this manner he will be enabled to take advantage, at the propitious moment, of any favorable circumstances which might dispose that government to peace.

"The President, therefore, having full confidence in your ability, patriotism, and integrity, has selected you as a commissioner to the United Mexican States, to discharge the duties of this important mission."

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Trist, April 15, 1847, S. Ex. Doc. 52, 30 Cong. 1 sess.

The rest of the text of the instructions, together with an annexed project of a treaty, may be found at the place cited.

Mr. Trist left Washington, where he was chief clerk of the Department of State, April 16, 1847. He reached Vera Cruz on May 6.

November 16, 1847, Mr. Trist received instructions by which he was directed to return to the United States by the first safe opportunity. In these instructions it was stated that, after a series of brilliant victories, when the American troops were at the gates of the capital and it was completely in their power, the Mexican government had not only rejected the liberal offers of the United States but had "insulted our country by proposing terms the acceptance of which would degrade us in the eyes of the world, and be justly condemned by the whole American people." They must, said the instructions, "attribute our liberality to fear, or they must take courage from our supposed political divisions." In this state of affairs, the President, it was said, believed that Mr. Trist's continued presence with the army could be productive of no good, but might do much harm by encouraging delusive hopes and false impressions. The President had determined not to make another offer to treat with the Mexican government, though he would always be ready to receive and consider its proposals. Mexico must now first sue for peace.

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Trist, No. 5, Oct. 6, 1847, S. Ex. Doc. 52, 30 Cong. 1 sess. 91.

Mr. Trist's recall was, by direction of the President, reiterated on October 25, 1847. (Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Trist, No. 6, Oct. 25, 1847, id. 94.)

When Mr. Trist received his first order of recall, it was expected that an army train for Vera Cruz would leave the City of Mexico about the end of November. Owing, however, to unexpected detentions, its departure was postponed first to the 4th of December and then to the 10th. On the latter day it started, but Mr. Trist did not go with it. On the contrary, he had determined to remain in Mexico and endeavor to conclude a peace. He understood that, under the circumstances, any action which he might take might, and probably

would, be disavowed by his government, but he decided to assume the responsibility. His proposal of negotiation was accepted by the Mexican government, and plenipotentiaries were duly commissioned to negotiate with him. In about six weeks after their first conference their task was brought to an end by the signing of a treaty of peace at Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848. Every possible provision was made for its speedy conveyance, and it reached its destination in 16 or 17 days after signature-the quickest time then ever made between the capitals of the two republics-the bearer being James L. Freaner, a native of Maryland, who is said to have been the only man in any way instrumental in determining Mr. Trist to make the attempt of which the treaty was the result. The treaty was communicated by the President to the Senate on February 23, 1848, with a message bearing date of the preceding day. In another message to the Senate, on the 29th of the same month, the President said: "I considered it to be my solemn duty to the country, uninfluenced by the exceptionable conduct of Mr. Trist, to submit the treaty to the Senate with a recommendation that it be ratified with the modifications suggested."

S. Report 261, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 8-9.

The treaty, as amended by the Senate of the United States, was officially
communicated by the Secretary of State, March 18, 1848, to the Mex-
ican minister of relations. On its receipt by the latter it was com-
municated, with the amendments, to the Mexican Congress, both
houses of which were required to concur in its ratification.
It was
first taken up in the Chamber of Deputies, where it was adopted by
a large majority, and then in the Senate, where it was passed by a
vote of 33 to 5. (Id. 11.)

In a despatch to Mr. Buchanan, of December 6, 1847, Mr. Trist referred
to the able and indefatigable cooperation in the discharge of his
trust which he had received from "a friend at Queretaro." This
"friend" was Mr. Edward Thornton, who, in the absence of the
British minister on account of ill health, was then in charge of the
British legation in Mexico. He was afterwards British minister at
Washington, and while holding that office acted as umpire under the
claims convention between the United States and Mexico of July 4,
1868.

As to the graves of American soldiers near Saltillo, see S. Doc. 180, 55
Cong. 1 sess.

"I deem it to be my duty to state that the recall of Mr. Trist as commissioner of the United States, of which Congress was informed in my annual message, was dictated by a belief that his continued presence with the Army could be productive of no good, but might do much harm by encouraging the delusive hopes and false impressions of the Mexicans, and that his recall would satisfy Mexico that the United States had no terms of peace more favorable to offer. Directions were given that any propositions for peace which Mexico

might make should be received and transmitted by the commanding general of our forces to the United States.

"It was not expected that Mr. Trist would remain in Mexico or continue in the exercise of the functions of the office of commissioner after he received his letter of recall. He has, however, done so, and the plenipotentiaries of the government of Mexico, with a knowledge of the fact, have concluded with him this treaty. I have examined it with a full sense of the extraneous circumstances attending its conclusion and signature, which might be objected to, but conforming as it does substantially on the main questions of boundary and indemnity to the terms which our commissioner, when he left the United States in April last, was authorized to offer, and animated as I am by the spirit which has governed all my official conduct toward Mexico, I have felt it to be my duty to submit it to the Senate for their consideration, with a view to its ratification."

President Polk, Mexican treaty message, Feb. 22, 1848, Richardson's Messages, IV. 573.

The antecedents and effect of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo are discussed in 2 Lawrence's Com. sur Droit Int. 338.

The proceedings of the Senate on the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty, from which the injunction of secrecy has been removed, are in S. Ex. Doc. 52, 30 Cong. 1 sess. Other papers relative thereto are in H. Ex. Docs. 40, 56, 60, 69, 70, 30 Cong. 1 sess. For communications of the Secretary of State, Mr. Buchanan, and of President Polk, of February 8, 1849, as to the negotiation of this treaty, see H. Ex. Doc. 50, 30 Cong. 2 sess.

