war upon Mexico for this involuntary failure to |