MEXICO.

In a communication to the Secretary of State, printed in the Folio Edition of the Foreign Relations,' it is stated that "before the insurrection of the year 1810 the Kingdom [of New Spain] contained six millions of inhabitants, and may be said to have been at its acme of

prosperity; the royal revenue exceeding $20,000,000."

The course of the revolution from 1810 to 1821 is reviewed in that communication. It is stated that before 1816 "the impossibility of reestablishing peace and quietness in the Kingdom by the force of arms was fully ascertained," and the military events between 1816 and 1821 are rapidly reviewed.

In 1821 Spain made an effort to save her rebellious American colonies. Deputies from Mexico were received by the Cortes at Madrid, and "availed themselves of this occasion to show to the Cortes and Executive the impracticability of the provinces of America being governed as those of the Peninsula. * They then moved that the Government should be requested to direct without delay the Viceroy of Mexico to inform Iturbide that the Cortes were occupied in projecting a plan of Government for America, and to propose a suspension of hostilities until the resolution should be finally made by the Cortes and Executive."3

The opposition of the King defeated this move, and the American Deputies then proposed that there should be three divisions made of America; in each a Cortes; in each division a delegate appointed by the King, who shall exercise in the name of the King the executive power, * the commerce between the Peninsula and America to be considered as from one province to another, and the inhabitants of the latter to have equal eligibility with those of the former to all public employments."4

While these propositions were under consideration, Iturbide had gained a position in Mexico which enabled him to make proposals that New Spain should be independent of Old Spain; and that it should be a monarchy, of which a member of the royal family of Spain should be the Emperor, with sundry other provisions conceived for the purpose of securing these results.

5

The Cortes showed a reluctance to take the matter into serious consideration, upon which the American Deputies submitted a plan to the Cortes. No compromise of ideas so radically different was found praeticable.

Iturbide continued military operations until, on the 24th of August, 1821, he concluded a treaty in Cordova with Señor O'Donojú, Lieut.General of the Armies of Spain, by which the Independence of New Spain was declared to be recognized. As a result of this, supreme

2

4

Б

6

14 F R. F., 836. Ib., 837. 34 F. R. F., 828. Ib. Ib., 830, B. Ib., 831, C. Ib., 841.

authority, with the title of Highness, was vested in Iturbide,1 and Mexico was declared to be an Empire.

In the following March President Monroe sent his message to Congress respecting the recognition of the Spanish-American States, whereupon the Spanish Minister at Washington protested against it.2

3

While the Spanish government was still trying in vain to find a plan for reconciling and retaining the colonies, the Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States recommended the passage of a resolution" that the American provinces of Spain, which have declared their independence, and are in the enjoyment of it, ought to be recog nized by the United States as independen nations.”4 The action of Congress is stated under the title "Columbia."

**

In 1825 Mr. Poinsett was despatched as Minister to Mexico. He was instructed to "bring to the notice of the Mexican government the message of the late President of the United States to their Congress, on the 2d of December, 1823, asserting certain important principles of intercontinental law in the relations of Europe and America. The first principle asserted in that message is, that the American Continents are not henceforth to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. The other principle asserted in the message is, that whilst we do not desire to interfere in Europe with the political system of the allied powers, we should regard as dangerous to our peace and safety any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere." These instructions were afterwards made the subject of some discussion in the House, in the course of which Mr. Webster said: "The proceedings of the Allied Powers at Troppau, Laybach, and Verona were very well remembered, and in the course of the very year then expiring the King of Spain had been established on his throne by the army of France. * Under these circumstances the question was, how is it likely the Allied Powers will act toward the former Spanish colonies in America? Having succeeded in establishing such a government as suited them in Spain itself, would they not, or might they not, be willing to go further, and to assist the Spanish Monarch in reconquering his rebellious provinces? It was possible they might do this-perhaps it was not very improbable. At this juncture the President's declaration was made. The amount of

*

it was that this government could not look with indifference on any combination among other Powers to assist Spain in her war against the South American States; that we could not but consider any such combination as dangerous or unfriendly to us; and that if it should be formed it would be for the competent authorities of this government to decide, when the case arose, what course our duty and our interest should require us to pursue."

Poinsett was further instructed to secure, if possible, a Treaty

Ib., 843. 2 Ib., 845-6. 3 Ib., 847. Ib., 850. 55 F. R. F., 909; 6 Ib., 578. 62 Debates, 1826, 1792-1820. 7 Ib., 1807-8.

of limits, and a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, on the basis of the recently concluded Convention with Colombia. The Treaty which he signed, and the account of the negotiations which preceded it, will be found in the 6th vol. of the Folio Edition of the Foreign Relations, pages 578-613. This Treaty did not receive the assent of the Senate, except upon conditions which caused it to fail. The Treaty of limits of 1828 was then concluded,3 and in 1831 a Treaty of Amity and Commerce was signed, which is still in force.

