Page images

no application at that time for the compensation he had earned, and to await the spontaneous offer of it unless compelled by actual want." For President Polk's message on this treaty see supra, § 130.

Mr. Trist's instructions were as follows:

"Since the glorious victory of Buena Vista, and the capture of Vera Cruz and the Castle of San Juan d'Ulloa by the American arms, it is deemed probable that the Mexican Government may be willing to couclude a treaty of peace with the United States. Without any certain information, however, as to its disposition the President would not feel justified in appointing public commissioners for this purpose, and inviting it to do the same. After so many overtures, rejected by Mexico, this course might not only subject the United States to the indignity of another refusal, but might in the end prove prejudicial to the cause of peace. The Mexican Government might thus be encouraged in the mistaken opinion which it probably already entertains, respecting the motives which have actuated the President in his repeated efforts to terminate the war.

"He deems it proper, notwithstanding, to send to the headquarters of the Army a confidential agent, fully acquainted with the views of this Government, and clothed with full powers to conclude a treaty of peace with the Mexican Government, should it be so inclined. In this manner he will be enabled to take advantage, at the propitious moment, of any favorable circumstances which might dispose that Government to peace.

"The President, therefore, having full confidence in your ability, patriotism, and integrity, has selected you as a commissioner to the United Mexican States, to discharge the duties of this important mission."

A notice of the negotiations which preceded the treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo, is given in an appendix to Mr. Sumner's report.

Mr. Trist left Washington (where he was chief clerk in the Department of State) on April 16, 1847. He reached Vera Cruz on May 6. According to the statement given in Mr. Sumner's report, Mr. Trist on November 16, 1847, received the following letter of recall, dated October 6:

"They, the Mexican Government, must attribute our liberality to fear, or they must take courage from our supposed political divisions. Some such cause is necessary to account for their strange infatuation. In this state of affairs, the President, believing that your continued presence with the Army can be productive of no good, but may do much harm by encouraging the delusive hopes and false impressions of the Mexicans, has directed me to recall you from your mission, and instruct you to return to the United States by the first safe opportunity."

The statement annexed to Mr. Sumner's report thus continues:

"Thus situated, Mr. Trist did, nevertheless, forthwith enter upon a a course of strict conformity with his recall. In his dispatch, acknowledging the simultaneous receipt of the recall, and its reiteration under dates October 6 and 25, he says:

"My first thought was immediately to address a note to the Mexican Government, advising them of the inutility of pursuing their intention to appoint commissioners to meet me. On reflection, however, the depressing influence which this would exercise upon the peace party, and the exhilaration which it would produce among the opposition, being but too manifest, I determined to postpone making this communication offi

S. Mis. 162-VOL. II—17


cially, and meanwhile privately to advise the leading men of the party, here and at Queretaro, of the instructions which 1 had received.'

"That first safe opportunity,' by which Mr. Trist was thus ordered to return, did not occur until the 10th day of December. When the order reached him, (November 16, 1847), it was expected that an army train for Vera Cruz would leave the city of Mexico about the end of that month. Owing, however, to the unexpected detention at that port of a train which had been sent there for supplies, the departure of the one with which Mr. Trist had prepared to leave was postponed, first, to the 4th of December, and then to the 10th. On this day the train started. Mr. Trist, however, did not go with it. Had it been delayed no later than the 4th, in such case his return journey would have begun on the morning of that day."

Mr. Trist, on December 6, sent the following dispatch to the Secretary of State:

"Referring to my previous dispatches in regard to the political stateof this country, and to the inclosed copy of a confidential letter, under date the 4th instant, to a friend at Queretaro, to whose able and indefatigable co-operation in the discharge of the trust committed to me I have, from the very outset, been greatly indebted, I will here enter at greater length into the considerations by which I have been brought to a resolve so fraught with responsibility to myself; whilst, on the other hand, the circumstances under which it is taken are such as to leave the Government at perfect liberty to disavow my proceeding, should it be deemed disadvantageous to our country."


