basing his arguments particularly on the attitude of the peace party in the United States and the poverty of the American treasury. Jan. 30 he called attention to the Whig majority in our House, said our Congress would probably refuse to send more troops to Mexico, and urged the Mexican. government to procrastinate. The reply of the government was a mere acknowledgment of receipt. Feb. 14 he argued that Walker's report showed we could not continue the war much longer. On the other hand there seems to be some reason to believe that personal relations and interests may have influenced the Mexican commissioners in favor of making the treaty (Puga y Acal, Documentos, letter no. 74). Marcy to Scott, Oct. 6, 1847: Your military operations are not to be modified by Mexican proposals to negotiate (Sen. .52; 30, 1, p. 140).
12. 13Thornton, no. 11, 1847. 13Doyle, nos. 4, 1847; 13, 14 and 18, 1848. Sen. 60; 30, 1, p. 65 (Trist). Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1082 (Scott). Roa Bárecena, Recuerdos, 604-7. 13Doyle to commrs., Jan. 28, 29; to Rosa, Jan. 29. Hitchcock, Fifty Years, 315-6. México 4 través, iv, 706-8. 335Memo. from Freaner.
The Mexican government naturally desired to keep all information about the treaty from its enemies. The public came to believe, however, that an important act had taken place on Feb. 2. Freaner carried the treaty to Washington. For two weeks escorts had been waiting at the proper points on the road to Vera Cruz. The Spanish representative, under his instructions, took no part in these negotiations. The Prussian minister, lacking both official authorization and personal influence, was equally inactive. France had no minister on the scene.
Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 557) says that "no man who so palpably disobeys the direct instructions of his government" as did Trist, could be fit to negotiate a treaty; suggests (p. 564) that it was improper to let the British coöperate in the matter; and argues (pp. 582-4) that Scott should have broken up the negotiations or else assumed the full responsibility for them, withholding from the Mexican government the fact of Trist's recall. All this and the rest are mere fault-finding, and the critic could and would have been much more severe, had the course he recommended been adopted. Of course he proves the obvious facts that Scott and Trist, in the interest of two nations and to accomplish what their government ardently desired, at great personal risk disregarded mistaken instructions, accepted British assistance without which they would probably have failed, and obtained a treaty which Polk himself, though he hated both of them, felt constrained to accept; but this was a truly glorious achievement. Scott had no right to act as Ripley says he should have done. The armistice, a military affair, was properly his concern, but negotiating a treaty was diplomatic business. Mackintosh, says Ripley (p. 563), had a hand in the negotiations, but this seems to be an error. Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 524-5) says "it might perhaps have been well to replace Trist by a stronger man." But every possible man had been considered (p. 126), and a stronger man would probably have tried to drive the Mexicans and have failed. Trist they liked and trusted, yet could not deceive or frighten.
The chief points of the treaty signed on Feb. 2 were as follows (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 38): Art. 1. Peace. 2. Immediate armistice, and so far as possible a restoration of the constitutional order in the places occupied by the Americans. 3. After ratification by both governments the blockade to cease, the customhouses held by the Americans to be given up,
