met, and no exceptions were made to it. If a language was employed of a limited sense with a motive to ulterior advantage not expressed, we have only to lament another instance of duplicity to be added to a catalogue already too long in the history of that nation.

That the reception of our minister would be regarded as a restoration of all friendly relations between the two countries, was a singular and gratuitous assumption. The very terms of the appointment of a minister implied negotiation and adjustment, as the means of restoration,-not restoration itself. Could the effect precede the cause? What nation would confound a treaty with the discussion of a treaty? Is a minister less qualified to negotiate and adjust one question, because he is authorized to adjust all? It is worse than idle to enlarge upon a distinction so puerile in itself, and so absurd in its application. It would be too much deference to an act that cannot claim the paternity of an honest judgment. Its authors made it with no honest purpose, and whoever attempts to defend the position, must do it at the expense of all rules of logic, and at the greater expense of reputation in the use of the powers of moral and intellectual discernment. There is no merchant, however deficient in system, that would employ an agent to settle a single item of a disputed account, leaving all others still to be adjusted by other agents. Why should our government be asked to adopt a method of business with nations that individuals would reject as insulting, if proposed to be adopted by them in their most ordinary concerns?

A debtor unprepared to pay is averse to all appointments with creditors. He will not decline them, for this would be folly, as his own interest might suffer by an act that would cost him nothing; but, if he can see his way clear to avoid them, he counts it a most happy privilege. It was so with Mexico. She wished to call our nation to an account for its acts with another power, but she did not desire to render any account of her own acts in relation to us. She stood in a forced position as plaintiff in respect to Texas, but in other respects she

was a delinquent debtor to the United States, and an aggressor to an extent that was yet to be ascertained. She had no money, and no reliable means to command any. This was not the worst of her condition. The very existence of her government was doubtful, and her prospect was any thing but flattering for the future. Lifted up by pride and ambition, she gilded the skeleton of her body, with a seeming ignorance that her poverty was seen only in the want of its flesh. As a nation, she had not the spirit to discuss the interests which she could not sustain; and, as a bankrupt, she had no heart to sit upon the adjustment of accounts she could not pay. Nothing would avail her but integrity, and of this she had less than of silver and gold.

The Mexican minister was willing to express surprise that an envoy from the United States had arrived so soon! " Who could it be! What could it mean!" Why did he not honestly express his fears, as he subsequently did, without this affectation of ignorance, without a falsehood that he could not conceal? If he had re-perused the letter of Mr. Buchanan, proposing to send a minister, he would have seen that the time was mentioned. It was- “immediately.” He was glad to see promptness in the withdrawal of our squadron, but it was unpleasant to him in any other respect. His whole course was one of abject subserviency to prevailing circumstances. He had not the courage to keep a secret, in the fear that his fellows in office might promulgate it in advance at his expense. He must hold one language to the council, another to our minister, and yet another to the people. He was opposed to all measures that threatened the stability of his influence, and in favor of all that promised to sustain it. The pride of consistency and truth was no part of his nature. He preferred success with disgrace to failure with honor.

We grieve to be severe upon a man who does not appear to be conscious of his own degradation, but we can hardly repress our feelings of indignation when we look at the examples of duplicity in Mr. Peña y Peña, in his letters, addressed at the

same time, upon the

same subjects, but with conflicting views, to Mr. Black, to Mr. Slidell, and to the council. It is proper that such acts should be pointed out and condemned, so that the inducements to wrong may be lessened, and the incitements to right increased. We now come to another important question.

WAS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT JUST TO MEXICO ON THE SUBJECT OF BOUNDARY.

We have seen that our government was faithful and prompt in affording protection to Texas against foreign invasion; we have contrasted the acts of favor of the United States with those of hostility on the part of Mexico; and we now proceed to inquire whether the government of the United States, in striving to be just to Texas, has been just to Mexico, in regard to the boundary lines between the two countries.

