The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-08-30


the senate Of the United States and which have received
the sanction OF the President" sat present Il is sufficient
for us 70 YOU that IL In the opinion OF the government
had not been evnced the part OF the Senate and
Of the United States In introducing such mod
cations, IL is presumed the other hand that they
of such importance that they should set aside The
y Ibelieve the contrary, hat IL ought TO be ratified
upon the in which 1t has already received the
sanction of the American My opinion is also
greatly strengthened by the fact that negotiation is
neither expected considered possible much less could
be brought forward upon basis more favorable for
the republic"
Il is not pretended that Mr. BuchaRans letter to the
Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs gave a wrong
Interpretation to the amendments made by the Senate Of
the United States yet with that explanation alone before
him. the Mexican President urged the approval OF the
treaty as amended, and the Mexican Congress had ap
proved il, in accordance with his advice, There was
nothing further to be done but to obtain the signature Of
General Herrera and exchange Publications Before this
was done Messrs Clifford and Sewer held several con-
ferences with Don Luis de la Rosa, Minister Of Foreign
Affairs Of the republic OF Mexico, which resulted in a
Protocol containing the substance Of those conferences II
is now pretended that this Protocol drawn up by
commissioners without authority that il is provisional
convention treaty inconsistent with the spuations OF
the treaty OF peace approved by the Senate OF the
United States; but it is admitted to be void in law, be-
of the want of authority in commissioners to
negotiate the points which the Protocol refers, and
not binding in good faith, because the Mexican govern
ment was aware of the fact that it drawn up without
authority and because that government accepted imme
datey afterwards the first nstament Of three millions Of
dollars made payable by the 18th article Of the treaty
To avoid being charged with misstaement copy the
language of the article in the National Inegeneer 1t
is as follows:
In recapulaon of what has been here sad has been
shown
l. That our commissioners had powers negotiate
any Of the points which the Protocol REFERS except
to the mode Of payment of the twelve millions, which,
however. they could conclude nothing until the treaty ee
peace amended part had been ratified by Mexico
q That the explanations and assurances given by our
commissioners to the Mexican government are direct
opposition to of the treaty of peace, clearly and
nne4uivocally shown by its terms.
3. That the treaty ratified by the Mexican govern
ment without any protest, exception objection what
ever in its act of ratification any part of the treaty
That the ratification was given by the Mexican gov
eminent with the full and certain know Wedge, its part
of tho OF the first and second OF the above propo
sitons
6. That the Mexican government confirmed its assent
the treaty by Immediately afterwards accepting the first
instalment three millions of dollars made yable II
by the United States under the twelfth article and other
in accordance with other spuations OF the
needs but glance the propositions stated above,
which contain in condensed form the substance Of the
who'll, article in the National Itegenoer, convince
any impartial mind that we have stated correctly the
lives which prompted the Trainer of that article. He ad
ts that the Protocol has no binding force yet he makes
every effort give to that paper the dignity OF uegota
ton intended to be binding the United States and
Mexico for the purpose-for there be other
of assaing the commissioners who signed that paper.
Al.
ratified the treaty of Guadalupe, amended by the SEN
ate Of the United States without protest. exception,
obection and that the Mexican government knew that
Messrs Clifford and Sewer had authority to negotiate
on the subject to which the Protocol refers 1t is also
conceded by the writer Of the article in the National In
tegencer that the Mexican government had been dis.
tinctly informed by Mr. Buchanan OF the only method
known to our constitution by which any treaty stpula
ton could be made which would be binding upon the
government and people OF the United States, and that the
Senate and House of Deputies Of Mexico had approved
the treaty before the explanations contained in the Proto
col were drawn up We have shown further that the
President OF Mexico advised the Mexican Congress to
approve the treaty Notwithstanding the amendments
which had been made to it, and that the Mexican Min
lister for Foreign Affairs Don Luis de la Rosa, had
authority 10 alter the treaty after had been approved by
the legislative branch OF his own government to
change by Protocol otherwise the legitimate meaning
Of its provisions These facts being established and
admitted they enforce the conclusion that the commits
soners Of the United States and Don Luis de la Rosa
did not intend to do more, when they drew up the Pro
ocol than TO reduce their conversations TO writing and il
requires much labor, msled by prejudice and stimulated
by unenviabe feelings TO place any other Interpretation
on the Transaction II is clear that the Protocol has
really no more validity or binding force than any well
authenticated conversation which may have been held by
the commissioners of the United States and Senior Rosa
The writer in the National Inegsneer admits, that the
Protocol had and has not any binding force
either OF the parties TO the treaty although he with
holds the reasons for his opinion which would excupate
our commissioners. Indeed he to regard the in
validity of the Protocol being clear, that he devotes
but few words to its consideration Yet this point is
the only which is OF any practical importance either
TO Mexico to the United Satesl The greater portion
of the article under consideration is devoted to an assault
upon the conduct OF commissioners and the course
pursued by Mr. Folks administration and discoses tina,
its author actuaed rather by personal malevoence
and wish to throw dscred upon the last administra-
ton, than by any patriotic desire to mpart information
on the relations existing between government and
that OF Mexico. 1t is difficult perceive what wrong
has been done by the representatives Of country al
Querearo, in attaching their signatures paper which
might have been important to meet the exigencies