"The friend at Queretaro, to whose able and indefatigable co-operation' Mr. Trist so acknowledged his deep obligations," continues the statement in Mr. Sumner's report, "was Mr. Edward Thornton, at that time, owing to the retirement of the British minister from ill health, left in charge of the British legation in Mexico. The same gentleman is now the representative of his sovereign to our Government.

"The resolve so formed by the ex-commissioner of the United States was to this effect: Should the Mexican Government be willing, he would take upon himself to engage with its plenipotentiaries in the work which had been so unexpectedly prevented by his recall. All such action on his part would, of course, be devoid of validity and of all binding force upon our Government. Nevertheless, should the negotiation result in their agreeing upon the terms of a treaty, such treaty would secure to the cause of peace the chance of its adoption by the Government of the United States, upon its being presented with the option so to put an end to the war.

"The attempt so ventured upon was crowned with success. His proposal was accepted by the Mexican Government. The plenipotentiaries who, just before his recall arrived, had been selected to meet him, were commissioned. They at once went to work, and the work was plied so diligently that in about six weeks' time from their first regular conference their task was brought to its desired end by the signing at Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the 2d of February, 1848, of the document in the form of a treaty, which was immediately sent to the Secretary of State at Washington.

"Every possible provision having been made for its speedy conveyance, it reached its destination in sixteen or seventeen days after signature-the quickest time ever made by man between the capitals of the two Republics-the bearer being James L. Freaner, a native of the State

of Maryland, and the only man who had been in any way instrumental in determining Mr. Trist to make the attempt of which that document was the result.

"On the 23d of February, 1848, some days after its arrival at Washington, the document received from Mr. Trist was communicated by the President to the Senate, with a message, bearing date the day previous (February 22), beginning thus:

"I lay before the Senate, for their consideration and advice as to its ratification, a treaty of peace, friendship, limits, and settlement, signed at the city of Guadalupe-Hidalgo on the 2d day of February, 1848, by N. P. Trist, on the part of the United States, and by plenipotentiaries appointed for that purpose on the part of the Mexican Government.'

"By the Executive action so taken upon the document, the invalidity of that in which it originated was cured, and it became transmitted into a genuine treaty, so far as the President's sole authority was competent to impart this charact to it.

"A week later, on the 29th of the same month, in another message to the Senate, the President took occasion to explain that his first message was intended to be understood as positively recommending the treaty for adoption-the words upon this point in the second message being:

"I considered it to be my solemn duty to the country, uninfluenced by the exceptionable conduct of Mr. Trist, to submit the treaty to the Senate with a recommendation that it be ratified with the modifications suggested.'

"Incorporated with this express recommendation are the President's reasons for considering it his solemn duty to make it; among which assigned reasons is his belief, 'that, if the present treaty be rejected, the war will probably be continued, at a great expense of life and treasure, for an indefinite period.'

"After thorough discussion by the Senate, extending from February 23 to March 10, in which it underwent various modifications, its ratification was advised and consented to by a vote of 38 yeas to 14 nays."

The position in respect to negotiation and ratification by Mexico was not unlike the subsequent position of France after the Franco-German war. The difficulty was not so much in settling the terms of peace as in finding in the conquered country a stable government with whom these terms could be settled.

Mr. Trist, in his dispatch of February 2, 1848, transmitting the treaty, thus notices this question:


"With respect to the ratification of the treaty, I believe the chances to be very greatly in its favor. The elections are yet to be held in the States of Vera Cruz and Puebla. In the former the puros (war party) never had any strength whatever; in the latter not enough to counteract a vigorous and concerted effort on the part of the moderados. These elections will now speedily take place, under the arrangements for facilitating them which will be entered into in pursuance of the second article of the treaty (inserted with a special view to this object); and the result will, according to every probability, give to the peace party in Congress a preponderance so decided as to insure its prompt ratification."

"Ten days later his dispatch No. 29, February 12, 1848, transmitting the maps referred to in the fifth article of the treaty, closes with these words:

"I take great pleasure in stating that the probabilities of the ratification of the treaty by Mexico, which were previously very good, have

been growing stronger and stronger every hour for several days past, and that there is good reason to believe that it may take place within two months of this date.

