that with a full comprehension of the great political and social advantages of such a mode of developing the material resources of the country, the government of Mexico cordially lends its influence to the spirit of welcome and encouragement with which the Mexican people seem disposed to greet the importation of wealth and enterprise in their midst. The progress now making in this direction by the national government of Mexico is but an earnest of the great good which may be accomplished when the intimate and necessary relations of the two countries and peoples are better understood than To conduce to this better understanding must be your constant labor." (Ibid.) now. As to commercial relations with Mexico, see message of July 19, 1876, As to reciprocity, see S. Mis. Doc. 45, 47 Cong. 1 sess.; S. Ex. Doc. 75, 47 As to railroads, see S. Ex. Doc. 73, 45 Cong. 3 sess.; S. Ex. Doc. 38, 46 "It is with sincere satisfaction that I am enabled to advert to the spirit of good neighborhood and friendly cooperation and conciliation that has marked the correspondence and action of the Mexican authorities in their share of the task of maintaining law and order about the line of our common boundary." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. xv. "The recent disturbances of the public peace by lawless foreign marauders on the Mexican frontier have afforded this government an opportunity to testify its good will for Mexico and its earnest purpose to fulfill the obligations of international friendship by pursuing and dispersing the evil-doers. The work of relocating the boundary of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, westward from El Paso, is progressing favorably." President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 6, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, xv. "Good will fostered by many interests in common has marked our relations with our nearest southern neighbor. Peace being restored along her northern frontier, Mexico has asked the punishment of the late disturbers of her tranquillity. There ought to be a new treaty of commerce and navigation with that country to take the place of the one which terminated thirteen years ago. The friendliness of the intercourse between the two countries is attested by the fact that during this long period the commerce of each has steadily increased under the rule of mutual consideration, being neither stimulated by conventional arrangements nor retarded by jealous rivalries or selfish distrust." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, xi. In August, 1899, a committee representing the people of Chicago presented to President Diaz an invitation inviting him, his cabinet, and his friends to attend, as the guests of the citizens of Chicago, the ceremonies at the laying of the corner stone of the United States building in that city, October 9, 1899, at which the President of the United States was also to be present. The reception of the committee by President Diaz was arranged for through the regular diplomatic channel, and the American ambassador was directed to say that, in the event of President Diaz accepting the invitation, a representative of the United States would meet him at the frontier and escort him to Chicago. President Diaz informed the committee that his acceptance of the invitation would require the consent of the Mexican Congress. It appears that on September 20, 1899, the two houses in joint session granted him a leave of absence of twenty days with permission to visit Chicago, and appropriated $100,000 for his expenses, should he accept the invitation. In consequence, however, of the pressure of public business and illness of his wife President Diaz was unable to make the journey, but he sent as his personal representative Mr. Mariscal, minister for foreign affairs. For. Rel. 1899, 504-510. For an account of the honors paid by the Mexican government to Mr. Gray, minister of the United States, who died at the City of Mexico. February 14, 1895, see For. Rel. 1895, II. 994–996. A concurrent res olution expressing appreciation of the action of the Mexican government was adopted by the Senate of the United States, February 21, 1895, and by the House of Representatives the next day. By the terms of the resolution the Secretary of State was requested to transmit an engrossed copy of it to the Mexican government, which was done. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 996.) The Mexican Congress appropriated $30,000 for the relief of the sufferers by the Galveston disaster. (For. Rel. 1900, 784.) For many years a dispute existed between Mexico and Guatemala as to their common boundary. The United States used its good offices on various occasions. A convention for the settlement of the dispute was concluded in 1895. Message of Feb. 17, 1882, S. Ex. Doc. 156, 47 Cong. 1 sess.; message of May See Mr. Lazo Arriaga, Guatemalan min., to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, by the Mexican minister January 24, 1895. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 979987.) The United States expressed a strong desire that the question might be arbitrated. (Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gray, min. to Mexico, tel., Jan. 21, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 987.) April 1, 1895, a convention between Mexico and Guatemala was signed at the City of Mexico for the settlement of the dispute. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 989.) By Article II. the government of Guatemala agreed to make indemnity for property occupied or destroyed by its agents, and it was agreed that an arbitrator should be mutually selected to fix the amount. Mr. Ransom, minister of the United States to Mexico, was chosen as arbitrator, and his government gave him the permission so to act. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 993.) May 17, 1898, a new convention was signed by Mexico and Guatemala, extending the time for the completion of the labors of the boundary commission. (For. Rel. 1899, 501.) 