THE ROBERT E. COWAN COLLECTION 
 
 I RESKXTRD TO THK 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 KY 
 
 C, P. HUNTINGTON 
 
 cJUK 
 
 Accession No /6~(o& / Class No, 
 
REVIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 THE RELATIONS 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO, 
 
 AND 
 
 OF THE CLAIMS 
 
 OF 
 
 CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST MEXICO. 
 
 BY RICHARD S. COXE. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 WILSON & CO., 15 SPRUCE STREET, 
 1846. 
 
S . XV . BENEDICT, 
 Stereotyper and Printer, I 6 Spruce Street. 
 
)> 
 
 TEXAS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IN presenting the following papers to the public in their present shape, 
 it seemed proper to accompany them with a brief exposition of the cir 
 cumstances in which they originated, and of the reasons to which they 
 owe their existence. They have already appeared in the columns of a 
 newspaper the first series in the Richmond Enquirer, and the residue in 
 the Union. The parties at whose instance they were prepared, have 
 judged it expedient to republish them ; while others have concurred in 
 this design, under the impression that they embodied, in a condensed 
 form, much valuable information upon topics of general importance. 
 The present aspect of the relations between the United States and Mexico 
 is full of interest. Whether or not there will be a formal declaration of 
 war, seems yet to be a matter of uncertainty ; but whether that event 
 should or should not occur, the affairs of the two governments have 
 reached a point, and assumed a character, which imperatively demand 
 that the subjects of controversy, which have so long existed, should be 
 brought to a definite settlement. The causes of complaint have been of 
 long standing, and of an irritating nature. The amicable feelings which 
 once bound the two nations together, have been obliterated. Mutual 
 estrangement has succeeded, and terms of recrimination have been ex 
 changed, rousing on either side the angry passions of the respective 
 parties. It is not possible much longer to postpone the adjustment of 
 these controveries. They must be terminated through the instrumentality 
 of war, or by amicable arrangement; The number and character of the 
 reclamations of the parties seem to preclude the possibility of a pacific 
 settlement. The claims of citizens of the United States, for remuneration 
 for alleged inlractions of their rights of person and property, cannot be 
 estimated at a smaller amount than ten millions of dollars. The charac 
 ter of the outrages in which these claims originated has imposed upon the 
 government the imperative obligation to demand, and, if necessary, to 
 enforce, their liquidation. Every day swells the amount of compensa 
 tion to which the parries are entitled, and increases the incapacity of 
 Mexico to provide for their payment. They must either be adjusted and 
 paid, or tamely relinquished. The latter alternative, involving a renun 
 ciation of every national duty, and the violation of the most positive na 
 tional pledges, cannot, for a moment be anticipated. It may be assumed 
 
as a positive certainty, that the payment must be voluntarily made, or en 
 forced by all the power of the nation. It is unnecessary to state that vol 
 untary payment by Mexico, in any form, or to any extent, is utterly 
 hopeless. 
 
 In addition to every other impediment which, for many years, has in 
 terposed to prevent Mexico from doing justice to the injured citizens of 
 the United States, she has herself, within the last few months, found 
 either substantial causes of complaint against our own government, in its 
 proceedings and measures in relation to Texas, or at least pretexts upon 
 which she asserts that the balance of injury is on her side. She alleges, 
 that, in originally populating Texas with our own citizens, in the sever 
 ance of that State from the residue of the republic, and finally in annex 
 ing her to our Union, we have violated every principle by which one 
 nation should regulate its intercourse with its neighbors, trampled upon 
 all the obligations of solemn treaties, outraged the most clearly defined 
 rights of Mexico, and sacrificed justice and equity upon the altar of an 
 unscrupulous and grasping spirit of self-aggrandizement. 
 
 With such discordant views of their mutual rights and obligations, it is 
 idle to hope that the two parties can arrive at an amicable and pacific ad 
 justment of their differences. For either to yield, would be to submit, 
 without a struggle, to all the consequences of an unsuccessful war, and 
 to abandon every ground which has been deliberately arid publicly as 
 sumed. The American government cannot retrace its steps. It cannot 
 annul the compact by which Texas has become " bone of our bone, and 
 flesh of our flesh." It cannot admit that its conduct merits the harsh 
 epithets which have been applied to it by Mexico and her friends. As 
 little can she retract what she has so repeatedly urged on the subject of 
 the claims of her citizens for remuneration and indemnification. She has 
 proclaimed that, in the perpetration of the outrages of which she com 
 plains, Mexico has violated our just rights, and that it is the paramount 
 duty of the government to afford ample protection to her citizens, and to 
 enforce, if necessary, with all the power of the nation, full compensation 
 for the wrongs they have sustained from a foreign power. She has sanc 
 tified and solemnized the obligation growing out of the relation of govern 
 ment and citizen, by the most deliberate assurances that this obligation 
 is recognized, and the most distinct pledges that his duty shall be fulfilled. 
 
 In this posture of things, it seems vain to expect that specific relations 
 can long subsist between the two nations. Each professes to have 
 grounds of complaint against the other, which it asserts to be just and 
 reasonable ; and each has pledged itself to maintain its rights at every 
 hazard. Temporary causes may intervene, and prevent an immediate 
 resort to arms by either power ; but the causes of war cannot be removed, 
 and they must continue to increase in number and to augment in strength, 
 till they bear down every barrier which wisdom or policy may interpose 
 to prevent the final catastrophe. 
 
 Such being the relations at present subsisting between the two nations, 
 and such their probable issue, it is incumbent upon every citizen of the 
 
United States to inform himself of the true merits of the controversy, and 
 to lend his aid, however feeble that may be, in enlightening the public 
 mind upon the subject. His country and his government, have been made 
 the objects of the most severe denunciation, not only by the antagonist 
 party, but by many of our own citizens, whose character and position confer 
 upon them extensive influence. The acts of Mexico have been vindicated ^ 
 or palliated, while the conduct of the United States has been violently con 
 demned. It is equally our right and our duty to examine the subject, and 
 to determine, in the spirit of justice, stimulated but not blinded by the 
 impulses of patriotism, whether we are as a nation guilty or not guilty of 
 the crimes laid to our charge. 
 
 It is the purport and design of the following papers to examine and dis 
 cuss this interesting question. The result to which the writer s mind has 
 been brought, will be apparent on perusing what he has written. Enter 
 taining the fullest confidence in these conclusions he submits them to 
 the candid consideration of his countrymen, of all parties and of all locali 
 ties, with a firm assurance in his own mind, as well as of the truth of the 
 facts which he has stated, as of the validity of the inferences which he 
 has deduced. It may be permitted him to add, that, had his investiga 
 tions conducted him to a different result, and convinced him that his 
 country had merited the reproaches which have been cast upon her that 
 her conduct had been disgraced by injustice to a weaker neighbor that 
 her character had been sullied by a propensity to rapine and to robbery 
 he would have mourned in silence over the tarnished honor of his 
 nation. He would have preferred, like the virtuous son of the ancient 
 Patriarch, rather to have cast a mantle over the nakedness of a beloved 
 parent, than with sacrilegious hands to have exposed it to the contemptu 
 ous gaze of a cold and unfeeling world. 
 
 It is now somewhat more than five years since the writer was employed 
 professionally to conduct the cases of several citizens of the United States, 
 who had claims upon Mexico, growing out of injuries inflicted upon them 
 by the hands, or under the sanction, of public functionaries of Mexico. A 
 convention had recently been consummated between the two powers, 
 providing for the organization of a board of commissioners to examine and 
 adjust claims of this description. A full intercourse with the intelligent 
 gentlemen who were his clients, and subsequently with others, supplied 
 a mass of information as to the history and present state of Mexico, which 
 with such published works, as were accessible, and a large number of writ 
 ten documents, (including the entire diplomatic correspondence between 
 the two goverments which had been communicated to Congress), fur 
 nished the means of indulging a curiosity to trace, in detail, the entire 
 history of the relations which had subsisted between the two nations. 
 
 A mass of materials was thus accumulated, which, under less favorable 
 circumstances, could not readily be collected by a single individual ; and 
 which would probably have been neglected by any one who had not been 
 stimulated by collateral considerations to avail himself of the opportunities 
 thus afforded. The interest which originally prompted to the task, was 
 
6 
 
 daily increased in pursuing the investigation of the subject. Those sen 
 sibilities to the honor and dignity of his country, which it behooves every 
 American citizen sedulously to cherish ; that indignation, which the 
 recital of gross and unprovoked wrong is calculated to inspire ; that 
 sympathy, which severe and unmerited suffering awakens were all pow 
 erfully roused by the continually recurring narratives of Mexican perfidy, 
 rapine, and cruelty. It was manifest that the national honor had been 
 wantonly and systematically assailed ; that the lives, the property, and 
 the rights of our citizens had been endangered and violated ; that the 
 laws of nations had been continually trampled upon, and the most solemn 
 and precise treaty stipulations daily disregarded. Such appeared not as 
 insulated and occasional incidents, but as the uniform and unvaried cha 
 racter of the relations which had subsisted between two contiguous 
 nations. So few and remote were the exceptions, that the conduct of 
 Mexico towards American citizens may almost literally be characterized 
 as " nulla virtute redemption." 
 
 While such were the traits exhibited by the one party, the deportment 
 of the United States, as well government as people, manifested the most 
 striking contrast. It had been marked throughout by magnanimity and 
 /orbearance, by generosity and patient endurance. During the period 
 when Spain was rent by the convulsions which upheaved Europe from 
 its foundations when the struggles between the emperor of France and 
 the Spanish nation were exhausting the strength and resources of the 
 parent country, as well as of her American colonies the United States 
 were presented with the most favorable opportunities for displaying and 
 gratifying that lust of aggrandizement which has at times been most un- 
 
 / scrupulously and falsely attributed to the people and government of this 
 Republic. There was no necessity to invent or fabricate pretexts for 
 plunging into hostilities, and wrenching by force, from the impotent hands 
 of Spain, her most valuable territories, as an indemnity for the wrongs she 
 had inflicted, and payment of the remuneration which she justly owed. 
 We had many and aggravated causes which would have justified a resort 
 to war ; and the consequences of a declaration of hostilities could scarcely 
 be regarded as doubtful. Our own will would have fixed the only limit 
 to our power to appropriate to ourselves the Spanish dominions on this 
 
 ( continent. Instead of resorting to such measures of redressing our 
 wrongs, we patiently waited until the termination of the great wars in. 
 Europe left Spain, disembarrassed from this tremendous conflict, which 
 for years had been waging in every corner of her realm, free to listen to 
 our solicitations for justice. So far from pressing upon Spain in her hour 
 of need, the American government discountenanced various attempts 
 which were made to overthrow the Spanish authority in the New World. 
 It is unnecessary to do more than to allude to the vigorous measures which 
 were adopted to arrest the movements of Miranda, and to defeat the 
 projects of Burr. When Spain became relieved, our demands upon her 
 were adjusted upon terms the most generous and liberal in their charac 
 ter, to that gallant and suffering nation. We relinquished every claim for 
 
pecuniary compensation from her exhausted treasury and impoverished 
 people. We ceded our entire claim to the magnificent territory lying be 
 tween the Sabine and the Rio del Norte. We relinquished this claim, 
 which, while some may undertake to controvert its clear and perfect va 
 lidity, none can deny to have rested on such a plausible foundation as to 
 have stimulated the cupidity of a more ambitious and less scrupulous 
 power. For all hese concessions, made by a powerful to a weaker nation, 
 we received from Spain the cession of Florida, to one-third of which 
 we had long asserted a paramount title, and that title had now been ripened 
 by a continuous peaceable possession, and which, if her title had been 
 undisputed, was valueless in the hands of Spain, from her inability to de 
 fend it. Such were the exhibitions of tha,t encroaching and aggrandizing 
 spirit, which has been thought to justify severe animadversions from a 
 community, which, centralized in a small island, has extended her sway 
 beyond the limits of Alexander s conquests and whose banner floats over 
 a wider region than the Roman eagle ever ventured to gaze upon whose 
 foreign territories comprehend a population of one hundred millions. 
 
 Not long after the termination of her European contests, Spain found 
 herself involved in the struggle which her American colonies had insti 
 tuted to emancipate themselves from her yoke. A congeniality of feel 
 ing, and an almost identification of principle with the people of the 
 United States during a similar contest, led our people and our government 
 to feel and express a warm sympathy with the infant republics just 
 emerging into existence. We afforded them every encouragement which 
 was compatible with our neutral position. Many of our citizens volun 
 teered to peril their lives in maintaining the cause of freedom. We 
 availed ourselves of the earliest opportunity to recognise the establish-" / 
 ment of that independence which was yet hardly achieved exerted our y 
 influence to procure a similar recognition from the leading powers in 
 Europe and labored to create a combination with them, to induce Spain 
 to desist from further efforts at subjugation, and to crown the result by 
 her free acknowledgment of the independence of her ancient colonies. 
 In all these movements, no eye, but one jaundiced by the most morbid 
 suspicion, can discover aught but the most sincere and disinterested 
 attachment to the great and noble cause of liberal and free institutions. 
 Instead of availing ourselves of the prominent position which we occu 
 pied on this continent, and of our commanding strength to enlarge our 
 boundaries by new acquisitions of territory, we studiously avoided every 
 act and every word which indicated any desire of personal advantage. 
 Instead of seeking to procure for ourselves those commercial privileges 
 which the services we had rendered might have furnished us with 
 grounds of claiming as a right, we refused to receive them as a voluntary 
 tribute of gratitude for our exertions in behalf of these infant nations. 
 We peremptorily declined to accept any advantages in trade, which w r ere 
 not extended to the rest of the Christian world ; and the only suggestion 
 which we offered, or would listen to, of the grant of peculiar or exclusive 
 rights, was in favor of Spain the very nation whom we were accused 
 
8 
 
 of wronging, but who, in fact, had perpetrated upon us the most grievous 
 injuries. 
 
 Through our intervention mainly, Mexican independence was consum 
 mated, and universally acknowledged. Animated, or professing to be 
 animated, by the same liberal principles which had guided us in analo 
 gous circumstances, Mexico assumed, as the basis of her constitution of 
 government, the same doctrines which had guided our fathers in con 
 structing our institutions. With few and comparatively unimportant 
 modifications, she adopted the main features of the frame of government 
 under which we had advanced with unparalleled rapidity in strength, 
 prosperity, and happiness. 
 
 Gratified by these manifestations of a community of feeling, and antici 
 pating from such indications a more cordial and harmonious intercourse 
 than had ever before subsisted between distinct communities, again the 
 people and the government of the United States received the Mexicans 
 with almost fraternal affection. Our citizens, enticed by the alluring 
 prospects presented to them in this new field of enterprise, encouraged 
 by the flattering invitations by which they were tempted, confiding in the 
 good faith of a people towards whom we had uniformly exhibited 
 nothing but kindness and generosity, and whose institutions were so 
 similar to our own, emigrated in great numbers to Mexico, and carried 
 with them to their new abodes wealth, skill, and enterprise, to be now 
 employed in the development of the resources, and the augmentation of 
 the strength of their adopted country. 
 
 In thus contributing to the aggrandizement of our sister republic, we 
 cherished the firm belief, and the confident expectation, that we were 
 knitting the two nations together by the strongest and most enduring 
 cords by which separate communities can be connected. Our commercial 
 interests, our agricultural products, the various occupations of industry in 
 every department, promised the most diverse, yet most harmonious 
 sources of mutual advantage. Each was deficient in what was supera 
 bundant in the other. 
 
 Under these auspicious circumstances, feelings of mutual confidence, 
 and habits of the most harmonious and unfettered intercourse, were 
 equally natural and advantageous. Treaties were arranged between the 
 two nations, adjusting all those questions of boundary which might 
 threaten collision, and embodying in the form of solemn compacts the 
 generous and enlightened principles of a humane and philosophic policy. 
 Everything prognosticated an uninterrupted career of tranquillity and 
 prosperity. 
 
 These anticipations, so gratifying to the philanthropist and the states 
 man, were not, however, doomed to be realized. It soon appeared that 
 the inhabitants of Mexico, habituated to the demoralizing and degrading 
 / oppression of a stern and unrelenting despotism, were but indifferently 
 qualified for the mild and moral restraints of republican institutions. 
 The yoke which Spain had so long fastened upon then: necks, was, it is 
 true, broken ; but the breaking of then: political fetters did not confer the 
 
9 
 
 capacity to comprehend or to enjoy the sweets of liberty. The corrupt 
 tendencies generated under their ancient influences, now liberated from 
 the restraints imposed by their colonial system of government, were only 
 permitted to expand more luxuriantly and more vigorously under their 
 new institutions. All the vices and iniquities which the slave had learned 
 were now practised by the freemen, clothed with the accumulated strength 
 and energy which freedom had communicated. All subordination to law 
 and government disappeared. The soldiery became the mere organs of 
 political revolutions. Anarchy ruled the entire land ; and the most ener 
 getic and most intellectual at the same time the most unprincipled be 
 came the exclusive possessors of sovereign authority. Revolution suc 
 ceeded revolution. The forms of a republic were, to a certain extent, 
 preserved ; but they exerted no greater influence, and commanded no 
 greater respect, than they had done in ancient Rome, after every vestige 
 of liberty had been erased by the Praetorian guards of the Emperor. 
 
 In such a position of the country, where the law yielded no protection 
 to the native, it could not be expected to afford a shield to the foreigner. 
 Rapine and murder stalked unchecked through the land, and atrocities 
 were daily perpetrated, which were justly characterized, by one of our 
 distinguished statesmen, as barbarities without parallel or precedent in 
 the annals of civilisation. Citizens of the United States, possessing more-- 
 vigor of character, more industry, more skill in business, than the natives, 
 soon became conspicuous for their prosperity and wealth, and, thus ele 
 vated, became tempting objects to rouse the cupidity of their neighbors. 
 In vain did they appeal to the constituted authorities of the land for that 
 protection which had been guarantied by the most precise treaty stipula 
 tions ; the public functionaries were too generally the actors or the ac 
 complices in the deeds of cruelty and oppression, to afford them either 
 security or redress. In vain did they invoke the interposition of their 
 own government ; the remonstrances of diplomatists were wholly ineffec 
 tive. The facts which they alleged were either denied with the most un 
 blushing disregard to truth, coolly passed by with contemptuous indiffer 
 ence, or met with vague and indefinite promises of inquiry and compen 
 sation, which, in postponing the demand, accomplished every purpose 
 which was either desired or designed. The annexed papers furnish, from 
 authentic sources, a brief but faithful narrative of this portion of Mexican 
 history. 
 
 At and prior to the time when Santa Anna overthrew the existing con 
 stitution, obliterated the confederated republic, and constructed on its 
 ruins a military despotism, numerous Americans had established them 
 selves throughout the various provinces of Mexico, and had engaged in 
 a prosperous career in every department of industry. The commerce be- 
 tween the two nations had, in a brief period, swelled to an amount ex 
 ceeding nine millions of dollars annually. Steam vessels navigated their 
 rivers ; mills were erected for the purpose of cutting their immense for 
 ests of valuable timber ; plantations of cotton, sugar, and coffee were es 
 tablished ; and the natural resources of the country were rapidly develop- 
 
10 
 
 ing to the great advantage of the nation, and of the individuals interested 
 in these improvements. This scene of prosperity was, however, speedily 
 changed. Every engine of oppression was put in motion, to outrage and 
 to expel this most invaluable population, and thus to extinguish these 
 prolific sources of public and of private wealth. A feeling of intense and 
 indiscriminate hatred to foreigners was artfully fomented ; and, without 
 remorse, without any effort to arrest the act, without any apprehension 
 of punishment following the offence, the lives of American citizens were 
 ruthlessly sacrificed, millions of property pillaged or destroyed, and all 
 the pursuits of business wantonly annihilated. 
 
 Resistance to the designs of Santa Anna was attempted in several of the 
 States of Mexico ; but all opposition was speedily quelled by the sword 
 of the despot, and the bayonets of his soldiery, save only in the frontier 
 state of Texas. From various circumstances, it had occurred that a 
 larger proportion of Americans and foreigners had established themselves 
 in that province than in any other portion of the territory of the republic. 
 Although feeble in numbers, they were undismayed by the defection 
 which was elsewhere manifested, and, inspired by the love of free insti 
 tutions, they determined to protect their constitution, and to defend their 
 rights against the usurper. It is an entire perversion of the truth to assert 
 that Texas ever revolted against a sovereignty to which she owed alle 
 giance, or revolutionized an established government. She maintained 
 her institutions against the efforts of Mexico to overthrow them, and 
 adhered loyally to the constitution which the residue of the republic 
 labored to subvert, or \vere impotent to preserve. Her glorious victory 
 at San Jacinto confirmed her independence of the new central sovereignty, 
 which Santa Anna had succeeded in establishing ; and Texas became for 
 ever separated from what, under new political institutions, still continued 
 to claim the name of the Mexican Republic. 
 
 Having consummated this act of separation, Texas was shortly after 
 recognized as a distinct and independent state, by the United States and 
 other principal powers of the world. Mexico persisted in her efforts to 
 reduce her to subjection ; but the war, in consequence of the imbecility 
 of Mexico, continued to languish, and degenerated into a miserable but 
 annoying system of marauding forays. Under these circumstances, the 
 citizens of Texas conceived the idea of associating themselves with this 
 Union. This project, after encountering many and serious impediments, 
 has at length been perfected by the almost unanimous voice of the great 
 body of her people, and been ratified by the constituted authorities of 
 both nations. 
 
 In reviewing the history of the relations between the United States and 
 Mexico, it will be seen that the latter has rarely found, in the conduct of 
 the former, any pretext for complaint. The proceedings of our govern 
 ment in relation to Texas have furnished almost the only acts which 
 Mexico has even pretended to charge as unjust or injurious to her. These 
 proceedings, up to a very recent period, have been thoroughly vindicated 
 
11 
 
 in the reply of Mr. Webster to the arrogant communication of Mr. Bocane- 
 gra to the diplomatic corps. In relation to the recent act of annexa 
 tion, Mexico has alleged, as she did in the preliminary proceedings, that 
 we have violated her clearly-ascertained national rights, as well as our 
 own solemn treaty engagements. The imputation involves the violation 
 of good faith, and a breach of positive contract. If the accusation is 
 well founded, the act cannot be too severely reprobated, or too harshly 
 condemned. If unjust, it should be proudly and indignantly repelled. 
 An attempt has been made, in the first series of the subjoined papers, to 
 exhibit the true merits of this question in a fair and dispassionate form. 
 
 It will be readily perceived that the principal object aimed at in these 
 papers, has been to show that Mexico has not even a plausible pretext 
 for assailing the honor and integrity of this nation, in reference to the 
 subject of Texas ; that the charge of infracting the law of nations, of 
 violating treaties, or in any shape or to any degree impairing her rights, 
 is utterly groundless. It is only in this aspect that the question has been 
 handled. Considered in this point of view, it forms an important item in 
 the history of our relations with Mexico, which it has been the exclusive 
 object of the entire series of these articles to illustrate. It did not fall 
 within the scope of the writer to vindicate the act on any grounds that 
 were purely domestic. How far the measure was in accordance with our 
 interests and policy how far it was in conformity with the principles of 
 our constitution are questions certainly of grave importance. They 
 have been discussed elsewhere with consummate ability. Upon them 
 the author entertains the most decided opinions ; and these opinions have 
 been expressed, without hesitation or reserve, on other occasions. To 
 discuss them on this occasion, would be a departure from the exclusive 
 object of the present publication, which is restricted to the single point 
 of vindicating the honor, integrity and good faith of this country in all 
 her relations with Mexico, and exhibiting in their true character our 
 dealings with that nation. 
 
 If these papers which, so far as regards the form which they assume, 
 have been written " cur rente callamo," amid other and engrossing occupa 
 tions shall be instrumental in vindicating, in the eyes of our own citizens, 
 our common country from the aspersions so falsely or ignorantly cast 
 upon it, as instigated by a reckless spirit of aggrandizement to perpe 
 trate injustice upon a neighboring community of urging demands upon 
 it, which have no foundation in justice of asserting claims which have 
 no substantial existence ; if they shall have exhibited in their true colors 
 and just proportions the character of Mexico, and the imperative obliga 
 tions which rest upon this government to persist, in every claim which 
 we have asserted, until Mexico shall either voluntarily engage, or, by the 
 application of the whole power of the nation, be compelled to atone for 
 the multipled wrongs she has inflicted, to compensate for the grievous 
 injuries which our citizens have suffered at her hands, to atone for the 
 insults she has offered to our flag and to our government, the object 
 
 OF THK 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
12 
 
 sought to be attained will have been fully accomplished. The honor of 
 the country, the outraged rights of our people, demand imperatively that 
 these results shall be attained ; and the government will be recreant to 
 its own duty and its own character, if it shall fail to attain them all. 
 
 RICHARD S. COXE. 
 WASHINGTON, September 10, 1845. 
 
13 
 
 No. II. 
 
 THERE is an inherent love of honor and of justice prevading the public 
 mind in this country, which no man, who duly appreciates the character 
 of the American people, will be so senseless or so narrow-minded as for 
 a moment to suppose is confined to any particular section of the Union, 
 or exclusively enjoyed by any particular party. This deference to prin 
 ciple is co-extensive with our institutions, and as widely spread as our 
 territorial limits. Yet it is perfectly obvious that it is by appeals to this 
 moral sense of the community that much of the feeling antagonistic to 
 the annexation of Texas has been assailed. With how much justice 
 this has been done, will appear from a calm and deliberate examination 
 of the subject. 
 
 In common with others, both Mr. Clay and Mr. Van Buren, in the 
 exhibition of their views, appear to have fallen into a capital error, 
 which has given but too much color to these imputations, upon the prin 
 ciples and motives of those who differed with them in opinion, and which 
 it is not easy to reconcile with the long and practical experience which 
 both of those gentlemen have had in public affairs. They have urged, 
 as the chief foundation of their hostility to the measure of annexation, as 
 it was presented at the last session of Congress, that it would involve a 
 serious injury to the subsisting rights of Mexico. They have intimated 
 that, in their judgment, the connection which at one time existed be 
 tween Mexico and Texas still continues ; that this connection cannot be 
 rightfully and absolutely dissolved without the express or implied assent 
 of both parties ; and that, notwithstanding the public declaration by 
 Texas that this connection had terminated, the actual enjoyment of her 
 independence, and the formal recognition of this independence by the 
 United States, and several of the leading sovereigns of Europe, still, to 
 certain purposes, Mexico retains her original claim to the sovereignty of 
 the country ; and that, until this right of Mexico shall be formally yield 
 ed by her, or, through some indefinite lapse of time, shall be impliedly 
 relinquished, Texas remains, and must remain, in the view of public and 
 national law, a constituent part of the Mexican territory. They conse 
 quently insist, that, in this posture of affairs, the United States have no 
 right, and cannot, without a manifest violation of the prior and unques 
 tioned right of Mexico, form a union with Texas, and, even with her 
 free and full consent, receive her into our Union as an integral part of 
 our Republic. 
 
 In the views thus exhibited, lies, as is apprehended, a double error : 
 
14 
 
 the one in the facts assumed as the foundation upon which the opinion 
 rests the other admitting the truth of those facts, in the legal conse 
 quences resulting from them. 
 
 The fact is denied, and history sustains this denial, that Texas, at any 
 time, to any extent, or for any purpose, constituted a part of Mexico, or 
 was either rightfully or otherwise subject to her sovereign authority. 
 
 In making this broad assertion, we must, of course, be understood as 
 distinguishing between Mexico as one separate and independent sove 
 reignty, and the United States of Mexico, or the United Mexican States 
 names given to a confederation and union of several distinct and 
 sovereign States, of which Mexico was one, and the most prominent. 
 Those united States were frequently and familiarly called Mexico, pre 
 cisely in the same manner, and by the same figure of speech, that these 
 United States are styled America. This distinction, so important to a 
 correct understanding of the subject, and which has been wholly over 
 looked in the objection we are considering, has been for two centuries 
 familiar to European history. The United Provinces were seven in 
 number, of which Holland, being the principal and more powerful, gave 
 her name in the same way to the whole republic. Austria, simply a 
 distinct principality, was a name familiarly used and applied to the entire 
 dominions under the sway of her Imperial master. In the year 1776, 
 while under the sovereigns of Spain, the vice royalty of New Spain 
 comprehended several distinct provinces, among which were Mexico, 
 Puebla, Vera Cruz, &c., &c. ; while Coahuila and Texas were not in 
 cluded within that appellation. When the Spanish yoke was thrown 
 off by her American provinces, new and distinct sovereignties were 
 created out of the broken fragments. Their independence was not a 
 combined, or even a contemporaneous act. The single circumstance 
 that all had originally constituted parts of the territory of, and professed 
 allegiance to, the same mother-country, did not render them, when that 
 connection was dissolved, one independent state. That circumstance 
 did not make them a unit in the new condition of affairs. Colombia, 
 Central America, Peru, Chili, and others, are, and have been, as com 
 pletely severed from each other as from their common parent. 
 
 In some instances, as circumstances made it expedient, the new com 
 munities thus sprung into existence began to form associations with 
 their neighbors upon terms mutually acceptable ; in others they re 
 mained distinctly and separately independent. In the northern part of 
 those Spanish dominions the federal system obtained the preponderance, 
 and a republican form of government was adopted. This comprised 
 nineteen distinct States, and five territories, the population of which 
 latter was not sufficient to entitle them to be received upon the same 
 
15 
 
 footing of equality with the more powerful members of the Union. A 
 regular constitution, or form of government, was established, analogous, 
 in many respects, to that which prevails in the United States. The 
 name assumed by this confederacy was the United Mexican States ; 
 and, by the terms of the Constitution, each State retained large and im 
 portant powers, and exclusively managed its own internal concerns. 
 The legislative department, like our own, was composed of two bodies 
 the House of Representatives and the Senate. The members of the 
 former were elected in the different States each eighty thousand in 
 habitants being entitled to one representative. The Senate was con 
 stituted of two members, chosen by each State legislature. The execu 
 tive power was deposited in the hands of a president, elected by the 
 State legislatures every four years. It is unnecessary, on this occasion, 
 to go further into details, illustrating the close resemblance which sub 
 sisted between the constitutional form of government, which was adopted 
 by the new republic, and that which exists in our own country. 
 
 Of the republic thus constituted, the State of Coahuila and Texas 
 formed an integral part. It was a voluntary association, united by a 
 special compact of the most solemn kind and character. It subsisted by 
 and in its organic law its constitution. From this republic (of which 
 by her own free assent she composed a part) Texas has never separated. 
 She has never revolted against it never declared herself independent 
 of it ; nor did she ever assent to, or participate in, its dissolution. 
 While it continued in existence, Texas remained faithful to her engage 
 ments, loyal to her allegiance, unswerving in her fidelity. It was dis 
 solved without her consent, against her wishes, in spite of her remon 
 strances. It was annihilated by the voice and action of other and more 
 powerful members of the confederacy. It was overturned by violence, 
 by force of arms by what, in the vernacular phrase of the country, is 
 termed a pronuntiamento ; elsewhere known by the more expressive 
 word, a revolution. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 IN our last number it was stated, in a succinct manner, what was the 
 nature of the union of the States into which Texas entered, and by 
 which her political existence became connected with that of Mexico, 
 and how that union had been terminated. The question now presents 
 itself, what were the legitimate consequences resulting from this state 
 of things ? A compact had been formed between independent States, 
 
16 
 
 connecting them under one federal head. That connection was termi 
 nated by the will of a portion of this community, annihilating the bond 
 of union, and establishing a new form of government, which had not, 
 like the former, any foundation in the general consent of the parties. 
 What is, then, the condition of a party to the old compact ? Is it under 
 any obligation to yield its assent to the change which has thus been 
 consummated ? Does it owe any allegiance to the new Government, 
 constituted without its assent, and in opposition to its wishes ? These 
 inquiries may be satisfactorily answered by reference to our own insti 
 tutions, and by considering them as propounded to ourselves. Our 
 national existence owes its birth to circumstances and to principles iden 
 tical with those in which the Mexican Republic originated. When the 
 thirteen colonies emancipated themselves from the dominion of England, 
 and proclaimed their independence, they each became a sovereign, free, 
 and independent State. Each was, by this act, clothed with all the 
 attributes of sovereignty, to every extent, and to every purpose. The 
 connection with Great Britain was absolutely and entirely dissolved. It 
 was as if it had never existed. Each was at perfect liberty to form for 
 itself a separate and distinct government ; and no other earthly power 
 had the right to interfere with the free exercise of this will. Each 
 was entitled, by its own inherent po\vers, without looking beyond for 
 any additional sanction to its course, to unite with, or to remain distinct 
 from, each and every other. Had one or more of them judged it ex 
 pedient, they might, even during the pendency of the Revolutionary 
 struggle, do as all collectively did organize their own forms of govern 
 ment, and form alliances with foreign powers. Some might have pre 
 ferred to surrender their separate political existence, so recently assert 
 ed, and still unconsolidated and unconfirmed, by merging it in that of 
 some European potentate. One might have gone back to her ancient 
 sovereign, Holland ; another might have deemed it more in accordance 
 with her interests to yield an unqualified submission to France ; while 
 a third, pursuing its own views of policy, might, with equal right, have 
 recognized the sovereignty of Spain, and became a part of her Ameri 
 can domain. 
 