Mr. Sumner, on July 14, 1870, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred a petition of Mr. Trist for compensation for his services, made a report from which the following passages are taken:

"The services of Mr. Trist constitute an interesting chapter in the history of our country. As negotiator of the treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo, he exercised a decisive influence in terminating the war with Mexico, by which we were secured in the blessings of peace and in the possession also of an undisputed title to Texas, and an addition to the national domain equal in area to the present territory of Mexico, and including in its expanse the great and prosperous State of California.

"Mr. Trist, while chief clerk of the State Department, and in confidential relations with Mr. Buchanan, the Secretary of State, was selected as commissioner to negotiate and conclude a settlement of existing differences and a lasting treaty of peace' with Mexico. On the 16th April, 1847, he left Washington and proceeded to the headquarters of the Army of the United States in Mexico, where for seyeral months he labored anxiously to accomplish the object of his

important mission. Not until November, 1847, was the first great point reached. This was the appointment of a commission on the part of the Mexican government authorized to negotiate.

"Meanwhile at Washington there was a spirit hostile to negotiation; Mexico was not sufficiently humiliated. In the midst of his negotiation, when a treaty of peace was almost within his grasp, on the 16th November, 1847, Mr. Trist suddenly received a letter of recall, with the order to return home by the first safe opportunity. After careful deliberation, and with the sure conviction that if his efforts were thus abruptly terminated the war would be much prolonged, while the difficulties of obtaining another Mexican commission would be increased, he concluded to proceed, and do what he could for the sake of peace. The Mexicans to whom he communicated the actual condition of affairs united with him, and a treaty was signed on the 2d February, 1848, at Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Mr. Trist remained in Mexico until the 8th of April, 1848, in order to protect the interests of the United States, and would have remained longer had not an order for his arrest, sent from Washington to our military authorities, compelled him to leave.

"It is understood that the President, on the arrival of the treaty, proposed to suppress it; but, unwilling to encounter public opinion, which was favorable to peace, he communicated it to the Senate, when, with certain amendments, it was ratified by a vote of 38 yeas to 14 nays. And thus the war with Mexico was closed.

"The commissioner who had taken such great responsibility reached Washington on his return in June, 1848, only to encounter the enmity of the administration then in power. His mission had been crowned with success, but he was disgraced. By the order of President Polk his pay was stopped at November 16, 1847, so that the service, as peacemaker, rendered after that date was left without compensation as without honor. Mr. Trist was proud and sensitive. He determined to make no application at that time for the compensation he had earned, and to await the spontaneous offer of it, unless compelled by actual want."

S. Report 261, 41 Cong. 2 sess.

It was decided in McKinney v. Saviego, 18 Howard, 240, that the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had no relation to property within the State of Texas.

Basse v. Brownsville (1875), 154 U. S. 610.

"Article VII. of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, while it was declared to have been rendered nugatory for the most part by the first clause of Article IV. of the treaty concluded December 30, 1853, and proclaimed June 30, 1854, was, by the second clause thereof, re

affirmed as to the Rio Grande (nom. Rio Bravo del Norte) below the point where, by the lines as fixed by the latter treaty, that river became the boundary between the two countries. Said Article VII. is recognized as still in force by Article V. of the convention concluded November 12, 1884, and proclaimed September 14, 1886."

Harmon. At. Gen., Dec. 12, 1895, 21 Op. 274, 275.

The Texas act, Feb. 8, 1850, which provides for the investigation by commissioners of land titles with a view to their confirmation by the legislature, since it makes no discrimination between citizens of the United States and citizens of Mexico, does not violate Art. VIII. of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which simply guarantees to Mexicans, in respect of their rights of property, the same protection as is extended to citizens of the United States.

66

Baldwin v. Goldfrank (Tex. Sup.), 31 S. W. 1064, affirming 26 S. W. 155.

The judges of the Court of Private Land Claims, provided for by the act of March 3, 1891 [to settle titles in Arizona and New Mexico], have been appointed and the court organized. It is now possible to give early relief to communities long repressed in their development by unsettled land titles and to establish the possession and right of settlers whose lands have been rendered valueless by adverse and unfounded claims."

President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 9, 1891, For. Rel. 1891, xxii; and For. Rel. 1888, II. 1294, 1303.

See, also, annual message, Dec. 6, 1892.

For decisions relating to cases under the act of March 3, 1891, see United
States v. Conway, 175 U. S. 60; Ainsa. New Mexico & Arizona
R. R., 175 U. S. 76; Real de Dolores del Oro v. United States, 175
U. S. 71; Hays v. United States, 175 U. S. 248; United States v. Pena,
175 U. S. 500; United States v. Chavez, 175 U. S. 509; Peabody v.
United States, 175 U. S. 546; Chavez v. United States, 175 U'. S. 552.

A petition for the rehearing of this case, which was decided May 23, 1898, and is reported in 170 U. S., 681, is denied, on the ground that, after a careful reexamination of the record, the court adhered to the judgment heretofore rendered, remaining of the opinion that from and after the adoption of the Mexican constitution of 1836, no power existed in the separate States to make such a grant as the one in this case.

United States v. Coe (1899), 174 U. S. 578.

The title to an imperfect Spanish or Mexican grant in New Mexico was, at the time of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in the United States, and did not pass out of the United States till the confirmation by the Court of Private Land Claims of the survey.

Territory v. Persons (1904), 76 Pac. Rep. 316,

H. Doc. 551-vol 5—50