alone, or for the president and senate, or for the president, senate, and house of representatives, combined, to abrogate the treaty, to annul the peace and restore a state of war, except by a solemn declaration of war. Had the protocol varied the treaty, as amended by the senate of the United States, it would have had no binding effect.

It was obvious that the commissioners of the United States did not regard the protocol as in any degree a part of the treaty, nor as modifying or altering the treaty as amended by the senate. They communicated it as the substance of conversations held after the Mexican Congress had ratified the treaty, and they knew that the approval of the Mexican Congress was as essential to the validity of a treaty in all its parts, as the advice and consent of the senate of the United States. They knew, too, that they had no authority to alter or modify the treaty in the form in which it had been ratified by the United States, but that, if failing to procure the ratification of the Mexican government otherwise than with amendments, their duty, imposed by express instructions, was to ask of Mexico to send, without delay, a commissioner to Washington to exchange ratifications here, if the amendments of the treaty proposed by Mexico, on being submitted, should be adopted by the senate of the United States.

I was equally well satisfied that the government of Mexico had agreed to the treaty as amended by the senate of the United States, and did not regard the protocol as modifying, enlarging, or diminishing, its terms or effect. The president of that republic, in submitting the amended treaty to the Mexican Congress, in his message on the 8th day of May, 1848, said: "If the treaty could have been submitted to your deliberation precisely as it came from the hands of the plenipotentiaries, my satisfaction, at seeing the war at last brought to an end, would not have been lessened as it this day is in consequence of the modifications introduced into it by the senate of the United States, and which have received the sanction of the president."-"At present it is sufficient for us to say to you that if, in the opinion of the government, justice had not been evinced on the part of the senate and government of the United States, in introducing such modifications, it is presumed, on the other hand, that they are not of such importance that they should set aside the treaty. I believe, on the contrary, that it ought to be ratified upon the same terms in which it has already received the sanction of the American government. My opinion is also greatly strengthened by the fact that a new negotiation is neither expected nor considered possible. Much less could another be brought forward upon a basis more favorable for the republic."

The deliberations of the Mexican Congress, with no explanation before hat body from the United States, except the letter of the secretary of state, resulted in the ratification of the treaty, as recommended by the president of that republic, in the form in which it had been amended and ratified by the United States. The conversations imbodied in the paper called a protocol, took place after the action of the Mexican Congress was complete; and there is no reason to suppose that the government of Mexico ever submitted the protocol to the Congress, or ever treated or regarded it as in any sense a new negotiation, or as operating any modification or change of the amended treaty. If such had been its effect, it was a nullity until approved by the Mexican Congress; and such approval was never made or intimated to the United States. In the final consummation of the ratification of the treaty by the president of Mexico no reference is made to it. On the contrary, this ratification, which was delivered to the

commissioners of the United States, and is now in the state department, contains a full and explicit recognition of the amendments of the senate just as they had been communicated to that government by the secretary of state, and been afterward approved by the Mexican Congress. It declares that," having seen and examined the said treaty, and the modifications made by the senate of the United States of America, and having given an account thereof to the general Congress, conformably to the requirement in the XIVth pargraph of the 110th article of the federal constitution of these United States, that body has thought proper to approve of the said treaty, with the modifications thereto in all their parts; and, in consequence thereof, exerting the power granted to me by the constitution, I accept, ratify, and confirm, the said treaty with its modifications, and promise, in the name of the Mexican republic, to fulfil and observe it, and to cause it to be fulfilled and observed."

Upon an examination of this protocol, when it was received with the ratified treaty, I did not regard it as material, or as in any way attempting to modify or change the treaty as it had been amended by the senate of the United States.

The first explanation which it contains is "that the American government, by suppressing the ninth article of the treaty of Guadalupe and substituting the third article of the treaty of Louisiana, did not intend to diminish, in any way, what was agreed upon by the aforesaid article (ninth) in favor of the inhabitants of the territories ceded by Mexico. Its understanding is that all of that agreement is contained in the third article of the treaty of Louisiana. In consequence, all the privileges and guaranties, civil, political, and religious, which would have been possessed by the inhabitants of the ceded territories if the ninth article of the treaty had been retained, will be enjoyed by them, without any difference, under the article which has been substituted."

