mutual adjustment of accounts for the subsistence of prisoners; and such accounts shall not be mingled with or set off against any others, nor the balance due on them be withheld, as a compensation or reprisal for any cause whatever, real or pretended. Each party shall be allowed to keep a commissary of prisoners, appointed by itself, with every cantonment of prisoners, in possession of the other: which commissary shall see the prisoners as often as he pleases; shall be allowed to receive, exempt from all duties or taxes, and to distribute whatever comforts may be sent to them by their friends; and shall be free to transmit his reports in open letters to the party by whom he is employed. And it is declared that neither the pretence that war dissolves all treaties, nor any other whatever shall be considered as annulling or suspending the solemn covenant contained in this article. On the contrary, the state of war is precisely that for which it is provided; and during which it's stipulations are to be as sacredly observed as the most acknowledged obligations under the law of nature or nations. ARTICLE XXII This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and by the President of the Mexican Republic, with the previous approbation of it's General Congress: and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the City of Washington, or at the seat of government of Mexico,21 in four months from the date of the signature hereof, or sooner if practicable. In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement, and have hereunto affixed our seals respectively. Done in Quintuplicate, at the City of Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the second day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty eight. 1 Bevans, Charles I., editor/compiler, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1779-1949, Vol. 9, Washington U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972 (also in Department of State Publications, 8615). 2 For United States Amendment to arts. III, IXXII, and XXIII, see footnotes to those articles. An additional and secret article was stricken out pursuant to the Senate resolution. It read as follows: "ADDITIONAL AND SECRET ARTICLE "Of the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, signed this day by their respective Plenipotentiaries. "In view of the possibility that the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty may, by the circumstances in which the Mexican Republic is placed, be delayed longer than the term of four months fixed by it's twenty-third Article for the exchange of ratifications of the same; it is hereby agreed that such delay shall not, in any manner, affect the force and validity of this Treaty, unless it should exceed the term of eight months, counted from the date of the signature thereof. "This Article is to have the same force and virtue as if inserted in the treaty to which it is an Addition. "In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Additional and Secret Article, and have hereunto affixed our seals respectively. Done in Quintuplicate at the City of Guadalupe Hidalgo on the second day of February, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight. N. P. Trist Luis G. Cuevas [SEAL] Bernardo Couto [SEAL] Mig Atristain [SEAL] [SEAL] 3 TS 208, post, p. 812. TS 500, post, p. 927 "For a detailed study of this treaty, see 5 Miller 207. 6 For text of military convention signed Feb. 29, 1848, see post, p. 807. 7 The phrase "and the ratifications exchanged" was added by the United States amendments. 8 For an amendment to art. V, see treaty of Dec. 30, 1853 (TS 208), post, p. 812. 9 For a reproduction of the Disturnell map, see 5 Miller (inside back cover). 10 For a reproduction of the plan of the Port of San Diego, see 5 Miller (opposite p. 236). 11 For amendments to arts. VI and VII, see treaty of Dec. 30, 1853 (TS 208), post, p. 814. 12 The United States amendment of art. IX substituted a new text. The text of art. IX as "The Mexicans who, signed reads as follows: in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceeding Article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and admitted 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. In the mean time, they shall be maintained and protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, their property, and the civil rights now vested in them according to the Mexican laws. With respect to political rights, their condition shall be on an equality with that of the inhabitants of the other territories of the United States; and at least equally good as that of the inhabitants of Louisiana and the Floridas, when these provinces, by transfer from the French Republic and the Crown of Spain, became territories of the United States. "The same most ample guaranty shall be enjoyed by all ecclesiastics and religious corporations or communities, as well in the discharge of the offices of their ministry, as in the enjoyment of their property of every kind, whether individual or corporate. This guaranty shall embrace all temples, houses and edifices dedicated to the Roman Catholic worship; as well as all property destined to it's support, or to that of schools, hospitals and other foundations for charitable or beneficent purposes. No property of this nature shall be considered as having become the property of the American Government, or as subject to be, by it, disposed of or diverted to other uses. "Finally, the relations and communications between the Catholics living in the territories aforesaid, and their respective ecclesiastical authorities, shall be open, free and exempt from all hindrance whatever, even although such authorities should reside within the limits of the Mexican Republic, as defined by this treaty; and this freedom shall continue, so long as a new demarcation of ecclesiastical districts shall not have been made, conformably with the laws of the Roman Catholic Church." 