The war between Texas and Mexico affected the relations between Mexico and the United States, and was the cause of frequent commanications from the Executive to Congress, and of frequent discussions and reports in that body. At one time, in the early stage of the discussion, the Mexican Minister withdrew himself from Washington, but relations were soon restored.

Claims began to arise and to be pressed against Mexico as early as 1836.5 In 1837 they were made the subject of Presidential mes sages. A convention was concluded for the adjustment of these claims in 1838, which was not ratified by the Mexican Government; and another convention was concluded and ratified by both parties, for the same purpose, in April, 1839. The acts of Congress to carry this into effect were approved on the 12th of June, 1840,7 and on the 1st of September, 1841.8

When the Commissioners on each side met together, [William L. Marcy was one of the United States Commissioners] a radical difference of opinion on important subjects was found to exist. (1) The American Commissioners regarded the joint body as a judicial tribunal. The Mexican Commissioners regarded it as a diplomatic body. (2) The Americans asserted that the claimants had a right to appear personally or by counsel before the Commissioners. The Mexicans denied this, and insisted that the proof must come through the government.10 Much time was lost in these and kindred discussions; so that, when the last day for action had passed, several claims had not been acted on." This was the cause of much subsequent correspondence.12 Mexico did not keep its engagements under this Treaty, and in 1843 a new convention respecting the payments was made in which it was agreed that another claims convention

16 F. R. F., 579. 23 Ex. Jour., 570. 36 F. R. F., 946. S. E. Doc. 415, 1st Sess. 24th Cong.; S. E. Docs. 20, 84, 160, and 189, 2d Sess. 24th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 256, 1st Sess. 24th Cong.; H E. Doc. 35, and 105, 2d Sess. 24th Cong.; H. R. 281, 2d Sess. 24th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 40 and 42, 1st Sess. 25th Cong.; H. E. Docs. 351 and 409, 2d Sess. 25th Cong,; H. R. 1056, 2d Sess. 25th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 252, 3d Sess. 25th Cong.; H. E. Doe. 51, 3d Sess. 27th Cong.; S. E. Doc. 325, 2d Sess. 27th Cong.; S. E. Docs 349, and 390, 1st Sess. 25th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 271, 1st Sess. 28th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 19, 2d Sess. 28th Cong. 5 S. Doc. 424, 1st Sess. 24th Cong. S. E. Doc. 160, 2d Sess. 24th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 139. Ibid.; see also Reports of the Secretary of State accompanying President's Message 2d Sess. 25th Cong.; and S. E. Doc. 14, 2d Sess. 25th Cong. 75 St. at L., 383. lb., 452. 9 H. E. Doc. 291, 2d Sess. 27th Cong., 5. 10 Ib., 14-15. Ib., 40-49; H. R. 1026, 2d Sess. 27th Cong. 12S. E. Doc. 320, 2d Sess. 27th Cong.; S. E. Doc. 411, 2d Sess. 27th Cong.

should be entered into; but this had not been done when war broke out between the parties, in 1846.1

A Treaty was concluded with Texas for its annexation to the United States, but it failed to receive the assent of the Senate. Congress then, by joint resolution, declared that it "doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas," and on the 29th of December, 1845, it was jointly resolved "that the State of Texas shall be one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever."3

*

On the 13th of the following May Congress declared in the preamble of the act providing for the prosecution of the war with Mexico, that "by the act of the Republic of Mexico a state of war exists between that Government and the United States," and on the same day President Polk made proclamation of that fact.5

While hostilities were going on, Nicholas P. Trist, Chief Clerk of the Department of State, was dispatched to Mexico, and opened negotiations for peace. He was instructed to demand the cession of New Mexico and California in satisfaction of claims against Mexico, on the ground that "a state of war abrogates treaties previously existing between the belligerents, and a treaty of peace puts an end to all claims for indemnity." The proposals were rejected by Mexico, and the Commissioner was recalled on the 6th of October, 1847.8 He remained, however, in Mexico, notwithstanding the instructions to return, and he succeeded in concluding the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on the 2d of February, 1848. This was communicated to the Senate on the 23d of February. Sundry amendments were made by the Senate and accepted by Mexico, and the ratifications were exchanged on the 30th of May, 1848. The Supreme Court has held that this Treaty does not protect the rights of property of Mexican citizens in the former Republic of Texas.10 On the 6th of July, 1848, the President communicated the Treaty to Congress, with a message asking legislation to carry it into effect." On the 29th of the same month the act for the payment of the liquidated claims against Mexico passed Congress.12 The civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, approved on the 12th of August, contained a provision for the survey of the new boundary-line,13 and in the following

