of the United States, as against the will of the people. The late President had adopted the opinion, that it was justifiable in the people of the territory, under the circumstances, to form a constitution of government, without any previous authority conferred by Congress, and thereupon to apply for admission into the Union. It was under this state of things, and under the influence of these opinions, that the order of the 19th of November last was given, and executed in the manner we have seen. The order indicates no boundary, and defines no territory, except by the name of New Mexico; and so far as that indicated any thing, it referred to a known territory, which had been organized under military authority, approved by the executive, and left without remonstrance or alteration by Congress for more than three years. It appears to the President, that such an order could not have been intended to invade the rights of Texas.

Secondly, you ask whether the proclamation of Colonel Monroe meets with the approval of the President of the United States.

To determine this question, it is necessary to look at the vbject of the proclamation, and the effect of the proceedings had under it. If the object was to assume the authority to settle the disputed boundary with Texas, then the President has no hesitation in saying such object does not meet his approbation, because he does not believe that the executive branch of this government, or the inhabitants of New Mexico, or both combined, have any constitutional authority to settle that question. That belongs either to the judicial department of the federal government, or to the concurrent action by agreement of the legislative departments of the governments of the United States and Texas. But it has been sufficiently shown that Colonel Monroe could have had no such object, and that his intention was merely to act in aid of the people in forming a State constitution to be submitted to Congress. Assuming, then, that such a constitution has been formed, what is its effect upon the disputed boundary? If it compromits the right of either party to that question, then it does not meet the President's approbation, for he deems it his duty to leave the settlement of that question to the tribunal to which it constitutionally belongs. It is sufficient for him, that this boundary is in dispute; that the territory east of the Rio del Norte seems to

be claimed in good faith both by Texas and New Mexico, or rather by the United States. Whatever might be his judgment in regard to their respective rights, he has no power to decide upon them, or even to negotiate in regard to them; and therefore it would be improper for him to express any opinion.

The subject-matter of dispute is between the United States and Texas, and not between New Mexico and Texas. If those people should voluntarily consent to come under the jurisdiction of Texas, such consent would not bind the United States to take away their title to the territory. So, on the other hand, if they should voluntarily claim the title for the United States, it would not deprive Texas of her rights, whatever those rights might be. They can only be affected by her own acts, or a judicial decision. The State constitution formed by New Mexico can have no legal validity until it is recognized and adopted by the law-making power of the United States. Until that is done, it has no sanction, and can have no effect upon the right of Texas, or of the United States, to the territory in dispute. And it is not to be presumed that Congress will ever give its sanction to that constitution, without first providing for the settlement of this boundary. Indeed no government, either Territorial or State, can be formed for New Mexico, without providing for the settling of this boundary. Hence, the President regards the formation of this State constitution as a mere nullity. It may be regarded, indeed, as a petition to Congress to be admitted as a State; but until Congress shall grant the prayer of such petition, by legal enactments, it affects the rights of neither party. But as it is the right of all to petition Congress for any law which it may constitutionally pass, this people were in the exercise of a common right when they formed their constitution, with a view of applying to Congress for admission as a State; and as he thinks the act can prejudice no one, he feels bound to approve of the conduct of Colonel Monroe in issuing the proclamation.

I am directed also to state, that, in the President's opinion, it would not be just to suppose that the late President desired to manifest any unfriendly attitude or aspect towards Texas or the claims of Texas. The boundary between Texas and New Mexico was known to be disputed; and it was equally well known, that the executive government of the United States had

no power to settle that dispute. It is believed that the execu tive power has not wished, it certainly does not now wish, to interfere with that question, in any manner whatever, as a question of title.

In one of his last communications to Congress, that of the 16th of June last, the late President repeated the declaration, that he had no power to decide the question of boundary, and no desire to interfere with it; and that the authority to settle that question resided elsewhere. The object of the executive government has been, as I believe, and as I am authorized to say it certainly now is, to secure the peace of the country; to maintain as far as practicable the state of things that existed at the date of the treaty; and to uphold and preserve the rights of the respective parties as they were under the solemn guaranty of the treaty, until the highly interesting question of boundary should be finally settled by competent authority. This treaty, which is now a supreme law of the land, declares, as before stated, that the inhabitants shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion. It will, of course, be the President's duty to see that this law is sustained, and the protection which it guaranties made effectual, and this is the plain and open path of executive duty in which he proposes to tread.

Other transactions of a very grave character are alluded to, and recited in your Excellency's letter. To these transactions I am now directed not more particularly to advert in replying to the questions propounded by you respecting the authority under which Colonel Monroe acted, and the approval or disapproval of his proclamation. Your Excellency's communication and answer will be immediately laid before Congress, and the President will take that occasion to bring to its notice the transactions alluded to above.

It is known to your Excellency, that the questions growing out of the acquisition of California and New Mexico, and among them the highly important one of the boundary of Texas, have steadily engaged the attention of both houses of Congress for many months, and still engage it, with intense interest. It is understood that the legislature of Texas will be shortly in session, and will have the boundary question also

before it. It is a delicate crisis in our public affairs, and not free certainly from possible dangers; but let us confidently trust that justice, moderation, patriotism, and the love of the Union, may inspire such counsels, both in the government of the United States and that of Texas, as shall carry the country through these dangers, and bring it safely out of them all, and with renewed assurances of the continuance of mutual respect and harmony in the great family of States.

I have the honor to be, with entire regard, your Excellency's most obedient servant.

DANIEL WEBSTER. Secretary of State.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CHEVALIER

HÜLSEMANN.

Chevalier J. G. Hülsemann to the Secretary of State.
[TRANSLATION.]

Austrian Legation, Washington, September 30, 1850. The undersigned, Chargé d'Affaires of his Majesty the Emperor of Austria, has been instructed to make the following communication to the Secretary of State.

As soon as the Imperial government became aware of the fact that a United States agent had been despatched to Vienna, with orders to watch for a favorable moment to recognize the Hungarian republic, and to conclude a treaty of commerce with the same, the undersigned was directed to address some confidential but pressing representations to the Cabinet of Washington against that proceeding, which is so much at variance with those principles of international law, so scrupulously adhered to by Austria, at all times and under all circumstances, towards the United States. In fact, how is it possible to reconcile such a mission with the principle of non-intervention, so formally announced by the United States as the basis of American policy, and which had just been sanctioned with so much solemnity by the President, in his inaugural address of March 5, 1849? Was it in return for the friendship and confidence which Austria had never ceased to manifest towards them, that the United States became so impatient for the downfall of the Austrian monarchy, and even sought to accelerate that event by the utterance of their wishes to that effect? Those who did not hesitate to assume the responsibility of sending Mr. Dudley Mann on such an errand, should, independent of considerations of propriety, have borne in mind that they were exposing their emissary to be treated as a spy. It is to be regretted that the American