 Can this view of the matter admit of any reasonable doubt ? In what 
 part of the code of national law it is prohibited ? What right would 
 have been violated ? The colonies were, and each separately was, per 
 fectly and absolutely independent. This independency was consummate 
 and perfect in July, 1776, and owes not a tittle to its recognition by Great 
 Britain in the treaty of peace. Such has ever been the doctrine held by 
 every statesman and jurist in the United States. In the year 1808, the 
 very point came up for decision before the Supreme Court of the United 
 
17 
 
 States. The language of that high tribunal on that occasion is clear, 
 precise, and unequivocal. " This opinion," they say, " is predicated 
 upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable that the several 
 States which compose this Union, so far at least as regards their munici 
 pal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared 
 themselves, independent, to all the rights and powers of Sovereign 
 States, and that they did not drive them from concessions made by the 
 British King. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their inde 
 pendence, not a grant of it." 
 
 Upon the same principles, each of the provinces which had been 
 colonized on this continent by Old Spain, when it cast off the ancient 
 sovereignty and asserted its independence, became, in like manner, sep 
 arately and distinctly a free and sovereign State. Each possessed all 
 the attributes of sovereignty. Each enjoyed, to its utmost extent, the 
 right to establish such form of government as to it seemed most suitable 
 to its circumstances, and promised to be most conducive to its happi 
 ness. Each was at perfect liberty to connect himself, under any form of 
 alliance or association, with any other power. The same rights of sove 
 reignty which gave validity to the act by which some of these States 
 formed a union with each other, made compacts, merged, to such extent 
 as they pleased, their separate existence in that of another, or association 
 of others, equally entitled it rightfully and effectually to establish a simi 
 lar connection with any other independent power, and form with it a 
 joint and united nation upon the same or any other terms. 
 
 There was nothing in the previous connecion between the separate 
 provinces of Spain, in the fact of their having been associated in their 
 allegiance to the same sovereign, or in the law of nations applicable to 
 this state of circumstances, which, when they had achieved their inde 
 pendence, bound them to limit themselves in establishing a confederacy 
 with other States, to each other or among themselves. The province 
 of Texas had as perfect, absolute, and indefeasible right, in that posture 
 of affairs, to form a union with these United States, or Guatemala a 
 similar one with France, or Beunos Ayres with Brazil, upon any terms 
 mutually acceptable to the parties, as the same provinces had to form an 
 association with each other. If a difference exists, it is assuredly not 
 an obvious one ; and none such, it is believed, has ever been suggested 
 from any quarter. 
 
18 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 IF the views presented in the preceding number be correct and no 
 reason is seen to entertain a doubt upon the subject then it must be 
 conceded, that, at the point of time when Texas had proclaimed and 
 consummated her independence on Spain, no consequence flowed from 
 her new position which, in any measure, qualified or limited the extent 
 of her sovereign rights. There did not result from it, to any extent or 
 to any purpose, any obligation to connect herself with Mexico, or any 
 subordination to that sister province. She was as independent of Mexi 
 co as of Spain. 
 
 The consequence is irresistible, that, at that juncture, the right of 
 Texas to form a union with these United States, upon any terms or 
 conditions which she might deem expedient, was as perfect and unques 
 tionable as that which she confessedly possessed, and in fact exercised, 
 of uniting herself with other free and independent States, in her immedi 
 ate vicinity, and to which circumstances had attached her more closely. 
 If it was competent for her, without affording just cause of offence to 
 any power, to do what she has done, when she formed with the States 
 of Mexico, Vera Cruz, Puebla, and others, a confederative republic, 
 then also might she, in the exercise of the same faculties, and in the 
 same form, have united herself with our own government. 
 
 Animated by a generous sympathy, engendered by a common struggle 
 for the attainment of common ends, and by an enlarged sense of mutual 
 interests, the thirteen colonies, after having proclaimed their indepen 
 dence on Great Britain, in the exercise of their undoubted powers, 
 thought it expedient, even before the conclusion of hostilities, to asso 
 ciate together under articles of confederation. This celebrated league 
 had its origin contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence, 
 although it did not receive the assent of all the States until the year 1781. 
 After adopting a name for the confederacy, the first article of this agree 
 ment declares that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and inde 
 pendence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by this 
 confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress as 
 sembled ; and the Sixth Article contains a stipulation which impliedly 
 admits the authority to exist, the exercise of which is thus fettered, that 
 no State, without the consent of the United States, shall send an)* em 
 bassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, 
 agreement, alliance, or treaty with, any king, prince, or State, &c. Af 
 ter the close of the war, the same parties again judged it expedient to 
 
19 
 
 perfect this union, and to knit the parts more closely together, and they 
 united in establishing a Constitution, which, with but few, and, as regards 
 our foreign relations, wholly unimportant alterations, still continues the 
 chart of our government. 
 
 Stimulated by our example, animated by congenial motives, and 
 placed in the same circumstances, several of the provinces which had 
 declared themselves independent on Old Spain, and whose territories 
 were contiguous, pursued, almost without deviation, the same course. 
 In the year 1824, and, as the face of the instrument itself expresses, in 
 the fourth year of independence, and second of the federation, they agreed 
 upon, and promulgated a Constitution. One clause in this paper is with 
 out any precedent in the American form. The concluding article, No. 
 171, in terms, declares, that " the Articles of this Constitution, and the 
 constitutional act which establishes the division of the supreme power 
 of the federation and of the States, can never be reformed." 
 
 The fifth Article of the Constitution, Section 49, declares the object of 
 the laws and decrees which may emanate from the general Congress. 
 Among these is " third, maintain the independence of the States among 
 themselves, in all that relates to their interior government, in conformity 
 to the constitutional act and this Constitution." The form of govern 
 ment is specially declared to be republican, representative, popular, fed 
 eral. Not only are the powers and jurisdiction of the federal govern 
 ment clearly and explicitly defined, but even the form and powers of 
 the State governments are expressed with equal caution and distinct 
 ness. 
 
 In 1827, the State of Coahuila and Texas acceded formally to this 
 plan of government, by the establishment and promulgation of its own 
 State Constitution. Some of the provisions of this instrument are 
 remarkable, and indicate a vigilant and sagacious forecast. Among its 
 prominent enactments is found this declaration : that the State * is free 
 and independent of the other United Mexican States, and of every other 
 foreign power and dominion ;" that, " in all matters relating to the 
 Mexican federation, the State delegates its faculties and powers to the 
 general Congress of the same ; but, in all that properly relates to the 
 administration and entire government of the State, it retains its liberty, 
 independence, and sovereignty." " Therefore belongs exclusively to 
 the same State the right to establish, by means of its representatives, its 
 fundamental laws, conformable to the basis sanctioned in the constitu 
 tional act and the general Constitution." 
 
 It was thus, and to this extent, that Texas, by her own free act, as a 
 sovereign and independent State, annexed herself to, and became a part 
 of the Mexican Republic. The Constitution was, in form and substance, 
 
20 
 
 in design and terms, a compact between distinct and separate communi 
 ties, prescribing the objects of the union, the terms and conditions upon 
 which it was established, defining with precision and accuracy the powers 
 delegated to the general government, and those which were retained by 
 the State. In general and comprehensive, but perfectly intelligible lan 
 guage, it declared the nature and character of that general government, 
 while, in distributing these powers among the several departments, pro 
 viding for the mode in which all the functionaries were to be elected 
 and appointed, it was guarded, as far as written Constitution can guard, 
 against any substantial alteration in these fundamental points. The 
 division which it made of the supreme powers of the Republic, and the 
 distribution of those faculties between and among the general and State 
 governments, was not only made fundamental, but unchangeable for ever. 
 It then appears, from the most authentic and indubitable evidence, that, 
 so far from there ever having been any sovereign authority in Mexico 
 over Texas, any inferiority or subordination, they met, acted, and con 
 federated as equal and independent, and as occupying, in every particu 
 lar, and to every purpose, an equal footing. 
 
 No. V. 
 
 The form of government and the character of the connection estab 
 lished by the Constitution of 1824, have been examined. That Consti 
 tution, however, has been dissolved, and the form of government which 
 it created and legitimated has been overturned. This catastrophe was 
 accomplished, not at the instance of Texas not by any act of hers not 
 with her aid or participation. It was consummated by the acts of other 
 members of the Confederacy, and chiefly through the instrumentality of 
 Mexico the most prominent and the most powerful of the number. In 
 the years 1834 and 1835, General Santa Anna, who had previously been 
 connected with the constitutional or federal party, suddenly changed his 
 ground at the head of an army overthrew the existing government, 
 ejected the general and State legislatures from their halls, and established 
 a central military despotism on the ruins of the Constitution. No refer 
 ence was made to the will of the nation no consent of the people was 
 required or given. Wherever opposition was made to the new order of 
 things, it was met at the point of the bayonet and overcome. Assuming 
 sovereign power, based upon no other foundation than his own individual 
 will, he issued the most arbitrary decrees, and undertook to enforce 
 their execution by the sole energy of the sword. Texas, animated by 
 
21 
 
 a feeling which commands our sympathy and deserves our highest eulo- 
 gium, singly opposed this power. A convention of the deputies of the 
 people was held, and a provisional government was established. Even 
 amid all these circumstances, Texas continued true and loyal to her 
 engagements. Imitating again the noble example of our forefathers in 
 1775, while with one hand she grasped the sword with a fixed resolu 
 tion to maintain her rights and her free institutions, with the other she 
 proffered the olive branch. In November, 1835, a manifesto was pro 
 mulgated, couched in language which must commend itself equally to 
 the feelings and principles of every votary of rational freedom 
 
 " Whereas General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, and other military 
 chieftains, have by force of arms overthrown the Federal Constitution of 
 Mexico, and desolved the social compact which existed between Texas 
 and the other members of the confederacy, now, the good people of 
 Texas, availing themselves of their natural right, solemnly declare 
 
 " First. That they have taken up arms in defense of their rights and 
 liberties, which were threatened by the encroachments of military des 
 pots, and in defence of the republican principles of the Federal Constitu 
 tion of Mexico of 1824. 
 
 " Second. That Texas is no longer morally or civilly bound by the 
 compact of union ; yet, stimulated by the generosity and sympathy com 
 mon to a free people, they offer their support and assistance to such of 
 the members of the Mexican confederacy as will take up arms against 
 a military despotism. 
 
 " Third, that they do not acknowledge that the present authorities of 
 the present nominal Mexican Republic have the right to govern within 
 the limits of Texas. 
 
 " Fourth. That they will not cease to carry on war against the said 
 authorities, whilst their troops are within the limits of Texas. 
 
 " Fifth. That they hold it to be their right, during the disorganization 
 of the federal system and the reign of despotism, to withdraw from the 
 Union, to establish an independent government, or to adopt such mea 
 sures as they may deem best calculated to protect their rights and liberties, 
 but that they will continue faithful to the Mexican government, so long 
 as that nation is governed by the Constitution and laws that were framed 
 for the government of the political association." 
 
 The principles embodied in this manifesto are substantially those which 
 emanated from the fathers of our own Revolution, during the period 
 which intervened between the first shedding of blood at Lexington until, 
 all hopes of reconcilation being abandoned, the Declaration of Inde 
 pendence consumated for ever the dissolution of the connection by which 
 the colonies had been bound to the mother-country. Those sentiments 
 
22 
 
 and principlest hus commended themselves to the reason and judgment of 
 of every American patriot and votary of constitutional freedom through 
 Christendom. It is hoped that they have lost none of their titles to our 
 respect and sympathy during the years that have since passed. 
 
 As among ourselves, these appeals to principle proved unavailing. 
 Santa Anna was not to be moved by declarations of personal rights, and 
 securities guarantied by written Constitutions, or derived from the origi 
 nal foundations of government. He persisted in his efforts to subjugate by 
 arms those who opposed him. He penetrated Texas with his army : he 
 was vanquished on the plains of San Jacinto, and found himself a prisoner 
 in the hands of those whom he had hoped to bring under his iron sway. 
 Treated with a lenity which he never would have exhibited, had the 
 fortunes of war given him the victory, he still perseveres in his 
 determination. 
 
 In the meanwhile, finding all plans of conciliation futile and ineffective 
 all compacts broken all written Constitutions trampled on the 
 inhabitants of Texas, still, if not imitating our example, impelled by the 
 same motives, and actuated by the same principles which influenced our 
 fathers, in March, 1836, promulgated a declaration of independence. In 
 this memorable instrument, they say : " That the Federal Republican 
 Constitution of their country, which they had sworn to support, has no 
 longer a substantial existence ; and the whole nature of their govern 
 ment has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restrictive 
 federative republic, composed of sovereign States, to a consolidated, cen 
 tral, and military despotism." They assert, in detail, the grievances 
 to which they had been subjected, and come to a conclusion, the legiti 
 macy of which no citizen of these United States can consistently contro 
 vert " The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our 
 eternal political separation." 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 WE have now traced, in a rapid manner, the history of Texas, down to 
 the year 1836, when her independence was not merely formally an 
 nounced in an authoritative form, but actually consolidated by a victory 
 as decisive as that which, at Yorktown, consummated the independence 
 of these United States. 
 
 Out of the materials which had, by their voluntary cohesion and 
 agreement, composed the Mexican Republic, two distinct nations had 
 been formed. Mexico, and those of the States which still adhered to 
 
23 
 
 her, constituted the one, under a system of government which, wholly 
 regardless of all the principles of republicanism and personal freedom, 
 rested upon the sword and military power as its only foundations. On 
 the other hand, Texas, who had, in connection with Mexico, thrown off 
 the Spanish yoke, who had with her united in establishing a constitu 
 tional federative republican government, adhered to the principles which 
 all had originally proposed, and by which all had been originally actua 
 ted, and persisted in remaining free. 
 
 To the new government thus established by her former associates, 
 Texas has never yielded her assent. She has never professed allegiance 
 to it. She has never recognised its authority. She peremptorily refus 
 ed her concurrence in its establishment, and, from the beginning, has 
 proclaimed herself independent of it. By the blessing of God, and with 
 the strength of her own right arm, she has been enabled to maintain this 
 independence. The " republican representative, popular, federal gov 
 ernment," instituted, as we have seen, in 1824, no longer exists the 
 union which was then formed has been dissolved, and this artificial body 
 has been resolved into its original elements. 
 
 What, then, is the consequence of such a dissolution thus wrought ? 
 The universal sense of mankind, wherever free governments exist 
 wherever written Constitutions are known furnishes but one answer to 
 this interrogatory. The integral parts of the confederation resume their 
 original position they stand where they did before the union was estab 
 lished. Mexico and Texas occupy the same attitude, and possess the 
 same absolute and relative rights which they did before they became con 
 nected under their written terms of association. It was by this compact 
 that any change had been effected ; that having terminated, its effect 
 and operation cease. There no longer exists the common head ; that 
 has been annihilated by the dissolution of the compact which created it, 
 and none other has been substituted. 
 
 To assert that from this course of events it results that Texas owes 
 any degree or species of allegiance to Mexico ; that she is still under 
 any subordination to, or dependence upon her, or that Mexico has the 
 faintest shadow of right to assert sovereignty over Texas is to draw 
 consequences wholly unwarranted by the premises. To say, as Mr. 
 Clay most unguardedly says, that " Texas revolted from Mexico," is to 
 assume that which has no foundation in the history of the two nations. 
 
 The language of our own Declaration of Independence assumes and 
 promulgates the true doctrine upon this point. In that paper it is de 
 clared " that governments are instituted among men, drawing their just 
 powers from the consent of the governed, to secure the rights of life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" " That, whenever any form of 
 
24 
 
 government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the peo 
 ple to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying 
 its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such 
 form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and hap 
 piness." " When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing in 
 variably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under abso 
 lute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such gov 
 ernment, and to provide new guards for their future security." Such 
 were the principles entertained by our forefathers ; such the language 
 in which they were announced to the world, as the ground upon which 
 the American colonies were justified before God and man in decreeing 
 " an eternal separation " from Great Britain. How much stronger was 
 the case of Texas ! England had not attempted to subvert the old and 
 established form of government. The ground of complaint against her 
 was, that she abused the power which she in part possessed, and dis 
 regarded the rights of those whom she had a constitutional authority to 
 X"govern. Mexico struck at the root of the tree. She assailed and un 
 dermined the very foundation upon which the Union rested. She pros 
 trated the entire system of government established by the consent of all 
 parties to the confederation. She broke the only tie of connection 
 which subsisted between herself and Texas. 
 
 Cogent and conclusive as is the argument drawn from our own ex 
 ample in 1776, a still more striking analogy to the circumstances in 
 which Texas was placed, by the lawless usurpation of Santa Anna, may 
 be imagined. A case may be conceived, which, it is to be hoped, will 
 never exist but in the fancy. The several States which compose our 
 Union are bound together by a constitutional compact, similar in its 
 fundamental characteristics, and even in many of its details, to that 
 which existed among the States which constituted the Republic of Mex 
 ico. If it happen, in the progress of time, that a portion of the largest 
 and most powerful of our States, under any influences, should deem it 
 expedient to alter fundamentally the form of government which is em 
 bodied in our Constitution ; should Massachusetts and New York, Penn 
 sylvania and Ohio, resolve to put an end to the existing state of things, 
 and establish a monarchy, or what would more closely approximate to 
 the government which existed in Mexico, a military despotism should 
 these powerful States be enabled, by force of arms, to bring this project 
 to a successful issue, within their own borders, and to extend it by simi 
 lar means over their weaker neighbors, would such a movement, how 
 ever successfully achieved, establish any right, in the monarch whom 
 they might create, to the sovereignty of other portions of the Union 
 which might choose to keep aloof from this new arrangement ? Would 
 
UNIVERB 
 
 Virginia and Kentucky, the Carolinas and Louisiana, be in any manner 
 bound by this proceeding, to which they had never yielded their assent ? 
 Would their resistance to this measure merit the name of revolt ? 
 Would they, after successfully opposing any attempt to impose this new 
 government upon their unwilling shoulders, be legally, or morally, or in 
 any other way, incapacitated from forming new political connections 
 with each other, or with whomsoever they pleased, upon any terms 
 which, in their judgment, might seem best calculated to promote their 
 liberty and happiness ? Would the consent of the new monarch be ne 
 cessary to give validity to such compacts ? Would a wrong be inflicted 
 upon him by a power which might think proper to favor such a confede 
 racy ? Is it possible that such questions as these can be seriously put, 
 or doubts be entertained respecting them by any sober, intelligent mind ? 
 Yet there are men, and those among the ablest in the land, who, 
 under the circumstances of the case, assert that Texas was, and is, 
 in contemplation of law, an integral part of the present government 
 of Mexico, bound to it by ties which she has no rightful authority 
 to dissolve ; and that, without the assent of Mexico, she is not de 
 jure independent, and has no capacity to unite herself with this Re 
 public who maintain that, by the mere act of forming such a union, 
 we are violating the rights of Mexico, and inflicting a grievous wrong 
 upon the government of Santa Anna. 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 IT is apprehended that our first position has been fully established ; 
 that it may confidently be asserted, that the essential facts assumed by 
 gentlemen who deny the absolute, unconditional, and unqualified right 
 of Texas, wholly independent of any assent expressed or implied by the 
 subsisting government of Mexico, to establish for herself any form of 
 government which she may deem expedient, to form any alliance or 
 connection with these United States, or who insist that this nation, in 
 acceding to any such connection, would thereby violate any right of 
 Mexico, or furnish her with any just cause or offence, are wholly un 
 warranted and unsupported by the truth of the case. 
 
 We may now advance to our next position in the discussion. The 
 proposition which is now to be asserted and maintained is this : that 
 upon the supposition that Texas did originally constitute a part of the 
 territory of the present government of Mexico, bound to it as an inte 
 gral portion of that community, yet, having declared her separation and 
 
26 
 
 independence having, in fact, consummated that independence by a 
 successful resistance to all the efforts of Mexico to subjugate her hav 
 ing been recognised as a free and sovereign State, in good faith, by these 
 United States, as well as by various European powers she is perfectly, 
 absolutely, and unconditionally independent, and has a perfect, absolute, 
 and unconditional capacity to exercise all the faculties of sovereignty ; 
 among which is the right to unite herself in any manner, and upon any 
 terms, which she may think expedient, to any other, although foreign, 
 State. 
 
 By the terms of the proposition, as thus stated, certain facts are con 
 ceded for the sake of argument. It is assumed that Texas, at one time, 
 formed a component part of the present Republic of Mexico ; that she 
 has separated herself from, and declared herself independent of, her for 
 mer rightful and acknowledged sovereign facts which, it has been fully 
 demonstrated, are at variance with the truth of history. Nor does the 
 position which has been advanced involve any inquiry by us into the 
 causes of this supposed revolution, or any judgment as to which party 
 in the struggle had the better right. This is a subject upon which, 
 however clear our opinions maybe as individuals, we are not authorized, 
 as a nation, to decide. The facts upon which our conclusion mainly 
 .rests are uncontroverted and incontrovertible. The independence of 
 / Texas actually exist ; and its existence has been publicly acknowledged 
 XJ>y our own and other governments. The legitimate result from this 
 state of things is, it is believed, that as regards Texas herself, and as re 
 gards all other powers, especially those by whom her independence has 
 been recognised, her former connection with Mexico, whatever it may 
 sjhave been, has, to all and every purpose, been absolutely dissolved ; 
 that she has as perfect a right to unite herself with this Union as with 
 Mexico herself; and that the United States, in acceding to such a con 
 nection, infringes no right of Mexico, violates no injunction of the law 
 of nations, and, consequently, offers no offence to that government. 
 The main, if not the only, ground which has been advanced by the oppo 
 nents of this doctrine, is, that, notwithstanding the facts incorporated 
 into the propositions, (which are not controverted), yet, so long as Mex 
 ico withholds her acknowledgment of the independence of Texas, and 
 persists in asserting her lawful right to sovereignty over her, this inde 
 pendence is only a quasi one ; that it is inchoate only, and imperfect ; 
 and that other nations cannot, without a violation of duty towards Mexi 
 co, disregard or do, any act contrary to the rights of that power. 
 
 Such is understood to be the length and breadth of the objection now 
 to be considered ; and it is my present purpose to demonstrate (as it is 
 thought can be clearly done) that it is at variance with the received 
 
27 
 
 doctrines of the law of nations, and emphatically with the uniform inter 
 pretation given to that code by the government of the United States. 
 It is apparent, that this objection rests upon the assumption, that, in refer 
 ence to the relations which subsist between a particular government and 
 all foreign nations, a distinction exists, well understoood and recognised 
 between a sovereign de jure, and a sovereign de facto. To apply this 
 doctrine to the case in hand, that, although Texas is de facto indepen 
 dent, yet, so long as Mexico perseveres in asserting her supposed origi 
 nal right of sovereignty, she must be recognised as the de jure sove 
 reign. 
 
 It is said this distinction is assumed to exist ; for throughout the entire 
 discussion, no citation, it is believed, has been made from any authorita 
 tive writer on public law which affords it the slightest countenance. 
 With great deference and unfeigned respect to the very distinguished 
 individuals who have lent to this doctrine the weight of their authority, 
 it may with great confidence be asserted, that it has no foundation or 
 support in the law of nations. No such distinction will be discovered 
 in Grotius or Vattel, or other eminent writers on this science. On the 
 other hand, the principles which pervade that code, as well as those 
 which have been practically adopted and enforced in the intercourse of 
 nations, are diametrically at variance v/ith any such idea. Drawing our 
 conclusions from these sources, we find this doctrine theoretically assert 
 ed and practically acted upon,/tKai the sovereign or sovereignty in fact^ 
 which is in actual possession and enjoyment of power, whether rightfully 
 or wrongfully obtained, is that alone which foreign nations are under any 
 obligation, or have any authority, to recognise. It is for the acts of the 
 actual rulers that the nation is responsible to other governments, whe 
 ther they have acquired their authority by constitutional means or by 
 lawless usurpation. While the matter is in controversy, they assert the_, 
 right of foreign nations to interpose in the contest in favor of the party 
 whom they suppose in good faith to have the better right ; but, the fact 
 being established by the successful termination of the struggle, they 
 have no further right to interpose ; nor are they empowered to look be 
 yond the mere fact of possession. This is, beyond all reasonable doubt, 
 the rule prescribed by writers on public law ; and the numerous instan 
 ces in which it has been asserted and acted upon, are familiar to every 
 reader of modern history. 
 
28 
 
 No. VIII. 
 
 THE doctrine under examination, which distinguishes between a de 
 jure and a de facto sovereignty, and which, it is contended, has no place 
 in the code of international law, will appear, upon examination, to be 
 one exclusively belonging to the municipal law of England. Even in that 
 country it is of doubtful and uncertain existence, restricted by the best 
 writers within very narrow and not very precise limits ; and, when 
 correctly interpreted, is not susceptible of application to the controversies 
 which arise between independent nations. 
 
 Such as it is, this doctrine originated in the disputed successions for 
 the crown of England, which for so many years unsettled all the founda 
 tions of social order, and deluged the country with blood. Elackstone 
 furnishes us with a succinct view of its origin, in the first volume of his 
 Commentaries ; and other distinguished English common law lawyers 
 either refuse any countenance to it as a principle of law, or so interpret 
 its meaning, or restrict its application, as to lefve it little more than a 
 nominal existence. Blackstone informs us that " the crown descended 
 regularly from Henry IV to his son and grandson, Henry V and VI ; in 
 the latter of whose reigns, the House of York asserted their dormant 
 title, and, after imbruing the kingdom in blood and confusion for seven 
 years together, at last established it in the person of Edward IV. At 
 his accession to the throne, after a breach of the succession that continued 
 for three descents, and above threescore years, the distinction of a king 
 de jure and a king de facto began to be first taken, in order to indemnify 
 such as had submitted to the late establishment, and to provide for the 
 peace of the kingdom, by confirming all honors conferred, and all acts 
 done by those who were now called usurpers, not tending to the disin 
 heritance of the rightful heir. In Statute 1, Edw. IV, c. 1, the three 
 Henries are styled " late kings of England successively, in dede and not 
 of ryghte." And in all the charters which I have met with of King 
 Edward, wherever he has occasion to speak of any of the line of Lan 
 caster, he calls them "nuper de facto et non de jure reyes Anglice." 
 
 Such is the account of the introduction of this phrase into the munici 
 pal code of England, and the view which it exhibits is corroborated by 
 the interpretation which Lord Coke had long before given to it an 
 interpretation which, if correct, at once precludes the idea of incorporating 
 it into the code of international law. Lord Coke says, that " a king de 
 facto is one that is in actual possession of a crown, and hath no lawful 
 right to the same ; in which sense, it is opposed to a king de jure, who 
 
29 
 
 hath right to a crown, but is out of possession." Blackstone, in his 4th 
 Commentaries, adopts fully this interpretation, and speaks of a " usurper 
 who hath got possession of the throne" as the king de facto, and illus 
 trates his idea by putting the case of " the king of Poland or Morocco" 
 invading the kingdom, and by any means obtaining possession of the 
 crown. 
 
 Surely those who have interpolated this phrase into the law of nations, 
 and applied it to questions and to parties with which it has no rational 
 or just connection, must have equally misapprehended its true significa 
 tion and its appropriate position. It presupposes a previous judgment 
 upon the only question over which no foreign power has or can right 
 fully exercise any jurisdiction the question of right in the one party, 
 and absence of right in the other. To apply it to the position which 
 Mexico and Texas occupy, and the relations which subsist between them, 
 it admits of no other signification than is expressed in this paraphrase 
 although Texas is in fact in the actual posses&ion and enjoyment of 
 sovereignty, it is only de facto ; for " she has no lawful right to the 
 same ;" it belongs, de jure, to Mexico, because she " hath right, but is 
 out of possession." Upon this question of right, we confessedly have 
 no authority, as a nation, to decide, although it will be difficult to find a 
 citizen of the United States who will deny the justice of the case to be 
 with Texas. One of our most distinctly expressed doctrines one uni 
 formly maintained throughout our entire history, under each successive 
 administration, under all circumstances, and by every party is that 
 which asserts the right of every nation to govern itself in its own way, 
 without the intervention of foreign powers, and the absence of all right 
 on the part of foreign governments to interfere in the domestic contro 
 versies of other nations. 
 
 These were the principles announced as those by which we were 
 animated during the struggle between Mexico and Spain ; and they are 
 so distinctly stated by Mr. Van Buren, when, in 1829, he held the office 
 of Secretary of State, as to supersede the necessity, at this time, of 
 making further citations ; which, however, might be almost indefinitely 
 multiplied. In a despatch from Mr. Van Buren to Mr. Butler, dated 
 16th October, 1829, he says : " The United States, drawn by a com 
 munity of views and feelings towards a young nation, engaged, as they 
 once had been, in a struggle for life and death for independence and 
 freedom continued to sympathise with Mexico ; and nothing but their 
 immutable principles of non-interference in the domestic concerns of 
 other nations, and of inviolable neutrality towards belligerents, prevented 
 them from extending a helping hand to the young republics of America. " 
 " From the moment that, consistently with their rule of conduct and the 
 
30 
 
 established principles of public law, they could consider Mexico and 
 Spain as two distinct nations, which fate had for ever separated, the 
 United States pronounced the freedom of America j and their Congress, 
 with a unanimity of which the history of legislation affords no example, 
 invited Mexico and her sister republics to take their rank among the 
 independent nations of the earth. The influence which this important 
 event had upon the conduct of the European powers is too well known 
 to require elucidation. The example of the United States was followed 
 almost immediately ; and Mexico, a little more than one year after she 
 had proclaimed her independence, was represented at Washington by a 
 minister, invested with all the prerogatives of an ambassador of a free 
 State, and diplomatic and commercial relations were soon after established 
 between her and the most influential powers of the Old World/ 
 
 In this State paper, no allusion is made to the new doctrine of a quasi 
 independence of a distinction between a sovereignty de facto and de 
 jure. The non-interference by the United States in the struggle for 
 freedom, during its continuance, is placed upon the rightful ground 
 " the immutable principle of non-interference in the domestic concerns of 
 other nations" while that independence was neither declared nor con 
 summated ; and, when thus declared and recognised, upon the ground 
 equally sacred among us that of " inviolable neutrality among bellige 
 rents." These principles are ample, in all similar cases, to furnish 
 guides to our conduct. They are based upon a solid foundation, viz : 
 that among foreign States all occupy an equal position all have equal 
 rights no judgment can be pronounced upon the questions which divide 
 them. The de jure and de facto doctrine, on the other hand, implies 
 inferiority of position, inferiority of right, and the capacity of a foreign 
 power to pass its judgment on these questions. 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 IN the last preceding number of these remarks, it was designed to 
 establish the broad and comprehensive doctrine, as a part of the great 
 code of laws which regulates the intercourse between different nations, 
 that the law of non-intervention and of neutrality are distinct branches 
 of the system, founded upon and implying an equality among the mem 
 bers of the great family governed by it ; and that not only is the doctrine 
 of a distinction between a sovereignty dejure and de facto not to be found 
 among its provisions, but it is directly at variance with its best under 
 stood and most clearly denned provisions. 
 
31 
 
 It is now proposed to show that this is in precise accordance with the 
 opinions and acts of the government of the United States at all times, 
 and under all circumstances. The doctrine which has ev r er been avowed"" 1 
 and maintained by this nation upon this question, is understood to be 
 this : that when the subsisting government is changed in any foreign 
 country, either by a revolution or by a separation of its parts by the 
 overthrow of the former rulers, or by an attempt of a portion to disen 
 gage itself from an existing connection with another part, the new sov 
 ereignty is deemed perfect and absolute, when either it is conceded by 
 the old sovereign, or is recognised by our own executive as having been 
 accomplished in point of fact. 
 
 This was the policy of Washington when he recognised the various 
 phases which the government of France assumed during her revolution. 
 It was pursued by every successive administration from that day to the 
 present. Disclaiming, as we uniformly did, all right to interfere in the 
 existing struggles which upheaved the old established forms of govern 
 ment, and overthrew the thrones in most of the ancient monarchies of 
 Europe, we limited our view to those actually in possession of power 
 recognised the successive rulers who rapidly rose, like phantoms, to 
 places of authority, and as speedily sunk, to be in turn succeeded by 
 others whose career was equally evanescent. The thrones of Naples, 
 Spain, and Portugal were vacated, and the United States uniformly 
 acknowledged the existing sovereignties. They did more ; they as 
 uniformly insisted that the nation was responsible for the outrages perpe 
 trated upon the rights of our citizens, by what were termed the intrusive 
 governments. France was required to make compensation for injuries 
 which we had sustained under the administration of the Directory, the 
 consulate, the Emperor ; and the house of Bourbon was called upon to 
 pay for wrongs inflicted by their own enemies, which reclamations were 
 finally adjusted by Louis Philippe. Spain indemnified us for violations 
 of our rights by the French authorities ; Naples for those we had suf 
 fered under the reign of Murat. This principle is at this time univer 
 sally recognised as the doctrine of the law of nations throughout Europe, 
 alternately asserted and submitted to by every one of the powers of the 
 Old World. 
 
