Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

important mission. Not until November, 1847, was the first great point reached. This was the appointment of a commission on the part of the Mexican government authorized to negotiate.

"Meanwhile at Washington there was a spirit hostile to negotiation; Mexico was not sufficiently humiliated. In the midst of his negotiation, when a treaty of peace was almost within his grasp, on the 16th November, 1847, Mr. Trist suddenly received a letter of recall, with the order to return home by the first safe opportunity. After careful deliberation, and with the sure conviction that if his efforts were thus abruptly terminated the war would be much prolonged, while the difficulties of obtaining another Mexican commission would be increased, he concluded to proceed, and do what he could for the sake of peace. The Mexicans to whom he communicated the actual condition of affairs united with him, and a treaty was signed on the 2d February, 1848, at Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Mr. Trist remained in Mexico until the 8th of April, 1848, in order to protect the interests of the United States, and would have remained longer had not an order for his arrest, sent from Washington to our military authorities, compelled him to leave.

"It is understood that the President, on the arrival of the treaty, proposed to suppress it; but, unwilling to encounter public opinion, which was favorable to peace, he communicated it to the Senate, when, with certain amendments, it was ratified by a vote of 38 yeas to 14 nays. And thus the war with Mexico was closed.

"The commissioner who had taken such great responsibility reached Washington on his return in June, 1848, only to encounter the enmity of the administration then in power. His mission had been crowned with success, but he was disgraced. By the order of President Polk his pay was stopped at November 16, 1847, so that the service, as peacemaker, rendered after that date was left without compensation as without honor. Mr. Trist was proud and sensitive. He determined to make no application at that time for the compensation he had earned, and to await the spontaneous offer of it, unless compelled by actual want."

S. Report 261, 41 Cong. 2 sess.

It was decided in McKinney . Saviego, 18 Howard, 240, that the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had no relation to property within the State of Texas.

Basse v. Brownsville (1875), 154 U. S. 610.

"Article VII. of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, while it was declared to have been rendered nugatory for the most part by the first clause of Article IV. of the treaty concluded December 30, 1853, and proclaimed June 30, 1854, was, by the second clause thereof, re

affirmed as to the Rio Grande (nom. Rio Bravo del Norte) below the point where, by the lines as fixed by the latter treaty, that river became the boundary between the two countries. Said Article VII. is recognized as still in force by Article V. of the convention concluded November 12, 1884, and proclaimed September 14, 1886.”

Harmon. At. Gen., Dec. 12, 1895, 21 Op. 274, 275.

The Texas act, Feb. 8, 1850, which provides for the investigation by commissioners of land titles with a view to their confirmation by the legislature, since it makes no discrimination between citizens of the United States and citizens of Mexico, does not violate Art. VIII. of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which simply guarantees to Mexicans, in respect of their rights of property, the same protection as is extended to citizens of the United States.

Baldwin v. Goldfrank (Tex. Sup.), 31 S. W. 1064, affirming 26 S. W. 155. "The judges of the Court of Private Land Claims, provided for by the act of March 3, 1891 [to settle titles in Arizona and New Mexico], have been appointed and the court organized. It is now possible to give early relief to communities long repressed in their development by unsettled land titles and to establish the possession and right of settlers whose lands have been rendered valueless by adverse and unfounded claims.”

President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 9, 1891, For. Rel. 1891, xxii; and For. Rel. 1888, II. 1294, 1303.

See, also, annual message, Dec. 6, 1892.

For decisions relating to cases under the act of March 3, 1891, see United
States v. Conway, 175 U. S. 60; Ainsa v. New Mexico & Arizona
R. R., 175 U. S. 76; Real de Dolores del Oro v. United States, 175
U. S. 71; Hays v. United States, 175 U. S. 248; United States v. Pena,
175 U. S. 500; United States v. Chavez, 175 U. S. 509; Peabody v.
United States, 175 U. S. 546; Chavez v. United States, 175 U. S. 552.

A petition for the rehearing of this case, which was decided May 23, 1898, and is reported in 170 U. S., 681, is denied, on the ground. that, after a careful reexamination of the record, the court adhered to the judgment heretofore rendered, remaining of the opinion that from and after the adoption of the Mexican constitution of 1836, no power existed in the separate States to make such a grant as the one. in this case.

United States v. Coe (1899), 174 U. S. 578.

The title to an imperfect Spanish or Mexican grant in New Mexico was, at the time of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in the United States, and did not pass out of the United States till the confirmation by the Court of Private Land Claims of the survey.

Territory v. Persons (1904), 76 Pac. Rep. 316.

H. Doc. 551-vol 5-50

3. MESILLA, AND LATER, TREATIES.

§ 859.

Under the treaty of December 30, 1853, by which the Mesilla valley was secured to the United States, seven million dollars were to be paid by the United States on the exchange of ratifications, and three millions when the new boundary line was established.

Cushing, At. Gen., 1855, 7 Op. 582.

The question whether the United States will pay, acording 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. Cushing, At. Gen., 1855, 7 Op. 599.

"In 1861 an extradition treaty was concluded with Mexico, and in 1868 a naturalization convention, and a convention for the establishment of a claims commission. The commission under the claims convention was duly organized in Washington, July 31, 1869. Its powers were extended by a convention, concluded April 19, 1871, and a further extension was authorized by a convention concluded November 27, 1872."

Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776-1887), 1357.