1 H. E. Docs. 144 and 158, 2d Sess. 28th Cong.; S. E. Doc. 81, 2d Sess. 28th Cong. ; S. E. Doc. 151, 1st Sess. 29th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 133, 1st Sess. 29th Cong. 25 St. at L., 797. 39 St. at L., 108. 49 St. at L., 9. Ib., 999. For Congressional papers during the war, or descriptive of it, see S. Doc. 337, 1st Sess. 29th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 196, 1st Sess. 29th Cong.; S. E. Doc. 1, 2d Sess. 29th Cong.; S. E. 107, 2d Sess. 29th Cong.; S. E. Docs. 20 and 52, 1st Sess. 30th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 40, 1st Sess. 30th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 56, 1st Sess. 30th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 60, 1st Sess. 30th Cong.; S. E. Doc. 32, 1st Sess. 31st Cong. S. E. Doc. 20, 1st Sess. 30th Cong. President's Message, S. E. Doc. 1, 1st, Sess. 30th Cong., 7. 8 Ib., 11.9 S. E. Doc. 52, 1st Sess. 30th Cong.10 McKenney v. Sairego, 18 Howard, 235. "S. E. Doc. 60, 1st Sess. 30th Cong. 129 St. at L., 265. 301.

13 Ib.

session provision was made for payment in part of the sums due to Mexico under the 12th article.1 On the 3d of March, 1849, a commission was created to examine the claims upon Mexico, which were to be assumed by the United States; and on the 3d of March, 1851, a loan was authorized for their payment.3 One hundred and eighty-two claims were allowed, and seventy were rejected.1

In the exchange of the ratifications of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, certain explanations were embodied in a protocol signed by the Plenipotentiaries. These became the subject of a discussion in Con. gress early in 1849 which induced the Mexican Minister at Washington, (who appears to have been the same person who, as plenipotentiary, exchanged the ratifications of the Treaty on the part of Mexico,) to ask of Mr. Buchanan, the Secretary of State, an assurance, in the form of a message from the President, that the United States adhered to the protocol. Buchanan replied that "the President would violate the most sacred rights of the legislative branch of the Government if he were to criticise or condemn any portion of their proceedings, even to his own countrymen; much less, therefore, can he be called upon by the representative of a foreign government for any explanation, condemnation, defence, or approval of their proceedings. The President will be ever ready, in the kindest spirit, to attend to all representations of the Mexican government, communicated in a form which does not interfere with his own rights or those of Congress.” 5

*

The annexation of California by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo made it desirable that the United States should have some interest in the isthmus routes between the two Oceans. Instructions looking to such a result were issued by Mr. Clayton in April, 1849, which were fol lowed by long negotiations. The Commission for running the boundaryline under the Treaty of 1848 met with difficulties and delays, and in 1853 both questions were determined by a new Treaty, which annexed Arizona, and gave to the United States rights for itself and its citizens in any road that might be constructed across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. A Commission was organized for surveying the new line."

The United States continued their exertions to acquire greater rights in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. In 1857 Forsyth, Minister at Mexico, was instructed to endeavor to conclude such a Treaty,10 and two years later Mr. Cass wrote to Robert McLane, Forsyth's successor, "It is hoped you may be able to conclude a convention embracing the cession of Lower California, and the transit rights and privileges above referred to. The President would deeply regret to learn that this was impracticable. * There is reason to believe that Lower California may be secured; and this result, I

2

1 Ib., 348. Ib., 393. 3 Ib., 617. S. E. Doc. 34, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. 5 H. E. Doc. 5, 1st Sess., 31st Cong., 69-73. S. E. Doc. 97, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. S. E. Doc. 34, 1st Sess. 31st Cong.; H. E. Doc. 112, 1st Sess. 32d Cong.; S. E. Docs. 119, 120, 121, 131, 1st Sess. 32d Cong.; S. R. 345, 1st Sess. 32d Cong.; S. E. Doc. 55, 2d Sess. 334 Cong. H. E. Doc. 109, 1st Sess. 33d Cong. 9S. E. Doc. 57, 1st Sess. 34th Cong. 10 Confidential S. E. Doc. 221, 1st Sess. 36th Cong., 3.