to France. This convention at last advices had not been ratified by the Liberian legislature and executive. "Feeling a sympathetic interest in the fortunes of the little commonwealth, the establishment and development of which were largely aided by the benevolence of our countrymen, and which constitutes the only independently sovereign state on the West Coast of Africa, this government has suggested to the French government its earnest concern lest territorial impairment in Liberia should take place without her unconstrained consent.' President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 4, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, vii. December 9, 1892, Mr. Coolidge, American minister at Paris, transmitted to the Department of State a copy of the convention signed on the preceding day between France and Liberia for the settlement of the boundary question. (For. Rel. 1893, 296–298. ) 46 By the terms of this act, the boundary line of the respective possessions of the two countries shall be established by the thalweg of the Cavally River. France gives up the rights acquired by her from old treaties concluded on various points of the grain coast and recognizes the sovereignty of the Republic of Liberia over the coast to the west of the Cavally River; the Republic of Liberia abandons on its side all pretentions which it could put forward to the territories of the Ivory coast situated east of said river." (M. Develle, min. of for. aff. to Mr. Coolidge, American min., Feb. 21, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 299.) See Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Coolidge, No. 145 (confid.), Jan. 16, 1893, MS. Inst. France, XXII. 450; Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. McCoy, No. 26, March 20, 1893, MS. Inst. Liberia, II. 273; Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Langford, June 23, 1893, 192, MS. Dom. Let. 431; Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Payne, No. 43, Sept. 9, 1893, MS. Inst. Liberia, II. 280. Mr. Coolidge, minister to France, with his No. 112, Jan. 13, 1893, transmitted to the Department of State a map relating to the boundary. (MS. Desp. from France.) The convention of Dec. 8, 1892, was ratified by the Senate of Liberia, Jan 12, 1894, with certain objections and suggested amendments. (Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Eustis, amb. to France. No. 183 (confid.), March 6, 1894, MS. Inst. France, XXII. 621.) It was approved by the French Chamber of Deputies without discussion July 10, 1894. (For. Rel. 1894, 225.) As to the exchange of ratifications, see Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Heard, No. 37 (confid.), Feb. 23, 1897, MS. Inst. Liberia, II. 317; Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Heard, No. 39, May 17, 1897, id. 319 (enclosing copies of promemorias expressive of interest in Liberian independence, exchanged by the British embassy and the Department of State, March 8 and March 13, 1897); same to same (confid.), May 17, 1897, id. 319; same to same, No. 10, May 25, 1897, id. 320, acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Heard's No. 52 B of April 15, 1897. Mr. Sherman, May 21, 1897, acknowledged the receipt of a note of Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambassador, of the same day, conveying information as to a law passed by the legislature of Liberia, during the session of 1896–1897, directing the executive to form as soon as practicable a commission, in concert with France, to delimit the frontier between Liberia and the contiguous French possessions. (MS. Notes to Great Britain, XXIII. 626.) XXV. MADAGASCAR. § 856. As to the treaty between the United States and Madagascar of 1881 and the treaty between France and Madagascar of December 17, 1885, see Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Robinson, consul at Tamatave, May 12, 1886, 117 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 571. The treaty between the United States and Madagascar of 1881 gave the former power no right or ground of intervention in disputes between Madagascar and France; and, so long as no discrimination was made against the commerce of the United States, there appeared to be no ground to complain of the action of France in converting Madagascar into a French colony and treating the treaties between Madagascar and other powers as nullified. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morgan, Jan. 16, 1895, 200 MS. Dom. As to the eventual annexation of Madagascar by France, with the acquiescence of the United States, see For. Rel. 1896, 117-119, 121, 122, 124-127, 129, 132-135; For. Rel. 1897, 152–157. XXVI. MEXICO. 1. RELATIONS, 1825-1848. § 857. President J. Q. Adams's message of February 8, 1827, transmitting the Mexican treaty of July 10, 1826, with the accompanying documents, is printed in 6 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 578. President J. Q. Adams's message of April 25, 1828, containing "a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation between the United States of America and the United Mexican States," signed February 14, 1828, is in 6 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 952. "In 1825 Mr. Poinsett was dispatched as minister to Mexico. He was instructed to bring to the notice of the Mexican government the message of the late President of the United States to their Congress, on the 2d of December, 1823, asserting certain important principles of intercontinental law in the relations of Europe and America. The first principle asserted in that message is, that the American continents are not henceforth to be considered as subjects for future. colonization by any European powers. The other principle asserted in the message is, that whilst we do not desire to interfere in Europe with the political system of the allied powers, we should regard as dangerous to our peace and safety any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere.' "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 tage, at the propitious ich might dispose that nfidence in your ability, is a commissioner to the les of this important mis April 15, 1847, S. Ex. Doc. 52, ether with an annexed project cited. chief clerk of the Department Vera Cruz on May 6. instructions by which he ates by the first safe opporated that, after a series of oops were at the gates of the power, the Mexican governI offers of the United States oposing terms the acceptance s of the world, and be justly eople." They must, said the to fear, or they must take divisions." In this state of eved that Mr. Trist's continued ductive of no good, but might ive hopes and false impressions. to make another offer to treat gh he would always be ready to Mexico must now first sue for 期 r. Trist, No. 5, Oct. 6, 1847, S. Ex. Doc. on of the President, reiterated on Octoin to Mr. Trist, No. 6, Oct. 25, 1847, rst order of recall, it was expected uz would leave the City of Mexico wing, however, to unexpected detened first to the 4th of December and day it started, but Mr. Trist did not had determined to remain in Mexico ace. He understood that, under the h he might take might, and probably 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 correspondMexico 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, ence. 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 |