order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries." May 13, 1846, "Congress declared in the preamble of the act providing for the prosecution of the war with Mexico that 'by the act of the Republic of Mexico a state of war exists between that Government and the United States," and on the same day President Polk made proclamation of that fact." While hostilities were going on Nicholas P. Trist, Chief Clerk of the Department of State, was dispatched to Mexico, and opened negotiations for peace. He was instructed to demand the cession of New Mexico and California in satisfaction of claims against Mexico." The proposals were rejected by Mexico, and the commissioner was recalled on the 6th of October, 1847. He remained, however, in Mexico, notwithstanding the instructions to return, and he succeeded in concluding the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on the 2d of February, 1848. This was communicated to the Senate on the 23d of February. Sundry amendments were made by the Senate and accepted by Mexico, and the ratifications were exchanged on the 30th of May, 1848. On the 6th of July, 1848, the President communicated the treaty to Congress, with a message asking legislation to carry it into effect." (S. Ex. Doc. 60, 30 Cong. 1 sess.) Davis, Notes, Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 1355–1356. The learned author See, as to the claims against Mexico and their settlement, Moore, Int. Arbitra- @9 Stats. 9. b9 Stats. 999. CS. Ex. Doc. 20, 30 Cong. 1 sess. dS. Ex. Doc. 1, 30 Cong. 1 sess. 7. President's Annual Message. S. Ex. Doc. 52, 30 Cong. 1 sess. No treaty or convention is found granting the use of Pichilinque Island and Bay to the United States as a coaling station. The privilege of such use seems originally to have been granted by Governor Pedrima, of Lower California, in a communication to Mr. Elmer, United States consul at La Paz, Dec. 3, 1866. Jan. 21, 1868, Governor Galvan, of the same province, wrote to Mr. Elmer: "Coal may continue to be deposited at Pichilinque for the exclusive use of your war vessels until the Supreme Government may otherwise dispose." Dec. 27, 1867, the Mexican Secretary of State informed Mr. Plumb, United States chargé d'affaires in Mexico, that the General Government, assuming the unauthorized grant of the governor of Lower California, had issued orders forbidding the collection of duties upon the coal already deposited and directing that coal intended for vessels of war of the United States be allowed at any chosen point in the port of La Paz, or the adjacent port of Pichilinque, without paying duty of any kind. (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, Oct. 18, 1895, 205 MS. Dom. Let. 392, inclosing copy of a dispatch from Mr. Elmer to Mr. Seward, Dec. 16, 1866.) 7. THE MESILLA VALLEY. § 106. By the convention concluded at Mexico Dec. 30, 1853, by James Gadsden, on the part of the United States, and the secretary of foreign relations and two scientific commissioners, on the part of Mexico, the latter power, in consideration of the sum of 10,000,000 dollars, released the United States from any liability on account of certain stipulations of the treaty of 1848, touching the incursions of savage tribes, and made a further cession of territory; and it was agreed (Art. I.) that the boundary should be as follows: "The Mexican Republic agrees to designate the following as her true limits with the United States for the future: Retaining the same dividing line between the two Californias as already defined and established, according to the 5th article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the limits between the two republics shall be as follows: Beginning in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, as provided in the fifth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; thence, as defined in the said article, up the middle of that river to the point where the parallel of 31° 47′ north latitude crosses the same; thence due west one hundred miles; thence south to the parallel of 31° 20′ north latitude; thence along the said parallel of 31° 20′ to the 111th meridian of longitude west of Greenwich; thence in a straight line to a point on the Colorado River twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado rivers; thence up the middle of the said river Colorado until it intersects the present line between the United States and Mexico. “In consequence, the stipulation in the 5th article of the treaty of Guadalupe upon the boundary line therein described is no longer of any force, wherein it may conflict with that here established, the said line being considered annulled and abolished wherever it may not coincide with the present, and in the same manner remaining in full force where in accordance with the same." By conventions of July 29, 1882, February 18, 1889, and August 24, 1894, provision was made for the relocation, by an International Boundary Commission, of the line under the treaties of 1848 and 1853, in places where the monuments of prior surveys had been destroyed or displaced. By another series of conventions, provision has been made for the examination and decision, by an International Boundary Commission, of all questions growing out of changes, either from natural or from artificial causes, in the channels of the Rio Grande and Rio Colorado, where they form the boundary. The conventions in question were concluded November 12, 1884; March 1, 1889; October 1, 1895; November 6, 1896; October 29, 1897; December 2, 1898. "One of the causes [of the conclusion of the treaty of Dec. 30, 1853], it is evident to the umpire, was the complaints constantly made by the Mexican Government to that of the United States, from an early date after the conclusion of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo till near the end of 1853, that the stipulations of the 11th article of that treaty [relating to the prevention of Indian incursions] had not been fulfilled by the latter Government and that it consequently owed indemnity both to the Mexican Government and to citizens of Mexico, on account of the damages incurred through this failure. The correspondence between the two Governments was of an irritating nature and seemed likely to excite angry feelings on both sides. It was therefore the interest, as it was the desire, of both Governments to put an end to this state of their relations, and the umpire can not doubt that this was one of the causes of disagreement which were referred to in the preamble of the treaty of 1853, and which the two nations desired to remove. "By the unratified treaty of 1853, as negotiated by Mr. Gadsden in Mexico, that Republic ceded to the United States a certain portion of territory and agreed that the 11th article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo should be annulled, and that the United States should be