The ninth article of the original treaty stipulated for the incorporation of the Mexican inhabitants of the ceded territories, and their admission into the Union "as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States." It provided, also, that in the meantime, they should be maintained in the enjoyment of their liberty, their property, and their civil rights, now vested in them according to the Mexican laws. It secured to them similar political rights with the inhabitants of the other territories of the United States, and at least equal to the inhabitants of Louisiana and Florida when they were in a territorial condition. It then proceeded to guaranty that ecclesiastic and religious corporations should be protected in the discharge of the offices of their ministry, and the enjoyment of their property of every kind, whether individual or corporate, and finally, that there should be a free communication between the catholics of the ceded territories and their ecclesiastical authorities, " even although such authorities should reside within the limits of the Mexican republic, as defined by this treaty."

66

The ninth article of the treaty, as adopted by the senate, is much more comprehensive in its terms and explicit in its meaning, and it clearly embraces, in comparatively few words, all the guaranties inserted in the original article. It is as follows: Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States and be admitted at the

proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the constitution; and, in the meantime, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction." This article, which was substantially copied from the Louisiana treaty, provides equally with the original article for the admission of these inhabitants into the Union; and, in the meantime, while they shall remain in a territorial state, by one sweeping provision, declares that they "shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction." This guaranty embraces every kind of property, whether held by ecclesiastics or laymen, whether belonging to corporations or individuals. It secures to these inhabitants the free exercise of their religion without restriction, whether they choose to place themselves under the spiritual authority of pastors resident within the Mexican republic or the ceded territories. It was, it is presumed, to place this construction beyond all question that the senate superadded the words "without restriction" to the religious guaranty contained in the corresponding article of the Louisiana treaty. Congress itself does not possess the power under the constitution to make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

If the ninth article of the treaty, whether in its original or amended form, had been entirely omitted in the treaty, all the rights and privileges. which either of them confers would have been secured to the inhabitants of the ceded territories by the constitution and laws of the United States. The protocol asserts that "the American government, by suppressing the tenth article of the treaty of Guadalupe, did not in any way intend to annul the grants of lands made by Mexico in the ceded territories;" that "these grants, notwithstanding the suppression of the article of the treaty, preserve the legal value which they may possess; and the grantees may cause their legitimate titles to be acknowledged before the American tribunals;" and then proceeds to state that, " conformably to the law of the United States, legitimate titles to every description of property, personal and real, existing in the ceded territories, are those which were legitimate titles under the Mexican law in California and New Mexico up to the 30th of May, 1846, and in Texas up to the 2d of March, 1836." The former was the date of the declaration of war against Mexico, and the latter that of the declaration of independence by Texas.

The objection to the tenth article of the original treaty was not that it protected legitimate titles, which our laws would have equally protected without it; but that it most unjustly attempted to resuscitate grants which had become a mere nullity, by allowing the grantees the same period after the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty to which they had been originally entitled after the date of their grants, for the purpose of performing the conditions on which they had been made. In submitting the treaty to the senate, I had recommended the rejection of this article. That portion of it in regard to lands in Texas did not receive a single vote in the senate. This information was communicated by the letter of the secretary of state to the minister for foreign affairs of Mexico, and was in possession of the Mexican government during the whole period the treaty was before the Mexican Congress, and the article itself was reprobated in that letter in the strongest terms. Besides, our commissioners to Mexico had been instructed that "neither the president nor the senate of the United States

can ever consent to ratify any treaty containing the tenth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in favor of grantees of land in Texas or elsewhere." And again : "Should the Mexican government persist in retaining this article, then all prospect of immediate peace is ended; and of this you may give them an absolute assurance."

