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.) "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 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, in 1846. ence. "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 |