Lower Sandusky freeman. (Lower Sandusky [i.e. Fremont, Ohio]) 1849-1849, 1849-02-24

reside within the limits of the Mexican Republic as
defined by this treaty.
The ninth article of the treaty 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 guarantees in
serted 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 eonformably with what is stipulated ir the
preceding article, shall be incorporated into the
Union of the United States, and be admitted, at
the proper time, Ito 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 mean
time shall be maintained and protected in the free
enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secur
ed in the free exercise of their religion without re-
striction'' 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 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 guarantee embraces every kind of property,
whether held by ecclesastics or laymen, whether
belonging to corporations or individuals 1t secures
to these inhabitants the free exercise of their reli
gion without restriction; whether they choose to
place themselves under the spiritual authority of
pastors resident within the Mexican Republic the
ceded territories 1t was, it is presumed, to place
this construction beyond all question: that the senate
superadded the words "wihout restriction to the
religious guarantee 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 re-
hgion 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 terrific
ries by the constitution and laws of the United
States.
The protocol asserts that the american govern
ment by suppressng the tenth article of the treaty
of Guadalupe did not in any way, intend to annul
the grants of land made by Mexico in the ceded ter
ritories;" that "these grants notwithstanding the
suppression of the article of the treaty. preserve the
legal value which they may possess; and the
grantees may their legitimate titles to be ae
knowledghd before the American tribunals and
then proceeds to state hat conformably to the law
of the United States legitimate titles to every de-
scrption of property personal and real existing in
the ceded territories, those which were legti-
mate titles under the Mexican law in California and
New Mexico, up to the 18th of May 1916; and in
Texas, up to the I'd of March, 1886" The former
was the date of the declaration of war against Mex
co and the latter that of the declaration of inde
pendence by Texas.
The objection to the tenth article of the original
treaty was not that it protected legitimate titles
which onr laws would have equally protected with
out it, but that it most unjusty attempted to resus-
citate grants which had become mere nullity, by
allowing the grantees the period after the ex-
change of the ratfcations of the treaty to which
they had been originally entitled after the date of
their grants for the purposs of performing the con-
ditions on which they had been made. In submit
ting the treaty to the senate, had recommended
the rejection of this article. That portion of it in
regard to lands in Texas did not receive 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 in possession of the Mex
lean government during the whole period the treaty
was before the Mexican Congress, and the article
itself was reprobated in that latter in the strongest
terms. Beside, our commissioners to Mexico had
been instructed that neither the President the
senate of the United States can ever consent to rat
fy any treaty containing the 10th article of the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in favor of grantees
fland in Texas or elsewhere" And again: "Should
the Mexican government persist in retaining this
article, then all prospect of Immediate peace end
ed; and Of this you may give them an absolute as
surance.'
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 construction upon it as to convert it
into vain attempt to revive this article which had
been so often and so solemnly condemned? Surely
no erson could for moment suppose that either
the commissioners of the United States or the Mex
ican minister for foreign affairs, entertained
the purpose of thus setting at nought the deliber-
ate decision of the President and the senate, which
had been communicated to the Mexican govern
ment with the assurance that their abandonment of
this obnoxious article was essential to the restora-
ton of peace.
But the meaning of the protocol is plain. 1t is
simply that the notification of this article 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 ar
ticle. Notwithstanding it has been expunged from
the treaty, these grants to "preserve the le-
gal value which they may possess" The refusal
to revive grants which had become extinct was not
to nvalidate 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 ac
Ecordance with the Protocol is manifest from the
fact, that whilst they struck from the treaty this
I unjust article they at the same time sanctioned
and ratified the last paragraph of the eighth ar
tcle of the treaty, which declares that, In the
said Territories, property of every kind, now be-
longing to Mexicans not established there, shall be