 The recognition of a subsisting sovereignty in a foreign nation, is a 
 solemn and authoritative act, to be executed by that department of the 
 government to which the Constitution has entrusted it. When the exec 
 utive has thus recognised the fact of independence, it is without qualifi 
 cation or condition, and is binding upon the nation. The new sovereign 
 is deemed, to every purpose, sovereign, when either his existence is 
 recognised by our own government, or is acknowledged by the pre-ex- 
 
32 
 
 ^ 
 isting superior authority. Such was the view judicially taken of this 
 
 question by the Supreme Court, in 1808. Chief Justice Marshall, in 
 delivering the opinion of the court in a case involving this point, thus 
 expresses himself: 
 
 " The colony of St. Domingo, originally belonging to France, had 
 broken the bond which connected her with the parent State, had de 
 clared herself independent, and was endeavoring to support that inde 
 pendence by arms. France still asserted her claim of sovereignty, and 
 had employed a military force in support of that claim. A war de facto 
 then unquestionably existed between France and St. Domingo. It has 
 been argued that the colony, having thus far maintained its sovereignty 
 by arms, must be considered and treated by other nations as sovereign in 
 fact, and as being entitled to maintain the same intercourse with the 
 world that is maintained by other belligerent nations. In support of 
 this argument, the doctrine of Vattel has been particularly referred to. 
 But the language of that writer is obviously addressed to sovereigns, not 
 to courts. It is for governments to decide whether they will consider 
 St. Domingo as an independent nation ; and, until such decision shall be 
 made, or France shall relinquish her claim, courts of justice must consider 
 the ancient course of things as remaining unaltered, and the sovereign 
 power of France over that colony as still subsisting." 
 
 In that case, the late lamented Mr. Du Ponceau was questioned by the 
 court, and in answer, observed : " The question is, whether France can, 
 by the force of the law of nations, seize and confiscate vessels of neutral 
 nations trading to Hayti ? If it is admitted that the situation of France 
 is a war, it follows that France is at war and we are neutrals. If neu 
 trals, we cannot judge of anything de jure which is the subject of con 
 troversy between France and Hayti. Hayti contends that, de jure she 
 is an independent State. France contends that, de jure, Hayti is her 
 dependent colony. Of this, as neutrals, we are not permitted to judge. 
 We find them at war together, and at issue on this question of dependent 
 or independent. We must take them both to be right." Further on, 
 he adds, that we have nothing to do with the claims of France to the 
 sovereignty of Hayti : " We who are not bound to support her dignity, 
 recognize her rights only so far as they are sanctioned by the laws of a 
 war of the nature of that in which she is engaged, and no further ; and 
 they do not bind us further than the laws of war, applied to the par 
 ticular war existing, expressly authorized ; but they bind us so far." 
 
 This learned jurist and few men in this or any other country have 
 been more distinguished for a large and comprehensive acquaintance 
 with public law maintained the doctrine that, even during the period 
 when the parties were asserting their respective claims and pretensions, 
 
33 
 
 flag ante bello, the rights of either party rested exclusively upon the laws 
 of war, and the obligations of other nations were limited exclusively to 
 those of neutrality. So far as the particular issue was involved we have 
 seen the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court. That question is 
 definitely settled, so far as such foreign nation is concerned, by the recog 
 nition by the constitutional authority of an existing independence. That 
 being settled, nothing else remains but the ordinary rights of bellige 
 rents and the ordinary obligations of neutrality. 
 
 It has thus, it is apprehended, been conclusively demonstrated by the 
 highest authority recognized in our land the opinions and acts of our 
 most eminent statesmen, the opinions and judgments of our ablest jurists 
 that, even were an active war now in prosecution between Mexico 
 and Texas, for the purpose of the recovery, by the former, of her 
 alleged sovereignty, yet, from the instant the United States, in good faith, 
 acknowledged the independence of the latter, we are bound to regard 
 the two contending parties as equally right in the contest, and our only 
 obligation is, to extend to them equally the same measure of justice ; 
 and that is to be regulated by their respective rights as belligerents, and 
 our duties to each of them, as ascertained by the laws of neutrality. 
 
 The only question, then, which remains open upon this point, is, 
 whether the United States may lawfully and without affording just cause 
 of offence to Mexico as a belligerent, in good faith purchase Texas 
 from her present owners ? or with the assent of her people, apcording 
 to their institutions, unite her to ourselves ? 
 
 Upon this point, we have authority equally high as any we have cited 
 to sustain our previous views. During the administration of Mr. Jeffer 
 son, the United States opened negotiations for the purchase of Louisiana 
 from France. It was about the period of the termination of the brief 
 and hollow peace brought about by the treaty of Amiens. Great 
 Britain meditated a military expedition, for the purpose of subjugating 
 that province to her own dominion ; and the question naturally present 
 ed itself, how will England regard this acquisition of territory, which she 
 entertained every hope of subjugating to her own dominion from a for 
 eign enemy ? Anticipating an objection from this quarter, Mr. Madison, 
 on the 75th of May, 1803, addressed to Mr. Livingston, our Minister in 
 France, a despatch, in which he says : " As the question may arise, how 
 far, in a state of war, one of the parties can, of right, convey territory to 
 a neutral power, and thereby deprive its enemy of the chance of conquest 
 incident to war, especially when that conquest may have been actually 
 projected, it is though proper to observe to you 1st, that, in the present 
 case the project of peaceable acquisition by the United States originated 
 prior to the war, and, consequently, before a project of conquest could 
 3 
 
34 
 
 have existed ; 2d, that the right of a neutral to procure for itself, by a 
 bond fide transaction, property of any sort from a belligerant power, 
 ought not to be frustrated by the chance that a rightful conquest thereof 
 might thereby be precluded. A contrary doctrine would sacrifice the 
 just interests of peace to the unreasonable pretensions of war, and the 
 positive rights of one nation to the possible rights of another. A restraint 
 on the alienation of territory, from a nation at war to a nation at peace, 
 is imposed only in cases where the proceeding might have a collusive 
 reference to the existence of the war, and might be calculated to save 
 the property from danger, by placing it in secret trust, to be re-conveyed 
 on the return of peace. No objection of this sort can be made to the 
 acquisitions we have in view." In conclusion, he says: "With these 
 observations, you will be left to do the best you can, under all circum 
 stances, for the interests of your country ; keeping in mind that the rights 
 we assert are clear, that the objects we pursue are just." 
 
MEXICO. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 THE present attitude of the government of the United States and 
 Mexico is calculated to awaken the serious attention of the people 
 of this country, and demands the most deliberate consideration 
 of the Executive. Mexico has thought proper to suspend all 
 diplomatic intercourse with the United States. She has taken umbrage 
 at the proceedings of the President and of Congress, in relation to the 
 annexation of Texas ; and while she has withdrawn her representative 
 from the United States, declines all further correspondence with our 
 minister at her Capital. This is a high-handed measure. It cannot, of 
 course, be of indefinite duration. It is utterly impossible for the two 
 countries, between whom so many relations subsist, to remain for ever in 
 this position ; nor can the United States, with a proper feeling of self- 
 respect, and w^ith a just regard to its own duties to its citizens, submit to 
 such a condition of things. 
 
 It becomes, however, important to inquire what is to be the result of 
 this singular announcement. Mexico has again assumed a menacing 
 tone, and threatened, as she has before done, to vindicate what she calls 
 her wounded honor and her injured rights, by a declaration of war. On 
 a former occasion, when similar consequences were held out to deter us 
 from the course which we thought our honor and rights required, Mr. 
 Webster administered a rebuke which led to a withdrawal of this offensive 
 language. If, said he, " the peace of the two countries is to be disturb 
 ed, the responsibility well be devolved on Mexico. She must be 
 answerable for consequences. The United States, let it be again repeat 
 ed, desire peace. It would be with infinite pain that they should find 
 themselves in hostile relations with any of the new governments of this 
 Continent. But their government is regulated, limited, full of the spirit of 
 liberty, but surrounded, nevertheless, with just restraints ; and greatly 
 and fervently as it desires peace with all States, and especially with its 
 more immediate neighbors, yet no fear of a different state of things can 
 be allowed to interrupt its course of equal and exact justice to all 
 
36 
 
 nations, nor to jostle it out of the constitutional orbit in which it 
 revolves." 
 
 Should this unhappy and misgoverned country rashly undertake to 
 carry these threats into execution by a declaration of war, but one course 
 will be left for the United States to pursue. She will be compelled to 
 prosecute this war with vigor, and press it to a successful close with 
 all promptitude. 
 
 Should it, however, (as there seems some reason to anticipated), ba 
 decided by Mexico to abstain from an appeal to arms, and to rest it in 
 the position she has assumed, of a mere discontinuance of diplomatic 
 intercourse, then it behooves us to determine upon the course which it 
 is our right and duty to adopt. It becomes, also, an important inquiry 
 whether, even before Mexico shall finally determined upon her ulterior 
 course, it would not be advisable and becoming to anticipate her deci 
 sion, and afford her an opportunity of bringing the subject of controversy 
 to the more amicable arbitrament of negotiation. 
 
 The citizens of the United States have large claims upon Mexico. 
 They are of a very aggravated character, and many of them of long 
 standing. A portion of these have already been investigated, and the 
 amount of compensation adjusted. Much the greater part, however, 
 remain unliquidated ; but both governments have solemnly and mutually 
 bound themselves by positive treaty to examine and decide upon them. 
 
 It cannot for a moment be supposed that the United States will assent 
 to a relinquishment of these claims, or suffer Mexico to maintain her 
 assumed silence in regard to them. If she thinks proper to terminate 
 her official intercourse with this government because she complains of our 
 conduct in regard to Texas, she cannot be permitted to suppose that, in 
 this manner and under this pretext, she can avoid the payment of our 
 just demands upon her. We believe that, in our proceedings relative to 
 Texas, we have done no wrong to Mexico, have violated none of her 
 rights, and have contravened no treaty stipulations, and no requirement of 
 national law. Mexico asserts the contrary. To break off all intercourse 
 between the parties is certainly an unusual way of adjusting these con 
 flicting pretensions, and a novel mode of obtaining redress for an alleged 
 injury. The question is open ; and so far as that question merely is 
 concerned, Mexico is certainly at perfect liberty either to make it the 
 subject of amicable discussion, or to pout in sullen silence, as she may 
 think most conducive to her interests, and most reconcileable to her own 
 estimate of national honor. 
 
 In regard, however, to her obligations to make compensation to our 
 citizens, the case is wholly different. Our government has repeatedly 
 asserted, fjn every form and mode which our institutions allow^j that 
 
37 
 
 Mexico has inflicted upon us serious injuries, has perpetrated wrongs 
 which she is bound to redress, and that the government of the United 
 States is under imperative obligations to see that ample compensation in 
 provided for them. Mexico has herself acknowledged the justice of the 
 charge/ In regard to a portion of the cases, the damages have been liqui 
 dated by a board, created by the joint action of the two parties ; at the par 
 ticular solicitation of Mexico, a period of five years was liberally allow 
 ed her, within which to pay the amount awarded against her. The 
 money was to be paid in quarterly instalments. At this moment, 
 five of these instalments are in the arrear. In regard to two of them, a 
 singular, and to the unfortunate claimants, an inexplicable mystery 
 hangs over the subject. The official dignitaries of both countries have 
 averred that the instalments of April and July, 1844, were in fact paid to 
 the agent of the American government in August last ; and this assertion, 
 so far as the public is apprised, has never been officially contradicted. 
 Nevertheless, the money has not yet been received in Washington ; and 
 where it actually is, is still a profound secret. But the three last instal 
 ments, due in October, January, and April, have unquestionably not been 
 paid ; and Mexico is in default at least to that extent. 
 
 In regard to the unliquidated claims, Mexico also has solemnly stipu 
 lated to provide for their adjustment and payment. A convention was 
 framed in her own Capital, under her own immediate supervision, pro 
 viding for this adjustment. Its general provisions have been acceded to 
 by both governments, and certain modifications were suggested by the 
 Senate of the United States, in no degree affecting the general principles 
 which had been mutually recognized. Yet this instrument, thus in 
 complete, has been before the Mexican government for more than a 
 twelvemonth ; and, during this entire period, she has not deigned to 
 reply to the reiterated and importunate call of our minister for her decision 
 in regard to it. 
 
 It becomes, then, an important and interesting question, What course 
 do the interests of the United States and her obligations to her citizens re 
 quire to be adopted? The subject will be pursued in a subsequent 
 number. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 THE inquiry which has been proposed is, what course ought the Uni 
 ted States to pursue in the present position of affairs between her and 
 
33 
 
 Mexico ? The question assumes, as its basis, the now-existing circum 
 stances between the two nations. It assumes, that now the question is 
 to be answered, now the course is to be determined. Before Mexico 
 shall have further committed herself before affairs have taken a direc 
 tion which it might be difficult, if not impracticable to change how are 
 we to act ? 
 
 As has been shown, the citizens of the United States have claims to 
 a very large amount, (probably to the extent of at least ten millions of 
 dollars) upon the government of Mexico. The validity of these claims 
 has been recognized by both nations, and the national faith of the United 
 States has been pledged that the payment of them must and will be in 
 sisted on. Mexico has taken offence on a collateral and independent 
 question, and closed the ordinary channel of national intercourse. 
 
 The government of the United States has been compelled, in conse 
 quence of the hostile demonstrations on the part of Mexico, to despatch 
 a powerful squadron to the gulf, prepared to prevent or resist any war 
 like movements. The naval force in the Pacific is, of course, apprised 
 of the posture of affairs. Troops have been assembled on our southern 
 frontier, ready to act as circumstances may demand. 
 
 These proceedings, however, are purely and exclusively defensive. 
 Unless Mexico should commence hostilities, nothing will be attempted 
 on our side. The presence of an imposing force on her seaboard, and of 
 an army on her northern frontier, may operate to deter Mexico from the 
 egregious folly of declaring war, but it is impossible to anticipate what 
 her wilfulness may lead to. 
 
 As regards our own course, it would be equally unwise and unbecom 
 ing for us to wait for the development of her views and conduct. Our 
 proceedings should be independent of her movements, and dictated alone 
 by a regard to our own rights, duties, and interests. The history of our 
 country furnishes a precedent for our instruction, and points out a course 
 which, at the time, commanded the general approbation of the nation 
 and of the world. 
 
 In 1833, during the administration of General Jackson, a case almost 
 parallel occurred. By the treaty of July 4, 1831, France had stipulated 
 to pay twenty-five millions of francs in satisfaction of the claims of Ame 
 rican citizens on that government, for illegal seizures of their property, 
 and violations of their rights. The money was to be paid by instal 
 ments of certain sums, at specified periods. The King of the French, 
 who had concluded the treaty, used every exertion, and employed all 
 his influence, to obtain from the legislative department an appropriation 
 to enable him to fulfill the terms of the arrangement. From causes be 
 yond his control, he had been unsuccessful in these efforts. Payment 
 
39 
 
 was withheld ; and a draft drawn by the American government on 
 France was returned protested for non-payment. President Jackson, 
 keenly sensitive upon every subject connected with the honor and dignity 
 of the nation, transmitted a communication to Congress, in which he 
 employed language that gave offence equally to the French government 
 and the French nation. Under the influence of this irritation, France 
 withdrew her minister, tendered his passports to our Representative at 
 her court, and suspended all diplomatic intercourse with the United 
 States. Thus far, the cases are strikingly analogous ; but great and im 
 portant differences exist. The subject of the treaty arrangements was 
 the same in both instances it was the claims of private citizens of the 
 United States for lawless injuries inflicted upon their persons and pro 
 perty by a foreign power. In both cases the validity of these claims, 
 and the obligation to compensate for these wrongs, had been secured by 
 positive treaty stipulations. In both cases these conventional arrange 
 ments had been violated, and payments which had been promised were 
 withheld. The ground of complaint which was raised was, in both 
 cases, purely collateral. In the one, France took offence at the lan 
 guage employed by the President, in an official communication to Con 
 gress. In the other, Mexico has taken umbrage at the proceedings re 
 lative to Texas. In each case the offended party resented the supposed 
 wrong by the suspension of diplomatic intercourse. Here, however, the 
 parallel stops. In regard to France, no cause of complaint existed against 
 the executive. The King and his ministry had faithfully done all in 
 their power to comply with their engagements ; they had recognized the 
 binding force of the treaty which they had signed; they employed all the 
 constitutional means they possessed to fulfil their obligations ; they had 
 failed in their efforts merely by the omission of the Legislature to meet 
 the necessary appropriations ; and they gave the most satisfactory assu 
 rances to the United States, that they would persevere in their exertions 
 to fulfil their engagements. 
 
 How widely different has been the conduct of Mexico ? And what 
 a contrast does it exhibit to the manly and honorable course of the French 
 government ! From the moment it was apprised of the result of the~^ 
 board of Commissioners, every effort has been employed by the Mexican 
 executive to rouse a feeling of exasperation and hatred against the gov 
 ernment and people of the United States. Every epithet of opprobrium 
 and disgrace has been lavished upon us/ The representative of the Prus- x 
 sian government, who acted as umpire between the American and Mexi 
 can commissioners, came in for his share of these pitiful calumnies, until 
 they were stopped by the decided tone assumed by the Prussian minister 
 at Mexico. The money which was to be appropriated to the payment 
 
40 
 
 of the awards was raised by a species of forced contribution, in the most 
 oppressive manner, in order that, with every dollar that was paid, might 
 be mingled some portion of exasperated feeling against the object for 
 which it was to be applied, and the people who were to receive it ; and 
 when the money was thus extorted from the Mexican people, it was 
 diverted from its appropriate object, and either went into the general 
 mass of public expenditures, or contributed to fill the pockets of the 
 unprincipled men who administered her finances. 
 
 It is the government, the executive of Mexico, which has been faith 
 less to its engagements. No impediment has been interposed by the 
 
 ^mission of the Legislature to furnish all the means required. It is the 
 same department of the government which negotiated and signed these 
 treaties, which has, for more than a twelvemonth, failed to pay according 
 to contract, and to comply with their solemn engagements to make pro 
 vision for the unadjusted claims. The Texas movement is a mere pre- 
 
 ^.text for this flagrant violation of duty by Mexico. Her perfidy and bad 
 faith are of earlier date than any complaint on her part, growing out of 
 Texas concerns. During the entire administrations of General Jackson 
 and Mr. Van Buren,her conduct was constantly denounced by our func 
 tionaries, both at home and in Mexico, as faithless, and in equal defiance 
 of national law and of treaty stipulations. 
 
 These views are now thus briefly but distinctly presented, because 
 there seems to have been the most extraordinary and inexcusable igno 
 rance manifested on the subject, even by distinguished members of Con 
 gress. In the course of our numbers, we shall probably avail ourselves 
 of the opportunity to throw some light upon this part of the case, and 
 to exhibit the character of the outrages upon our citizens, in which the 
 subsisting claims originated, and the language in which they have been 
 denounced by every American functionary who ever had occasion to 
 speak of them. 
 
 III. 
 
 RETURNING from the brief digression into which we had been led in 
 contrasting the character and conduct of the governments of France and 
 Mexico, in reference to their treaty engagements, let us now advert to the 
 course pursued by the United States under circumstances so strikingly 
 analogous to those in which we now find ourselves placed. 
 
 In his message to Congress of December 7, 1835, President Jackson 
 
41 
 
 presents a distinct and full narrative of the whole action cf the two 
 governments prior and subsequent to the signature of the treaty of July 
 4, 1831. Having shown that France was clearly in the wrong in placing 
 the construction she had done upon his former communication to Congress 
 in which she thought she discovered insinuations of bad faith, accom 
 panied by what she understood as amounting to a menace, he stated that 
 he had caused "our charge d affaires at Paris to be instructed to ask for 
 the final determination of the French government ; and, in the event of 
 their refusal to pay the instalments now due, without further explana 
 tions to return to the United States." 
 
 This demand was to be made on France by our diplomatic agent at 
 that court, after and notwithstanding that the diplomatic intercourse 
 between the two nations had already been closed. That suspension did 
 not, in the judgment of President Jackson or his cabinet, interpose any 
 obstacle to the call upon that government to fulfil its treaty stipulations. 
 On the other hand, it was regarded as a step which our interest and our 
 rights imperatively required. Nor was this act of the Executive con 
 demned or censured by any portion of the American people. 
 
 In making this demand on France, no apology or explanation was 
 tendered to soothe the wounded feelings of that proud and gallant nation. 
 On that point, the President thought he had already offered every ex 
 planation " which could reasonably be asked or honorably given." He 
 thought he could not do more " without national degradation ;" and he 
 emphatically adds : " I hope it is unnecessary for me to say that such a 
 sacrifice will not be made through any agency of mine. The honor of 
 my country shall never be stained by an apology from me for the state 
 ment of truth and the performance of duty ; nor can I give any explana 
 tion of my official acts, except such as is due to integrity and justice and 
 consistent with the principles on which our institutions have been 
 framed." 
 
 In reference to the complaint which Mexico has made of the pro 
 ceedings of our government in relation to Texas, if that government had 
 thought proper to make it the subject of diplomatic discussion, doubtless 
 the Executive would frankly and courteously have met the question, 
 and exhibited the grounds upon which it thought these proceedings stood 
 vindicated from every just cause of reproach. The whole matter would 
 have been discussed in a way soothing to the pride of Mexico, and every 
 sacrifice which could with propriety be yielded, would have been made 
 to her feelings. But the American government could not, and cannot, 
 admit that her conduct has been illegal, or in violation of any right of 
 Mexico. We can neither retract what has been done, nor apologize for 
 
42 
 
 it. Mexico has denounced the measure in the most offensive terms and 
 the most opprobrious language ; and this government would be warranted, 
 by every principle which regulates the intercourse between nations, in 
 demanding and exacting a withdrawal of these expressions before she 
 would condescend to furnish any explanation to Mexico, or to state the 
 grounds upon which she rests for her justification. 
 
 But none of these considerations dispense with the propriety of making 
 a formal and peremptory demand upon Mexico, for the immediate pay 
 ment of all the unpaid instalments of the sums already awarded, and the 
 adoption of prompt measures for the liquidation and satisfaction of out- 
 jstanding claims. 
 
 The language of Mr. Livingston, in his communication with the Duke 
 de Broglie of the 25th April, 1825, exhibits the views then taken by the 
 American government of its rights and obligations. " A negotiation 
 entered into for procuring pecuniary compensation to individuals, involved 
 no positive obligation on their government to prosecute it to extremities. 
 A solemn treaty, ratified by the constitutional organs of the two powers, 
 changed the private into a public right. The government acquires by it 
 a perfect right to insist on its stipulations. All doubts as to their justice 
 seem now to have been removed, and every objection to the payment of 
 a debt acknowledged to be just, will be severely scrutinized by the 
 impartial world." 
 
 In his message of January 15, 1836, President Jackson again adverts 
 to the subject. He observes : " It will be seen that France requires, as 
 a condition precedent to the execution of a treaty unconditionally ratified, 
 and to the payment of a debt acknowledged by all the branches of her 
 government to be due, that certain explanations shall be made, of which 
 she dictates the terms. These terms are such as that government has 
 already been officially informed cannot be complied with ; and, if per 
 sisted in, they must be considered as a deliberate refusal on the part of 
 France to fulfil engagements binding by the law of nations and h :d 
 sacred by the whole civilized world." He submits to Congress to de 
 termine upon the. ulterior measures to be pursued. " It is time," he 
 says, " that legislative action should be brought to sustain executive ex 
 ertion in such measures as the case requires" suggesting, as an im 
 mediate step, the " prohibiting the introduction of French products and 
 the entrv of French vessels into our ports," " as a proper preliminary 
 step to stronger measures, should their adoption be rendered necessary 
 by subsequent events." 
 
 The subject was taken under consideration by the Committee on 
 Foreign Relations in the Senate, which, by its chairman, Mr Clay, made 
 
43 
 
 an elaborate report on the case. The authority of this gentleman will 
 doubtless have its weight with a certain portion of the people of this 
 country ; and it will be found that, so far as regards the original duty of 
 the government to press to a satisfactory result the claims of its citizens 
 for injuries sustained by them by the aggressions of a foreign power, the 
 "perfect obligation" of the treaty " after its mutual ratification," and the 
 right to insist upon the fulfilment of its stipulations, this report fully 
 sustains the views and opinions of the President. The language in which 
 Mr. Clay conveys his sentiments on these topics deserves to be remem 
 bered and weighed by those who are so much disposed to create an im 
 pression that our own government can scarcely be right, or a foreign one 
 wrong, in the conduct of their relations. 
 
 On the first of the points alluded to, after characterizing the measures 
 of France in which these, claims had their origin, as having " prostrated 
 the clearest principles of public law, and violated the most solemn en 
 gagements consecrated by pledges of public faith," he says : " whilst, 
 however, the government of the United States felt itself restrained, by 
 prudential considerations, to abstain from an appeal to arms at that period 
 against France," which he had shown would have been perfectly justifi 
 able under the " circumstances," it resolved never to acquiesce in the in 
 justice which citizens of the United States had experienced at the hands 
 of France ; but unremittingly to persevere in demanding the indemnity 
 to which they were justly entitled." " It was due to ancient relations 
 with France, to the interest of the two countries, and to the nature 01 
 the case, since the injuries were not resented when they were fresh, that 
 redress should be first sought by friendly negotiations." 
 
 On the last topic he thus expresses himself: " The President justly 
 remarks, that the idea of acquiescing in the refusal of the execution of 
 the treaty will not for a moment be entertained by any branch of the 
 American government. The United States ean never abandon the pur 
 suit of claims founded on the most aggravated wrongs. And if, contrary 
 to all just expectations, France should persist in the non-fulfilment of 
 the treaty, when negotiations shall be completely exhausted, it will then 
 become the bounden and painful duty of the United States to consider 
 what measures are called for, on the occasion, by their honor, th ir in 
 terests, and the justice due to their injured citizens." 
 
 The only material point on which the committee differed in opinion 
 with the President, was upon the question whether the period had arrived 
 when the United States were called upon to take into their own hands 
 the redress of the injuries of which they complained. The committee 
 consider that the good faith manifested by the head of the French govern- 
 
44 
 
 ment, the anxious desire which it avowed faithfully to execute the treaty, 
 the circumstances by which it had been baffled in its efforts, and the 
 prospect that all our objects were likely to be speedily accomplished 
 by the exercise of a little more forbearance, justify them in coming to 
 the conclusion that the United States " should await the result of the 
 renewed exertions of the French King and his cabinet to secure the 
 financial means to execute trie treaty." Whether the time has not 
 arrived for this government to make a final and peremptory demand of 
 Mexico to fulfil her engagements, is now the question which the Ex 
 ecutive must decide. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 So great a length of time has intervened since the commencement of 
 our controversies with Mexico, that the origin and character of these 
 difficulties seem almost to have passed into oblivion. Since that period, 
 a new generation has come upon the stage. The statesmen who then 
 predominated in the councils of the nation, no longer exercise a sway 
 in the public councils. The present fills the largest share in general 
 estimation ; and when the view is abstracted or diverted from it, it is 
 rather the future than the past that engrosses our attention. In addi 
 tion to this, it cannot be disguised that the tone and temper of political 
 partisanship exercises a powerful influence in giving a color and a direc 
 tion to the speculations even of the ablest and most patriotic of the con 
 ductors of the press, in the discussions even of questions involving the 
 foreign relations of the country. 
 
 Under these circumstances, it is perhaps not to be wondered at that 
 the real history of our intercourse with Mexico should be forgotten, or 
 the real merits of the questions which have arisen between the two na 
 tions should be misapprehended. Ignorance, notwithstanding all the 
 facilities for obtaining accurate knowledge, might perhaps be excused ; 
 but misrepresentation, especially when calculated to cast odium upon 
 our own country, and to furnish justification for the conduct of a foreign 
 power, admits of no palliation. When the facts are unknown, or have 
 faded from the memory, silence would be the commendable course ; but 
 nothing can extenuate the entire perversion of truth which has been 
 so frequently manifested by those who have written most copiously, and 
 declaimed most loudly, on this topic. 
 
 One of the most lamentable consequences resulting from this course 
 
45 
 
 has been, that a very large and intelligent portion of the American peo 
 ple are at this time in a state of deplorable ignorance as to the real merits 
 of the disputes in which we are involved with a foreign power. By 
 many, Mexico has been regarded as occupying too unimportant a posi 
 tion among nations to engross much of their attention. No sufficient 
 motive has been found in the relative position and strength of the parties 
 to lead to the supposition that she would wantonly, and without pro 
 vocation, perpetrate outrages upon her powerful neighbor, or justly 
 incur her resentment. The events which have transpired from time 
 to time have failed to attract observation, or were not deemed worthy 
 of remembrance ; and it is only when the measure of the annexation 
 of Texas has been introduced among the topics of our domestic strifes, 
 and employed to swell the notes of party discord, that our relations 
 with Mexico have attracted any considerable share of public at 
 tention. 
 
 It is not, however, under such circumstances, that questions of this 
 kind can usually be viewed with that calmness and deliberation, that 
 fairness and fullness, which can alone lead to just conclusions or direct the 
 judgment with the greatest accuracy. 
 
 We know not to what else than the foregoing and other analogous 
 causes, can be attributed the egregious misapprehensions which have 
 existed, and do exist upon this subject ; and that it has happened that, 
 with all the lights which our public archives shed upon it, and the most 
 incontrovertible proofs which history furnishes, Mexico has been held 
 up in our legislative halls, in the most deliberately prepared public 
 documents, and in the columns of many of our leading journals, as an in 
 nocent and unoffending party as a nation which has conducted herself, 
 in her intercourse with foreign nations, with more than Castilian scrupu 
 lousness as pure in her administration of justice towards the citizens 
 and subjects of other governments as faithful in her observance of trea- 
 tie- and as having afforded no other cause or motive for hostility, on 
 the part of other nations, than her possession of rich and fertile provin 
 ces, which have stimulated their cupidity, and mines whose w r ealth has 
 excited their sordid avarice. On the more immediate subject of Texas, 
 her claims to that country, though utterly at war with every principle 
 wh ch lies at the foundation of our own institutions, has been treated as 
 if it were perfect and unquestionable ; her course of policy towards it, 
 as warranted by public law and the principle of natural justice, and her 
 right to persist in waging a war to subject it to her sway, as admitting 
 of the most perfect justification. On the other hand, the measures pro 
 posed by the United States, in her efforts to produce a pacification be- 
 
46 
 
 tween these contending parties, and more recently of annexing Texas 
 to our own Republic, have been, in the same quarters, stigmatized as a 
 piratical robbery, attempted to be perpetrated upon an unoffending 
 neighbor in equal violation of the principles of public law and the most 
 solemn stipulations of treaties. 
 
 To those who have investigated this subject fairly and impartially, 
 who have traced the entire history of Mexico since she threw off the 
 Spanish yoke, it would be a matter of superogation to assert, and to ad 
 duce testimony to support the assertion, that nothing can be more 
 essentially and fundamentally, in general and in detail, more false and 
 groundless than the allegations to which we have adverted. De Toque- 
 ville has remarked, that all the history of the United States is com 
 prised in our newspapers j and it is certain, and we congratulate our 
 country upon the fact, that, with a free and independent press, with no 
 shackles imposed upon the expression of opinion, and with such a me 
 dium of communication offered to every man who is disposed to trans 
 mit his views to trie sober judgment of the people, an opportunity is 
 always open to enlighten the public mind upon points on which its 
 judgment must eventually decide. Through this medium, when error 
 has been committed, it may be rectified. The time has arrived when 
 this public opinion should be disabused upon those matters vitally af 
 fecting the honor of the nation when the errors which have been so 
 widely disseminated should be corrected. Not only have thousands of 
 our countrymen been led (most unjustly, as we think) to condemn our 
 government for its conduct, but the most unjust and erroneous ideas 
 have been communicated to the public mind of Europe. Representa 
 tions have been made, wholly unmerited, that the character of our 
 people and the tendency of our institutions are grasping and rapa 
 cious. 
 
 On these points it is the duty of every American to contribute his 
 exertions to enlighten the public judgment. In our estimation, the 
 honor and integrity of our government, the disposition of the American 
 people, and the character of our institutions, have been all and equally 
 dishonored and libelled by these aspersions. From the day that Mexico 
 assumed her rank as an independent power, her conduct towards the 
 United States, in an especial manner, has been marked by outrage, and 
 a disregard to her own true interests and the rights of our citizens. 
 Through all the successive administrations which have at ^d the su 
 premacy in her councils, each has vied with its predecessor in the num 
 ber and atrocity of its outrages. At first, they were regarded as merely 
 accidental acts of " irregular and unjust proceedings ;" but so mild 
 
were our remonstrances, so conciliatory cur request for explanations, 
 so courteous our calls for redress, that they were passed by with open 
 neglect, and scarcely suppressed contempt. Gradually they assumed 
 the frequency of a confirmed habit, and the systematic regularity of a 
 well-arranged policy. The reiterated acts of personal cruelty, of rapa 
 cious robbery, and of every modification of wrong, drew from every 
 American functionary, without distinction of party, the most indignant 
 denunciations. Demands more or less peremptory were made for re 
 dress ; and in proportion to the energy with which our remonstrances 
 were urged, and remuneration demanded, did the deportment of Mexico 
 become more conciliatory and more submissive. These vascillations 
 apparently exhausted our patience, and the American government was 
 compelled distinctly to notify that of Mexico, that unless an arrange 
 ment should promptly be concluded, no alternative was left but to take 
 the matter into our own hands, and to exact that measure of justice 
 which the case demanded, and which had been so long delayed. 
 Nor was this contemptuous disregard of all the obligations of natural 
 and national justice, and these flagrant violations of treaties, confined 
 to the United States. England suffered wrongs and indignities of a 
 similar character, which, however, were more promptly and vigor 
 ously redressed. France received like demonstrations of Mexican faith 
 and honor, until she was compelled to vindicate her rights before the 
 castle of San Juan de Ulloa, to exact satisfaction at the cannon s mouth, 
 and to enforce submission to terms dictated by her admiral from the 
 quarter-deck of his ship. 
 
 During this period, the deportment of the United States exhibited the 
 most marked contrast with that of Mexico. It has been stated (and, 
 although not officially promulgated to the public, yet it rests upon hio-h. 
 authority) that France and England, indignant at the course of Mexico, 
 proposed to our government to combine in enforcing upon Mexico a 
 respect for the law of nations, and an observance of treaty stipulations j 
 which proposition was declined by the American administration. Be 
 this as it may, the published correspondence shows that scarcely a word 
 of complaint ever escaped a Mexican functionary against the govern 
 ment or people of the United States. In the few instances which did 
 occur, the cases were promptly met, and either distinctly disproved or 
 satisfactorily explained. 
 
 It is not r Jntention to leave these matters of such grave importance 
 to rest upon our unsustained assertions. In our succeeding numbers, 
 we shall go somewhat into detail, and fortify what has been said by the 
 most abundant and conclusive proof, drawn from the most authentic 
 sources. 
 
48 
 
 No. V. 
 
 WE have already remarked that causes of complaint and sources of 
 difficulty between the United States and Mexico were coeval with the 
 declaration of independence by the latter power. A brief review of the 
 history of that nation will furnish a suitable introduction to the more 
 detailed and specific narrative into which we shall be led. 
 
 During the tremendous contest in the Peninsula, in which Spain re 
 sisted the efforts made by Bonaparte to impose a member of his own 
 family upon the Spanish throne, and to subjugate that ancient and 
 haughty nation to the imperial sway, the most liberal aid was afforded by 
 the American provinces to the mother country. It has been estimated 
 that Mexico alone contributed, within the brief period of a few years, 
 more than ninety millions of dollars to aid in carrying on this conflict.* 
 On the restoration of peace, however, the friends of liberty found cause 
 to lament the severe disappointment they were doomed to experience. 
 All the glorious hopes in which they had indulged were defeated ; all 
 the promises which, in the period of danger and of trial had been so 
 liberally made, were forgotten. Despotism resumed all her authority, 
 and condemned to the most ignominious punishments those who had 
 mainly contributed to rescue their country in the hour of peril. The 
 game disappointments contributed to rouse into a flame the sparks of 
 discontent throughout the American colonies. They were remitted to 
 the tender mercies of their old rulers their industry repressed, their 
 commerce interdicted, and the ancient colonial policy re-established in 
 all its pristine vigor. The different provinces, hopeless of redress, suc 
 cessively dissolved their connection with the parent country, declared 
 their independence, and asserted the right of self-government. With 
 little concert among themselves, each part in accordance with its own 
 view of policy ; and among others, the various contiguous provinces, of 
 which Mexico was the chief, combined in the effort to throw off the 
 galling yoke. 
 
 The causes which induced this movement, the principles upon which 
 the contest was to be waged, and, still more, the character of the politi 
 cal institutions which were established, attracted the sympathies of the 
 friends of liberty throughout the civilized world. The close proximity 
 of Mexico to the United States, and the facilities of communication 
 which existed between the two countries, gave an ardor and a strength 
 to this feeling of sympathy, which promised the most auspicious results. 
 
 * Napiefs Peninsular War. 
 
49 
 
 When, in 1824, a new Constitution was formed, so striking an analogy 
 existed between the general principles, and even the minute details 
 which characterized it, and those which distinguished our own institu 
 tions, that it almost seemed as if every line of distinction and wall of 
 separation were broken down and obstructed. The people of the United 
 States regarded their Mexican neighbors with almost fraternal affection ; 
 exulted in their successes ; mourned at their reverses, and hailed with 
 exultation their final triumph, and the consummation of their struggle 
 for independence. We rejoiced at the anticipation that these new 
 republics, which had imitated our example in emancipating themselves 
 from the oppressive yoke of colonial dependence, under the same cir 
 cumstances, and upon the same grounds which had governed us who 
 had laid, in their frame of government, the same broad platform of indi 
 vidual rights which lay at the foundation of our institutions would be 
 linked with us in bonds, and connected with us by ties and interests, 
 more durable than had ever before subsisted between nations. 
 
 So vehement were the feelings thus awakened, that all the energies of 
 the Executive were demanded to keep us within those limits which our 
 neutral relations imposed. Nothing, however, could restrain the demon 
 strations of private sympathy, or prevent our citizens from participating 
 in the momentous struggle. Multitudes flocked to the new-raised 
 standard of liberty, from the United States, from England, Ireland, 
 France, and Italy, many of whom distinguished themselves in the service, 
 both by sea and land.* Mexico opened her arms wide to receive all 
 who would come to her from any part of the world, "f In this posture 
 of her affairs, she offered every inducement to the emigration, and every 
 facility to the naturalization, of foreigners. Perhaps no nation has ever 
 adopted a more liberal policy than Mexico promulgated upon this subject. 
 By a law passed in 1823, it was provided that " all foreigners who come 
 to establish themselves within the empire shall be considered as natu 
 ralized, should they exercise any useful profession or industry, by which, 
 at the end of three years, they have a capital to support themselves, 
 and are married. Those who, with the foregoing qualifications, marry 
 Mexicans, will acquire particular merit for the obtaining letters of citi 
 zenship." By another law, all the instruments of husbandry, machinery, 
 and other utensils, that are introduced by the colonists for their use, are 
 allowed to be imported free of duty, " as also merchandise introduced by 
 each family, to the extent of two thousand dollars." 
 
 Stimulated by all these circumstances, large numbers of foreigners, 
 particularly citizens of the United States, emigrated to this inviting coun- 
 
 * Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson, July 8, 1842. f Ibid. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 try. They established themselves in every part of the dominions of the 
 Republic, and occupied themselves in every department of industry. As 
 merchants along the seaboard and in the cities, as agriculturists and 
 manufacturers, they introduced, with no small amount of capital, skill, 
 industry, habits of business, and skill in all these various avocations. 
 Prosperity began to exhibit itself in every direction ; commerce, liber 
 ated from the restraints which had fettered its movements, began to 
 expand, and the immense resources of the country were in a rapid state 
 of progressive development. The trade with the United States rose to 
 upward of nine millions of dollars annually, and largely contributed to 
 the wealth and comfort of both nations. 
 
 This prosperous and happy aspect of affairs speedily underwent a 
 change. The bulk of the people of Mexico, trained under the debasing 
 influences of a narrow and rigid despotism, imperfectly comprehended, 
 and were wholly unable properly to appreciate, the fundamental prin 
 ciple of free government. Bigoted, and ruled by an ignorant yet crafty 
 priesthood, they were taught to regard everything approaching to reli 
 gious toleration with antipathy and abhorrence. Accustomed to habits 
 of indolence, and averse to either bodily or mental labor, they were little 
 qualified to compete with the .more energetic and enterprising strangers 
 who had mingled among them. The characters of their rulers were 
 little calculated to inspire respect ; and without any well-established 
 principles of morality, wholly destitute of loyalty to law, disorder and 
 anarchy everywhere appeared and triumphed. 
 
 The combined operation of these causes soon began to manifest itself 
 in the bitter hostility which was engendered towards the foreigners who 
 had accepted their hospitable invitations, and confided in their assurances 
 of protection and encouragement. The wealth which was gradually but 
 rapidly accumulating under the productive efforts of exotic enterprise 
 and industry, roused their jealousy and stimulated their cupidity. En 
 veloped in the gloomiest shades of ignorance, they abhorred the intel 
 lectual light which began to shine among them, and to make their " dark 
 ness visible." They were unable to perceive or to appreciate the public 
 benefits which were to result from private prosperity and the accumu 
 lation of individual wealth. The government was in the hands of men 
 who obtained power by the most nefarious means, and employed it to 
 the most iniquitous purposes. Holding their authority by the most pre 
 carious tenure, and wholly unscrupulous in the exercise of it, they were 
 under a sort of necessity to connive at the mal-administration of their 
 nominal subordinates and dependants, and to close their eyes and ears 
 to all the complaints of abuse of power and venal administration of jus 
 tice. They opened a new career of cruelty and injustice. Beginning 
 
51 
 
 with a few and remote instances of aggression and outrage, impunity in 
 crime only encouraged them to adopt a more comprehensive and 
 systematic plan of iniquity. American citizens were plundered, impris 
 oned, and murdered, without awakening sympathy or meeting with 
 punishment. 
 
 The government of the United States, meanwhile, listened to the recital 
 of the outrages which from time to time reached them, if not with real 
 incredulity, at least with apparent apathy ; sought apologies for miscon 
 duct when the facts could no longer be denied, in the disorganization of 
 public affairs, and the lawlessness of individuals amid the embarrass 
 ments of political revolutions. They were unwilling to censure in too 
 harsh terms the irregularities, as they were mildly called, which were 
 charitably attributed to inexperience in the administration of govern 
 ment, and they forbore to exact immediate and ample reparation for 
 wrongs, the existence of which could no longer be denied. 
 
 This course of policy, and the consequences to which it led, will be 
 more fully developed in our succeeding number. 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 IN the prosecution of the suggestion with which our last number 
 closed, it will perhaps be found most expedient and convenient to place 
 in juxtaposition some of the passages, in which our most distinguished 
 public functionaries have exhibited their views of the general conduct 
 of Mexico in her relations with the United States, and then to produce, 
 somewhat in detail, the facts and circumstances upon which those opi 
 nions were formed. In both of these branches of discussion, we feel 
 ourselves encumbered with the mass of material which lies before 
 us ; and being driven to make a selection from the cumbrous heap, 
 we shall necessarily be forced to leave half the story of our wrongs 
 untold. 
 
 Although not the first in time, yet, from its comprehensive summary 
 of the facts which had preceded and occasioned it, we shall commence 
 our selection with the special message from President Jackson to Con 
 gress on the 6th February, 1837, 24th Congress, 2d session, House Docu 
 ment, No. 139. In this paper, the President informs Congress that he 
 had been disappointed in the hope he had entertained of bringing our 
 claims upon Mexico to an amicable adjustment by the exercise of great 
 forbearance. He then proceeds : " Having in vain urged upon that gov- 
 
52 
 
 eminent the justice of those claims, and my indisputable obligation to 
 insist that there should be no further delay in the acknowledgment, if 
 not in the redress, of the injuries complained of, my duty requires that 
 the whole subject should be presented, as it now is, for the action of 
 Congress, whose exclusive right it is to decide on the further measures 
 of redress to be employed. The length of time since some of the inju 
 ries have been committed the repeated and unavailing applications for 
 redress the wanton character of some of the outrages upon the property 
 and persons of our citizens upon the officers and flag of the United 
 States independent of recent insults to this government and people by 
 the late extraordinary Mexican minister, would justify, in the eyes of 
 nations, immediate war. That remedy, however, should not be used by 
 just and generous nations, confiding in their strength, for injuries com 
 mitted, if it can be honorably avoided ; and it has occurred to me, that, 
 considering the present embarrassed condition of that country, we should 
 act with both wisdom and moderation, by giving Mexico one more op 
 portunity to atone for the past before we take redress into our own 
 hands. To avoid all misconception on the part of Mexico, as well as to 
 protect our own national character from reproach, this opportunity should 
 be given with the avowed design and full preparation to take immediate 
 satisfaction, if it should not be obtained on a repetition of the demand 
 for it." 
 
 President Van Buren, in his message of December 5, 1837, thus ad 
 verts again to the subject : " The aggravating circumstances connected 
 with our claims upon Mexico, and a variety of events touching the honor 
 and integrity of our government, led my predecessor to make, at the 
 second session of the last Congress, a special recommendation of the 
 course to be pursued to obtain a speedy and final satisfaction of the 
 injuries complained of by this government and by our citizens. He 
 recommended a final demand of redress, with a competent authority to 
 the Executive to make reprisals, if that demand should be made in vain. 
 From the proceedings of Congress on that recommendation, it appeared 
 that the opinions of both Houses of the Legislature coincided with that 
 of the Executive, that any mode of redress known to the law of nations 
 might justifiably be used. 1 
 
 After stating what had occurred in the interim, he observes : " I re 
 gret, therefore, the more deeply to have found, in the recent communi 
 cations of that government, so little reason to hope that any future 
 efforts of mine for the accomplishment of those desirable objects, would 
 be successful. Although the larger number, and many of them aggra 
 vated cases of personal wrongs, have been now for years before the 
 Mexican government, and some of the causes of national complaint, and 
 
53 
 
 those of the most offensive character, admitted of immediate, simple, 
 and satisfactory replies, it is only within a few days past that any specific 
 communication in answer to our last demand, made five months ago, 
 has been received from the Mexican minister. By the report of the 
 Secretary of State, herewith presented, and the accompanying docu 
 ments, it will be seen, that for not one of our public complaints has satis 
 faction been given or offered ; that but one of the cases of personal 
 wrong has been favorably considered ; and that but four cases of both 
 descriptions, out of all those formally presented and earnestly pressed, 
 have, as yet, been decided upon by the Mexican government." In con 
 cluding his remarks upon the subject, Mr. Van Buren, after drawing the 
 attention of Congress to the demand which, under its sanction, had been 
 made, and referring to the documents communicated to show with what 
 little success, says : " On a careful and deliberate examination of their 
 contents, and considering the spirit manifested by the Mexican govern 
 ment, it has become my painful duty to return the subject as it now 
 stands to Congress, to whom it belongs to decide upon the time, the 
 mode, and the measure of redress."* 
 
 The report of the Secretary of State, accompanying this message, fur 
 nishes a more detailed narrative of the progress and state of the contro 
 versies between the two governments. The summary which he gives 
 in the concluding part of this paper is sufficiently condensed and impres 
 sive to require a full quotation. " The relations of the United States 
 and Mexico, as they now stand, are these : The demand of the United 
 States for justice for past injuries has been made in conformity with the 
 treaty between the two nations ; but apparently no public complaint has 
 been examined by the Mexican government, except the conduct of Mr. 
 Gorostiza. The printing and distribution of his offensive pamphlet is 
 approved by his government, as comfortable to what was required by its 
 dignity and interests. 
 
 " To the other demands of a public nature, which existed at the ad 
 journment of the last annual session of Congress, after five months 
 delay, no answer has been given. On three cases of private claims, pre 
 sented for final answer, answers have been given. The justice of two 
 of them is denied, although one of them rests on a decree of the Mexi 
 can government. Satisfaction for the one admitted to be just, is not 
 made. The Congress of Mexico, who have been considering the sub 
 ject for eight or ten years, will be invited to pass upon it when they 
 meet. Since the last session of Congress, an embargo has been laid on 
 American vessels in the ports of Mexico ; although raised, no satisfac 
 tion has been made or offered for the resulting injuries. Our merchant 
 
 25th Congress, 2d session, House Doc. 3. 
 
54 
 
 vessels have been captured for disregarding a pretended blockade of 
 Texas ; vessels, and cargoes, secretly proceeded against in the Mexican 
 tribunals, condemned and sold. The captains, crews, and passengers of 
 the captured vessels, have been imprisoned and plundered of their pro 
 perty ; and after enduring insults and injuries have been released with 
 out remuneration or apology. For these acts no reparation has been 
 promised, or explanations given, although satisfaction was, in general 
 terms, demanded in July last. From these facts, a judgment may be 
 formed of the value of the assurances that have been received from the 
 Mexican government, and the probability of their being ever fulfilled." 
 How far Mr. Forsyth s anticipations were justified by previous events, 
 and to what extent they were verified by subsequent circumstances, will 
 hereafter appear. 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 THE messages of Presidents Jackson and Van Buren, with the mass 
 of documents upon which their views were formed, were referred to the 
 Committees of Foreign Relations of both Houses, and received from them 
 full consideration. A copious abstract of some of the reports of these 
 committees will show in what light the legislative department of the 
 government regarded this subject. 
 
 On the 19th of February, 1837, Mr. Buchanan, from the Senate 
 Committee, submitted a report in which it is, among other things, 
 
 " From the tlocuments submitted to the Committee, it appears that, 
 ever since the revolution of 1822, which separated Mexico from Spain, 
 and even for some years before, the United States have had repeated 
 causes of just complaint against the Mexican authorities. From time 
 to time, as these insults and injuries have occurred, demands for satis 
 faction and redress have been made by our successive public ministers 
 at the city of Mexico, but almost all these demands have hitherto 
 proved unavailing." 
 
 * * ***** 
 
 " It might have been expected that, after the date of the treaty of 
 amity, commerce, and navigation concluded between the two Republics 
 on the 5th April, 1831, these causes of complaint would have ceased 
 to exist. That treaty so clearly defines the rights and duties of the 
 repsective parties, that it seemed almost impossible to misunderstand or 
 to mistake them. The committee, notwithstanding, regret to be com- 
 
55 
 
 pelled to state that all the causes of complaint against Mexico, which 
 have been specially noticed in the correspondence referred to them, have 
 occurred since the conclusion of this treaty." 
 
 " If the government of the United States were to exact strict and 
 prompt redress from Mexico, your committee might, with justice, 
 recommend an immediate resort to war or reprisals." The committee 
 then gives its " hearty assent to the sentiments contained in the Mes 
 sage of the President," and " suggests the propriety of pursuing the 
 form required by the 34th article of the treaty with Mexico, in all the 
 cases to which it may be applicable. This article provides that i if (what 
 indeed cannot be expected) any of the articles contained in the present 
 treaty shall be violated or infracted in any manner whatever, it is stipu 
 lated that neither of the parties will order or authorize any acts of 
 reprisal, or declare war against the other, on complaint of injuries or 
 damages, until the said party considering itself offended, shall have first 
 presented to the other a statement of such injuries or damages, verified 
 by competent proofs, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and the 
 same shall have been either refused or unreasonably delayed. After 
 such a demand, should prompt justice be refused by the Mexican gov 
 ernment, we may appeal to all nations, not only for the equity and 
 moderation with which we have acted towards a sister Republic, but 
 for the necessity which will then compel us to seek redress for our 
 wrongs, either by actual war or by reprisals." 
 
 On the 24th February, 1837, Mr. Howard, from the Committee on 
 Foreign Relations of the House of Representatives, submitted a report 
 on the same subject. It says, that " The history of the relations be 
 tween the United States and Mexico exhibits an unbroken succession 
 of good feelings, and as far as the occasion permitted, of kind offices on 
 the part of the American government following out in this, as in other 
 respects, the disposition and wishes of the people. The first to recog 
 nize Mexico as an independent power, the government of the United 
 States has been among the first in the unceasing manifestation of friend 
 ship to this adjacent rJorth American government. 
 
 " At an early period of her struggle for independence, the ports of the 
 United States were open to her flag, even at the hazard of incurring 
 responsibility for this act of impartial neutrality. But the committee 
 perceive with profound regret, that, on the part of Mexico, there has 
 been a long train of injuries to the American citizens and insults to the 
 national flag, for which redress, though often promised, has seldom been 
 obtained. This omission has doubtless proceeded, in a great measure, 
 from the unsettled condition of the Mexican government, the numerous 
 and radical changes which have prevented a fixed policy from being 
 
56 
 
 pursued in its foreign affairs. But the committee believe that it has 
 also sprung, in part, from a knowledge of the form of our government, 
 and the limited power of its executive branch." 
 
 After corroborating this conclusion by referring to cases in which 
 other powers under whose institutions the Executive could more 
 promptly and efficiently assert the national honor and rights, had been 
 more successful in obtaining redress for the injuries which they had 
 sustained ; and that in our own case, when reparation for an insult was 
 required by the commander of a naval force, assurance was given that 
 the Mexican functionary who had perpetrated the outrage, had been 
 removed from his post, and promises made that the subject should be 
 investigated and the culpable parties punished, yet as soon as the squad 
 ron had departed from the Mexican shores, the displaced officer was 
 recalled into service, and assigned to another command " where his hos 
 tile feelings might again endanger the security of American citizens or 
 property." 
 
 In a subsequent part of this report, the committee show that this 
 reasonable anticipation was speedily realized, by the arrest and impris 
 onment of eight seamen attached to one of our public vessels ; the pre 
 vention of the American Consul from visiting them whilst sick and in 
 prison, which is denounced as an act of unpardonable inhumanity ; 
 which proceedings, say the committee, " appear to have proceeded from 
 the same officer whose fictitious punishment, but real promotion, had 
 been offered as an atonement for a previous insult to the American 
 flag." 
 
 " Looking," say the committee, in continuation, "through the cata 
 logue of complaints which the United States have to make against 
 Mexico on their own account, as the party whose dignity and honor are 
 assailed, the committee are unable to perceive any proof of a desire on 
 the part of the Mexican government to repair injury or satisfy honor. 
 The merchant vessels of the United States have been fired into, her 
 citizens attacked, and even put to death, and her ships of war treated 
 with disrespect, when paying a friendly visit to a port where they had a 
 right to expect hospitality." In concluding the report, the committee 
 observe, that " they fully concur with the President, that ample cause 
 exists for taking redress into our own hands, and believe we should be 
 justified in the opinion of other nations for taking such a step. But 
 they are willing to try the experiment of another demand, made in the 
 most solemn form, upon the justice of the Mexican government, before 
 any further proceedings are adopted. It is their opinion, that a diplo 
 matic functionary of the highest grade should be appointed to bear this 
 last appeal, whose rank would indicate at once the importance of hw 
 
57 
 
 mission and the respect in which the government to which he is accred 
 ited is held." 
 
 We have shown in a preceding number, that the Executive acted 
 upon the recommendation of Congress in making another effort to induce 
 Mexico to recognise the obligations of justice and of treaty stipulations, 
 and that this experiment proved fruitless and unavailing. The subject 
 again came under the consideration of Congress at the instance of the 
 Executive, and on the 7th July, 1838, the Committee on Foreign Rela 
 tions again submitted their views in the shape of a report. After reca 
 pitulating, in a brief but distinct narrative, the circumstances of the case 
 up to the termination of the preceding Congress, the committee proceed 
 " to review briefly what has since occurred." Reference is made to 
 the report of the Secretary of State, already cited, for the mode ki 
 which this demand was made, and the facts which attended and followed 
 it. A more extraordinary developement of insincerity and bad faith, of 
 prevarication and duplicity, was, perhaps, never exhibited. Insults and 
 injuries continue to occur ; reparation is delayed under the most frivo 
 lous pretexts ; the Mexican Executive is shown to give statements to 
 its own Congress different from, and wholly irreconcilable with those 
 made to our government, and its whole conduct is demonstrated to be 
 marked by characteristics which, in private society, would debar the 
 guilty party from farther connection with men of probity and honor. 
 
 Mr. Gushing, a member of the committee, made a minority report, 
 which dissents, in some respects, from the majority. He, however, 
 * concurs in the opinion that the Mexican government, by a series of 
 acts, part aggressive on the rights of individual citizens of the United 
 States, and part immediately affecting the national dignity and honor, 
 and by delay to make reparation in the premises, has given to the United 
 States cause of resort to measures of public remedy, if other circum 
 stances did not render such a course at present impolitic and unjust on 
 the part of this government." Mr. Gushing perceived, in "the pro 
 longed war of independence," and " in the civil anarchy which accom 
 panied and followed that war," a palliation of the irregularities which 
 have marked the foreign relations and diplomatic intercourse of that Re 
 public. He perceived a further palliation u in events connected with 
 the establishment of the independence of Texas." Mr. Gushing deems 
 this, however, " no sufficient answer to the causes of complaint alleged 
 by the United States," and the reasons he assigns for this opinion are 
 peculiarly pertinent to the questions now in agitation between the two 
 countries. The grounds taken are these : " because some of the inju 
 ries sustained by us date back anterior to the commencement of the civil 
 war in Texas, and others of a later date are wholly independent of that 
 
58 
 
 fact ; and because, whatever reason the Mexican Republic may have to 
 take umbrage at the conduct of the citizens or the government of the 
 United States, in reference to that or any other matter, it surely behooves 
 her to seek redress through negotiation, or other direct ways, sanctioned 
 in the usage of nations, rather than by occasional acts of public or pri 
 vate resentment." 
 
 These views are well deserving of a more enlarged discussion, have 
 a powerful bearing upon the questions now in controversy between the 
 two nations, and involve some of the most important questions in public 
 and international law. Being at present limited to a simple narrative 
 of the events which have transpired, and the views taken by those 
 clothed with public authority, the discussion of these topics must unavoid 
 ably be deferred, and this number of our series shall conclude with the 
 final paragraph of Mr. Cushing s minority report : 
 
 " The undersigned at the same time declares that if, however the 
 reverse shall hereafter appear, and it shall prove (contrary to his expec 
 tations) that the Mexican government, not content with having persisted 
 in so many acts injurious to the United States, has added thereto the 
 aggravation of procrastinating redress by insincere and perfidious pre 
 tences of accommodation, he shall consider it the right of the federal 
 government to pursue, in that event, the most prompt and decided 
 measures for amply vindicating the interest and honor of the United 
 States." 
 
 VIII. 
 
 THE energetic movements of the Executive, and the decided language 
 of the two branches of the legislative department of the government, 
 were calculated to rouse Mexico from her apathy, and produced a brief 
 impression upon that government. She despatched a minister to the 
 United States, disavowed the offensive conduct of her representative at 
 Washington ; and negotiations were resumed for the purpose of adjusting 
 the matter in controversy between the two powers. 
 
 On the arrival of Mr. Martinez (the new envoy) in Washington, com 
 munications were opened between him and Mr. Forsyth, and the pro 
 ceedings will be found at length in 25th Con. 3d sess. House doc. No. 252. 
 On the 29th August, 1838, Mr. Martinez presented to Mr. Forsyth an 
 "informal memorandum," containing a projet for the contemplated 
 arrangement, consisting of eight articles. Of these, only one related to 
 claims which " Mexico has brought, or may bring, against the United 
 
59 
 
 States," proposing the submission of them to the decision of the com 
 missioners to whom the American claims were to be referred for adjudica 
 tion. This allusion to the claims of Mexico upon the United States, it 
 will be perceived by reference to the document cited, was couched in 
 the most general terms, and was unaccompanied by any specification of 
 their nature, character, or extent. In the " informal memorandum pre 
 sented in reply by Mr. Forsyth" on the 31st August, the Secretary of 
 State says : " We are not apprised of the existence of any claims of 
 Mexico upon the United States." 
 
 It is further to be remarked that, through the whole course of the 
 correspondence between the representatives of the two governments, in 
 the arrangement which, so far as regards the pecuniary claims of Ameri 
 can citizens upon Mexico, was agreed upon as early as the 3d September; 
 and in the convention itself which was signed by the respective parties 
 on the 10th of September, not the slightest allusion is again made to any 
 causes of complaint on the part of either the government or the citizens 
 of Mexico against the government or citizens of the United States. 
 This is a most pregnant circumstance. It cannot admit of question that, 
 if such causes of complaint existed, they would have been urged with all 
 the strength which could be given to them at such a period ; and it is 
 calculated to awaken surprise, if, when Mexico was thus reluctantly 
 yielding to the imperative demands upon her to make provision for the 
 adjustment of the claims existing against her when these claims of the 
 American government for matters involving national honor were especi 
 ally excluded from this arrangement, and reserved for future and diplo 
 matic settlement that she never breathed a whisper with regard to any 
 counter claims, of the existence of which she had been apprised that 
 we were, up to that moment, utterly ignorant, and which, therefore, if 
 she supposed such to exist, it was her business, as well as interest, to 
 state fully and distinctly. 
 
 The date of this correspondence and convention August and Sep 
 tember, 1838 are important circumstances in the historical narrative in 
 which we are at present employed. Up to this period the United States 
 was wholly ignorant of any pretension of claim by Mexico for national 
 wrongs or insults ; and although invited by this declaration to announce 
 them, they were significantly silent. It is not merely the poet, but the 
 lawyer and the statesman, who tell us there is a "silence that speaks." 
 The convention which recognised the existence of claims of citizens of 
 the United States upon the government of Mexico was signed on the 
 10th day of September, 1S38 ; and by the 12th article it was provided 
 that the ratification should " be exchanged at Washington within five 
 months from the signature, or sooner, if possible." It was duly ratified, 
 
60 
 
 with the sanction of the Senate, by the Executive of the United States, 
 and this fact communicated to the Mexican authorities. The American 
 Secretary of State was informed, by the Mexican minister who conducted 
 the negotiation, that he believed the President of the Mexican Republic 
 " had full power to ratify the instrument without a reference of it to the 
 Legislature."* Every facility had been afforded by the authorities of the 
 United States to transmit this convention to Mexico, as appears by the 
 letter of acknowledgement of these kind offices by Mr. Martinez, in his 
 letter of September 26, 1838 ; and, in consequence of these aids, it 
 arrived in Mexico in due time ; our representative was assured that it 
 would be laid before the new Congress for its ratification. f But, after 
 requesting again the assistance of an American man-of-war, to convey 
 the ratification to the United States, the Mexican Secretary, in reply to 
 an offer to furnish him with the facility he requested, informed the 
 American consul that " a difficulty had presented itself against the 
 ratification, namely : that the King of Prussia had refused to act as 
 umpire in the differences that might be referred to him, growing out of 
 the convention." It is manifest that, had such been the fact, it furnished 
 not the slightest or least plausible pretence for the act which it was 
 adduced to justify. The nomination of an umpire was by no means 
 an essential article of the arrangement : that might have been, as con 
 venience dictated, postponed. It was deeply important, however, that 
 the fundamental provisions of the convention, which had been deliber 
 ately agreed upon, should be conclusively adjusted. 
 
 But, unfortunately, there exist strong reasons to believe that there 
 was no foundation in truth for the assertion. As late as February 11, 
 1839, in communicating to Mr. Forsyth the fact that the ratification by 
 his government had not been transmitted to him, the Mexican minister 
 indicated his ignorance of such a fact, and explicitly says, " that he is 
 well persuaded that the delay in the receipt of this document proceeds 
 wholly from the deplorable condition in which things are well known to 
 be in his unfortunate country." The only evidence of the refusal of 
 the King of Prussia to execute the functions of umpire, for which office 
 he had been selected by the parties, is contained in two letters from Mr. 
 Jones to Mr. Forsyth, under date of the 10th January, 1839, and of the 
 19th of the same month, in which he says that it had been mentioned 
 by the Mexican minister. It was then designated by Mr. Jones as a 
 "frivolous obstacle ;" and Mr. Tornel was informed that it could not 
 constitute " any solid ground for the non-ratification," as it might " easily 
 be obviated by inserting a clause for the substitution of another umpire. ? 
 
 * Mr. Forsyth s Report to the President, February 27, 1839. 
 t Mr. Jones to Mr. Forsyth, December 31, 1838. 
 
61 
 
 Mr. Tornel further said, " that he and the President (Bustamenta) had 
 written on the subject to the president of the United States and Mr. 
 Forsyth." As, however, no such letters were communicated to Con 
 gress, it is to be inferred that none such were ever received. 
 
 In this state of affairs, the subject was again taken into consideration 
 by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the house of Representatives. 
 In the report from this committee, submitted on the 2d of March, 1839, 
 they consider the reasons assigned by Mexico for her omission " as 
 altogether insufficient and unsatisfactory ;" and, in reference to that 
 excuse which relates to the refusal of the King of Prussia to act, they 
 add, " but as no direct information of this description has reached the 
 United States, the committee think some error must have occurred, as 
 the good understanding between Prussia and the United States would, in 
 all probability, have induced a communication to the United States as 
 well as Mexico, if the arbitration had been declined." 
 
 Negotiations were, however, resumed; and, on the llth of April, 
 1839, another convention was signed by the ministers of the two powers, 
 which, in its preamble, places the non-ratification of the convention of 
 the preceding September " on the alleged ground that the consent of his 
 Majesty, the King of Prussia, to provide an arbitrator to act in the case 
 provided by said convention could not be obtained." The 7th article of 
 this convention, then, in the same terms as the preceding, provides for 
 the reference of the points upon which the board may differ, to the 
 umpirage of the individual who may be designated by the King of 
 Prussia to perform this office. 
 
 This convention, signed on the llth of April, 1839, provided that it 
 should be ratified, and that the ratifications should " be exchanged within 
 twelve months from the signature, or sooner, if possible." Again, the 
 United States acted with promptness and good faith, and ratified the 
 arrangements ; while the government of Mexico, pursuing its accustomed 
 dilatory and procrastinating policy, postponed its action to so late a day, 
 that the ratifications were only exchanged on the 8th of April, 1840 
 leaving but three days of the twelve months, limited for that act, un- 
 expired. 
 
 The proceedings which followed the consummation of this convention 
 will form the next topic for our consideration. 
 
No. IX. 
 
 THE convention between the United States and Mexico, signed on the 
 4th of April, 1839, the ratifications of which were exchanged on the 8th 
 April, 1840, opens a new chapter in the history of the relations between 
 the two governments. This chapter, though furnishing new details and 
 presenting new evidences of wrong and contumely, yet exhibits the same 
 general characteristics which have marked every part of the conduct of 
 Mexico. 
 
 On the 10th of July, 1841, the President, in compliance with a reso 
 lution of the Senate, transmitted to that body a message, conveying the 
 information in his possession as to the progress and actual condition of 
 the commission then in session under this convention. It covers a report 
 of the American members of the board to the Secretary of State, under 
 date of the 26th May, 1841. This report, made by Gov. Marcy and 
 Judge Rowan, the commissioners on the part of the United States, dis 
 closes many facts which it is important to notice hi the discussion we 
 have undertaken. 
 