13 Art. X, stricken out by the United States amendments, reads as follows: "All grants of land made by the Mexican Govemment or by the competent authorities, in territories previously appertaining to Mexico, and remaining for the future within the limits of the United States, shall be respected as valid, to the same extent that the same grants would be valid, if the said territories had remained within the limits of Mexico. But the grantees of lands in Texas, put in possession thereof, who, by reason of the circumstances of the country since the beginning of the troubles between Texas and the Mexican Government, may have been prevented from fulfilling all the conditions of their grants, shall be under the obligation to fulfill the said conditions within the periods limited in the same respectively; such periods to be now counted from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty: in default of which the said grants shall not be obligatory upon the State of Texas, in virtue of the stipulations contained in this Article. "The foregoing stipulation in regard to grantees of land in Texas, is extended to all grantees of land in the territories aforesaid, elsewhere than in Texas, put in possession under such grants; and, in default of the fulfilment of the conditions of any such grant, within the new period, which, as is above stipulated, begins with the day of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, the same shall be null and void. "The Mexican Government declares that no grant whatever of lands in Texas has been made since the second day of March one thousand eight hundred and thirty six; and that no grant whatever of lands in any of the territories aforesaid has been made since the thirteenth day of May one thousand eight hundred and forty six." 14 Abrogated by treaty of Dec. 30, 1853 (TS 208), post, p. 814. 15 The United States amendments called for deletion, at the end of this paragraph, of the phrase "nor to provide such Indians with fire-arms or ammunition by sale or otherwise". 16 The following words were deleted at this place in accordance with the United States amendments: "in the one or the other of the two modes below specified. The Mexican Government shall, at the time of ratifying this treaty, declare which of these two modes of payment it prefers; and the mode so elected by it shall be conformed to by that of the United States. "First mode of payment: Immediately after this treaty shall have been duly ratified by the Government of the Mexican Republic, the sum of three Millions of Dollars shall be paid to the said Government by that of the United States at the city of Mexico, in the gold or silver coin of Mexico. For the remaining twelve millions of dollars, the United States shall create a stock, bearing an interest of six per centum per annum, commencing on the day of the ratification of this Treaty by the Goverment of the Mexican Republic, and payable annually at the city of Washington: the principal of said stock to be redeemable there, at the pleasure of the Government of the United States, at any time after two years from the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; six months public notice of the intention to redeem the same being previously given. Certificates of such stock, in proper form, for such sums as shall be specified by the Mexican Government, and transferable by the said Government, shall be delivered to the same by that of the United States. "Second mode of payment:" 17 The following concluding sentence was deleted from this paragraph in accordance with the United States amendments: "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." 18 TS 205, ante, p. 783. 19 TS 206, ante, p. 788. 20 TS 203, ante, p. 764. 21 The phrase "or at the seat of government of Mexico" was added by the United States amendments. 8 I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present our views on FY 84 funding for bilingual education programs. U.S.English is a new public interest organization, founded earlier this year to protect our common language from further erosion in public usage. Our The American people have serious misgivings about bilingual education. files are replete with letters from teachers at every level of instruction from kindergarten to university - telling of the problems engendered by bilingual education programs. At the very least, bilingual education retards the acquisition of English language skills, and the integration of the students into the American mainstream. Inevitably, it confuses both the student and the parents. Newcomers to the United States can't be expected to understand the ways of this country, and they look to the public schools to tell them unequivocally what is expected of them in America. When the children continue to be taught in the language of origin, we give them and their parents very ambiguous signals, which may well lead them to conclude that English is perhaps not essential, after all. Tragically, these programs keep young immigrant pupils in segregated classrooms, for long periods of time, cut off from interaction with their American peers, doomed to remain forever strangers in their new country. Earlier this month, the prestigious Twentieth Century Fund, after a thorough review of bilingual teaching, found these programs to be ineffective, and recommended that they be eliminated and replaced by English language imersion programs. Bilingual education, as practiced, has little to do with education, but has everything to do with vested interest politics. Generous funding by the federal government and by the states has produced a vast bilingual education industry, with its own momentum for perpetuation and expansion. In February of this year, the National Association for Bilingual Education - the major consortium of the bilingual industry - held their annual conference in Washington. The overall conference theme was "Bilingualism: In the National Interest." This theme should be of more than casual interest to those elected to guide the nation's future. It is no longer bilingual education we are talking about here, but, a quantum jump has been made to "bilingualism," plain and simple. We are told categorically that bilingualism is in the national interest. There is no question mark after this assertion. We are presented with a fait accompli. An interesting feature of the NABE conference was the Parent Institute. Parents of children in bilingual education programs were brought to Washington, many at taxpayers' expense, to be taught how to rabby for more bilingual education funding. This is clearly improper use of public funds, and an indication that the amount of money flowing into bilingual programs is manifestly too high. The federal budget we are discussing today will leave us with the largest deficit in our history. For this reason alone, if no other, every expenditure must be scrutinized more carefully than ever before, and questions must be raised about its effectiveness in relation to its stated purpose. A Until now, bilingual education has been controversial, but it has been strangely immune from critical budgetary reevaluation, when compared to other essential services. Last year, for example, the Congress added about 40% to the revised budget proposed by the President. We urge this Committee, and indeed the Congress at large, to lower the funding level for bilingual education for FY 84. We do so for the following reasons: 1. The results achieved through this costly method of teaching are not demonstrably better than those achieved through more standard curricula that offer additional English language instruction for those who don't speak our language. On the other hand, the social isolation of students placed for long periods in bilingual classrooms removed from their American counterparts is definitely undesirable, and would be unacceptable even if academic results were more encouraging than they are. 2. The program was granted $138 million for this fiscal year, under the assumption that 3.6 million children in the nation's schools are unable to function in a regular English language classroom.. However, it now seems clear that this figure is grossly inflated. New estimates of the true size of this population give us a figure of about 1.2 million students. (See study by Robert E. Barnes, Policy Analyst, U.S. Department of Education, "Size of the Eligible Language Minority Population.") If the size is about one-third of what it had previously been believed to be, one can logically make the case for substantial reductions from present funding levels. We would therefore propose an appropriation of $46 million, which is onethird of current allocation. 3. The funds saved should be reallocated for improved and greatly expanded foreign language programs for American students at all levels elementary, secondary, and university. Deliberate confusion has been planted to the effect that bilingual education for those of limited English language proficiency can be equated with the building of a citizenry literate in strategic foreign languages. This is by no means the case. Bilingual teaching keeps the child whose home language is not English in confusion about which language is the foreign ane - the job of American society must be to end that confusion as soon as possible. The child's energies must be wholly channeled into learning English, which will allow him or her to gain a sense of belonging in our midst. If he can somehow also retain his first language (as many immigrants do) and become truly literate in it, so much the better, for the child and for everyone else as well. However, this cannot be done at the price of alienation from the larger society. If the immigrant child does not fully master English, and become an integral part of American society, then the value of his or her knowledge of the foreign language is virtually lost to our country. What we have in mind is a program much like that proposed in H.R.2708, sponsored by Congressman Paul Simon. This legislation would allocate resources to stimulate the study of critical foreign languages. In view of our misgivings about bilingual education, why do we advocate any allocation of public funds at all? I would like to address this question for a moment. First of all, we are not fanatics. In some localities, where quality bilingual teachers are already available, a program of short-term instruction that uses the child's home language to help him for the first few months' would seem acceptable. Also, some of this money will hopefully be spent for alternative methods of teaching immigrant children. Finally, there is a law on the books regarding the educational needs of children who don't know English, and we have a responsibility to fund it. It is our hope that this law will soon be amended to encourage different approaches to teaching immigrant children, and to make it an instrument for their prompt acculturation to American society, rather than their permanent alienation from it. I thank you for this opportunity to present our views, and hope that you will keep our recommendation in mind as you deliberate the funding of bilingual education programs. Presentation to 1984 Republican Platform Committee by U.S.ENGLISH Gerda Bikales, Executive Director April 17, 1984 * * * The Republican Party is currently deliberating a national platform that will serve the best interests of this nation and of its candidates for national office. We take this opportunity to contribute ideas for inclusion in the platform. that is, Like most important proposals, ours are truly non-partisan they are civic rather than political in character. However, the party that displays the political courage to embrace them and incorporate them into its platform is certain to reap great political advantage from its actions. U.S.ENGLISH was We have convincing evidence to back up this statement. founded in 1983 as a national public interest organization by former Senator Hayakawa, to counterbalance the movement toward a bilingual society. In the short time since we opened our doors, we have acquired 35,000 members, and we expect to double that number by year's end. In addition, we have a roster of well over 200,000 people who have identified themselves in support of our objectives. This phenomenal growth reflects the depth and breadth of sentiment for our objective the protection of English, our common language and strongest bond, which has unfortunately been placed in competition with |