"In the accompanying Monitor Republicano of the 11th instant will be found the circular of the minister of relations to the governors of States informing them of the signature of the treaty.'

"These anticipations of Mr. Trist, both as to the results of the election in augmenting the preponderance already acquired by the peace party in Congress, and as to the use which would be made of this preponderance, were soon verified to the very letter, and far beyond it.

"Intelligence reaching Mexico that the Senate of the United States were engaged in making amendments to the treaty, all action of the Mexican Government in regard to its ratification was suspended until the amendments so made should become known. They became so officially by the letter of the Secretary of State of the United States, March 18, to the minister of relations. Upon its receipt by him, the treaty, as ratified by the Government of the United States, with the amendments of our Senate, was laid before the Mexican Congress, both houses of which must advise and consent to a treaty before it can be ratified. First taken up in the Chamber of Deputies, it was adopted there by a large majority; then in the Senate, it passed that body by a vote of 33 yeas to 5 nays."

Sen. Rep. 261, 41 Cong., 2d sess.

The antecedents and effect of the treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo are discussed in 2 Lawrence com. sur droit int., 338.

The 8th section of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, guaranteeing titles, &c., had reference to the territory acquired by the United States by that treaty, and did not refer to Texas.

McKinney v. Saviego, 18 How., 235. See further, supra, § 4.

The United States have never sought by their legislation to evade the obligation devolved upon them by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo to protect the rights of property of the inhabitants of the ceded territory or to discharge it in a narrow and illiberal manner. They have directed their tribunals, in passing upon the rights of the inhabitants, to be governed by the stipulations of the treaty, the law of nations, the laws, usages, and customs of the former Government, the principles of equity, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, so far as they are applicable.

U. S. v. Auguisola, 1 Wall., 352.

The cession of California to the United States did not impair the rights of private property. These rights were consecrated by the law of nations and protected by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.

U. S. v. Moreno, 1 Wall., 400.

Article 7 of the treaty of 1848 between the United States and Mexico stipulated that the navigation of the river Bravo (otherwise called the Rio Grande) should be free and common to the citizens of both countries, without interruption by either without the consent of the other, even

for the purpose of improving the navigation. Nothing short of an express declaration by the Executive would warrant a court in ascribing to the Government an intention to blockade such a river in time of peace between the two Republics.

The Peterhoff, 5 Wall., 51.

The treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo between the United States and Mexico makes no distinction, in the protection it provides, between the property of individuals and the property held by towns under the Mexican Government.

Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall., 326.

The protection which by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo the United States promised to Mexican grantees extended to rights which they then held.

Henshaw v. Bissell, 18 Wall., 264.

As to extension of juridical rights, see Atocha v. U. S., 8 C. Cls., 427.

Under the Mesilla treaty seven millions of dollars were to be paid on exchange of ratifications, and three milliors when the new boundary line was established.

7 Op., 582, Cushing, 1855.

The question whether the United States will pay, according to their original tenor, drafts drawn by the Mexican Government, under the Mesilla convention, or suspend the payment at the subsequent request of that Government, is matter of political, not of legal, determination.

7 Op., 599, Cushing, 1855.

The treaty questions concerning intervention in Mexico are discussed, supra, § 58.

As to treaty giving equal privileges as to real estate, see infra, § 234.
As to treaty with Mexico in respect to citizenship, see infra, § 189.
As to violation of treaty duties by Mexico, see infra, § 230.


§ 155.

It seems there is no treaty stipulation between the United States and the Netherlands on the subject of the rights by inheritance of the children of a deceased child of a Netherlander dying intestate in the United States. Article 6 of the treaty of 1782 relates only to personalty.

12 Op., 5, Stanbery, 1866. See, as to abrogation of treaty of 1782, supra, § 137a.

The history of the negotiations with the Netherlands prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States is given in Mr. J. C. Bancroft's Notes to the Treaties of the United States.

As to Netherlands spoliations, see infra, § 228.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »