Europe with the political system of the allied powers, we should regard as dangerous to our peace and safety any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere.' "Poinsett was further instructed to secure, if possible, a treaty of limits and a treaty of amity and commerce, on the basis of the recently concluded convention with Colombia. The treaty which he signed, and the account of the negotiations which preceded it, will be found in the 6th volume of the folio edition of the Foreign Relations, pages 578-613. This treaty did not receive the assent of the Senate, except upon conditions which caused it to fail. The treaty of limits of 1828 was then concluded, and in 1831 a treaty of amity and commerce was signed, which is still in force. "The war between Texas and Mexico affected the relations between Mexico and the United States, and was the cause of frequent communications from the Executive to Congress, and of frequent discussions and reports in that body. At one time, in the early stage of the discussion, the Mexican minister withdrew himself from Washington, but relations were soon restored. "Claims began to arise and to be pressed against Mexico as early as 1836. In 1837 they were made the subject of Presidential messages. A convention was concluded for the adjustment of these claims in 1838, which was not ratified by the Mexican government; and another convention was concluded and ratified by both parties, for the same purpose, in April, 1839. The acts of Congress to carry this into effect were approved on the 12th of June, 1840, and on the 1st of September, 1841. "When the commissioners on each side met together [William L. Marcy was one of the United States commissioners], a radical difference of opinion on important subjects was found to exist. (1) The American commissioners regarded the joint body as a judicial tribunal. The Mexican commissioners regarded it as a diplomatic body. (2) The Americans asserted that the claimants had a right to appear personally or by counsel before the commissioners. The Mexicans denied this, and insisted that the proof must come through the government. Much time was lost in these and kindred discussions; so that, when the last day for action had passed, several claims had not been acted on. This was the cause of much subsequent correspondence. Mexico did not keep its engagements under this treaty, and in 1843 a new convention respecting the payments was made, in which it was agreed that another claims convention should be entered into; but this had not been done when war broke out between the parties, in 1846. "A treaty was concluded with Texas for its annexation to the United States, but it failed to receive the assent of the Senate. Congress then, by joint resolution, declared that it 'doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas,' and on the 29th of December, 1845, it was jointly resolved that the State of Texas shall be one . of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.' Davis's Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776-1887), 1354. As to the treaty of 1839, and subsequent conventions and negotiations on the subject of claims, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1209 et seq. "By a clause of the instrument [organizing the colony of the island of Ciare], citizens of the United States were expressly excluded from being members of that colony. This exclusion is regarded here as invidious and as directly at variance with the third article of the treaty of 1831, which stipulates for perfect equality between citizens of the United States and other foreigners who may visit or reside in Mexico. "The Mexican law forbidding United States citizens from holding real estate in that country, while that privilege is open to other aliens, may also be regarded as incompatible, if not with the letter, certainly with the spirit, of the treaty, the obvious purpose of which was to provide for equality generally between our citizens and other foreigners in that republic." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, Mar. 26, 1879, May 11, 1846, President Polk sent to Congress a message declaring that American blood had been shed on American soil, and that war existed by the act of Mexico. He discussed the various causes of irritation that had existed between the two countries, and communicated to Congress certain correspondence relating to the rupture between them. By an act of May 13, 1846, 9 Stat. 9, the President was authorized to prosecute the war. Message of President Polk, May 11, 1846, S. Ex. Doc. 337, 29 Cong. 1 sess. See President Polk's Administration, by James Schouler, Atlantic Monthly (1895), LXXVI. 371. For complaints of Mexico that the United States had failed to enforce its neutrality during the revolution in Texas, and the reply of Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, see special message of President Tyler, July 14, 1842, H. Ex. Doc. 266, 27 Cong. 2 sess.; 6 Webster's Works, 440-459. Accompanying the message are instructions from Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson, min. to Mexico, of July 8 and July 13, 1842. As to the Santa Fé expedition and American citizens captured therein, see 6 Webster's Works, 422-440. As to the seizure of Monterey by Commodore Jones, and the disavowal of the act by the United States, see Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Gen. Almonte, Mexican min. Jan. 30, 1843, 6 Webster's Works, 461. As to claims against Mexico, see message of President Jackson, Jan. 5, See, also, 2 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, 1209 et seq. See, also, the following correspondence: Independence of Mexico (April, 1821), 9 Br. & For. State Papers, 369. Commercial Relations (1825), 13 Br. & For. State Papers, 415. The Panama Congress (1825-1826), 13 Br. & For. State Papers, 394, 398, 415, 428, 485, 493, 497, 978. Question of Cuba and Porto Rico (1826), 13 Br. & For. State Papers, 426, Interference of foreign powers with Spanish America (1825-1826), 13 Independence of Texas (1836), 25 Br. & For. State Papers, 1132. Boundaries and limits of Texas, 25 Br. & For. State Papers, 1075; 26 id. 8828. Political relations with Mexico (1836-1837), 26 Br. & For. State Papers, 1378. The attitude of the United States towards Texan independence (1842), 31 Br. & For. State Papers, 801. The annexation of Texas to the United States, 33 Br. & For. State Papers, For instructions to Mr. Slidell, min. to Mexico, No. 1, Nov. 10, 1845, see 2. TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO. § 858. "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 conclude 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." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Trist, April 15, 1847, S. Ex. Doc. 52, 30 Cong. 1 sess. The rest of the text of the instructions, together with an annexed project of a treaty, may be found at the place cited. Mr. Trist left Washington, where he was chief clerk of the Department of State, April 16, 1847. He reached Vera Cruz on May 6. November 16, 1847, Mr. Trist received instructions by which he was directed to return to the United States by the first safe opportunity. In these instructions it was stated that, after a series of brilliant victories, when the American troops were at the gates of the capital and it was completely in their power, the Mexican government had not only rejected the liberal offers of the United States but had "insulted our country by proposing terms the acceptance of which would degrade us in the eyes of the world, and be justly condemned by the whole American people." They must, said the instructions, "attribute our liberality to fear, or they must take courage from our supposed political divisions." In this state of affairs, the President, it was said, believed that Mr. Trist's continued presence with the army could be productive of no good, but might do much harm by encouraging delusive hopes and false impressions. The President had determined not to make another offer to treat with the Mexican government, though he would always be ready to receive and consider its proposals. Mexico must now first sue for peace. Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Trist, No. 5, Oct. 6, 1847, S. Ex. Doc. 52, 30 Cong. 1 sess. 91. Mr. Trist's recall was, by direction of the President, reiterated on October 25, 1847. (Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Trist, No. 6, Oct. 25, 1847, id. 94.) When Mr. Trist received his first order of recall, it was expected that an army train for Vera Cruz would leave the City of Mexico. about the end of November. Owing, however, to unexpected detentions, its departure was postponed first to the 4th of December and then to the 10th. On the latter day it started, but Mr. Trist did not go with it. On the contrary, he had determined to remain in Mexico and endeavor to conclude a peace. He understood that, under the circumstances, any action which he might take might, and probably would, be disavowed by his government, but he decided to assume the responsibility. His proposal of negotiation was accepted by the Mexican government, and plenipotentiaries were duly commissioned to negotiate with him. In about six weeks after their first conference their task was brought to an end by the signing of a treaty of peace at Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848. Every possible provision was made for its speedy conveyance, and it reached its destination in 16 or 17 days after signature-the quickest time then ever made between the capitals of the two republics-the bearer being James L. Freaner, a native of Maryland, who is said to have been the only man in any way instrumental in determining Mr. Trist to make the attempt of which the treaty was the result. The treaty was communicated by the President to the Senate on February 23, 1848, with a message bearing date of the preceding day. In another message to the Senate, on the 29th of the same month, the President said: "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." S. Report 261, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 8-9. The treaty, as amended by the Senate of the United States, was officially first taken up in the Chamber of Deputies, where it was adopted by In a despatch to Mr. Buchanan, of December 6, 1847, Mr. Trist referred As to the graves of American soldiers near Saltillo, see S. Doc. 180, 55 "I deem it to be my duty to state that the recall of Mr. Trist as commissioner of the United States, of which Congress was informed in my annual message, was dictated by a belief that his continued presence with the Army could be productive of no good, but might do much harm by encouraging the delusive hopes and false impressions of the Mexicans, and that his recall would satisfy Mexico that the United States had no terms of peace more favorable to offer. Directions were given that any propositions for peace which Mexico |