 The third article of the convention provided, that the board should 
 meet in the city of Washington within three months after the exchange 
 of ratifications, and, within eighteen months from the time of its meet 
 ing, should terminate its duties. The Secretary of State was required 
 to give notice of the time of meeting in two or more newspapers. The 
 day appointed for the meeting was the 8th of July, 1840. The Ameri 
 can members having met, and having waited until the 25th of that month, 
 without either they or the Department of State receiving any information 
 as to the Mexican members, or when they were expected to arrive, they 
 adjourned till the 17th August. In the meantime, the Mexican gentle 
 men had arrived ; the board met ; and a week was consumed in over 
 coming the preliminary difficulties started by these members of the 
 board. Another obstacle was immediately after presented from the 
 same quarter, deeply involving the interests of the claimants and the 
 fundamental principles of justice. The Mexican commissioners " held 
 that the two governments were to be regarded as the litigant parties be 
 fore the board, and denied to the claimants all access to it, in person or 
 by their agents, and even the right to present, or transmit directly to it 
 any paper, document, or written proofs ; and they consequently objected 
 to, and voted against every rule or regulation that proposed to give to, or 
 recognize in, the claimants, the right to appear before the board, or to 
 
63 
 
 address any communication to it. These views the undersigned consid 
 ered to be erroneous, and they believed, that the adoption of them would 
 be very prejudicial, if not entirely destructive, to the interests of the 
 complainants." 
 
 The discussion of the matter continued from the organization of the 
 board in August, until the seventh of October following, when all pros 
 pects of an agreement being abandoned, and the question not being one 
 which the convention permitted to be referred to the umpire, the Ameri 
 can commissioners yielded, as the only means of preventing the object 
 of the board being frustrated. In consequence of these delays, the 23d 
 of December passed without the parties, whose claims were to be inves 
 tigated and adjudged, having received any notification of the manner in 
 which their cases were to be presented, or the proceedings of the board 
 to be conducted. More than four months, of the eighteen limited for the 
 existence of the board, were thus wasted without making the smallest 
 progress in the business intrusted to it. 
 
 In consequence of a vacancy created by the resignation of Judge 
 Rowan as a member of the board, Judge H. M. Breckenridge was ap 
 pointed to supply the vacancy ; and on the 23d April, 1842, having 
 closed their sessions, they transmitted to the State Department a report 
 of their proceedings. This report exhibits, in part, the means employed 
 by the Mexican functionaries to delay the decision of causes, to pervert 
 the ends of Justice, and the audacity with which they put at defiance 
 even the semblance of impartiality and fairness. The board expired by 
 the terms of the convention which created it, without disposing of the 
 business for the adjustment of which it had been organized, on the 25th 
 February, 1842. Messrs. Marcy and Breckenridge expressly declare 
 that " to the long dela}^ in the first place, in determining upon any mode 
 whatever by which the business could be conducted, and then to the in" 
 direct and circuitous manner to which the claimants were eventunlly 
 obliged to resort for the purpose of getting their papers and documents 
 before the commissioners, is, in our opinion, to be ascribed, in some 
 measure, the failure of the commission to examine, all the cases before 
 it, and to present them to the umpire in season for his decision thereon. 
 
 *****#*# 
 Many of the cases, presented to the board in sufficient time to have been 
 fully acted upon, were suspended ; some of them at the instance of our 
 Mexican associates, for the purpose of getting documents from Mexico." 
 " In one important case, the requisitions for documents were not for 
 warded by the Mexican government, and for want of them, being such 
 as we believed Mexico was bound, under the convention, to furnish, the 
 case was not submitted to the umpire, and in our opinion could not 
 
64 
 
 have been, without jeoparding the right of the parties interested in the 
 claim." 
 
 In consequence of the delays and embarrassments thus interposed, a 
 large majority of the claims were not finally passed upon by the board, 
 and the unfortunate claimants, whose cases were thus left undecided, 
 have already waited another three years, without any effective steps 
 being taken to bring their affairs to settlement. 
 
 Two circumstances are adverted to by the American commissioners, 
 which peculiarly merit notice, as illustrative of the principles which 
 Mexico brought into this investigation, and the high-handed course with 
 which her officers conducted themselves. The first that will be alluded 
 to, though more particularly associated with an individual case, yet, in 
 some of the points most deserving of reprobation, was by no means an 
 insulated one. 
 
 An American citizen, who had been a resident merchant in Mexico 
 for several years, presented a claim upon Mexico to a large amount. 
 To a considerable extent, the claim was for an indemnity for losses alleged 
 to have been sustained by the illegal acts of several judicial and minis 
 terial functionaries, by the perversion of authority by the officers of jus 
 tice, and by spoliations of property, under color of law, but in manifest 
 violation of it. Such a claim necessarily involved a critical and exten 
 sive examination into the proceedings of the courts and officers whose 
 acts were complained of. By the provisions of the convention under 
 which the board was organized, the Mexican government stipulated to 
 furnish such documents and proofs as might be in her possession, which 
 might be necessary to substantiate the claims against her. The neces 
 sary requisition was prepared and sent, and duly transmitted to Mexico, 
 where, notwithstanding all the delays interposed by the Mexican com 
 missioners, it was received nine months before the board was to conclude 
 its labors. The documents called for were minutely described, and the 
 particular public offices where they were to be found precisely designa 
 ted. They were twenty-one in number. Of these, no notice whatever 
 was taken of twelve ; and papers purporting to be those described in the 
 remaining nine specifications, when they came to be examined, were 
 discovered to be, to a great extent, both false and imperfect. The Ameri 
 can commissioners specified five of these documents, thus stamped with 
 discredit on their face, and pointed out in detail the proofs of their falsifi 
 cation. They draw, from the circumstances which they detail, these 
 three conclusions : 
 
 " 1st. That Mexico has wholly omitted to send even a moiety of the 
 documents which she has bound herself by the convention to furnish ; 
 
65 
 
 and that no reason for this non-compliance with the terms of that con 
 vention are given by her to the board. 
 
 2d. That several of the documents actually sent are, on the face of 
 them, not full records, but refer to other acts which ought to appear in 
 the same, but do not. 
 
 3d. That there are discrepancies between documents thus trans 
 mitted from Mexico, and others equally authenticated, which, without 
 explanation, mutually destroy each other s credit." 
 
 In consequence of these acts of omission to comply with a solemn 
 treaty stipulation, and the fraud attempted to be perpetrated by Mexican 
 functionaries, in imposing surreptitious papers upon the board of com 
 missioners, the case was left undetermined. Thus, and by such means, 
 a claim, estimated by the American commissioners at upwards of $690,- 
 000, and so stated by them in their official report, with all the accumu 
 lation of interest from February, 1842, has been thus far lost to an Ame 
 rican citizen, stricken down from affluence to penury by the atrocious 
 acts of the Mexican government and functionaries. Nor did the outrage 
 end here. As has been stated, the American commissioners, in a paper, 
 understood to have been drawn up by Judge Marcy, the senior member 
 of the American commission, and eminent for his judicial accomplish 
 ments and experience, designated five particular documents, as exhibiting 
 on their face, defects and contradictions. At the termination of the sit 
 tings of the board, the Mexican commissioners, against the earnest re 
 monstrances of their American associates, laid hands on these spurious 
 papers, containing on their face the proof of the frauds thus attempted 
 to be perpetrated by the Mexican authorities, who had transmitted them 
 as genuine ; and, notwithstanding the distinct opposition made by Mr. 
 Webster, then Secretary of State, removed them beyond the control of 
 the government of the United States. Not satisfied with thus bearding 
 our own government in the heart of its own capital, they intimate, in re 
 ply to Mr. Webster s remonstrance against this conduct, that they have 
 abstracted or removed only six of the papers, specifying the same five 
 which Governor Marcy had condemned, and assign as their justification, 
 that they were original expedientes (records) from courts of Mexico, 
 which, on account of their character, ought to remain in their hands. It 
 may not be unimportant to add, that these are not the only documents 
 thus abstracted, and that not one of the five either was, or purported 
 to be, an original expidiente ; nor was an original asked for in the requi 
 sition.* 
 
 The comments of Mr. Upshur, on this matter, in his despatch to Mr 
 Thompson, of July 25, 1843,"f shows the views taken of these acts of 
 
 * 27th Con., 2d Session, Senate Doc. 320. f23th Con. 2d Session, House Doc. 158 
 
 5 
 
high dignitaries of Mexico by the American government. " The con 
 duct of Mexico, as it seems to me. had made it the duty of the United 
 States to insist on prompt and specific relief, so far as this case is con 
 cerned. She has rendered herself liable to the charge of having broken 
 her faith, and disregarded her obligations. She has not complied with 
 a single stipulation of the convention of 1839. She has not even pro 
 fessed to have produced a large number, nearly half (more than half) of 
 the documents called for; and many of those which she did produce, 
 were either imperfect, or grossly falsified. The American commission 
 ers complained of this, but without redress ; and, to add to the injuries 
 and contemtpuous conduct of the Mexican commissioners, they took 
 back with them, against the consent and remonstrances of the American 
 commissioners, and of the Secretary of State, all the falsified and imper 
 fect documents which they had submitted. All this will fully appear 
 from the enclosed extracts from the proceedings of the board. It is quite 
 evident that, so far as the claimant is concerned, he can have little hope 
 of success before any new commission. He must necessarily rely upon 
 the same evidence which he has heretofore applied for in vain ; and he 
 must make his demand on the same government, which has heretofore 
 treated the same demand with neglect and contempt. He can have no 
 security whatever, that he will receive from a second commission a more 
 just treatment than he received from the first. If he should be com 
 pelled to submit his claims de novo, and upon the same principles which 
 governed the former imperfect and unfair consideration of it, there is no 
 reason to hope for anything better, than a repetition of the same unjust 
 treatment which he has heretofore received. 
 
 " And how stands our government in relation to this matter ? We 
 have undertaken to see justice done to our injured and complaining citi 
 zens. We have demanded justice of the Mexican government. We 
 have entered into stipulations with that government, by which a fair and 
 honorable adjustment of all these matters might be had. Mexico, by 
 her own act, came under a new obligation. The debt which she owed 
 to our citizens she guarantied by a solemn compact with our govern 
 ment. On our part, we have kept our faith ; while she has broken hers. 
 This has changed the whole character of the question. Our government 
 is now a party not in interest, but in honor. We are bound to redress 
 the wrong which has been done to one of our citizens ; and this not 
 merely by the general obligation which rests upon every nalion to pro 
 tect and defend its own people, but by the additional consideration that, 
 having undertaken to do this, we are committed in honor not to give 
 back. We must not permit Mexico to retreat from the agreement which 
 
67 
 
 she has made with us, nor to excuse herself from the faithful perform 
 ance of it." 
 
 "In bringing this subject before the Mexican government, it is neces 
 sary that you should use a strong and decided tone. Atonement should 
 have been made long ago for the numerous and flagrant wrongs done by 
 that power to citizens of this country. Unnecessary delays must not be 
 submitted to, nor will slight excuses be received. The honor of the 
 government is pledged to our own people for the diligent and proper pro 
 secution of these claims. Mexico can no longer, consistently with her 
 own honor, or the rights of our citizens, or what is due to this govern 
 ment, seek to delay the execution of what justice so plainly requires at 
 her hands." 
 
 X. 
 
 IN the preceding numbers, we have presented the history and charac 
 ter of the relations which have subsisted between the United States and 
 Mexico, from the time the latter nation asserted her independence of 
 Spain. Selecting, as our limited space required, only a few among the 
 most prominent circumstances which indicated the disposition of the 
 Mexican authorities, the character of their people, and the tendency of 
 their institutions, sufficient evidence has been adduced to demonstrate 
 that, at least, so far as respects the United States, their conduct has been 
 marked by cruelty, faithlessness, and an utter disregard to all the obliga 
 tions which the laws of truth and honor impose. The most friendly 
 advances have been returned by bitter resentments ; the solicitations 6f 
 kindness repelled with insult and outrage ; fair dealing and adherence to 
 truth have been equally lost sight of, in their diplomatic correspondence ; 
 while no respect has been paid to the restraints which humanity or 
 justice imposes upon the actions of men and communities. In one of 
 the most recent official documents, emanating from the government of the 
 United States, upon the subject of these relations, the language of Mr. 
 Webster will be found to corroborate the views taken by other distin 
 guished functionaries of this nation. In his despatch to Mr. Thompson 
 of the 8th July, 1842, in commenting on a communication from Mr. de 
 Bocanegra, Secretary of State and Foreign Relations of the government 
 of Mexico, equally unprecedented and extraordinary in its contents and 
 character, as in the mode of its transmission, Mr. Webster takes occasion 
 to repel some groundless accusations preferred bv the Mexican Secre- 
 
68 
 
 tary.* The United States, he says, " is wholly ignorant of any sacri 
 fices made by Mexico, in order to preserve peace, or of any occasion 
 calling on its government to manifest uncommon forbearance. On the 
 contrary, the government of the United States cannot but be of opinion 
 that, if the history of the occurrences between the two governments, 
 the state of things at this moment existing between them, be regarded, 
 both the one and the other will demonstrate that it is the conduct of the 
 government of the United States which has been marked in an especial 
 manner by moderation and forbearance. Injuries and wrongs have been 
 sustained by citizens of the United States, not inflicted by individual 
 Mexicans, but by the authorities of the government ; for which injuries 
 and wrongs, numerous as they are, and outrageous as is the character of 
 some of them, and acknowledged as they are by Mexico herself, redress 
 has been sought only by mild and peaceable means, and no indemnity 
 asked but such as the strictest justice imperatively demanded. A desire 
 not to disturb the peace and harmony of the two countries, has led the 
 government of the United States to be content with the lowest measure 
 of remuneration. Mexico herself must admit that, in all these transac 
 tions, the conduct of the United States towards her has been signalized 
 not by the infliction of injuries, but by the manifestation of a friendly 
 feeling and a conciliatory spirit." In an address from Mr. Thompson to 
 the diplomatic corps in Mexico, under date of June 6, 1842, he says : 
 " Not only have we never done an act of an unfriendly character towards 
 Mexico, but I confidently assert that, from the very moment of the ex 
 istence of the Republic, we have allowed to pass unimproved no oppor 
 tunity of doing Mexico an act of kindness. I will not now enumerate 
 the acts of that character, both to the government of Mexico and its 
 citizens, public and private. If this government choose to forget them, 
 I will not recall them. Whilst such has been our course to Mexico, it 
 is with pain I am forced to say, that the open violations of the rights of 
 American citizens by the authorities of Mexico have been greater, for 
 the last fifteen years, than those of all the governments of Christendom 
 united ; and yet we have left the redress of all these multiplied and 
 accumulated wrongs to friendly negotiation, without having even intimat 
 ed a disposition to resort to force." 
 
 If the representations, which we have furnished of the conduct of 
 Mexico, expressed and reiterated for a long series of years by functiona 
 ries of the American government, without distinction of party, be not 
 grossly exaggerated and overcharged, upon what possible ground can the 
 allegations rest which have frequently been made within the last few 
 
 * 27th Con. 2d Sess. House doc. 226. 
 
69 
 
 months, that our sister Republic is an unoffending neighbor, scrupulously 
 faithful in the maintenance of her faith and in the performance of her 
 obligations, cautiously avoiding furnishing us with any cause of offence, 
 and anxious to cultivate with us the most friendly relations, by the 
 manifestation, on every occasion, of the kindest dispositions towards us. 
 If, on the other hand, these representations do not overstep the bounds of 
 truth, the inquiry naturally suggests itself, has Mexico, in her intercourse 
 with other nations, exhibited the same characteristics, or have they re 
 ceived a different treatment at her hands ? If the citizens and govern 
 ment of the United States are the only parties who complain of the 
 conduct of Mexico if, in her deportment to the subjects of other nations, 
 she gives no cause of offence, suspicions may arise that either our com 
 plaints are unfounded or exaggerated, or that some causes must exist for 
 this asperity of feeling and violence of conduct towards us. 
 
 Allusion was made in a previous number to the deportment of Mexico 
 towards other nations ; and it may perhaps throw a new and distinct 
 light upon the character of that government, if we devote some little 
 time, to an authentic statement of the nature and character of her diffi 
 culties with France. We have before us an exposition of those difficul 
 ties in an official shape. The document to which we refer is the ultima 
 tum of the Baron Deffandis, minister plenipotentiary of France, addressed 
 to the Mexican government, and dated on board the frigate L Hermione, 
 March 21, 1833. The copy which we have of this paper is a Spanish 
 translation, published by the Mexican authorities in a supplement to the 
 " Al Diario del Sobiano de Mejico" of the 31st March, 1838. From 
 this document we give the following extracts : 
 
 " During the thirteen years which have transpired since regular and 
 continued relations have been established between France and Mexico, 
 a large number of the subjects of his Majesty, established in the territory 
 of the Republic, have found themselves exposed to grave attacks upon 
 their persons and their property. 
 
 " The undersigned, minister plenipotentiary of France, will not stop to 
 detail the particulars of these assaults ; which, by their atrocity, would, 
 in the recital, necessarily communicate to this note a character of hostile 
 severity, which he does not desire to give it. For this reason he will not 
 particularize 
 
 " Either the assassination of Atenzingo, in 1833 in which five French 
 men, who enjoyed general esteem, and exercised an occupation useful to 
 the community, were decapitated ; after which, they were tied to the tails 
 of horses, and dragged (including a female) by persons known to the 
 Mexicans, who performed this act at midday, vociferating death to stran 
 gersan assassination which remains unpunished after a lapse of five 
 years, under the pretext that the judicial forms of the country are slow 
 
70 
 
 and complicated ; notwithstanding that, within this period, two French 
 men, who committed a murder at S. Luis Potosi, on the 21st October last, 
 and shrouded the act in the most profound mystery, were arrested, tried, 
 condemned, and finally executed on the 31st day of the same month, 
 exactly ten days after perpetration of the crime : 
 
 " Nor of the butchery (carniceria) at Tampico, in 1835, in which 
 twenty-eight foreigners, among whom were two Frenchmen, made 
 prisoners by Mexican troops, in an attack made by them on the territory 
 of the Republic in favor of Texas, were murdered some days after, being 
 shot down by musketry in a walled yard, in which they were enclosed, 
 like wild beasts. For this act the Mexican government has never been 
 able, although required by France two years since, to show in virtue of 
 what law, or in conformity with what judicial proceedings, these indivi- 
 als were condemned and executed ; a butchery rendered more odious by 
 the impunity extended to Mexican officers who were the associates of 
 these strangers, and by the promotion to the rank of General, of Colonel 
 Gregorio Gomez, he having presided at the council which, to try the 
 accused, limited his acts to the simple order of assassination: 
 
 " Nor of the iniquitous and attrocious judgment pronounced by Senor 
 Tomayo, one of the judges of the capital, who, during the last year, 
 condemned to ten years hard labor at Vera Cruz (in other words, a fright 
 ful death by prolonged suffering), a Frenchman, whom he desired to re 
 present as guilty of homicide, without proof, refusing to receive evi 
 dence of his innocence, in violation of all legal forms and of the sacred 
 right of defending one s self against false accusations : 
 
 " Nor of the recently attempted assassination, by Colonel Pardo, com 
 mandant of the city of Colima, in a public street, of a Frenchman who 
 exercised the honorable profession of medicine, and who was a director 
 ami physician to the hospital in that city, for no other cause than that the 
 Frenchman had refused to lend money to the colonel ; from which attempt 
 the colonel escaped only by a kind of miracle, but covered with wounds. 
 For these atrocious injuries he has not only been unable to obtain any 
 redress, but has even been denied protection for the future from the civil 
 and judicial authorities, and thus has been compelled to abandon the 
 country and all the interests he held there. 
 
 " The undersigned will not undertake at this time to enter into a detailed 
 relation of many other outrages less execrable, but not less iniquitous, 
 which Frenchmen have been compelled to suffer in their persons and 
 their property. Such a detail would extend this communication to a 
 length which is the less necessary, after the voluminous correspondence 
 which has taken place on the same subject between the French legation 
 and the Mexican government. The undersigned will, therefore, content 
 himself laying down three general categories, under which will naturally 
 be arranged these less odious inquiries to which his countrymen have 
 been subjected. 
 
 " 1. The sacking and destruction of property, pending the disturbances 
 of the country, which have been done either by the populace or by the 
 
71 
 
 belligerent parties ; as for example, the sacking of the Parian in Mexico, 
 in Tehuantepec, in Oajaca, and in Orizava ; the mutiny in Mexico on 
 account of the depreciation of the copper currency, &c. 
 
 " 2. The violent collection of forced loans, in violation equally of all 
 national rights and of subsisting treaties, and not less opposed to natural 
 equity by the unjust partiality manifested in the apportionment. 
 
 !{ 3. The denial of justice, judicial acts and decisions, equally illegal 
 and iniquitous, of the administrative authorities, military and civil, as for 
 example, the confiscation, contrary to the maxims of humanity and of the 
 law, of the Republic, of the cargo of Captain Rives, who was wrecked by 
 a tempest on the coast of Mazaltan, involving the death of this Frenchman, 
 which was brought about by the sufferings endured in five anxi jus years, 
 uselessly expended, in unavailing efforts to obtain that repa^auon which 
 was unceasingly promised. In this affair, certain employees of the 
 custom-house figured, who subsequently burned their records, and fled to 
 avoid rendering an account to the government. 
 
 " Closing, contrary to treaties and laws, the commercial establishment 
 of Mr. Besson, in Bolanos, the imprisonment of this Frenchman by the 
 local authorities, as a punishment for having invoked and obtained the 
 impotent protection of the supreme government. In this case, an officer 
 of the custom-house prominently figured, who was subsequently dis 
 missed for being concerned with a band of robbers, and for his own 
 defalcations." 
 
 This list of outrages will be continued in our next by further extracts 
 from this ultimatum of Baron Deffandis. 
 
 No. XL 
 
 WE resume the extracts from the French ultimatum, addressed to 
 the Mexican government on the 21st of March, 1838, recapitulating the 
 causes of complaint for which redress was demanded, viz : 
 
 " The banishment and ruin of M. Gallix in Tehuantepec, under pretexts 
 which were not stated, and probably not even invented until long after 
 the act was committed, and which were immediately ascertained to be 
 both false and calumnious. In this transaction a judge who had been 
 already condemned by a superior tribunal for prevarication, was a promi 
 nent actor. 
 
 " The persecution and ruin of M. Darenton, in Tampico, by decisions 
 subversive of the rights of nations, and of the legislation of the Republic. 
 In this affair a judge who had been accused before the tribunals of Vera 
 Cruz, of causing death by poisoning, and had evaded by flight the pro 
 ceedings directed against him, was conspicuous: 
 
72 
 
 "The sequestration of the goods of Mr. Arbel,in Tampico, at the instance 
 of a party who refused to let it be known who he was, which sentence of 
 sequestration has continued for three years, in consequence of the illegal 
 failure to provide in that department a tribunal of appeal : 
 
 " The prolonged imprisonment and barbarous treatment of Mr. Le Dos 
 by the instrumentality of judicial papers, which were forged and recog 
 nised as such by the superior judges. In this affair, officers of the army, 
 who constituted the tribunal, figured as those guilty of these falsifi 
 cations." 
 
 The reclamations continually pressed by the Minister of France against 
 these various outrages have been as constantly repelled by the Mexican 
 authorities. If France has been able to obtain occasiorally the suspen 
 sion, for a brief period, of these iniquitous proceedings against Iier sub 
 jects, it has more rarely been able to obtain a cessation of them, and 
 never to procure any reparation for those that had been committed. The 
 continuation during so long a period of such a state of things, can be 
 explained and accounted for only by the continued good feeling on the 
 part of France, and by the change in the systems of negotiation success 
 fully established with her by the Mexican authorities. 
 
 The first of these systems consisted in a recognition by Mexico of the 
 justice of the complaints preferred by the French legation ; in expressing 
 in stronger terms than even France herself employed, the indignation 
 felt by Mexico for these outrages upon the subjects of his Majesty ; in 
 palliating every case of wrong, by urging the limited advance which the 
 country had made in civilisation, the civil dissentions, together with the 
 errors and defects in the legislation, the imperfect organization of the 
 administration, as well of the army as of the tribunals of justice, the 
 inexperience of the public functionaries of all classes, &c. ; and finally, 
 and above all, this system consisted in the promise of reparation, implor 
 ing, however, delay, in consequence of the deranged state of their 
 finances, which entreaties the generous and friendly disposition of France 
 would not permit her to refuse. 
 
 The second system has had a more recent origin, and a more brief 
 duration. It has had several bases in succession. 
 
 1. To make these complaints the subjects of discussion, which promised 
 to be never-ending from the unheard-of dilatoriness with which the Mexi 
 can ministry furnished their communications on the application of the 
 principles of the universal rights of nations, which the French legation 
 had cited to sustain its reclamations. 
 
 2. When these discussions, and all the delays which Mexico could 
 interpose were brought to a close, by answering these references to the 
 universal law of nations, by opposing to them the Mexican rules of law, 
 and by repelling every description of complaint for the denial of justice, 
 
73 
 
 illegal sentences, scandalous exactions of certain magistrates upon the 
 sole reason that, under the Mexican Constitution, the judicial power was 
 independent of the Executive, which had authority only to call into 
 action the administration of justice, but none to direct or supervise 
 whatever might be the causes of complaint against the judges, or what 
 ever might be the proofs by which they were sustained. 
 
 3. To elude the objections urged against these novel doctrines by the 
 most trifling and dilatory answers, or by a silence absolute and continu 
 ous, and conniving at the same time at the repetition of similar acts as 
 those in which these complaints had originated. 
 
 4. To stigmatize as false and calumnious the reclamations of the 
 subjects of France against the different authorities of the Republic, 
 without discussing either the acts or the proofs which established these 
 outrages, and satisfying themselves with the pure and simple denial of 
 the allegations by the parties inculpated. 
 
 5. To indicate, at times, the intention of exciting against the French 
 claimants fresh persecutions, for the purpose of stifling their complaints, 
 or at least of abandoning them to the tender mercies of the very parties 
 whose conduct gave rise to the reclamation. 
 
 6. To denounce, without any discussion of the allegations themselves, 
 or of the proofs by which they are sustained, as offences against the 
 Mexican people and government, the complaints of the French legation 
 on behalf of their fellow subjects, and, under this pretext, to employ 
 language insulting to the legation, and sometimes even to its govern 
 ment. 
 
 7. Finally, and to complete this system of operation, to repulse in 
 mass the reclamations of France and the principles upon which they 
 rest, suggesting, on the other hand, the preposterous proposition of sub 
 mitting the entire subject to the arbitrament of a third power, as if the 
 matter merely involved those ordinary questions of doctrine or of inte 
 rests upon which doubt might be entertained, and, on the contrary, did 
 not grow out of outrages upon the security of persons and of property, 
 which can never be submitted to arbitration in conformity either with 
 public or private right ; or as if the dignity and the obligations of France 
 could ever permit it to submit to a third party, even as a matter of form, 
 (for it is not possible to suppose there can be any diversity of opinion 
 among civilized nations upon such questions), to decide whether the 
 spoliations, the violences, the assassinations of which her subjects have 
 been the victims, are or are not entitled to ample remuneration. 
 
 In this summary and somewhat abridged recapitulation of the outrages 
 perpetrated upon the subjects of France in various parts of the Mexican 
 territory, either originally prompted by individuals high in office under 
 
74 
 
 the Mexican government, or subsequently sustained and protected by 
 them, and in the various pretexts and subterfuges to which that govern 
 ment systematically resorted to evade the responsibility which the law 
 of nations attached to such conduct, may be read a brief history of our 
 intercourse with that country. The citizens of the United States who 
 had placed themselves within the Mexican territory were far more 
 numerous than those of any other nation j they possessed a much 
 greater amount of property to excite the rapacity of these freebooters ; 
 and, finally, there was infinitely less promptitude and energy displayed 
 by our functionaries in the investigation of the circumstances which ac 
 companied these wrongs, and in enforcing compensation, than were 
 exhibited by the representative of any other power ; and, consequently, 
 the list of our injuries is proportionally larger, and the atrocity of the 
 crimes of which Americans have been the victims have been of a deeper 
 shade than those set forth in the French ultimatum. Similar devices 
 and pretexts were resorted to in our case, as in that of France : promises 
 of redress as freely made, and as rarely fulfilled. Parties complaining 
 were subjected to new and more reckless persecutions, the great bulk of 
 American citizens driven from the country, and that commerce which 
 had already reached the amount of nearly ten millions per annum, and 
 which, under more auspicious circumstances, would rapidly have in 
 creased, to the mutual advantage of both nations, rapidly fell to about 
 half a million. 
 
 We shall next indicate the course which France adopted in this pos 
 ture of affairs, and the consequences which resulted from it. 
 
 No. XII. 
 
 IN continuation of the paper from which we are extracting, the French 
 minister thus proceeds : " In this state of things his Majesty s govern 
 ment, convinced that the Mexican cabinet had sufficiently signified what 
 were its dispositions in respect to the demands of France for the repara 
 tion of wrongs inflicted, has ordered the undersigned to present once 
 more, and for the last time, the same demands upon the Mexican gov 
 ernment. 
 
 " I. The treasury of the Republic shall deliver, prior to the 25th day 
 of May next, on board the French squadron which may then be at Vera 
 Cruz, the sum of $600,000 the disposition of which sum his Majesty s 
 government reserves to itself, as well as the apportionment among those 
 
75 
 
 Frenchmen who have suffered, within the Mexican territory, injuries 
 sustained under the three heads or classes which are designated. 
 ******* 
 
 " This payment being made, the Mexican government shall be released 
 from all claims by France, embraced within the said three classes, for 
 causes arising prior to the first day of the present month of March. 
 
 " II. The credits which French citizens hold against the Mexican 
 government, are not comprehended within the preceding stipulation, &c.j 
 and the Mexican government solemnly binds itself to interpose no future 
 difficulties in the way of the regular and prompt payment of these 
 debts. 
 
 " III. General Gregorio Gomez, who ordered in Tampico the assassi 
 nation of the two Frenchmen, Demovesent and Sausieu, shall be deprived 
 of his employment ; and there shall be paid, as an indemnification to 
 the families of the two victims, the sum of twenty thousand dollars. 
 
 " Colonel Pardo, commandant of Coluria, guilty of the attempt to 
 assassinate and severely wounding M. Giraud Dulong, shall be deprived 
 of his office ; and there shall be paid to this Frenchman, for this outrage, 
 the sum of nine thousand six hundred and sixty dollars. 
 
 " Senor Tamayo, judge in Mexico, shall be deprived of his office, for 
 the illegal, iniquitous, and atrocious sentence which he perversely gave 
 against M. Petro Lemoine. This Frenchman shall be immediately set 
 at liberty, and shall receive an indemnification of $2,000 for the pro 
 longed and wholly unjust detention which he has suffered, and the bad 
 personal treatment which he endured in prison. There shall be paid an 
 indemnification of $15,000 to the families of the Frenchmen who were 
 assassinated with impunity at Atenzingo. 
 
 " Those indemnifications provided in this article are included in the 
 sum total demanded in the first article. 
 
 " The undersigned has certainly the right and perhaps it is his duty 
 to demand the punishment of a number of other functionaries who are 
 designated, for the offences stated ; but, availing himself of the discretion 
 reposed in him by his government, he confines himself to the requiring 
 the punishment exceedingly moderate in its character of the before- 
 named individuals, whose barbarous conduct is abhorrent to every prin 
 ciple of justice, of morality, and civilisation. 
 
 " IV. The most precise and distinct stipulations are required for the 
 future. 
 
 ******* 
 
 "Such are the demands which the undersigned, as already indicated, 
 is charged to address once more, and for the last time, to the Mexican 
 government. The present note is an ultimaium ; and the determination 
 
76 
 
 of France, which it explains, is irrevocable, to employ the very expres 
 sions of his excellency the president of the King s council. The 
 demands contained in this ultimatum have been so repeatedly discussed, 
 under every variety of form, and for so long a time, between the Mexican 
 ministry and the French legation, that the former might certainly be 
 prepared to furnish a categorical answer in forty-eight hours. Never 
 theless, the undersigned will await a reply until the 15th of April. If 
 (which God forbid) this reply shall contain a negative upon any one of 
 the points proposed ; if even its language shall be ambiguous in any one 
 particular ; if, in short, it shall be delayed beyond the 15th of April, the 
 undersigned will immediately place the further conduct of the business 
 in the hands of M. Bazoche, commander of the naval forces of his 
 Majesty, of which a part are already on the coast of Mexico, and this 
 superior officer will proceed to execute the orders he has received. If, 
 on the contrary (and God grant such may be the case), the answer 
 shall be entirely affirmative upon every point, M. Bazoche will then 
 have no part in the business, excepting only in case the promises made 
 by the Mexican government shall not be completely fulfilled on the 15th 
 of May. In any case, however, in which this officer shall be required 
 to act, from the moment that he has begun to carry out his orders, the 
 execution of them cannot be interrupted or suspended without the entire 
 and perfect fulfilment of every requirement of this ultimatum." 
 
 Notwithstanding the distinct and peremptory language of the French 
 minister, dictating the most precise terms and conditions on which alone 
 hostilities were to be suspended, and prescribing the time in which a 
 categorical answer was to be given, delays nevertheless took place. 
 Mexican diplomacy exerted all its power ; the most conciliating lan 
 guage was employed ; promises and assurances were given in profusion j 
 and it was not until the following November, that patience and forbear 
 ance on the one side, and all the arts of dissimulation and artifice on the 
 other, were exhausted, that France put in execution her threats, opened 
 her artillery upon the castle of St. Juan de Ulloa, speedily brought the 
 Mexicans to terms, and compelled them to pay a further sum of $200,- 
 000, to remunerate France for the money she had expended in the 
 enforcement of her right. 
 
 This history has been given somewhat in detail, because the docu 
 ment, from which the foregoing extracts have been made, has been but 
 rarely seen, and is little known in the United States ; because nothing 
 can furnish us with more instructive lessons as well, as to the character 
 and conduct of the Mexican people and government. Nothing can more 
 clearly demonstrate that they are restrained by no law, human or divine, 
 from the perpetration of any outrages, however atrocious, upon those 
 
77 
 
 come within their power ; that their barbarous cruelty in inflicting 
 wrong can be equalled only by their mendacity in evading the conse 
 quent responsibility ; and that the only effective mode of obtaining 
 redress for past injuries and preventing the infliction of similar injuries in 
 future, is to employ towards them a firm and decided tone peremptorily 
 requiring compensation for the past and security for the future, and pre 
 pared to enforce u.pon them an observance of the laws of nations and of 
 humanity, and a rigid compliance with their treaty engagements. 
 
 Little doubt can be entertained that, if the first aberrations from these 
 limits had been firmly resisted, and the rights of others rigidly enforced, 
 the consequences would have been equally beneficial to all parties. 
 Mexico, taught that she could not with impunity violate the rights of 
 others, would cautiously have abstained from the perpetration of those 
 enormities which must, sooner or later, be visited with condign punish 
 ment ; and adopted a policy which would have entitled her to a position 
 among the civilized nations of the earth. 
 
 No. XIII. 
 
 IN the exhibition we have made of the intercourse between France 
 and Mexico, it has appeared how gross and violent were the outrages 
 perpetrated by the latter country upon the other ; that these outrages 
 were committed, not by a powerful nation, which, exulting in her own 
 strength, substituted her will for the law, against a weak and feeble 
 party, but by the one which, according to the general laws of human 
 nature, might have been supposed to be unwilling to rouse the resent 
 ment of her more powerful opponent, because unable to elude the con 
 sequences which a resort to the ultima ratio of nations would be sure 
 to bring upon her head not occasioned by feelings goaded by previous 
 causes of offence left rankling in her bosom, which, blinded by passion, 
 might make a nation, as similar causes sometimes do an individual, blind 
 to results, in his anxiety to punish an insult or an outrage of which he 
 has been the victim. In this case we have seen Mexico, the weaker 
 power, gratuitously, without alleged provocation or cause, beginning 
 and carrying on the wrong against a nation infinitely her superior in 
 physical strength, against one who had uniformly exhibited towards her 
 a mild, beneficent, and forbearing course of policy against one who 
 had never done her wrong who had acted as her friend who was 
 disposed to treat her with kindness, and upon a footing of equality. 
 
 Such a review will, therefore, relieve the United States from the 
 
78 
 
 suspicion of having afforded to Mexico any just, or even plausible pre 
 text, for the conduc of which we complain. We were the first to ac 
 knowledge her independence, and her right to assume a position among 
 the nations of the world. We extended to her the right hand of ellow- 
 ship. Our citizens flocked to her shores, and participated with her own 
 sons in the perils of the conflict she was waging for her national exist 
 ence. We not only did not require at her hands any peculiar commer 
 cial privileges in our own intercourse with her, which we might have 
 exacted, and she would, at the time, most willingly have yielded ; but 
 we required that we should be placed only on the footing which other 
 nations were to occupy. Neither the government nor the people of 
 the United States ever gave her cause, either of offence or suspicion. 
 Yet such as has been portrayed, has been the treatment we have ex 
 perienced. 
 
 The governments of Europe are not accustomed as we are to spread 
 before the world the minute and circumstantial details either of their 
 foreign or their domestic policy. But for the publicity given by the 
 government of Mexico to her controversies with France, we should 
 have remained ignorant of the circumstances to which he have had oc 
 casion to revert. It is the same with reference to Great Britain. No 
 public rupture has occurred, which has furnished the occasion to ex 
 hibit to the world the course of events between her and Mexico, and 
 therefore nothing relating to them can be supplied from published docu 
 ments. We are, however, in- possession of facts which are susceptible 
 of being sustained by authentic proof, which exhibit, in the conduct of 
 Mexico towards England, some cases of wrong ; and in that of Great 
 Britain, the prompt, vigorous, and effective measures which she adopted 
 to obtain redress for injuries that had been inflicted, and to guard against 
 their recurrence. A reference to a few of these facts will show that 
 Mexico was regardful of the rights of foreigners precisely in proportion 
 to the probability of their enforcement ; that her only standard of right 
 was the disposition and the ability of those with whom she acted, to re 
 dress wrong ; and that she, by a timely compliance with her engage 
 ments and responsibilities, shunned a collision with England which was 
 ready to break upon her head. 
 
 In the year 1832, outrages were committed in Tabasco, in which 
 British subjects and American citizens, resident in Mexico, were equal 
 sufferers. They were subjected to heavy pecuniary losses, and to seri 
 ous personal injuries and insults. In the year 1833, the British minister 
 obtained full redress for the wrongs sustained by his countrymen by the 
 energy, with which he prosecuted his demand for reparation. In 1845, 
 the American sufferers, who participated in these same losses, are still 
 
79 
 
 without remuneration. This is one of the numerous instances in which 
 citizens of the United States, merchants, captains of merchant vessels, 
 and sailors, were subjected to the most cruel abuses, imprisonment, one 
 of them actually murdered ; they endured these evils in common with 
 other foreigners. Those who were under the protection of England 
 and France have been indemnified by Mexico ; but our citizens, suffer 
 without redress, and those who perpetrate these outrages upon them 
 escape with impunity. The narratives of Kendall and Gregg show these 
 are not insulated instances. 
 
 One other instance will be adverted to, in which the British govern 
 ment, by the decision which marked its course, obtained redress for 
 injuries which its subjects had suffered, without being compelled, as 
 France was, to resort to arms to enforce her rights. In the year 1833, 
 General Arista then commanding a force in opposition to the existing 
 authorities, took about one hundred thousand dollars from an English 
 mining company, which he applied to the payment of the troops under 
 his command. The company called upon the government to indemnify 
 it for this outrage. The demand was refused, on the ground that the 
 nation could not justly be held responsible for the acts of those, who 
 were not only acting without its authority, but in defiance of the con 
 stitutional powers of the country. Being, however, urged by the British 
 minister to liquidate this claim and this was done simultaneously with 
 the demand by an American citizen who had suffered a similar wrong 
 the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in his annual report to 
 Congress, early in the year 1835, presented to the legislative depart 
 ment, in his annual report, the case of the English mining company. 
 He admitted the facts as they have been stated ; but insisted upon the 
 injustice of holding Mexico accountable for an outrage committed by a 
 body of men who were in arms to overturn the government, and upon 
 the impolicy of establishing a precedent in such cases ; that there were 
 many Mexicans who had suffered losses under similar circumstances, 
 who would, with great propriety, regard the allowance and payment to 
 foreigners of such a claim as furnished an example which ought to be 
 followed in reference to them ; and if it were followed out, the means 
 of the treasury would be insufficient to meet the demands made upon it. 
 He also suggested that the case of foreigners could not favorably be dis 
 tinguished from that of their own people ; that during the commotions 
 which had existed in Mexico, the condition of foreigners was much 
 better than that of the natives that they had the opportunity of realiz 
 ing extraordinary profits during such periods of violence and terror, and 
 that consequently they were better able to bear the accidental losses to 
 which they might be subjected, and had the less claim for compensa- 
 
80 
 
 tion for these incidental disadvantages. He further represented that 
 there were numerous cases of claims of a similar character, and that the 
 prompt action of the Legislature upon them was requisite, in order to 
 enable the Executive to return promptly an answer to the parties in 
 terested. 
 
 The British minister, however, did not think it expedient to await 
 the dilatory action of the Mexican Congress upon this subject ; which 
 long experience had taught him would only involve delay. He trans 
 mitted a copy of this official communication to his government, with a 
 full statement of the circumstances of the case in which his demand 
 had originated. By the next packet, and before Congress had moved in 
 the matter, he received instructions to apprise the Mexican authorities, 
 that full remuneration must be made to the mining company within a 
 limited and short period, and in the event of non-compliance with this 
 demand, he was instructed to inform the admiral on the Jamaica sta 
 tion of the fact, who had been instructed to act in that case and em 
 powered to employ force in compelling the adjustment. These instruc 
 tions were communicated to the Mexican government, and within a few 
 months the affair was arranged to the entire satisfaction of the English 
 claimants. 
 
 No. XIV. 
 
 WE have now rapidly traced the conduct of Mexico to her relations 
 with the various nations with whom she has had intercourse, during the 
 comparatively brief period of less than a quarter of a century, which 
 has elapsed since she began her career as a colony of Spain, asserting 
 her independence of the mother-country and struggling to maintain the 
 position which she had assumed. This review of her conduct is also 
 a delineation of her character. Wholly ignorant of the art of govern 
 ment, her people, suddenly liberated from the shackles of astern despo 
 tism to which they had long been inured, found themselves unrestrained 
 in the exercise of their newly acquired freedom. No longer held in 
 fetters by the arbitrary hand of power, there was no moral force substi 
 tuted in its stead, to which they even professed allegiance. Equally ig 
 norant, as regards the faculties of their minds and their moral sense, they 
 felt themselves alike incapable of guiding their conduct by the light of 
 reason, and indifferent to the dictates of virtue. They madly, recklessly 
 plunged from one scene of civil turmoil into anoher; wreaked their 
 
Si 
 
 vengeance upon all who fell under their power ; preferred the precarious 
 support of pillage and rapine to the plodding routine of industry and in 
 tegrity ; and, while they showed themselves regardless of the ties of 
 affinity and kindred, they looked with especial hatred and jealousy upon 
 all who bore the appearance and exhibited the character of strangers. 
 
 Such indications of national character were so anomalous, so at vari 
 ance with everything to which civilized and Christian men had been ac 
 customed, that the accounts of their proceedings were regarded with 
 incredulity. We could not believe the accounts that were, from day to 
 day, transmitted from this ill-fated country. It could not be credited 
 that those who had been invited to their shores in the hour of peril, who 
 had participated with them in their dangers, who were introducing 
 among them habits of industry, and exhibiting before their eyes the 
 beautiful results of laborious honesty, who were engaged in the develop 
 ment of their abundant resources, and diffusing around them the bless 
 ings of tranquil but busy activity, would or could, by these means, rouse 
 their hatred, and bring down upon thems^ves the dreadful calamities 
 which they were made to suffer. 
 
 All foreigners shared alike in these dreadful calamities. Murders and 
 assassinations, plunder and pillage, alike awaited them ; and a fearful 
 catalogue of atrocities was accumulated, such as had never before dis 
 graced a nation professing to be governed by the Christian religion, or 
 recognizing the obligations of national law. 
 
 With all this, Mexico possesses the constituents of great national 
 power and greatness. Her climate is admirable, her mineral resources 
 immense, and her vegetable productions calculated to be at once the 
 source of wealth to herself and of comfort to tbe residue of the world. 
 
 The other nations of the earth must either exclude her from the rank 
 which she claims among them, or must compel her to observe those laws 
 of the government to which they voluntarily an 1 cheerfully submit. 
 We have seen that, by a timely resort to those measures of coercion 
 which the circumstances of the case rendered necessary, France and 
 England have compelled her to redress the wrongs which she had per 
 petrated, and to obey that law which she had violated. Were this course 
 universally adopted, Mexico herself would sjrow r cher and happier, as 
 well as bett >r. 
 
 In determining upon thr^ cou-se which, under such circumstances, 
 ought to be pursued towards such a nation, the United States, while 
 exhibiting that firmness and decision which become her character and 
 position, is also under hig >. obligations to abstain from every measure 
 which bears the impress o vindictiveness or exasperation. Our rights 
 are clear and beyond controversy ; they should be distinctly asserted and 
 6 
 
82 
 
 energetically vindicated ; but our strength and power enable us to pur 
 sue them with equal dignity of manner and firmness of purpose. 
 
 It has been shown, that the claims of the United States upon the gov 
 ernment of Mexico, as well for outrages upon the lives, the persons and 
 the property of our citizens, as for indignities, insults and injuries per 
 petrated upon our government, our flag and our public functionaries, 
 have gradually accumulated in number as in amount. Every new arri 
 val from Mexico brings new intelligence of some fresh wrong; and 
 while no reparation is made for the past, no security is offered for the 
 future. Years have elapsed since the Executive and Congress concur 
 red in the public declaration, that we should be justified before the world 
 in resorting to arms to redress and punish these atrocities. We have 
 seen that France did adopt this system of operations to redress grievan 
 ces, not equal to the tithe of what we had suffered ; and that England 
 was only prevented, under infinitely less provocation, from appealing to 
 force, by the prompt and satisfactory adjustment of her demands. We 
 have seen that Mexico, a^er having recognized the validity of our 
 claims, and given the most solemn assurances that they should be liqui 
 dated and settled, has suddenly closed all diplomatic intercourse between 
 the tw r o governments ; withdrawn her own minister from the United 
 States, and declined further communication with our representative. 
 This course has been adopted in consequence of an alleged wrong com 
 mitted upon her honor and her rights by the action of this country upon 
 Texas. This wrong she chooses to regard as so palpable and so 3 \on- 
 strous, that she will not make it the subject of discussion or negotiation. 
 She considers it as admitting neither of palliation, compromise, nor ar 
 rangement. We must retrace our steps, undo what has been done, annul 
 our legislative acts and our executive measures, as preliminary condi 
 tions to the resumption of friendly intercourse between them and us. 
 
 It is needless to say that such demands are as preposterously absurd, 
 as they are insulting to the government of the United States. What 
 we have done, we have done deliberately and advisedly. We have done 
 it with a full persuasion and entire conviction that we have violated no 
 rule of justice, no provision of public law, and done no wrong to Mexi 
 co. We have acquired rights and incurred responsibilities which we 
 cannot abandon, and will not shrink from. 
 
 At the same time, the United States are willing and desirous to make 
 this controverted subject a matter of friendly discussion, and fair and 
 liberal adjustment. Mexico has declined this proffer, and assumes a 
 ground which can rarely find justification in that code which governs 
 the intercourse among nations. She asserts that her rights are too plain 
 
83 
 
 to admit of question, or to allow of doubt ; and, consequently, that our 
 acts are as palpably and incontrovertibly wrong and indefensible. The 
 government of the United States entertain opinions exactly the opposite ; 
 and no attitude can be assumed by one nation towards another more offen 
 sive and insulting, than that which imputes to the other the deliberate 
 perpertration of palpable wrong, and the covering of the injurious act 
 under the mantle of wilful falsehood. Mexico is bound to discuss this 
 question ; and, while insisting upon her own views, to receive, examine, 
 and deliberate upon those which we are prepared to present. In refus 
 ing this, she herself commits an outrage. 
 
 One thing is at least clear, that whichever party may ultimately be 
 ascertained to be in the wrong in this matter, upon no principle of pub 
 lic law can this subject furnish a justification for her refusal or neglect 
 to repair the injuries she has herself inflicted upon us. She has solemnly 
 recognized our rights as to these causes of complaint ; she has solemnly 
 stipulated to compensate our citizens for them ; she has incurred obliga 
 tions to the American government ; conferred upon it an unquestioned 
 right, and imposed upon it the corresponding obligation to enforce these 
 rights if they shall be longer disregarded or neglected. These are re 
 sponsibilities from which neither nation can now honorably disengage 
 itself. 
 
 If it be asked, then, what course ought the government of the United 
 S^tes to adopt under such circumstances, the answer is obvious. But 
 one course is left open, unless the claims upon Mexico are abandoned, 
 and, either in direct terms or by necessary implication, it be conceded to 
 her that the treaties between the two powers are virtually abrogated, 
 the compacts between them annulled, and the claims cancelled by the 
 admitted wrong inflicted upon her by our arrangements with Texas. 
 Rejecting this as equally dishonorable and false, but one alternative 
 remains. 
 
 A distinct, and peremptory, and final demand should be at once made 
 upon Mexico to fulfil her engagements, to pay the arrears of the indem 
 nity which has already been adjusted, and without further delay to pro 
 vide for the settlement of the outstanding demands upon her. This 
 should be insisted upon as a sine qua non, as an indispensable preliminary 
 to the discussion of any new questions. If acceded to, this cause 
 of controversy may be readily adjusted, and all the remaining pre 
 tensions of either party be considered and settled upon fair and 
 liberal terms. If, however, it shall be refused or declined, it will 
 become the duty, as it is the clear right, of the United States, either to 
 follow the precedents established by France and England, of taking the 
 
84 
 
 representations of the injured parties as furnishing the amount of the re 
 muneration to which they are entitled, or to create a home commission, 
 empowered to examine each separate case to adjudicate upon it in ac 
 cordance with the same principles which we have asserted and admitted 
 as regards Mexico herself : the amount thus ascertained, to be regarded 
 as finally and definitely fixed, and Mexico required, and, if necessary 
 enforced to pay it. 
 
MEXICO AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 IT seems that the Mexican government has issued a paper, in the 
 nature of a manifesto against the government of the United States, 
 which is couched in the customary language of denunciation employed 
 by the functionaries of that nation, but without indicating very precisely 
 what ulterior measures are contemplated. There is, however, one as 
 sertion thus officially promulgated, which we are not sorry to see, be 
 cause it represents in a, tangible form, and under the express sanction of 
 the Mexican Executive, what has before been said from the same source 
 on more than one occasion, and which has unfortunately been received 
 with some degree of credit by others than Mexicans. It is positively 
 averred by that government, that, " on the part of this Republic (Mexi 
 co), the existing treaties between it and those (the United) States, were 
 respected scrupulously and legally." 
 
 For a complete and triumphant refutation of this mendacious asser 
 tion, it would be a sufficient answer to advert to the terms of the treaty, 
 signed on the llth April, 1839, by the representatives of the two powers, 
 and the proceedings of the board of commissioners appointed under it. 
 That convention provided for the adjustment of the claims of citizens 
 of the United States against Mexico, for injuries perpetrated by the 
 latter upon the former. Those claims were founded upon violations of 
 treaty obligations. 
 
 The third article of the treaty between the United States and Mexico, 
 of April 5, 1831, provides that " the citizens of the two countries re 
 spectively shall have liberty freely and securely to come with their 
 vessels and cargoes to all such places, ports, and rivers of the United 
 States of America, and of the united Mexican States, to which other 
 foreigners are permitted to come, and to remain and reside in any part 
 of the said territories respectively ; * and generally the mer 
 
 chants and traders of each nation shall enjoy the most complete protec 
 tion and security for their commerce." Article 14th : " Both the con 
 tracting parties promise and engage to give their special protection to 
 
86 
 
 the citizens of each other who may be in their territories," &c. Article 
 15th : " The citizens of the United States of America, residing in the 
 
 / O 
 
 united Mexican States, shall enjoy in their houses, persons, and pro 
 perty, the protection of the government, with the more perfect security 
 and liberty of conscience." The Spanish version of this article is some 
 what different ; the expression of conscience not appearing in it : " Go- 
 zaran en sus casas, personas, y propriedades, de la proteccion de la go- 
 bierno, y continuando en la posesion en que estan." 
 
 A large majority of the cases presented before the board were for 
 alleged violations of these treaty provisions. The memorials and proofs 
 filed, and which are now in the Department of State, amply confirm 
 this statement. All merely national outrages were excluded from the 
 operation of this convention, and never were lain before the board. 
 
 We have now before us the report of the proceedings of that board. 
 More than nine-tenths of the claims, as has been said, for violations of 
 rights secured and guarantied by treaty ; and several of these allowed 
 as such by the Mexican commissioners, and many more decided by 
 the umpire on this single ground. The claims thus exhibited exceeded 
 ten millions of dollars. Here, then, is a judicial decision, by a board 
 composed one half of Americans and the other half Mexicans, that the 
 assertion now made is utterly destitute of truth. 
 
 This instance of mendacity is not unexampled in the history of this 
 people. The report of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the House 
 of Representatives of July 7, 1S38, exhibits another memorable one. 
 The American Secretary had presented a list of fifty-seven distinct cases 
 of claim upon Mexico for illegal outrages. Inquiry into these cases, 
 and redress of the injuries complained of, were profusely promised. 
 After great and unexplained delays, answers were returned in reference 
 to only four ; and, in the interim, the Mexican President promulgates a 
 decree, in which it is positively intimated 1st, That Mexico had offered 
 to submit the claims against her to the decision of a friendly power ; 
 2d, That, in case the government of the United States should deny satis 
 faction to Mexico, or delay it, or continue the open aggressions already 
 committed, then that Mexico should close her ports to our trade, with 
 a menance of even harsher measures. The committee show it in the re 
 port that no such offer of arbitrament had ever been made, and that no 
 one case had ever been complained of in which any aggression had been 
 committed by the United States against Mexico, nor any one instance in 
 which satisfaction had been required for any pretended wrong. This 
 paper was therefore regarded as an attempt by the Executive of Mexico 
 to throw embarrassments in the way of an adjustment of our demands, 
 by a false effort to induce the Legislature of that country to regard Mex- 
 
87 
 
 ico as the only aggrieved party. The duplicity and mendacity of the 
 Mexican Executive are fully developed in the document referred to 
 
 Proof equally conclusive exists in abundance, which we may hereafter 
 deem it proper to adduce. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 ON the part of Mexico, her treaties with the United States were re 
 spected scrupulously. So asserts the Mexican Executive, in a public 
 proclamation, embodying certain resolutions of the Mexican Congress. 
 
 Every American is interested in ascertaining how far this language is 
 warranted by truth. Since the date of the first of those treaties, every 
 President, who has had occasion to allude to the subject and all have, 
 except Mr. Polk, to whom the opportunity has not yet been presented, 
 but who will, ere long, doubtless, as distinctly declare his views has 
 averred, in his communications to Congress, that, from the period when 
 Mexico assumed her position as an independent nation, instances were 
 of almost daily occurrence, in which the laws of nations were violated 
 by that power, to the injury of Americn citizens, and that, since treaties 
 have been formed between the two governments, cases of the infraction 
 of those treaties have been as frequent and as numerous. This was 
 the deliberate language of General Jackson, Mr. Van Buren, and Mr. 
 Tyler. It has been as formally charged by every Secretary of State 
 during the last sixteen years ; for there has been no variation in the 
 character of those occurrences. Mr. Livingston and Mr. McLane, Mr. 
 Forsyth, and Mr. Webster, Mr. Upshur and Mr. Calhoun, have each 
 preferred the same high accusation. Nor has this been done, in imita 
 tion of the Mexican example, in documents addressed merely to our 
 own people, and prepared only for home consumption, while a different 
 language has been held to Mexico herself. 
 
 Mexico has been told to her face, by every minister who has repre 
 sented the United-States at that court, that such has been her course of 
 conduct. Mr. Butler, who negotiated the treaty of 1831, from the mo 
 ment of its execution, constantly and indignantly complains of its daily 
 violation. Mr. Ellis, General Thompson, and Mr. Shannon, make the 
 same representations. The Committees of Foreign Relations, in the 
 reports of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Rives of the Senate, and General 
 Howard and Mr. Gushing of the House, all concur in the same opinions. 
 Such complaints, presented in individual cases, fortified by evidence, 
 load the shelves of the Department of State. Several of them have un- 
 
88 
 
 dergone judicial or rather what would, but for a breach of faith on the 
 part of Mexico, have been a purely judicial investigation ; and Judges 
 Rowan, Marcy, and Breckenridge, have pronounced their judgments, 
 that Mexico has repeatedly violated treaty stipulations, and thus inflict 
 ed an immense amount of injury upon citizens of the United States. 
 Over and over again have such cases been admitted by the Mexican 
 authorities j and they have recognized the truth of these accusations, 
 in making a convention to provide for their adjustment, in joining in the 
 decisions of the board of commissioners, and (though certainly to a very 
 limited extent), paying portions of those awards. 
 
 Yet, on some occasions, of which we have the evidence, the govern 
 ment of Mexico has unblushingly denied the truth of these allegations ; 
 and, doubtless, in other instances, has attempted to deceive the people 
 by representations that all these claims of American citizens were fabri 
 cated and fraudulent. It is the duty of every American citizen to as 
 certain upon which side the truth lies. Have the distinguished men, 
 whose names we have cited, been misled by the false representations of 
 those who profess to have been injured ? or have they wantonly, wick 
 edly, and knowingly endeavored to deceive this country, and, on false 
 pretence, to bring out a collision between the two nations ? 
 
 Our government and our people are equally interested in this investi 
 gation. The former are charged with deliberate falsification. The issue 
 must be met ; and if this accusation is disproved, the honor of the coun 
 try imperatively demands that the party who has made it, should be 
 compelled 10 acknowledge the wrongs she has perpetrated, and compen 
 sate the injuries she has inflicted. The issue has been definitely made 
 up. Mexico no longer seeks to exonerate herself from paying a just 
 indemnity to our citizens, because the disorganized state of her affairs 
 prevented the exercise of her national arm in furnishing that protection 
 to American citizens which she was bound to provide ; or because her 
 exhausted treasury precludes the possibility of meeting this heavy de 
 mand. No : she boldly and peremptorily avers that she has scrupulous 
 ly adh ered to her treaty engagements ; that she has done no act which 
 those treaties required her to omit, and has left undone nothing she was 
 bound to do. She has declared, through the resolution of her Con 
 gress, sanctioned and ratified by her Executive, that all the charges 
 which have been preferred against her, of want of good faith, and viola 
 tion of treaty obligations, are false. It need hardly be asked, whether 
 this government, which has preferred the charge, will remain satisfied 
 with such a reply ; whether it will rest contented under this retort ; 
 whether the personal integrity of our statesmen which, happily, under 
 our institutions, and with the tone of morals which pervades this land, 
 
89 
 
 is, to so great an extent, identified with their public acts and language- 
 is to be sustained or abandoned. For our part, we rejoice that the issue 
 has thus been tendered by Mexico ; and we should be recreant to every 
 sense of honor and of right, if we withheld the expression of our 
 earnest wish that the gauntlet, thus thrown down, may be promptly 
 taken up. 
 
 Neither party, in this predicament, can, with honor to itself, decline or 
 evade this appeal. Assailed as we now are, in a distinct, official, and 
 most solemn form, it becomes incumbent upon the American nation to 
 demand and insist upon it, that Mexico shall at once unite in the appro 
 priate means of determining these high matters in controversy. A con 
 vention is before her, and has been in her hands for nearly eighteen 
 months, providing these means. It creates a judicial tribunal, clothed 
 with all necessary and suitable powers to examine and decide upon this 
 question. Let Mexico be required to meet us upon this arena, to meet 
 our allegations, and to meet our proofs. If she honestly believes what 
 she has said, there will be no evasion, no prevarication, no delay. If 
 she declines, let our government cause the investigation to be conducted 
 among ourselves, by men of high character for integrity and talent ; and 
 let the evidence laid before them, and their judgments upon that testi 
 mony, furnish our justification to the nation and to the world for what 
 the government has asserted. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 IN our last communication, it was stated that efforts had been 
 more than once made by the Mexican government to mislead the 
 popular mind of that nation by false representations in reference to the 
 United States, and especially on the subject of claims of our citizens. 
 We have the strongest reasons for believing, that it has been the sys 
 tematic policy of that government to excite the most embittered feelings 
 of resentment and hatred against the United States, her institutions, and 
 her people. The motives for this policy are obvious to all who are 
 familiar with the history of that degraded nation, and w r ho are aware of 
 the character of the men who have, from time to time, swayed her des 
 tinies of the means by which political ascendency is there at^ined, and 
 the precarious tenure by which it is held. The object for which office 
 is sought, is almost exclusively personal and sordid ; the means by 
 which it is attained, as universally base and unprincipled. The means 
 of continuing in power are the excitement of an anticipation of a for- 
 
90 
 
 eign war, which furnishes a pretext for augmenting their army and 
 increasing the revenue, which are afterwards employed the first to 
 maintain their ascendency, the other to swell their private fortunes. 
 Such is a true synopsis of Mexican history. 
 
 Reference has already been made to one instance of this duplicity, 
 which was brought to notice and exposed by General Howard, of 
 Maryland, in the report of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the 
 House of Representatives, in July, 1838. Another will now be adduced. 
 
 The situation of the public press in Mexico is materially different from 
 what we are accustomed to. While no newspaper is permitted to ex 
 press opinions or doctrines unpalatable to the powers that be, the gov 
 ernment journal is the authentic expositor of the views of the govern 
 ment, and indicates to the other presses, throughout the nation, the sen 
 timents and language which will be allowed to go forth to the people. 
 Shortly after one of President Jackson s messages to Congress, in which 
 Mexican affairs were adverted to in very distinct and appropriate terms, 
 the " Diario del Gobierno^ the official paper, published an article, from 
 which we give the following extract : 
 
 a We do not understand what the President of the United States 
 means by all this about retributions and injuries. Such expressions in 
 volve a double sense, and a future intention. In Mexico and Central 
 America, we know that we owe nothing to the North Americans. General 
 Jackson may pretend that the subjects of his nation should be indemni 
 fied for the smuggled articles which have been taken from them, and de 
 clared to be legally forfeited. If the Americans were not so much given 
 to smuggling, and if they did not so far abuse the consideration with 
 which they are regarded, there would be no complaints of any sort; and 
 those which, under any circumstances, are made, are unjust, and only a 
 pretext for not allowing us to be at peace, which has been the constant 
 endeavor of our sympathizing friends and neighbors." 
 
 In another paper, of about the same date, after stating that the Amer 
 icans, " when they meet one of our merchant-vessels at sea, they hoist 
 the flag of the Texian rebels ; and, as such, take the vessel, and give it, 
 or sell it, to the colonists, after having robbed her, and perhaps murdered 
 all the persons on board," thus proceeds : " We know these American 
 sea-faring men who trade with us, and we are aware that the whole 
 nation, particularly New Orleans, is the haunt of all the villians in the 
 world." 
 
 It was surely not without reason that the American minister, in trans 
 mitting these manifestations of Mexican sincerity to his government, 
 felt himself " compelled to add, that all my correspondence with the 
 Department of State, verbal and written, for the last three years, has 
 
91 
 
 served to convince me of the necessity of our government adopting 
 some decisive measure for convincing the Mexican government, not only 
 that they must give ample satisfaction for the wrongs we have already 
 suffered at their hands, but that our rights shall, in future, be respected. 
 Without some step of this character, we shall go on for years without 
 number, accumulating claims against Mexico, that they never will, and 
 never mean to satisfy, so long as it can be avoided. Our citizens will 
 be plundered whenever the wants of the government, or the cupidity of 
 some of its officers, may tempt them to commit the act. And, although 
 we have promises of indemnity whenever the state of their treasury will 
 permit them to do so, they, nevertheless, design by these promises 
 nothing more than a mere postponement a delay to gain time for 
 adding to the amount of our demands by new plundering" a prophecy 
 most signally verified. 
 
 We have been informed from an authentic source, that when pro 
 vision was to be made for meeting the payment of the indemnities 
 awarded under the convention of 1839, the government of Mexico not 
 only resorted to the most odious and oppressive mode in which money 
 could be raised an arbitrary assessment and compulsory contribution 
 but accompanied this measure with the most violent invectives against 
 the nation that had imposed upon them, by its frauds, the necessity for 
 their exacting money from the impoverished people of Mexico ; thus 
 causing them to execrate the United States at the payment of every 
 rial ; and including in this denunciation the Prussian minister, who, in 
 his capacity of umpire, had participated in the act. 
 
 By such means have the people of Mexico been taught, by their 
 rulers, to entertain towards this country the most embittered hatred. 
 They regard us not only as unprincipled dastards (for this would only 
 offend them as an interference with their own exclusive monopoly), but 
 as exerting all our energies to injure, molest, and harass them. 
 
 They have now, for the first time, in a plain and distinct manner, 
 counting from the experience of the past upon our inexhaustable and 
 all-enduring forbearance, placed us in an attitude in which silence and 
 non-action will be tantamount to an acknowledgement that we justly 
 merit all they impute to us. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 IT may perhaps be suggested, that in the remarks already made upon 
 the issue tendered by Mexico to the United States the one asserting 
 
92 
 
 the scrupulous fidelity with which she has fulfilled her treaty obligations ; 
 the other averring an habitual disregard of those engagements reference 
 has only been made to the general language of the public functionaries 
 of the two governments, which, being utterly at variance with each 
 other, the community and the world are unable to decide to which of 
 them credit should be given. The weight of names and of authority, if 
 the individuals cited spoke of facts coming immediately under their own 
 view, would undoubtedly preponderate in favor of the American side 
 of the question. It may, however, be asked Did not these gentlemen 
 employ language which each derived from his predecessor, or from 
 sources not implicitly to be credited ? Did not Mr. Van Buren merely 
 reiterate accusations originally preferred by General Jackson ? Did not 
 the latter derive his knowledge from subordinate functionaries ? And 
 were not they misled by the representations of interested and not trust 
 worthy claimants ? We wish some specific case of outrage ; we desire 
 to know whether the allegations have ever been investigated. Has 
 their investigation been conducted by men in whose integrity and capa 
 city confidence may be reposed ? Are the claimants men of respecta 
 bility and worth ? and have they sustained their pretensions by credible 
 testimony ? These are all pertinent and proper subjects of inquiry ; and 
 they shall be answered to the conviction of every man who may truly 
 desire to come to a correct result on the subject. 
 