The boundaries of Texas were those secured by revolution. They were marked by the sword, and confirmed by possession. Her battles were fought by her own citizens, and with none but with the armies of Mexico. Her victories were at the expense of Mexico-strength measuring strength. Her independence was to the exclusion of Mexico, and self-established. Her government was organized, and endowed with vitality; and Mexico lost all right there, by being unable to sustain it, and she lost all power within the limits of the State by withdrawing her forces. Texas stood acknowledged as one of the great family of nations. She had marked her own boundary lines; and she had entire confidence in the justice of her claims to limits as they were defined in her statute-book.

By the act of annexation, the question of boundary between Mexico and Texas was left an open one, to be decided by negotiation between the governments of Mexico and the United States. It was embraced in the instructions given to Mr. Slidell, but, as we have seen, it was not even considered.

It became the first question with the government of the

United States, when asked to give protection, how far it should be extended.

HOW IS TEXAS BOUNDED?

It was not a question within its own control, to be decided according to its own interests or views.* There were two parties to be consulted. Texas had her rights, and so had Mexico. Texas made her claims, but Mexico disputed them. Mexico made no question with regard to boundary. Her claim was one of title and sovereignty. The people of Texas were claimed to be the subjects of Mexico; and the territory of Texas a part of her national domain, undivided and indivisible. In this posture of affairs what course could be safely pursued by the United States? Mexico claimed the whole, and refused to negotiate.

So far as the claim of Mexico was involved, the United States had decided it, by acknowledging the independence of Texas. Other nations had done the same. This question was indeed no longer open for discussion; it had been settled. The supposed interest of Mexico remained at issue, to be adjusted whenever she was prepared to negotiate. The interest of Texas was defined in her own public acts, and she claimed her own rights as she had in her own sovereignty declared them. The government of the United States was

* See Appendix Q.

In the letter of the Mexican commissioners to Mr. Trist, when negotiating for a treaty of peace, September 6, 1847, they say, — "The existing war has been undertaken sOLELY on account of the territory of the State of Texas, respecting which the North American Republic presents as its title the act of the said State by which it was annexed to the North American confederation, after having proclaimed its independence of Mexico. The Mexican Republic offering (as we have informed your excellency) to consent, for a proper indemnification, to the pretensions of the government at Washington to the territory of Texas, THE CAUSE OF THE WAR has disappeared, and the war itself ought to cease."

the adjusting power between the two parties. Mexico refused to speak, and the boundary of Texas, as claimed by her own government and people, was the only one offered. Our right to fix the boundary was only by negotiation with Mexico, and that was declined. The government of the United States, therefore, had no alternative, but to defend the territory of Texas as claimed by her government.*

But another question arose, and it has received much attention. It was one of supposition. It was asked, "Suppose Mexico were to give up Texas, and acknowledge her independence, to what boundary would she give her assent ? Whatever may have been our opinions upon this question, nothing was more certain than that we had no authority to decide it. It was not for us to assume a position for Mexico which her government had positively disclaimed. We had no right to sit in judgment upon a boundary question in which her interest was involved without her consent. Mexico cannot have the privilege of two positions in respect to the same interest. She must stand as claiming all Texas, or a part of Texas, but she must make her election which. She did, indeed, make her election, but her friends made a different one.t. We insist that she shall speak for herself. No party has a right to speak for her, when her

* 66 Well, then, were the United States at liberty to surrender a portion of that territory? Why, that would have been a flagrant violation of the implied contract which the joint resolutions of Congress had completed. Could the president of the United States take upon himself the responsibility of such an assumption as that Texas, after becoming one of the United States, had ceased to have her limits up to the Rio Grande? He could not. And if he could not surrender any part of that territory, how could it be that this was the president's war?"- Mr. Soule's Speech, U. S. Senate, February, 1847.

+ That Congress was really in favor of the advance of General Taylor to the Rio Grande, may be inferred from the votes of that body on the amendments offered by Mr. Holmes and by Mr. Delano. These were intended to be acts of censure or disapproval of the government in taking possession of territory beyond the Nueces. The former was rejected by a vote of 122 to 8; the latter by a vote of 97 to 27.