See, further, as to the claims convention of July 4, 1868, Moore, Int.
Arbitrations, II. 1287 et seq.

See, also, as to prior claims treaties between the two countries, id.
1209-1286.

As to boundary treaties between the two countries, see id. 1358-1359.

4. DOMESTIC DISTURBANCES; INTERVENTION.

§ 860.

After the close of the war between the United States and Mexico, the political condition of the latter country continued to be disturbed. Complaints were made by citizens of the United States of injuries of various kinds, and claims to a large amount accumulated in the Department of State. In 1856 Mr. Forsyth, then American minister to Mexico, declared that "nothing but a manifestation of the power of the government of the United States" would avail "to punish these wrongs." In 1857 a favorable change in the affairs of Mexico seemed to take place. A constituent congress adopted a republican constitution, and a popular election was held at which General Comonfort was chosen as President. He took the oath of office and was inaugurated December 1, 1857. A month later, however, he was driven from the capital by a revolution headed by General Zuloaga. The entire dip

lomatic corps, including the minister of the United States, made haste to recognize Zuloaga's authority without awaiting instructions from their governments. But Zuloaga was soon expelled from power, and his place was taken by General Miramon, a favorite of the so-called Church party. The reappearance of Zuloaga was secured for the purpose of appointing Miramon as "President substitute," and in the latter character the diplomatic corps transferred to him the recognition which they had given to Zuloaga. Meanwhile, Benito Juarez, who, as chief justice of the Republic and ex-officio Vice-President, claimed to have become President on the deposition of Comonfort, came forward as leader of the Liberal party. He established his government first at Queretaro, then at Guanajuato, and then at Guadalajara, but was eventually compelled to leave the country. In 1858, however, he returned to Vera Cruz and established a government. In June, 1858, Mr. Forsyth, the American minister, suspended diplomatic relations with the Miramon government till he should ascertain the decision of the President. President Buchanan approved the step which Mr. Forsyth had taken, and, because of complaints of ill treatment of American citizens, broke off diplomatic relations with Mexico altogether. Subsequently, when the final triumph of Juarez seemed to be probable, President Buchanan sent a confidential agent to Mexico to report upon conditions and the prospects of the belligerents. In consequence of this agent's report, he appointed Mr. Robert M. McLane, of Maryland, as minister to the Mexican Republic. Mr. McLane proceeded on his mission on March 8, 1859, invested with discretionary power to recognize the government of President Juarez, if he should find it entitled to such recognition according to the established practice of the United States. April 7, 1859, Mr. McLane presented his credentials to President Juarez, and recognized the latter's government as the only existing government of the republic. But the government of Juarez was unable to expel Miramon from the capital; and in his annual message of December 3, 1859, President Buchanan recommended to Congress the employment of a sufficient military force to penetrate into the interior of Mexico, where the government of Miramon was to be found, and seek redress from it for the injuries to American citizens. In his message of December 3, 1860, he declared his belief in the "justice as well as wisdom of such a policy," but stated that, having discovered that his recommendation would not be sustained by Congress, he had sought to accomplish the same objects in some degree by treaty stipulations with the constitutional government.

Mr. Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion, 267–276; 2
Curtis's Buchanan, 215; 2 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, 1288-1289.

In instructions given to Mr. Corwin, minister to Mexico, April 6, 1861, Mr. Seward stated that the actual condition of affairs in Mexico was so imperfectly understood in Washington that the President found it difficult to give him particular and practical directions. Information had been received that President Juarez had overthrown his adversaries and established his government at the capital, and that he had been chosen as President at an election lately held, but there were other rumors to the effect that his government was unable to maintain order, that robberies were frequent on the highroads, and that even a member of the American legation had been murdered on his way from the City of Mexico to Vera Cruz. If the last-mentioned occurrence should prove to be true, Mr. Corwin was informed that it would be regarded as a high offense against the dignity and honor of the United States, and would prove a severe shock to the sensibilities of the American people. As to claims, he was not to put them forward for the present, but he was to keep the Mexican government in mind of the fact that such of them as should be found to be just would in due time be presented and urged upon its consideration. The performance by the United States of its duty to "reason" with the government of Mexico was, said Mr. Seward, embarrassed by the occurrence of civil commotions in our own country, by which Mexico, in consequence of her proximity, is not unlikely to be affected." Both governments must "address themselves to this new and annoying condition of things, with common dispositions to mitigate its evils and abridge its duration as much as possible.” Mr. Corwin was, however, advised that the President would not suffer the representatives of the United States to engage in any discussion of the merits of its domestic difficulties in the presence of foreign powers, but he was to assure the government of Mexico. that those difficulties had not arisen out of any deep and permanent popular discontent, and that the President believed that the people of the United States would speedily and in a constitutional way adopt all necessary remedies for the restoration of the public. peace and the preservation of the Federal Union. Peace, order, and constitutional authority, in each and all of the American republics were, said Mr. Seward, "not exclusively an interest of any one or more of them, but a common and indispensable interest of them all." The President was, moreover, satisfied that the safety, welfare, and happiness of the United States would be more effectually promoted if Mexico should retain its complete integrity and independence, than if any part of its territory should be transferred to another power, even though that power should be the United States itself. It was understood, said Mr. Seward, that the ability of the government and people of Mexico to preserve and maintain the integrity and the sovereignty of the republic might be much impaired, under

« PředchozíPokračovat »