On this point the language of the protocol is free from ambiguity; but, if it were otherwise, is there any individual American or Mexican who would place such a construction upon it as to convert it into a vain attempt to revive this article which had been so often and so solemnly condemned? Surely no person could for one moment suppose that either the commissioners of the United States or the Mexican minister for foreign affairs ever entertained the purpose of thus setting at naught the deliberate decision of the president and senate, which had been communicated to the Mexican government with the assurance that their abandonment of this obnoxious article was essential to the restoration of peace.

But the meaning of the protocol is plain. It is simply that the nullification of this article was not intended to destroy valid legitimate titles to land which existed, and were in full force independently of the provisions and without the aid of this article. Notwithstanding it has been expunged from the treaty, these grants were to "preserve the legal value which they may possess.' The refusal to revive grants which had become extinct was not to invalidate those which were in full force and vigor. That such was the clear understanding of the senate of the United States, and this in perfect accordance with the protocol, is manifest from the fact that, while they struck from the treaty this unjust article, they at the same time sanctioned and ratified the last paragraph of the eighth article of the treaty, which declares that, "in the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy, with respect to it, guaranties equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States."

Without any stipulation in the treaty to this effect, all such valid titles, under the Mexican government, would have been protected under the constitution and laws of the United States.

The third and last explanation contained in the protocol is, that "the government of the United States, by suppressing the concluding paragraph of article twelfth of the treaty, did not intend to deprive the Mexican republic of the free and unrestrained faculty of ceding, conveying, or transferring, at any time (as it may judge best), the sum of the twelve millions of dollars which the same government of the United States is to deliver in the places designated by the amended article."

The concluding paragraph of the original twelfth article, thus suppressed by the senate, is in the following language: "Certificates in proper form, for the said instalments respectively, in such sums as shall be desired by the Mexican government, and transferable by it, shall be delivered to the said government by that of the United States."

From this bare statement of facts, the meaning of the protocol is obvious. Although the senate had declined to create a government stock for the twelve millions of dollars, and issue transferable certificates for the amount, in such sums as the Mexican government might desire, yet they could not have intended thereby to deprive that government of the faculty which every creditor possesses of transferring for his own benefit the ob

ligation of his debtor, whatever this may be worth, according to his wili and pleasure.

It can not be doubted, that the twelfth article of the treaty, as it now stands, contains a positive obligation, "in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States," to pay to the Mexican republic twelve millions of dollars, in four equal annual instalments of three millions each. This obligation may be assigned by the Mexican government to any person whatever; but the assignee in such case would stand in no better condition than the government. The amendment of the senate, prohibiting the issue of a government transferable stock for the amount, produces this effect and no more.

The protocol contains nothing from which it can be inferred that the assignee could rightfully demand the payment of the money, in case the consideration should fail, which is stated on the face of the obligation.

With this view of the whole protocol, and considering that the explanations which it contained were in accordance with the treaty, I did not deem it necessary to take any action upon the subject. Had it varied from the terms of the treaty as amended by the senate, although it would, even then, have been a nullity in itself, yet duty might have required that I should make this fact known to the Mexican government. This not being the case, I treated it in the same manner I would have done had these explanations been made verbally by the commissioners to the Mexican minister for foreign affairs, and communicated in a despatch to the state department.

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

FEBRUARY 12, 1849.

To the Senate of the United States:

I COMMUNICATE herewith a report from the secretary of the treasury, with the accompanying documents, in answer to the resolution of the senate of December 28, 1848, requesting "to be informed of the number of vessels annually employed in the coast survey, and the annual cost thereof, and out of what fund they were paid; also the number of persons annually employed in the said survey, who were not of the army and navy of the United States; also the amount of money received by the United States, for maps and charts made under such survey and sold under the act of 1844."

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

FEBRUARY 23, 1849.

To the Senate of the United States :

I COMMUNICATE, herewith, a report of the secretary of state, together with the accompanying documents, in compliance with a resolution of the senate of the 23d ult., requesting the president "to transmit to the senate, so far as is consistent with the public service, any correspondence be