 The record of the proceedings of the board of commissioners, as 
 reported to Congress, is now before us, and the document is accessible 
 to all who have curiosity to examine the matter. In the first tabular 
 statement appended to it, embracing cases which were decided by the 
 concurrent judgment of the American and Mexican commissioners, will 
 be found the following; Peter Harmony, New York, amount awarded, 
 $11 ,130 the ground of claim, " specie seized on the way to Vera Cruz, 
 by officers of the government, for its use." J. J. Astor & Son, New 
 York, $37,661 94 " For the brig Cossack, seized on the western coast 
 of Mexico, &c." Smith Thompson, and others, $2,093 67 " Brig 
 Splendid, seized and employed by the Mexican government." Theo 
 dore Ducoing, $2,450 " For forced loan and seizure of property." 
 John F. Old et al, $13,267 69" Brig Delight, detention of the vessel, 
 and seizure of part of the cargo." 
 
 The second table comprehends cases which were finally decided by 
 the umpire, the members of the board differing in opinion. This includes 
 the following cases : Arnold, Hicks, and others, $77,260 57 seizure 
 of the ship Louisa and cargo. Jackson Marine Insurance Company, 
 $9,361 95 schooner Brazoria seized and employed in the Mexican 
 service. Thomas Wilson, $47,194 32 seizure of schooner Fair Ameri- 
 
W TK 
 
 93 
 
 can. Robinson Potter, $3,363 50 seizure of, and employment as a 
 transport of brig William. John Baldwin, $12,803 39 personal inju 
 ries, loss of property, imprisonment, &c. M. Mitchell, $9,636 64 
 seizure of specie for the use of the government, between Mexico and 
 Vera Cruz. Boric and Laguerenne, $35,336 50 illegal exaction of 
 duties. Aaron Leggett, $99,487 94 seizure of steamboat, and other 
 outrages. Dennis Callagan, $12,042 seizure of vessel and imprison 
 ment. G. G. and S. Rowland, $18,058 61 seizure of wax. Joseph 
 Smith, $18,762 63 seizure of merchandise. John Baldwin $100,000 
 various outrages, designated by the commissioners as " a case of the 
 most extraordinary and aggravated nature," and for which the American 
 members awarded upwards of $210,000. Same-, $45,174 75 similar 
 atrocities. C. Bradbury and others, $119,966 39 detention of the 
 brig Franklin. 
 
 The foregoing constitute but a small number of cases of this descrip 
 tion, in many of which the Mexican commissioners only differed from 
 their American colleagues in fixing the measure of compensation, and 
 in all of which they were afforded a full opportunity of opposing any 
 allowance. 
 
 A third table shows the cases which were returned by the umpire 
 without his award ; he being debarred, by the expiration of the commis 
 sion, from fulfilling his entire duty. 
 
 The same tabular statements comprehend a very large number of 
 claims thus passed upon, which were not of this particular class. They 
 were, not for illegal seizures of persons and property, but for simple 
 breach of faith on the part of Mexico, in not paying for advances and 
 supplies furnished her. Enough, however, has been shown to make it 
 perfectly manifest, that among the claimants were some of the most dis 
 tinguished and irreproachable merchants in the land ; that their allega 
 tions have been examined by eminent and experienced judges ; that 
 Mexico had every opportunity of opposing every case, while the claim 
 ants were equally debarred from seeing the evidence and hearing the 
 arguments adduced against them ; .and that the result fixes upon Mexico 
 the most flagrant violations of public law, of treaty stipulations, and of 
 personal rights. 
 
 Still again the inquiry may be made What was the character of the 
 outrages of which complaint is made ? This also shall be answered. 
 One shall be taken, which, from its public character, could not be brought 
 before the board ; and one of private outrage, which was thoroughly 
 examined, and upon which the commissioners and the umpire passed 
 their judgment. In selecting these, it must be observed that they are 
 thus brought forward, not because they are distinguished from others by 
 
94 
 
 any peculiarly aggravating circumstances, but because the facts are 
 exhibited in an authentic shape, and no question can be raised as to the 
 truth of the narrative. 
 
 It will be unnecessary here to particularize the case of Mr. Slacum, 
 an officer of the navy of the United States, a bearer of despatches from 
 the department of State to the United States legation at Mexico, in 
 1836, who was arrested by Mexican officers, his public despatches 
 demanded, and he subjected to violent, rude, and offensive treatment ; 
 or of the case of another public messenger of the United States bearing 
 despatches from our minister, carrying with him a passport of safe-con 
 duct from the supreme government of Mexico, verifying his character, 
 who was seized by the governor of Perote and robbed of his despatches ; 
 or of another officer who was seized and imprisoned on landing from a 
 national vessel. Such cases were outrages upon the nation, for which 
 atonement was never made. 
 
 We shall proceed to one in which every species of lawless atrocity 
 seems to have been combined. In December, .1835, a Mexican officer, 
 of the name of Jose Antonio Mexia, landed at Tampico with a body of 
 men, under the Mexican flag. His unfortunate associates had been 
 inveigled into accompanying him, by false representations as to their 
 destination, and the object of the expedition. Among them were seve 
 ral foreigners, the larger number of whom were Americans. They fell 
 into the hands of Santa Anna. The foreigners, including eighteen citi 
 zens of the United States, were, without trial, ordered for execution, 
 and inhumanly murdered, while the Mexican part of them were not 
 punished. Two Frenchmen accompanied this expedition, and were 
 among the victims ; and for this illegal and inhuman murder, France 
 exacted of Mexico such atonement as she thought proper to demand. 
 None has ever been made to the government of the United States, or to the 
 families of these unhappy victims of Mexican perfidy and Mexican cruelty. 
 
 I shall conclude this paper with a quotation from the despatch of the 
 American minister at Mexico, transmitting to his government a state 
 ment of this transaction, and his commentary upon it. " It is not for 
 me," he says, " to point out the course which my government should 
 pursue on the present occasion ; but surely none better could present 
 itself, to justify us in teaching these semi-barbarians a lesson of justice 
 and good faith ; and I will add, that if this barbarous and inhuman act be 
 submitted to should the Mexican government be permitted to escape, 
 without making the most ample satisfaction, not only the property and 
 lives of our countrymen in Mexico will hereafter be held at the mercy 
 of every petty officer who pleases to exert his power, but we will be 
 come the scorn of all nations. Such are the impressions here on this 
 matter." 
 
95 
 
 No. V. 
 
 IT seems proper to present one case of private wrong, which will 
 equally illustrate the course of conduct which the Mexican functionaries 
 have been allowed to pursue towards American citizens, and the vexa 
 tions and embarrassments interposed in the way of obtaining redress for 
 the most aggravated injuries ; while, at the same time, it will furnish 
 the means of arriving at a just decision upon the issue now made be 
 tween the two governments. Mexico solemnly asserts that she has 
 scrupulously adhered to her treaty stipulations. She asserts this, while 
 independently of the two instalments payable by her under the conven 
 tion of 1 843 about which so much mystery seems to exist, but for 
 which she holds the receipt of the American agent independently of 
 this, she undoubtedly is in default, in not paying the instalments which 
 fell due in October, January, and April last. 
 
 This is by-the-by. Our immediate object is to exhibit one case, on 
 which Mexico has been heard, the evidence produced (that evidence 
 mainly consisting of the judicial proceedings in Tier own courts), and 
 the decision pronounced. It has been selected, not because the circum 
 stances of it are marked by any peculiar atrocity or injustice, but because 
 the very worthy gentleman, who was the claimant in the case, has been 
 an object of some public attention, and prejudices may have been im 
 bibed, equally without foundation in fact, and unjust to him. The case 
 thus selected, is ne of the several cases in which Dr. John Baldwin was 
 the claimant ; and there lies, at this moment, before us, the statement 
 of the facts, and the exhibition of the merits of this case, not resting 
 upon the veracity of the party himself, or his counsel, but embodied in 
 the judicial opinion of Messrs. Marcy and Breckenridge, whose charac 
 ters sufficiently authenticate and verify their solemn judgment, delivered 
 under all the high responsibilities of their judicial office. 
 
 The document before us states, that "the claimant, Dr. Baldwin, a 
 gentleman of talents, education, and extensive connection in the United 
 States, being possessed of considerable capital, went to Mexico about 
 the year 1824. His object in going there was to establish himself, not 
 only as a merchant, but also for the purpose of constructing extensive 
 saw-mills, being possessed of skill in such machinery, which might be 
 greatly advantageous to Mexico as well as to himself. The situation 
 chosen by him was one of the most important in the whole extent of the 
 Republic the isthmus of Guascualco, south of the port of Vera Cruz 
 the country bordering on the river Guascualo, being then almost a wil- 
 
96 
 
 derness of heavily-timbered lands. The government of Mexico, about 
 the same time, had projected a settlement or colony there ; and a num 
 ber of French families were invited to settle in the neighborhood chosen 
 by Dr. Baldwin. 
 
 " Under the active enterprise and exertions of Dr. B., who had 
 brought with him capital, workmen, and persons skilled in machinery, 
 the new settlement grew rapidly, and gave birth to the village of Mina- 
 tillan. Mills of great value were erected by Dr. Baldwin, at which the 
 mahogany and other valuable timber of the country was sawed, giving 
 employment to many persons, natives and foreigners, and bidding fair to 
 lay the foundation of an important branch of wealth and industry to 
 the nation. 
 
 " Dr. Baldwin had purchased a tract of land a league square ; and 
 on this land, of which he was put in possession by the seller, he erected 
 his mills, dwelling-house, and other establishments. He also made ex 
 tensive preparations for clearing lands, &c., for establishing a coffee 
 plantation upon a large scale. He was thus in the full tide of prosperity : 
 and, if he had been protected by the Mexican authorities and govern 
 ment, would, in a few years, have realized a princely fortune. The 
 facts thus stated are either established by the documents, or are of his 
 torical notoriety, which, it is presumed will not be questioned." 
 
 " But these prospects were soon overcast. The series of oppres 
 sions and persecutions, of which Dr. B. complains, commenced soon 
 after the arrival of Gaddeo Ortiz in this colony, who, under the title 
 of commissioner, was invested with extensive political power." 
 
 "The first fact, in point of time, is that sworn to in the deposi 
 tions of S. Macord and C. Macord. Some time in the year 1828, 
 Dr. B. demanded of the commissioner Ortiz payment of a sum of 
 money for lumber furnished for the use of the public, in building a 
 church and government-house. They state that Ortiz took offence at 
 this. It is certain that the injuries complained of by Dr. B. commenced 
 soon after that occurrence." It is then shown that certain judicial pro 
 ceedings purport to be signed by an alcalde who could neither read nor 
 write, to be founded on testimony given by witnesses, who, when con 
 fronted with the accused, solemnly denied that they had given any such 
 evidence, or even testified at all ; and that this proceeding was finally 
 proved to be spurious before the higher tribunals. " In the meantime, 
 the claimant had suffered in his person, in his purse, and in his reputa 
 tion. He had been imprisoned nearly a year, his property seized, and 
 his character as a merchant impaired, his feelings as a man outraged, 
 and his numerous friends in the United States chagrined by his name 
 being regularly published in the newspapers in the State of Vera Cruz, 
 
97 
 
 as the stranger John Baldwin, accused of murder, disobedience to the 
 authorities, of stealing timber from the public lands, of opening a private 
 letter addressed to another person, and other offences ! But, being a 
 man of intelligence and energy of character, with that sturdy spirit of 
 resistance to oppression which belongs to his countrymen, he followed 
 up these different charges through a period of nine years ; until on the 
 more serious accusations he was acquitted by the superior tribunals, 
 while all the others vanished in smoke." The evidence is examined in 
 detail ; and it is shown, that upon these fabricated pretences, the pro 
 perty of Dr. R., consisting of his saw logs, amounting to about $15,000, 
 was seized and confiscated to the State ; possession was taken of his 
 establishment and houses, and he was thrust out of his dwelling with a 
 few minutes notice. Neither he nor his family were permitted to take 
 anything away not even a small bundle for the use of his wife. The 
 soldiers kept posssession for three or four months ; and when B. and his 
 family came back, they found nothing but the empty houses and mills. 
 Ortiz, after causing Baldwin to be driven from his house, took posses 
 sion of the premises, and disposed of everything as his own, until the 
 revolution which placed General Guerrero in the presidential chair ; 
 when Martin Arriola, commandant of Acayuacan, restored B. to his 
 home ; but his moveable property had all disappeared in the mean 
 time." 
 
 In a subsequent part of this document, after a minute review of the 
 testimony, the American commissioner says : " We think that the evi 
 dence of bad faith and fraud on the part of the commissioner Ortiz, and 
 his successor, Hoyos, is too glaringly manifested on the face of the pro 
 ceedings we have detailed, to be fora moment questioned. The violent 
 and malignant character of the denunciatory letter of Ortiz, at once be 
 trays the motive by which he was actuated. He had important political 
 power ; he styles himself commissioner of the colony of Guascualco, 
 authorised by the general government of Mexico, and of Oaxaca and 
 Vera Cruz ; and his malignant influence may be traced from Guascualco 
 to Tehuantepec, and was probably the source of nearly all the sufferings 
 of Dr. Baldwin in the country. Besides the letter in which he appeals 
 to the higher political authority but appeals in vain for the sanction 
 of his arbitrary acts, especially in that of banishing Dr. Baldwin, we 
 have the forged Sumaria established to be such, beyond a doubt. 
 There are, first, the repeated signatures of Montalvo (who could not 
 write his name), and next, there is the hand-writing, which, by com 
 parison, is evidently that of Ortiz himself, and his secretary Vallejo. 
 One of the commissioners, by a singular coincidence, happens to be well ac 
 quainted with the hand-writing of Ortiz, having known him in New Or- 
 
98 
 
 leans twenty-five or thirty years ago, having taken Spanish lessons from 
 him, and corresponded with him. He does not hesitate to pronounce that 
 the greater part of the i SUMARIA is in his hand-writing ; and the signa 
 ture of Mont ah o is sometimes his, and sometimes that of Vallejo" 
 
 We have here the most indubitable proof that this high functionary 
 first perpetrated a high-handed act of lawless tyranny, involving an 
 American citizen in ruin, und then endeavored to cover over his iniqui 
 ties by the forgery of a judicial record. Further details of this case will 
 be given in our next. 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 " WE resume our quotations from the report of Messrs. Marcy and 
 Breckenridge on the claim of Dr. Baldwin. 
 
 " We have refrained from entering into a detail of the circumstan 
 ces attending the unparalleled act of atrocity in the two Mexican func 
 tionaries, (Ortiz and Hoyos), in first attempting the life of Dr. Baldwin, 
 by ordering him to be shot by a brutal soldiery on his attempting to es 
 cape the ignomin} worse than death, to one possessing the feelings of 
 a gentleman of being placed in the public stocks, intended for the low 
 est order of criminals and malefactors. He was, however, compelled to 
 undergo this degradation during the space of two hours, with a broken 
 leg, and was then hurried to a loathesome prison, where he was detain 
 ed eighty-four days. But for his own skill as a physician, he must in 
 evitably have perished ; and this was, no doubt, the confident calculation 
 of the conspirators. They had doubtless calculated with equal confi 
 dence on the effect of their various criminal prosecutions. They sup 
 posed it would be impossible for him to remain in the country, under 
 such circumstances ; and but for the possession of an extraordinary 
 degree of fortitude on the part of Dr. Baldwin, and the desire to rescue 
 his reputation from the stigma attempted to be cast upon it, their designs 
 would have been accomplished. He persevered until all the accusations 
 made against him were annihilated. We consider it our duty on this 
 occasion, not only to do justice to Dr. B. for injuries to his person and 
 property, but also for the assaults made on his reputation. Our Mexi 
 can colleagues, we regret to say, have indulged in disparaging reflections 
 on this head, not warranted by any evidence in the proceedings submit 
 ted to us. 
 
 " As men do not act without adequate motives, or soil their conscien 
 ces with crime of the deepest dye, without those stronger incentives 
 
99 
 
 which govern the human passions, other considerations will here be pre 
 sented besides those of hate and revenge, and the desire to wipe out 
 debts by exterminating the creditor. The property acquired and crea 
 ted by the enterprise, skill, and capital of Dr. B., presented a glit 
 tering prize to petty pro-consular avarice and cupidity," &c. " With 
 the advantages possessed by Dr. B. in his extensive commercial relations 
 and capital, and his valuable saw-mills and plantations of coffee and tro 
 pical fruits, it is impossible to doubt but that, with a moderate protec 
 tion from the Mexican government, he would have acquired a fortune 
 more desirable than that of the most valuable of the mines of Mexico. 
 It was no doubt, in^a great measure, owing to an unwillingness on his 
 part to sacrifice these brilliant hopes, that he endured the oppressions of 
 the authorities, still flattering himself with the belief that a better order 
 of things might be established. 
 
 " We shall make the following extract from the letter of Mr. Butler, 
 of September, 1833, based on Mr. Livingston s instructions. 
 
 " i The undersigned is further instructed to declare, that the govern 
 ment of the United States of America, in pressing for the redress of the 
 injuries suffered by Dr. Baldwin, and in discharge of those solemn du 
 ties it owes to every citizen of our country, in affording him the most 
 ample protection, designs to make this a national question, and will so 
 treat it hereafter S 
 
 " After the above explicit declaration, placing the case of Dr. B. upon 
 a distinct and separate ground from any other, it might be reasonably 
 doubted whether it is included under the general convention subsequent 
 ly entered into. It might be contended that, not being provided for by 
 a special clause, the nation was still left at liberty to vindicate its honor 
 and its rights in any other mode. If there had been no other cause of 
 complaint against Mexico, the United States would have been bound, after 
 such a declaration, to push that demand, even to the extremity of war. 
 
 u The ground thus taken by the government of the United States, 
 the highest political power of the nation, is based on the assumption of 
 the truth of the facts presented to it. The words of Mr. Livingston are 
 as follows : c If the facts in the case of Baldwin are such as he repre 
 sents them to be, the honor of our country requires that ample reparation 
 should be made to the sufferer. Our examination of the proofs of the 
 case has brought us to the conclusion that the statements of the claimant 
 to his government are substantially sustained. The principles on which 
 we are bound by the convention to decide the cases brought before us, 
 oblige us to come to a result in regard to Dr. Baldwin s private rights, 
 entirely compatible with what the government of the United States inti 
 mated was due to its national honor reparation of his aggravated 
 
100 
 
 wrongs." Upon this case, the American commissioners, indulging the 
 hope entertained, that, by placing the most moderate estimate upon the 
 remuneration to which the claimant was entitled, no difficulty or doubt 
 could be entertained, and that it would be immediately acquiesced in, 
 assessed the damages to which he was entitled a-t $210,405 09. In 
 consequence, however, of the non-production of his title-deed for the 
 real estate, of which he had been robbed by his plunderers, and which, 
 therefore, it was not in his power to produce for which a demand was 
 made upon the Mexican government, under one of the articles of the 
 treaty, to which she responded by alleging, on the authority of the local 
 functionaries, that it was destroyed by fire while in their possession 
 this sum was reduced by the umpire to the sum of $100,000. Such is 
 a very imperfect sketch of the circumstances upon whi-ch one of the 
 claims of American citizens against Mexico rested. The evidence to 
 sustain the allegations of the claimant were, in a great extent, the record 
 of the proceedings of their own courts. Nine years of persecution 
 were endured ; a princely estate despoiled ; the most glorious promises 
 nipped in their bud ; all through the instrumentality of Mexican func 
 tionaries, executive and judicial. It has been examined, and decided by 
 our ablest diplomatists and jurists ; yet Mexico asserts before the world, 
 and her Executive and her Legislature a ver before their own people, 
 that she has been faithful to her engagements, loyal to her honor ; and 
 that the United States has no other pretence of claim than such as is 
 afforded by an iniquitous attempt to cover the smuggling operations of 
 her citizens with the veil of right ! 
 
 VII. 
 
 THOSE who have perused the preceding articles which have appeared 
 under this head, must, it is presumed, be prepared to pass their judg 
 ment upon the bold assertion which Mexico has so solemnly pro 
 claimed to the world, that she has scrupulously respected her tredJty 
 obligations. The course of that nation has been rapidly sketched from 
 authentic documents. It has been shown that it has been uniform and 
 consistent, equally setting at defiance the laws of nations and of human 
 ity, and equally regardless of public and private rights. The details of 
 a great body of the cases in which the citizens of the United States 
 have suffered wrongs from the public authorities of Mexico, are still to 
 be found in the Department of State, and have never been promulgated 
 to the public. Numerous instances have occurred in which the unfor- 
 
101 
 
 tunate victims of Mexican inhumanity have perished under her cruel 
 grasp, and the history of the wrong has been buried in the grave of the 
 unhappy sufferer. The public documents, and other authentic sources 
 of information, mention many such cases. In many others, the parties, 
 hopeless of rousing the sympathies of their countrymen or the energy of 
 their government, have abandoned the prosecution of claims which ne 
 cessarily involve a large expenditure of time and money, which they 
 were unable to command ; while in others, ruin, bankruptcy, or death 
 has devolved upon assignees or destitute widows and orphans the right 
 to redress, which they knew neither how nor where to seek. 
 
 In the present paper, I shall present a case which will furnish to the 
 American public, who have always associated high official station with 
 personal honor and veracity, an opportunity of judging whether such a 
 connection subsists in Mexico. In House Doc. No. 269, 27th Con 
 gress, 2d session, will be found the counter-statements of the American 
 and Mexican commissioners upon the claim of Mr. Aaron Leggett. An 
 extract from the opinion of the former will illustrate this subject. It 
 will be found at page 1 1 of the Document : 
 
 " The next question to be resolved is, did the public authorities of 
 the State of Tabasco, or any other of the Mexican States, invade Leg- 
 gett s right, or permit it to be invaded, under circumstances which in 
 volved the Mexican government in a responsibility therefor ? 
 
 " In discussing this question at the board, our colleagues seemed to 
 place the utmost reliance on the statements contained in the record of 
 the proceedings before the judge of the court of primary jurisdiction at 
 Tabasco, in November, 1834. On the contrary, we, the undersigned, 
 regarded the statements therein as worthy of very little consideration. 
 It is certainly of great importance, in the outset of this discussion, that 
 the true character of this portion of the evidence should be ascertained. 
 We shall, in the first place, show the circumstances under which this 
 evidence was taken ; and infer therefrom, that, were it not contradicted, 
 it would be entitled to very little credence ; and, in the next, we shall 
 show its absolute falsity in several important particulars. 
 
 a Leggett had, some time before this investigation was ordered, not 
 only complained to the Mexican government of the violation of his 
 rights, but he had presented an account of his losses and damages in 
 consequence thereof, and made an earnest and urgent claim for indemni 
 fication." " Not only was this large claim urged by Mr. Leggett on the 
 Mexican government, but the American government had been called 
 upon to interpose in behalf of its injured citizen, and had actually done 
 so. The Mexican government perceived (as well it might) that this was 
 a serious matter, and began to take steps to defend itself from so large a 
 
102 
 
 demand upon its treasury. It sent Leggett s memorial, documents, 
 &c., to the judge of the court of primary jurisdiction of Tabasco, with a 
 view to have the matters therein contained inquired into. We will not 
 say that the object of the Mexican government, in ordering this investi 
 gation, was not fair ; but it is obvious to the slightest reflection, that 
 the results of such an investigation, unless the claimant was permitted 
 to be present to cross-examine the witnesses which might be called on 
 the part of the Mexican government, and produce witnesses on his part 
 in support of his claim, would be of very little avail in subserving the 
 ends of truth and justice. But, in regard to the conduct of those who 
 had the charge of this proceeding, we must say that it seems to have 
 been their object to get up a contradiction to the facts in Leggett s me 
 morial ; and when those facts were so obvious as to defy contradiction, 
 to pervert them, and to explain the transactions with Leggett in such a 
 manner as to furnish an excuse for withholding indemnity from him. 
 
 " When the claims of American citizens among which was Mr. 
 Leggett s were pressed upon the Mexican government for adjustment, 
 previous to this time, by the American minister (Mr. Butler), the Vice 
 President of the Republic General Santa Anna, then exercising its 
 chief Executive functions replied to him, through Mr. Carlos Garcia, 
 Secretary of State, that i his excellency had directed the undersigned to 
 inform Mr. Butler that the government, in consequence of what was de 
 termined and communicated to him on the 21st ultimo, cannot admit of 
 any other arrangement than that the persons interested should appear at 
 the Treasury Department for the prosecution of such business, w r here 
 justice will be administered to them, conformably to the laws of the 
 country," &c. 
 
 " In consequence of this absolute refusal of the Mexican government 
 to consider the claims of American citizens, without their personal ap 
 pearance at the Treasury Department, (a strange position, indeed !) 
 the negotiation in regard to these claims was arrested. Notice of this 
 fact was communicated to Mr. Leggett, at New York. As all his pro 
 perty had been lost, and all his future prospects centred upon the indem 
 nity which he expected from the Mexican government, he repaired, in 
 the spring of 1834, to Mexico, to appear in person at the Treasury 
 Department, as the order of the Executive department required, to bring 
 his business to a conclusion. He arrived at the city of Mexico early in 
 the summer of 1S34, and there remained more than two years, devoted 
 exclusively to this business, encouraged with hopes of justice, which 
 were ultimately destined to be cruelly disappointed. While he was 
 thus there, urging the adjustment of his claim, this investigation was or 
 dered ; but the organization of the court, and its whole proceedings, 
 
103 
 
 were kept a profound secret from him (though it was well known he 
 was in Mexico all the time, and had no other business), until the 27th 
 August, 1835, long after its session had closed. On the 1st September, 
 Leggett addressed Mr. Bonilla, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, for a copy 
 of the proceedings of the Tabasco court. The proceedings were not 
 made known to him ; but the Secretary of State, by Mr. Tornel, the 
 Secretary of War, furnished him with the statement contained in the 
 document, pp. 76, 77. 
 
 " So far as this document reiterates the statement in the record, it is 
 of the same validity as the record itself, which we shall show, is en 
 titled to no credence whatever. But we cannot withhold our astonish 
 ment that Mr. Tornel, Secretary of War, should state that it appeared 
 before that court, and in its proceedings, that Leggett owed the cus 
 tom-house fourteen thousand dollars for duties, for which he was sued 
 and judgment had passed against him therefor, and his property was 
 seized, &c. We have the record of that investigation, and it shows no 
 such thing ; and, what is equally remarkable, no such fact ever existed, 
 within or out of the record. When we see, as we do in this instance, ex 
 treme carelessness, in relation to facts, in this high functionary of the 
 government, we are not to be surprised that officers of a much lower 
 order should be very reckless in their statements." 
 
 In reference to the merits of this particular claim, it will not be neces 
 sary to go into any minuteness or detail. The facts, and the evidence 
 to sustain them, are given with much force and ability in the report of 
 the American commissioners above referred to, and which, it is under 
 stood, was drawn up by Governor Marcy. He cites, however, in that 
 paper, a statement of what occurred in an interview between the Ame 
 rican minister and the Mexican President on this special subject : " In 
 the course of the interview, General Santa Anna admitted that you had 
 suffered great wrong ; but said, the injuries done you, although to be 
 regretted, were incident to the peculiar condition of the country, at that 
 period undergoing a political revolution during which, individual rights, 
 whether of person or property, were equally disregarded, and expressed 
 regret and mortification that the state of the public treasury would not 
 permit immediate satisfaction to be made to you." 
 
 The American commissioners awarded to Mr. Leggett, $407,079 41, 
 for his losses ; but the amount was reduced by the umpire. No part of 
 it was admitted by the Mexicans. 
 
No. VIII. 
 
 IT is presumed that the case has now been completely established, 
 that Mexico has violated the treaty engagements with the United States, 
 and that a large amount of injury has thus been inflicted upon Ameri 
 can citizens, for which she is bound to make compensation. The obli 
 gation of the government of the United States to demand and insist 
 upon this act of justice, has been so frequently and so distinctly avowed 
 and recognized by it, that it will be unnecessary to go into an argument 
 to sustain the existence of the duty. 
 
 A very serious and interesting inquiry remains. How shall this obli 
 gation be enforced, and this duty fulfilled ? It may be answered, that it 
 will be done by some arrangement made between the two powers ; for 
 even should Mexico be so lost to all sense of justice and of policy as to 
 declare war against us, still such a war must be brought to a close, and 
 terms of peace agreed upon. Independently, also, of the questions 
 growing out of wrongs perpetrated upon our citizens, there are great 
 questions of boundary to be arranged, which must be adjusted by treaty. 
 
 Assuming, therefore, that the government of the United States will, 
 sooner or later, redeem its pledge of obtaining that remuneration for 
 these wrongs, which has been so repeatedly and solemnly promised, we 
 shall proceed to inquire, in reference to the claims themselves, what 
 course of proceeding is open to the Executive, and what is that which 
 will commend itself to its judgment ? 
 
 In conducting this examination, valuable lights may be thrown on the 
 subject, drawn from our own past history, and from the principles here 
 tofore recognized and established by the government, as well in relation 
 to such of our citizens as alleged themselves to be injured, as to the for 
 eign nations who were the perpetrators of these wrongs. 
 
 The first instance which occurred in our history was with Great Bri 
 tain, with which nation many embarrassing questions had grown up since 
 the treaty of peace in 1783. Many of these questions were of an ex 
 clusively political and national character, which need be noticed only so 
 far as to remark, that they were conducted to an harmonious conclusion 
 by the treaty of 1794. But a very important subject to be arranged 
 was, that of claims of citizens of the United States, who alleged that, 
 during the then pending war, " they have sustained considerable losses 
 and damage by reason of the illegal capture or condemnation of their 
 vessels and other property, under color of authority or commissions from 
 his Majesty ; and that, from various circumstances belonging to such 
 cases, adequate compensation for the losses and damages so sustained 
 
105 
 
 cannot now be actually had and obtained by the ordinary course of judi 
 cial proceedings. 1 These cases were provided for under the 7th Article 
 of the treaty of 1794 (1 Laws United States, p. 241). It will be re 
 marked, that there is but a single class of cases comprehended within 
 this provision, viz : for illegal capture and condemnation under the au 
 thority of the British government ; that it embraced, and, in fact, was 
 mainly confined to, cases in which the capture had been sanctioned by 
 a decree of condemnation in the British courts of admiralty ; and thirdly, 
 that the treaty, by pronouncing such capture and condemnations as ille 
 gal, had already disposed of this preliminary question, otherwise full of 
 embarrassment, and conceded that the orders from the British govern 
 ment were wrongful, and that the most solemn adjudications of their 
 admiralty courts were confessedly illegal, and imposed upon the govern 
 ment of Great Britain the obligation of making full compensation. 
 
 In discharge of its own acknowledged duty towards its citizens, the 
 government of the United States instructed Mr. Jay, eminent for his 
 high legal attainments, to examine minutely into these cases ; the Sec 
 retary of State, also a distinguished lawyer, proffered to furnish his 
 views, together with all the information in the possession of the depart 
 ment. Not satisfied with this, on the recommendation of Mr. Jay that 
 the United States should employ a special agent for the purpose of giving 
 his individual attention to this business, the Secretary of State, in his 
 despatch to Mr. Jay, of October 29, 1794, says : " On Tuesday next, 
 the Adriana will carry to London Mr. Samuel Bayard. In consequence 
 of your recommendation that an agent should be sent, that gentleman 
 goes over, with the approbation of the merchants of this city interested 
 in British captures, for the objects designated in your letter of the 23d 
 August. When I convened them for the purpose of consultation, they 
 seemed to have great reluctance to meddle at all in a business which 
 they considered as taken wholly into the hands of the government. 
 But, after many explanations and remarks which passed between us, 
 they resolved to appoint a committee, who should act in concert with 
 me. That committee accordingly wrote me the enclosed letter.* I 
 accepted their proposition as there expressed, because I knew it to be 
 consentaneous to the views of the President, who has this day signified 
 his approbation." 
 
 Another agent (a Mr. Higginson) was also sent to the West Indies, to 
 procure the records from the several courts of vice-admiralty. 
 
 One impediment which immediately arose on the business, was occa 
 sioned by the necessity which existed of carrying all the decrees of con 
 demnation, passed by the colonial vice-admiralty courts, to England for 
 * This letter does not appear. 
 
106 
 
 final adjudication. This step involved the necessity of giving security 
 on the appeal in each case, and of furnishing the means for paying the 
 legal costs and professional fees in every case. This was almost an 
 impossibility on the part of the claimants. The government assumed 
 the heavy duty ; it authorized the employment as counsel of the two 
 most distinguished advocates at the English bar (Sir John Nichols and 
 Sir William Scott), competent and able proctors to conduct the cases 
 through the court of admiralty ; instructed Mr. Jay and Mr. Bayard to 
 engage some responsible commercial house in London to become security 
 in the appeal bonds, with a full assurance of indemnity, and an immedi 
 ate advance of 30 in each case of appeal, to the proctor. See Doc. 
 106, 1 Gales and Seaton s State Papers, Foreign Relations, 470, 499, 
 513, 514, 515. 
 
 In this case there was a mixed commission, and we have seen the 
 steps pursued by the government of the United States in discharging its 
 obligations to give protection to its citizens. 
 
 The only other case of a tribunal of this character having been created 
 to adjust the claims of American citizens upon a foreign government, 
 within our recollection, was also under an arrangement with Great 
 Britain. By the first Article of the treaty of Ghent, it was provided 
 that " all territory, places, and possessions whatever, taken by either 
 party from the other during the war, &c., shall be restored without 
 delay, &c., without any destruction or carrying away of any public pro 
 perty, or any slaves or other private property." A controversy arose 
 between the two governments upon the construction of this Article, and 
 it remained unsettled from 1815 till 1820, when, by mutual arrangement, 
 it was submitted to the Emperor of Russia to determine upon the true 
 interpretation of the treaty. The construction contended for by the 
 United States having been sanctioned by the decision of that monarch, 
 thus settling the entire legal question, the ascertainment of the amount 
 of injury, which had been sustained by American citizens by the depor 
 tation of their property, was submitted to a board of commissioners, 
 composed of representatives of both nations. In this case, also, it will 
 be remarked, that the question of law, upon the decision of which the 
 validity of the claims rested, were all settled preliminarily between the 
 two governments. All that was left for the board was, the ministerial 
 duty of ascertaining the items and value of the property carried away 
 by the British forces, in violation of the treaty of peace. 
 
 Until the unfortunate arrangement with Mexico, by which the claim 
 ants were turned over to the tender mercies of a board constituted of an 
 equal number of citizens of both countries, these were, as it is believed, 
 the only instances in which the government of the United States had ever 
 
107 
 
 assented to the organization of a tribunal of this description, to whose 
 decision the rights and interests of its citizens were committed. We 
 have seen in these instances how cautiously their rights and interests 
 were guarded ; and no fair and honorable claimant would or could object, 
 under the circumstances, to the investigation and adjudication of his 
 case by such a tribunal as was constituted. How far the Mexican 
 claimants have cause to complain, will be made to appear. 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 THERE has occurred in the history of our country, a second class of 
 cases, in which the United States have obtained from foreign govern 
 ments compensation for wrongs inflicted upon our citizens. The 
 most important of these are those of France, Spain, Naples, and Den 
 mark. In reference to each and all of these, the relations of amity had 
 been re-established between the respective powers before these matters 
 were adjusted. Spain, Naples, and Denmark were called upon to atone 
 for injuries which had been perpetrated, when the nation itself within 
 whose borders they had been committed, was subjected to a foreign 
 sway. Morally, the nation, under these circumstances, was innocent of 
 the w r rong. A superior and controlling authority had done the acts com 
 plained of ; and the subjected power, when the ancient regime was re 
 established, was called upon to redress injuries which they had no hand 
 in perpetrating, and which they would most gladly have prevented. By 
 a well-settled principle of public law, however, the responsibility had 
 attached ; but every consideration required that it should be enforced 
 as leniently as possible. 
 
 After an examination by our own functionaries of the grounds of com 
 plaint, a definite sum was fixed upon, which it was agreed to accept as 
 a full atonement for these injuries, thus vicariously to be satisfied by an 
 innocent party. Commissioners appointed by the United States inves 
 tigated the claims, and distributed the money among those whom they 
 adjudged to be entitled to receive it. In regard to Spain, the sum thus 
 apportioned w r as the amount which the United States agreed to pay for 
 the transfer of Florida. The same principle was adopted in the adjust 
 ment of our claims upon France. The government carefully collected 
 the evidence showing the nature and amount of the losses which had 
 been sustained by its citizens ; adjusted with France the legal points, so 
 as to show what particular classes of cases were provided for, and what 
 were excluded ; received a gross sum in liquidation of the whole ; and 
 
108 
 
 submitted the distribution to a board of its own citizens. This last 
 class of cases was, in every respect, a compromise between the govern 
 ments. 
 
 It is well understood that the administration which made the arrange 
 ment with Mexico, under which a mixed commission was created, 
 adopted that measure with the greatest reluctance. It was in a manner 
 forced upon them by a powerful party in Congress, who were unwilling 
 to place in the hands of General Jackson the additional strength, which 
 it was supposed would accrue by any warlike movement. It encounter 
 ed the serious opposition of several of the claimants, and has proved, as 
 they predicted, in a great measure abortive. 
 
 The lessons which have been taught by our experience under that 
 arrangement, w r ill induce the government seriously to pause before a 
 similar measure shall be adopted. A recurrence to some prominent 
 incidents which occurred in the history of that commission will illustrate, 
 as well the insincerity and bad faith of Mexico, as the cruel injustice 
 which was thus inflicted upon the American claimants. 
 
 It will be recollected, that in consequence of the energetic language 
 employed by Presidents Jackson and Van Buren, in reference to the 
 manner in which Mexico had treated our demands, and the correspond 
 ing responses of both Houses of Congress in 1837 and 1838, Mexico 
 had reason to suppose that the cup of forbearance was well nigh exhaust 
 ed, and that the United States would no longer submit to the daily 
 repetition of her outrages, and the evasions with which every call upon 
 her for justice was uniformly met. Under this apprehension, she de 
 spatched a minister to the United States, for the ostensible purpose of 
 arranging the causes of controversy. Mr. Martinez arrived in the 
 United States in October, 1837, having left Mexico a very short time 
 after the promulgation of the decree of the Mexican government of May, 
 1837, so severely and justly commented on by the Committee of Foreign 
 Relations, in July, 1838. It clearly appears, from these facts, that 
 while, on the one hand, the Executive and Congress of Mexico were 
 proclaiming at home that the United States were the offending party, 
 whose continued aggressions must be met by a prohibition of commercial 
 intercourse, and even more hostile measures, the same government was 
 apparently yielding to the importunate demands of the United States, 
 and sending a minister for the single purpose of making arrangements 
 for the wrongs she had herself perpetrated. A more palpable evidence 
 of insincerity and duplicity can with difficulty be conceived. It was, 
 however, only characteristic of all that followed. 
 
 Although Mr. Martinez reached Washington in October, 1837, and 
 the ostensible object of his mission was to form a treaty for the adjust- 
 
109 
 
 ment of our complaints against his government ; yet it was not until 
 the 9th July, 183S, that he received powers authorizing him to conclude 
 and sign the treaty by which that object was to be accomplished. (Doc. 
 252, H. of Reps., 25th Congress, 3d sess.) 
 
 These circumstances were ominous of what was to follow. On the 
 10th September, 1838, a convention was signed between Mr. Forsyth, 
 the American Secretary of State, and the Mexican minister, (ibid, p. 27). 
 The twelfth Article of this convention provided, that the ratifications 
 should be exchanged within the period of five months from this signa 
 ture. It was duly ratified by the United States ; but the time stipulated 
 was permitted by Mexico to expire without a correspondent act on her 
 part. This omission was never satisfactorily explained ; for the pre 
 tence set up, that the King of Prussia had declined to act as umpire, 
 was not only a most preposterous pretext, but no doubt now exists that 
 it was equally false. No credence was ever given to it by the American 
 government. Thus is furnished additional evidence of the habitual bad 
 faith of this nation, who arrogates to herself, in her conduct towards us, 
 an exclusive claim to fidelity to her engagements. 
 
 On the llth April, 1839, the United States once more assented to a 
 pacific arrangement of this subject, by signing a new convention. The 
 14th Article provided, that the ratification should be exchanged within 
 twelve months from the date of the signature, or sooner if possible. 
 Yet the procrastinating and dilatory course of Mexico once more was 
 manifested. It would have been dangerous again to permit this treaty 
 to expire from her omission to perfect it ; but her action was so long- 
 delayed, that the ratifications were exchanged only as late as the 8th 
 April, 1840. Three days more delay would have rendered the whole a 
 nullity. 
 
 No. X. 
 
 WE have arrived at the period when the convention of 1839 became 
 solemnized and perfected, by the exchange of ratifications on the 8th of 
 April, 1840. 
 
 It now becomes our duty to exhibit the course which Mexico pur 
 sued, to prevent this treaty from fulfilling the hopes which had been 
 entertained by the parties whose claims were provided for in it. Every 
 artifice which the most refined ingenuity could invent, was resorted to ; 
 every embarrassment was thrown in the way of the claimants ; every 
 delay in the progress of the business of the board was interposed ; 
 
110 
 
 every quibble was employed to prevent the course of justice ; and, un 
 fortunately, these machinations proved but too successful. 
 
 The third Article provided, that the board of commissioners created 
 under it, should meet in the city of Washington, within three months 
 after the exchange of the ratifications. This was the first act to be 
 done. The time was duly notified, and the day fixed pursuant to the 
 treaty was the 7th of July. This provision of the convention was 
 broken by Mexico. The commissioners were not appointed by her 
 until the 20th of June, and did not reach Washington until the 13th 
 August. The government of the United States had then a perfect right 
 to declare the whole arrangement at an end. 
 
 The commissioners, however, assembled on the 17th August ; and, 
 by the terms of the treaty, their functions were to expire in eighteen 
 months from the time of the meeting of the board. It became a matter 
 of some moment to Mexico, so to manage matters, that as large a por 
 tion of the time should be wasted as possible, and as little left for the 
 actual transaction of business. The report of the American Commis 
 sioners, transmitted by the President to Congress, June 13, 1842, (Sen. 
 Doc. 320, 27th Cong., 2d sess.,) will show how faithfully and exclu 
 sively these objects were pursued, and how successfully they were 
 accomplished. It was not until the 28th of December, 1840 more 
 than four months after the first meeting of the board that the first 
 cause was brought before it for a hearing upon its merits. (Sen. Doc. 
 64, 27th Cong., 1st sess.). Nearly one fourth of the entire period 
 allotted for its existence had been consumed, before one step had been 
 made in the actual business for which it had been created ; and on the 
 26th of May, 1841 five months later, and when more than half the 
 time during which it \vas to continue had expired but twelve cases had 
 been definitely adjusted. 
 
 In the conduct of the business, the Mexicans exhibited a disposition 
 to thwart its progress in every conceivable mode. No rules or regula 
 tions were adopted for the transaction of business ; no form prescribed 
 for the claimants to pursue in the presentation of their cases ; in fact, 
 they were utterly precluded from " all access to it, in person or by their 
 agents ; and even the right to present or transmit directly to it any 
 paper, document, or written proofs," (ibid). These measures were 
 resisted and combatted by the American members of the board, with 
 equal earnestness and ability. They " considered them as erroneous, 
 and they believed that the adoption of them would be very prejudicial, 
 if not entirely destructive, to the interests of the complainants." The 
 very constitution of the board, composed of two representatives of each 
 country, precluded the possibility of arriving at anv satisfactory result ; 
 
Ill 
 
 and the Mexicans would have been completely successful in the accom 
 plishment of all their designs, and would have prevented a decision in 
 any one case, but that the American members of the board, " seeing no 
 prospect of coming to an agreement on this important point, and it not 
 being one which, according to the provisions in the convention, could 
 be submitted to the umpire," acquiesced in a wrong which they had no 
 power to prevent or redress, " under an apprehension that the objects of 
 the two governments in instituting the commission " would be defeated. 
 This was done so as to leave it to the claimants, " at their option, to 
 avail themselves of the circuitous mode of getting their cases before the 
 board." The American Commissioners inform their government, that 
 " as all the efforts of the undersigned to procure for them (the claimants) 
 the exercise of their just rights had been unavailing, and to insist upon 
 its being assented to by their colleagues would have rendered the con 
 vention entirely abortive, the undersigned consented to proceed in the 
 business for which the board was organized, without obtaining from 
 their colleagues, a recognition of the obvious right of the claimants of a 
 direct access to the board." (Ibid.) 
 
 What were the prospects of a fair and impartial hearing before a 
 tribunal to which the complaining party was prohibited access, either in 
 person or by his agents where no written communication from him 
 would be received where he could present no evidence to substantiate 
 his claim, no argument to establish his rights ?where testimony against 
 him was received which he was not allowed to know of, and reasons 
 assigned for rejecting his demands which he was forbidden to hear 
 may well be conceived by all who have experience in judicial matters. 
 
 The subject was brought under the notice of the government as early 
 as October, 1840, by some of the parties, in a memorial, of which we 
 shall present an extract : 
 
 " In the first place, we would suggest whether the entire design and 
 object of the government of the United States has not been evaded, or 
 counteracted, by that of Mexico. No doubt exists in our minds, that 
 our own government, in the convention with Mexico, designed to create 
 a judicial tribunal, which should, under all the high sanctions of the 
 judicial character, examine into and adjudicate upon the merits of the 
 several claims which might be submitted to its decision. The uniform 
 practice in similar cases, the language of the convention itself, the 
 phraseology of the act of Congress which was passed to carry it into 
 effect, and the clear and distinct communication of this design throughout 
 the negotiations which terminated in this arrangement, one and all, are 
 too plain to admit of a doubt upon this subject. 
 
 " Such, however, we apprehend, was not the design of the Mexican 
 
112 
 
 government ; and such, unquestionally, is not the view taken of the 
 matter by the Mexican commissioners. The journals of the board show 
 that, upon this point, a wide and essential (and, we believe, an irrecon- 
 cileable) difference subsists between the members. The Mexican 
 commissioners, if we are correctly informed, refuse to consider the board 
 as possessing the character of a judicial tribunal, or as invested with its 
 functions ; they refuse to recognize it as created for the purpose of 
 investigating the cases in conformity with the principles which must 
 necessarily regulate such bodies ; they refuse to permit the parties to 
 appear before them, in person or by attorney, to exhibit their own cases, 
 apply their own testimony, and hear the allegations and evidence which 
 may be adduced against them ; they refuse to make and enounce such 
 rules and regulations as every properly-constituted judicial tribunal must 
 necessarily have, to govern its own proceedings, and to guide the action 
 of the parties litigant. A preliminary difficulty is thus presented, which, 
 in the opinion of the claimants, threatens to render the whole convention 
 nugatory, and, indeed, worse than useless." 
 
 Another peculiarity characterized the proceedings of Mexico, in the 
 execution of this convention, which indicates an entire departure, as 
 well from good faith as from the most obvious principles of justice. By 
 the first Article of the treaty of 1839, it was expressly required, that " the 
 said commissioners should be sworn impartially to examine and decide 
 upon the said claims, according to such evidence as shall be laid before 
 them" by the parties respectively. Before the signature of the treaty, 
 in answer to a suggestion of Mr. Martinez, Mr. Forsyth remarked, that, 
 " as the commission will be a sort of joint judicial tribunal, it does not 
 appear to be proper that there should be instructions to it from the 
 Executive of either country." This declaration was tacitly concurred 
 in, and most faithfully adhered to by the United States. Mexico, how 
 ever, insidiously disregarded this at least implied pledge. The very 
 commissions issued by her government required each of her representa 
 tives to execute his functions, " in entire conformity with the instructions 
 that are issued to him for the better execution of so important a commis 
 sion." That such instructions were, in fact, given and followed, the 
 conduct of these individuals furnished the most pregnant evidence. But 
 it is now placed beyond the reach of doubt, by the testimony of a com 
 petent and well-informed witness, who says, that " while in Mexico, I 
 was led to believe, from intimations which I received from a reliable 
 source, that the commissioners appointed on the part of Mexico, under 
 the late convention, had instructions to render the convention abortive, 
 by the delay and procrastination of the business of the board, beyond the 
 time limited in the convention for the adjustment of said claims. I 
 
113 
 
 believe that such instructions were given not in writing, but verbally 
 by those intrusted at the time with the Mexican government." " I 
 am not at liberty to disclose the source from which I obtained this 
 information, but I believe it to be entitled to every confidence." With 
 great moderation of language did the Committee of Foreign Relations, 
 in their report of the 27th of August, 1842, express themselves on this 
 point. They say, that they " cannot but perceive that the instructions 
 under which those commissioners acted, and the course they pursued, in 
 the organization, proceedings, and final action of the commission, were 
 of most questionable validity, and operated to the serious injury of the 
 parties interested, so as to impair, if not to defeat, many of the beneficial 
 purposes contemplated by the convention." The Committee further 
 expresses its opinion, that this, with others connected with the same 
 subject, " are questions, in their present stage, for the consideration of 
 the Executive, and for negotiation between the two governments." 
 
 This subject was adverted to in the communication already cited from 
 some of the claimants to the Department of State, of October 10, 1840. 
 It is there said : " The claimants have no means of knowing whether 
 the instructions accompanying the powers under which the Mexican 
 commissioners act, and which, according to our understanding, constitute 
 an essential part of those powers, have been in any way communicated 
 to our government. It does, however, appear to them, in the absence 
 of any information on this point, that it is contrary to every idea they 
 have ever attached to a judicial tribunal, that the judges should be com 
 missioned to decide in conformity with instructions given by one of the 
 parties litigant, and that such instructions should furnish the measure of 
 their powers. Nor is this apparent incongruity diminished by the fact, 
 that a moiety of the court is required to act under powers, and its judi 
 cial discretion is to be guided by rules, which their associates neither 
 know nor recognize. Unless, therefore, these anomalies, thus exhibited 
 on the face of the documents, and illustrated by the proceedings of the 
 board, shall have been obviated by other circumstances unknown to the 
 claimants, we would respectfully suggest to the consideration of the 
 Executive, whether there does not exist an inherent and vital defect in 
 the organization of this tribunal, rendering it wholly incompetent to the 
 performance of the duties imposed on it by the terms and provisions of 
 the convention ; whether this defect has been the result of mere inad 
 vertence ; or whether it does not indicate, on the part of the Mexican 
 government, a want of that frankness and candor which we had a right 
 to anticipate at its hands ?" 
 
 Here is presented another specimen of the solicitude of Mexico faith 
 fully to adhere to her engagements ! 
 8 
 
No. XI. 
 
 MUCH of what has been said on the two first classes of the claims of 
 citizens of the United States against Mexico, is equally applicable to the 
 third. These are those in which the examination was not fully com 
 pleted, or was altogether prevented, and were therefore left unadjudi- 
 cated, in consequence either of Mexico failing to produce the evidence 
 which, under the treaty, she was bound to furnish, or because the 
 Mexican Commissioners persevered in carrying out the instructions of 
 their government, to resort to any expedients which might render the 
 convention abortive. 
 
 It has been shown, that five months, out of the eighteen prescribed for 
 the duration of the board, were consumed in vain efforts to establish 
 some rules for the methodical transaction of the business for which it 
 had been created, and for the guidance of the complainants in the pre 
 paration and exhibition of their cases. 
 
 In their communication of March 2, 1842, to the Secretary of State, 
 the American Commissioners say : " It is very certain that all the 
 objects contemplated by the convention have not been fully accom 
 plished. A number of important claims, coming within the cognizance 
 of the commission, have not been adjusted. Upon whom rests the 
 responsibility of this partial failure, is a question not to be settled by the 
 assertion or belief of ourselves, or of our late colleagues, but by an ap 
 peal to the facts recorded in the minutes of the board." Doc. 320, pp. 
 195, 196. " To this long delay, in the first place, in determining upon 
 any mode whatever, by which the business of the board could be con 
 ducted, and then in the indirect and circuitous manner to which the 
 claimants were eventually obliged to resort, for the purpose of getting 
 their papers and documents before the commissioners, is, in our opinion, 
 to be attributed, in some measure, the failure of the commission to 
 examine all the cases before it, and to present them to the umpire in 
 season for his decision thereon. Whatever detriment has resulted from 
 this cause, must be attributed to such of the commissioners as erred in 
 their construction of the convention." 
 
 In reference to some particular cases, these gentlemen employ lan 
 guage much more emphatic and accusatory. They specify the case of 
 the Topaz, in which, after adverting to the murder of the captain of that 
 vessel, and the proceedings at Anahuac growing out of that outrage, and 
 expressing their full persuasion " that the whole proceedings at Anahuac 
 were designed to cover up a most barbarous and cruel transaction," they 
 add : " The object of the undersigned in commenting upon this case, is 
 
115 
 
 not to present its merits, but only to show the true cause why it was 
 not finally disposed of." " If the Mexican Commissioners had not caused 
 action to be suspended on it for more than two months, and down to 
 within one month of the expiration of the commission, it would doubt 
 less have been finally disposed of." " A like delay, for the same cause, 
 took place in respect to the several claims growing out of the seizure of 
 the Julius Csesar, Champion, and Louisiana, the condemnation of the 
 two former, and the imprisonment of the persons on board them." 
 " But for the suspension of action upon these cases, at the instance, and 
 by the votes, of the Mexican Commissioners, on the allegation that 
 they had been withdrawn from the cognizance of the board,* they doubt 
 less would have been sent to the umpire in season to have received his 
 final judgment thereon." Ibid, page 253. 
 
 Another instance, of a similar character, is presented in the case of 
 Mr. William S. Parrott, which the American Commissioners made the 
 subject of a special report r in which they fully demonstrate that Mexico 
 violated the terms of the convention, by witholding papers, " by which 
 an express stipulation in the convention, that government had come 
 under an obligation" to furnish, and by transmitting such " as appeared 
 on the face of them imperfect, and, in some material points, contradic 
 tory." They conclude their observations on this case in the following 
 terms : " Finally, it appears quite evident to the undersigned, that the 
 documents which were demanded and not furnished, were such as the 
 government of Mexico was bound, under the fourth Article of the con 
 vention, to furnish ; that the requisition was sent out at the earliest 
 period at which it could have been sent ; and that the want of those 
 documents, for not furnishing which no adequate excuse has been given, 
 is the cause why a final disposition was not made of this claim of Mr. 
 Parrott." 
 
 Such was the open and undisguised infraction of treaties and perver 
 sion of justice in this last cited case, that Mr. Upshur, in his despatch of 
 the 25th of July, 1843, (Doc. 158) thus adverts to it : "The conduct 
 of Mexico, as it seems to me, had made it the duty of the United States 
 to insist on prompt and specific relief, so far as this case is concerned. 
 She has rendered herself liable to the charge of having broken her faith, 
 and disregarded her obligations. She has not complied with a single 
 stipulation of the fourth Article of the convention of 1839. She has not 
 even professed to have produced a large number of the documents called 
 for, and many of those which she did produce were either imperfect or 
 grossly falsified. The American Commissioners complained of this, but 
 without redress ; and to add to the injuries and contemptuous conduct 
 
 * All of which was a sheer fabrication. 
 
116 
 
 of the Mexican Commissioners, they took back with them, against the 
 assent and remonstrances of the American Commissioners, and of the 
 Secretary of State, all the falsified and imperfect documents which they 
 had submitted. All this will fully appear from the enclosed extracts 
 from the proceedings of the board. It is quite evident that, so far as 
 this claimant is concerned, he can have little hope of success before a 
 new commission. He must necessarily rely on the same evidence 
 which he has heretofore applied for in vain, and he must make his 
 demand on the same government which has heretofore treated the same 
 demand with neglect and contempt." 
 
 In reference, then, to this third class of cases, if would seem that 
 Mexico can have no further claim, on the score of justice, to ask to be 
 again heard. She has contemptuously declined to submit her cause to 
 a tribunal of her own appointment. She has deliberately labored, by 
 the most dishonorable machinations, to defeat the very treaty to which 
 she had set her seal, and to the faithful performance of which she was 
 bound by all the obligations of official and national honor. She has 
 endeavored to impose on this tribunal, false and forged testimony, and 
 then purloined the very documents by which the truth of this accusation 
 was to be established. It would, indeed, be a gross violation of justice 
 to compel the claimants to encounter a second time the expense and 
 labor of producing all their testimony, and of again trying their cases de 
 novo. It would be equivalent to a deliberate surrender of their rights. 
 
 It seems clearly to result, from these facts, that the failure on the 
 part of the late board to adjust definitely all the cases which were 
 brought before it, is imputable to the bad faith and disingenuous artifices 
 of Mexico ; and that, in the particular instances which have been de 
 signated, specific circumstances of fraud and falsehood have been fixed 
 and established against her ; that, to subject the claimants to renewed 
 litigation before another similarly constituted tribunal, would be equally 
 unjust to them, and disgraceful to the nation. The honor of the Ame 
 rican government has been solemnly pledged, and it is with confidence 
 hoped it will not be sullied. 
 
 The last and only remaining class of cases comprehends such as were 
 not submitted to the last board. The convention of 1839 limited the 
 jurisdiction of the tribunal which it provided, to cases, statements of 
 which had been presented to the Department of State, or the diplomatic 
 agent of the United States in Mexico, prior to its signature. It conse 
 quently excluded all claims posterior to the llth of April, 1839, and 
 some of an earlier date. During the last six j ears, numerous cases 
 have occurred equally demanding reparation. It is hoped they will not 
 be allowed to grow hoary with antiquity before they shall be disposed of. 
 
117 
 
 It has been shown that there is no precedent in our history which 
 warrants the government, under the like or analogous circumstances, in 
 submitting the claims of its citizens to a mixed tribunal. It may well 
 be questioned whether the spirit of our institutions does not prohibit it, 
 unless with the consent of the claimants themselves. However this 
 may be, the history of the past shows the inutility and mockery of any 
 such plan of adjustment with such a people and such a government as 
 Mexico. The same disregard of justice which marked her constant 
 violations of private right, equally characterize her in her judicial admin 
 istration. She is as reluctant to make retribution for the wrongful acts 
 she has perpetrated, as she was unscrupulous in the commission of those 
 outrages. 
 
 The matter is now in the hands of the government ; and the unfortu 
 nate victims of Mexican cruelty and Mexican duplicity will not permit 
 themselves to doubt that, as their rights are now identified with the 
 national faith and national honor, those rights will be enforced, and that 
 honor be preserved unsullied. 
 
 No. XII. 
 
 IT is presumed that no necessity exists to adduce further proof to 
 establish the charge against Mexico, of being equally faithless in the 
 fulfilment of her, treaty engagements, or of the obligations imposed by 
 the law of nations, and by the code of personal honor. Her highest 
 functionaries have been shown to be guilty of an open disregard of truth, 
 and of having resorted to the most contemptible and disgraceful crimes 
 known on the Old Bailey calendar. Should additional testimony be 
 required to fill up the measure of official and national turpitude, ample 
 materials exist in the archives of the board of commissioners. It there 
 distinctly and repeatedly appears, that Mexico transmitted spurious and 
 forged documents to the board, as legal evidence in cases before it ; 
 that her commissioners withdrew, from the public records of the board, 
 and under false pretences, testimony which had been laid before it for 
 its action ; that this was done against the remonstrances of their col 
 leagues, and in contempt of the decided objections of the American Sec 
 retary of State. These points, however, have been so frequently 
 brought to the notice of Congress and the nation, that they must be 
 familiar to all who have given any attention to the history of the rela 
 tions between the two countries. 
 
 The far more important inquiry is, what is the course which it be- 
 
118 
 
 comes the right and duty of the government of the United States to 
 pursue in reference to the claims of our citizens upon that nation ? The 
 question of duty has been long since settled. Without adverting to 
 other instances in which it has been fully recognised by the government 
 itself, in the most solemn and authentic form, a reference to the very 
 explicit language employed by Mr. Upshur in his despatch of July 25, 
 1843, may suffice : " The honor of the government is pledged to our 
 own people for the diligent and proper prosecution of those claims. 
 Mexico can no longer, consistently with her own honor, or the rights of 
 our citizens, or what is due to this government, seek to delay the execu 
 tion of what justice so plainly requires at her hands." " Atonement 
 should have been made long ago for the numerous and flagrant wrongs 
 done by that power to citizens of this country. Unnecessary delays 
 must not be submitted to, nor will slight excuses he received." 
 
 Two years have elapsed since this declaration was made. " Unne 
 cessary delays" have been "submitted to," and "slight excuses" have 
 not been " received," only because none, however slight, have been 
 offered. Eighteen months have passed since Mexico has had in her 
 hands a treaty sanctioned by the Executive and Senate of the United 
 States, which falls short very far short of carrying out all the 
 acknowledged obligations of our government. The minister who nego 
 tiated it, in several important particulars deviated from his instructions, 
 and always to the disadvantage of the claimants. Its terms and stipula 
 tions, if adopted, would work the most manifest injustice to the claim 
 ants, and are such that nothing but despair of ever attaining justice could 
 induce them to acquiesce in. For eighteen months Mexico has omitted 
 to give it her ratification. It has become a caput mortuum; and no 
 excuse, no apology, no explanation has been tendered to an insulted 
 nation for this act of contemptuous disregard of her most conciliatory and 
 yielding offers. The honor, the dignity of the nation, imperatively 
 demands that no similar proposition should be again entertained. The 
 experience of the past has painfully and severely taught the claimants, 
 (and it is hoped the lessons have not been thrown away upon the gov 
 ernment), that, under such a convention as that p-ojected, the interests 
 of the one would be sacrificed, and the hoi, Or of the other prostituted. 
 Under no circumstances, should such an arrangement be again sanc 
 tioned ; nor, unless under other and far better guarantees than such 
 as appear in that projet, should any mixed commission be again estab 
 lished. 
 
 What course, then, is left open ? The claims against Mexico may 
 now be arranged under four distinct classes : First, such as have been 
 already adjudicated by the former board. These may be recognized as 
 
119 
 
 settled definitely, excepting so far as fraud and forged papers, and sup 
 pressions of evidence, in derogation of treaty engagements, can be shown. 
 Secondly, such as have passed through the ordeal of a full investigation 
 in the presence of the commissioners of both parties. Thirdly, those 
 which, owing to the impediments interposed by the government of Mex 
 ico, or her functionaries, were left unadjusted. Fourthly, those which 
 were never exhibited to the former board, whether they occurred before 
 or since the time limited by the convention of 1839. 
 
 The first class has been settled by the adjudications of the board ; 
 and, although much injustice has been wrought by those decisions, they 
 should, perhaps, be allowed to stand, unless the claimants can establish, 
 by distinct testimony, that injustice has been perpetrated through false 
 or forged papers, or by the withholding of evidence which Mexico was 
 bound to furnish. Three years and a half have elapsed since the last of 
 these cases was decided. By the convention of September, 183S, it was 
 agreed that Mexico should forthwith pay the whole sum awarded against 
 her, by furnishing such an amount of her evidences of public debt as 
 should realize in the London market whatever might be found due by 
 her. This arrangement was, as we have seen, allowed to expire by 
 the non-ratification of the convention by Mexico. The substituted 
 treaty of 1839 provided that Mexico should pay the sums awarded in 
 treasury notes, which should be receivable at her custom-houses in 
 payment of duties, should it prove inconvenient for her to pay the whole 
 promptly in gold or silver. At her solicitation, and for her accommoda 
 tion, by the convention of the 30th January, 1843, further indulgence 
 was given. She was allowed until April, 1843, to pay the arrearages 
 of interest ; and the principal, with the subsequently accruing interest, 
 was to be paid within five years from that date, in equal quarterly instal 
 ments. Three of these instalments were paid with something like punc 
 tuality. Since January, 1844, not a farthing has been paid which has 
 ever reached the claimants. On the 31st July, 1845, six instalments 
 will be in arrear to them. The right to postponement has been for 
 feited by this omission. By the terms of the convention of 1843, all the 
 internal duties of the nation were pledged as a fund for these payments ; 
 that fund has been divertp^ from this purpose, and thus again the treaty 
 has been broken. The claimants have the right to insist and call upon 
 their government, under these circumstances, to demand the prompt 
 liquidation of what is due them. As Mexico has thought proper to sus 
 pend all diplomatic relations between the governments, this branch of 
 the case should be definitely closed. We can no longer call upon them 
 for their quarterly instalments. 
 
 The second class comprehends cases which have been examined by 
 
120 
 
 the joint commission, and upon which both parties have been heard. 
 The reasons of the one for allowing, and of the other for disallowing, 
 have been fully given. The diplomatic intercourse between the two 
 governments is closed, and the American Executive is in possession of 
 ample materials upon which its judgment can be exercised. The views 
 and opinions of the able men who represented the United States are 
 before them ; the objections of Mexico are fully stated. Both parties 
 have been heard so far, at least, as the American commissioners can 
 be understood as representing the claimants. Every solemnity has been 
 observed every objection heard ; and the parties cannot but hope and 
 expect that this government will recognise as final and conclusive the 
 judgment of those whom they have invested with these high functions. 
 So far as these cases have thus been acted on. the character of the claim 
 ought to be considered as adjudicated, and the amount of compensation 
 settled definitely and for ever. After Mexico has pursued the course 
 which it has been shown she has done after she has abstracted from the 
 archives of the convention the evidence upon which claims were sus 
 tained she cannot, with any show of justice or reason, ask to be at 
 liberty to compel the parties again to reproduce that testimony, and 
 prove their cases over again. It is a received maxim of positive law in 
 very community where law exists, that presumption exists in odium spo- 
 liatoris. In every aspect in which the case can be viewed, Mexico 
 occupies this position. She was the spoliator in committing the original 
 wrong. She is the spoliator in withholding the evidence which she had 
 solemnly promised to furnish, or in fabricating false testimony. She 
 is the spoliator in appropriating to herself the very evidence which had 
 been produced to establish her responsibility. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 RECT> LD [ IMTFP ., , PPAPV 
 
 DEC 4 
 
 INTER-LIBRARY 
 
 LQ Aji, 
 
 Al IP 1 A IM7R. 
 
 
 AUu lU nwo 
 
 
 LD 21A-60m-3, 65 
 (P2336slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 University of California 
 Berkeley 
 
901 
 
 CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 i3$fi 
 twMfeggi^