6. ZONA LIBRE, OR FREE ZONE. § 862. "The problem of the Mexican Free Zone has been often discussed with regard to its inconvenience as a provocative of smuggling into the United States along an extensive and thinly guarded land border. The effort made by the joint resolution of March 1, 1895, to remedy the abuse charged by suspending the privilege of free transportation in bond across the territory of the United States to Mexico failed of good result, as is stated in Report No. 702 of the House of Representatives, submitted in the last session, March 11, 1898. As the question is one to be conveniently met by wise concurrent legislation of the two countries looking to the protection of the revenues by harmonious measures operating equally on either side of the boundary, rather than by conventional arrangements, I suggest that Congress consider the advisability of authorizing and inviting a conference of representatives of the Treasury Departments of the United States and Mexico to consider the subject in all its complex bearings, and make report with pertinent recommendations to the respective governments for the information and consideration of their Congresses." President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, LXXIX. As to the Mexican Zona Libre, or Free Zone, and its effects on trade between the United States and Mexico, see Dip. Cor. 1867, II. 412; Dip. Cor. 1868, II. 594, 626; For. Rel. 1870, 486, 497; For. Rel. 1871, 608; For. Rel. 1872, 381, 388, 401; For. Rel. 1878, 654, 660; For. Rel. 1880, 724; For. Rel. 1881, 778, 782, 797, 803, 805; For. Rel. 1888, II. 1266, 1282-1284. See, also, message of June 12, 1884, S. Ex. Doc. 185, 48 Cong. 1 sess., relating to the law creating or modifying the Zona Libre. 7. CROSSING OF BORDER BY CATTLE. $ 863. Congress, by a joint resolution of January 15, 1894, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to permit owners of cattle and horses in the United States to pass over into Mexico for the purpose of pasturing them and afterwards to reimport them into the United States free of duty within twelve months from the date of the resolution. The Mexican government declined to concur in the carrying out of the resolution on the ground that a convention between the United States and Mexico, signed July 11, 1888, for the reciprocal crossing of cattle from one country to the other was still pending before the Mexican Senate, and that, in view of the opposition to the convention among the inhabitants of the frontier States, the President of Mexico did not consider it opportune to take any action in the matter. . For. Rel. 1894, 415, 417, 418. See For. Rel. 1888, II. 1252, 1286, 1289, 1291, 1296, 1298, 1299. XXVII. MUSCAT. § 864. See Zanzibar, infra, § 895; supra, 267. A treaty with Muscat was negotiated by Edmund Roberts. It was signed Sept. 21, 1833, and was proclaimed June 24, 1837. See Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776–1887), 1360. As to Edmund Roberts, see Japan, supra, § 845; Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, 52-55; Moore, American Diplomacy, 120, 121, 125. XXVIII. NETHERLANDS. § 865. 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. B. Davis's Treaty Notes, Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 1360. As to the award of the King of the Netherlands in the northeastern boundary dispute, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 90, 119, 136–137. As to claims against the Netherlands, growing out of the seizure and sequestration, or confiscation, of American vessels in Dutch ports in 1809 and 1810, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4473. As to salt and sugar duties, see For. Rel. 1895, II. 1019. For corespondence relating to the inauguration of Her Majesty Queen Wilhelmina, see For. Rel. 1898, 512–517. For the establishment of diplomatic relations with Luxemburg, the mission being added to that to the Netherlands, see For. Rel. 1903, 643. XXIX. OTTOMAN PORTE. 1. TREATY OF 1830. § 866. As to the treaty of commerce and navigation of May 7, 1830, see supra, §§ 284, 285. As to Art. VII. of this treaty, see Mr. Livingston, Sec. of State, to Mr. Porter, No. 5, April 3, 1832, MS. Inst. Turkey, I. 243; Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, Sept. 13, 1898, MS. Inst. Turkey, VII. 274. For the establishment of direct diplomatic relations between the United States and Bulgaria, see For. Rel. 1903, 21–23. 2. TREATY OF 1862. § 867. February 25, 1862, a new treaty of commerce and navigation was concluded. "This treaty, by its 20th article, was to continue for 28 years, counting from the day of the exchange of ratifications, subject however to one year's notice of termination to be given by either party at the end of the 14th or 21st year. By the 22d article, a tariff was stipulated for the Ottoman Empire, subject to revision at the end of the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, twenty-eighth or any subsequent septennial period, counting from the date of exchange of ratifications, on notice duly given by either party of desire for such revision one year before the close of the current seven years. "Aristarchi Bey, the Turkish minister, under date of January 15, 1874, informed the Secretary of State of the desire of his government to terminate the treaty, and that the Sublime Porte had resolved to invite the United States to examine the question of a new treaty. The note stated that, although the time fixed for giving notice to terminate the treaty has not yet arrived, the imperial government had thought proper to give such notice, with a view to giving time to the high contracting parties to come to an early understanding. Under date of January 21, 1874, Aristarchi Bey was informed that no objection existed to receiving the notice in advance of the period fixed by the treaty, but called attention to the fact that by the twentysecond article the second term of the seven years prescribed for its existence would only expire upon the 5th day of June, 1876. Timely |