The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-31 00:00:00

NITIES.

The Commissioner of the United States took with
him the project of a treaty already prepared, by the
terms of which the indemnity required by the United
States was a cession of territory.
It is well known that the only indemnity which
_ _

is in the power of Mexico to make in satisfaction of
the just and long-deferred claims of our citizen%
against her, and the only means by which she can
reimburse the United States for the expenses of the

war, is a cession to the United States of. a portion of
her territory. Mexico has no money to pay, and no
other means of making the required indemnity. If
we refuse this, we can obtain nothing else. To reject
indemnity, by refusing to accept a cession of terri-
tory, would be to abandon all our just demands, and
to wage the war, bearing all its expenses, without a
purpose or a definite object.
A state of war abrogates treaties previously exist-
ing between the belligerents, and a treaty of peace
puts an end to all claims for indemnity—for tor-
tuous acts committedundey the authority ofjone
Government against the citizens or subjects of an-
other, unless they are provided for in its stipulations.
A treaty of peace, which would terminate the existing
war, without providing for indemnity, would enable
Mexico, the acknowledged debtor, and herself the
aggressor in the war—to relieve herself from her just
liabilities. By such a treaty, our citizens who hold
just demands against her, would have no remedy
either against Mexico or their own Government. Our
duty to these citizens must for ever prevent such a
peace, and no treaty which does not provide ample
means of discharging these demands can receive my

sanction.
A treaty of peace should settle all existing differ-
ences between the two countries. If an adequate
cession of territory should be made by such a treaty,
the United States should release Mexico from all her
liabilities, and assume their payment to our own
citizens. If, instead of this the United States were
to consent to a treaty by which Mexico should again
engage to pay the heavy amount of our indebtedness
which a just indemnity to our Government and our
citizens would impose on her, it is notorious that
she does not possess the means to meet such an un-
dertaking. From such a treaty no result could be
anticipated, but the same irritating disappointments
which have heretofore attended the violations of
similar treaty stipulations on the part of Mexico.
Such a treaty would be but a temporary cessation of
hostilities, without the restoration of the friendship
and good understanding which should characterise the
future intercourse between the two countries.
That Congress contemplated the acquisition of ter-
ritorial indemnity when that body made provision for
the prosecution of the war, is obvious. Congress
could not have meant—when in May, 1846, they
appropriated ten millions of dollars, and authorised
the President to employ the militia and naval and
military forces of the United Stases, to accept the
services of fifty thousand volunteers, to enable him
to prosecute the war; and when, at their last session,
and after our army had invaded Mexico, they made
additional appropriations, and authorised the raising
of additional troops for the same purpose—that no
indemnity was to be obtained from Mexico at the
conclusion of the war; and yet it was certain that, if no
Mexican territory was acquired, no indemnity could
be obtained.
It is further manifest that Congress contemplated
territorial indemnity, from the fact that, at their last
session, an Act was passed, upon the Executive re-
commendation, appropriating three millions of dol-
lars with that express object. This appropriation
was made " to enable the President to conclude a
treaty of peace, limits, and boundaries, with the
Republic of Mexico, to be used by him in the event
that said treaty, when signed by the authorised agents
of the two Governments, and duly ratified by Mexico,
shall call for the expenditure of the same, or any part
thereof." The object of asking this appropriation was
distinctly stated in the several messages on the subject
which I communicated to Congress. Similar appro-
priations, made in 1803 and 1806, which were re-
ferred to, were intended to be applied in part con-
sideration for the cession of Louisiana and the
Floridas.
In like manner it was anticipated that, in settling
the terms of " limits and boundaries" with Mexico, a
cession of territory, estimated to be of greater value
than the amount of our demands against her, might
be obtained ; and that the prompt payment of this
sum—in part consideration for the territory ceded—
on the conclusion of a treaty, and its ratification on
her part, might be an inducement with her to make
such a cession of territory as would be satisfactory to
the United States. And, although the failure to
conclude such a treaty has rendered it unnecessary to
use any part of the three millions of dollars appro-
priated by that act, and the entire sum remains in
the Treasury, it is still applicable to that object,
should the contingency occur making such appli-
cation proper.
The doctrine of no territory is the doctrine of no
indemnity ; and, if sactioned, would be a public ace
knowledgment that our country was wrong, and that
the war declared by Congress, with extraordinary
unanimity, was unjust, and should be abandoned ; an
admission unfounded in fact, and degrading to the
national character.
The terms of the treaty proposed by the United
_t S ates were not only just to Mexico, but, considering
thefia b ceharacter and amount of our claims, the
unprovokedunjusti-
fiableof h
commencementwhich
v
ie havhostilitiese
been
a e
by her, the
the expenses
been subjected, and the success which has attended
our arms, were deemed to be of a most liberal cha-
racter.