exonerated from all claims by Mexico or Mexican citizens, whether on account of the alleged failure to fulfill the obligations of the 11th article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or on other accounts, which might have arisen since the date of that treaty. In consideration of these stipulations the United States agreed to pay fifteen millions of dollars and further agreed to assume all claims of United States citizens against Mexico and to pay them to the extent of five millions. "But the Senate of the United States altered the terms of this treaty, and the amendments proposed by that body were accepted by Mexico. By the amended treaty Mexico ceded a smaller portion of territory, released the United States from all liability on account of the obligations contained in the 11th article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and agreed that that article and the 33rd article of the treaty of the 5th of April 1831 should be annulled. In this amended treaty no mention is made of the miscellaneous claims of Mexican citizens against the United States nor of those of United States citizens against Mexico. "In consideration of these stipulations, i. e., the cession of a smaller portion of territory, the release of the United States from all liability on account of the obligations contained in the 11th article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the repeal of that article and of the 33rd article of the treaty of April 5th, 1831, the United States agreed to pay to Mexico the sum of ten millions of dollars." Sir Edward Thornton, umpire, case of Rafael Aguirre v. U. S., No. 131, Mex. Claims Com., treaty of July 4, 1868, Int. Arbitrations, III. 2444; see, also, 2430-2447; Ex. Docs. 31 Cong. 1 sess., I. 426; S. Docs. 33 Cong. 1 sess., I. 256, 363, 434; S. Docs. 33 Cong. 2 sess., 366–385. Article XXXIII. of the treaty of 1831, referred to by Sir Edward Thornton, also related to the restraint of savage tribes. Differences had also arisen between the two countries in the running of the boundary under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. These differences involved the control of the Mesilla Valley, and as incidents of this the establishment of a safe frontier against the Indians and of a feasible route for a railway near the Gila River. Mr. Gadsden's instructions embraced both the boundary question and that of the Indian depredation claims. He presented his credentials August 17, 1853. The correspondence was opened by Mr. Bonilla in a note of August 30, 1853, in relation to the depredation claims. Mr. Gadsden replied on the 9th of September. See, further, Mr. Bonilla to Mr. Gadsden, October 18, 1853; Mr. Gadsden to Mr. Bonilla, November 14 and November 29, 1853; General Almonte, Mexican minister at Washington, to Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, October 22, 1853; Mr. Marcy to General Almonte, December 22, 1853. After the ratification of the treaty by the Senate the following correspondence took place: General Almonte to Mr. Marcy, May 4, June 21, and June 29, 1854; Mr. Marcy to General Almonte, May 5, June 20, and June 24, 1854. (MSS. Dept. of State.) Owing to the uncertain situation of affairs at the time in Mexico, it was deemed prudent not to intrust written instructions even in the hands of a special messenger, and Mr. Samuel Ward was sent to Mr. Gadsden with oral instructions. (Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, to Mr. Gadsden, No. 20 (confidential), January 6, 1854, MS. Inst. Mexico, XVI. 442.) Ukase of 1821. 8. ALASKA. Sept. 7, 1821, the Emperor Alexander of Russia issued a ukase by which he gave his sanction to certain regulations of the Russian-American Company respecting foreign commerce in the waters bordering on its establishments. "From the tenor of the ukase," said Mr. John Quincy Adams, "the pretentions of the Imperial Government extend to an exclusive territorial jurisdiction from the forty-fifth degree of north latitude, on the Asiatic coast, to the latitude of fifty-one north on the western coast of the American continent; and they assume the right of interdicting the navigation and the fishery of all other nations to the extent of one hundred miles from the whole of that coast. The United States can admit no part of these claims." In regard to territorial claims, Mr. Adams said that the right of the United States from the fortysecond to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude on the Pacific Ocean was considered unquestionable, and that the Government was willing to agree to 55° north latitude as a boundary line." April 17 5, 1824, Mr. Middleton, then minister of the United States. at St. Petersburg, concluded with Count Nesselrode and Mr. Poletica, as representatives of the Russian Government, a convention by which the questions between the two Governments as to territory and navigation were adjusted. By the first three articles, which were permanent in their nature, it was in substance provided that there should be no interference with navigation or fishing, or with resort to unoccupied coasts, in any part of the Pacific Ocean, and that the dividing line between the territorial claims of the United States and Russia on the northwest coast of America should be the parallel of 54° 40′ north latitude. Above that line Russia was left by the United States to contest the territory with Great Britain; below it the United States was left by Russia to carry on a similar contention with the same power. The subject of commercial intercourse was adjusted, temporarily, by Articles IV. and V. of the convention. By these articles it was provided that, for a term of ten years from the date of the signature of the convention, the ships of both powers might "reciprocally frequent, without any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbors, and creeks" on the northwest coast of America for the purpose of fishing and of trading with the natives; but from the commerce thus permitted it was stipulated that all spirituous liquors, firearms, other arms, powder, and munitions of war of every kind should always be excepted, each of the contracting parties reserving to itself the right to enforce this restriction upon its own citizens or subjects. When the commercial privilege thus secured came to an end, the Russian Government refused to renew it, alleging that it had been abused. But under the most-favored-nation clause contained in Art. XI. of the treaty of commerce and navigation between the United a Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Middleton, min. to Russia, July 22, 1823, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. V. 436 et seq.; Int. Arbitrations, I. 760. Am. State Papers, For. Rel. V. 432-471, contains the correspondence relating to the convention. eS. Ex. Doc. 1, 25 Cong. 3 sess. 25-26, 70; Davis, Notes, Treaty Volume (1776– 1887), 1380, |