conquered country"; and the United States intended to do this in the region we took. On this and other points see Klein, Treaty, 247-81; Butler, Treaty-Making Power, i, 78, 168-9; U. S. Cavalry Journal, xxv, p-18; Reid, Problems, 271-5. It was necessary to take territory from Mexico to offset our claims, quashed by the war (Richardson, Messages, iv, 537), and partially offset the costs of a war forced upon us, for, had the treaty awarded us a money indemnity, she would not have been willing and morally able, even if theoretically able, to pay it. (See Benton, Abr. Deb., xvi, 40-1.) Aside from the question of right, too, the American people would have been profoundly dissatisfied to see our armies return empty-handed, and this feeling would probably have meant more to Mexico than the loss of her nominal territory (see Root in Cong. Globe, 30, 1, app., p. 395). Mexico could give up more easily what she did than any equivalent territory. (Map) Gadsden line at N. E. is disputed.
An apparent inconsistency may be noted here, for on p. 138 of vol. i it was intimated that an agreement with Mexico was needed to fix the boundary of Texas. The explanation is that the United States had demonstrated its ability to hold the line, but the republic of Texas was not strong enough to prevent Mexican troops from going and remaining north of the Rio Grande.
The Mexican commissioners rejected the line of 32°, desired by the United States (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 91), for three reasons: 1, it would be for a long distance only a mathematical boundary; 2, it was liable, when surveyed, to cut off important points like Paso del Norte; 3, it would prevent land communication between Sonora and lower California (Exposición dirigida). It was proposed at one time to divide 8. Diego, but for that concession Trist demanded too much. Besides, 8. Diego belonged distinctly to upper California. Lower California was relinquished because inaccessible and poor. Not only for sentimental reasons but because otherwise the treaty, they believed, could not possibly be ratified, the Mexican commissioners were determined to hold all of Sonora and Chihuahua. Tamaulipas, happily, had made no protest against relinquishing her claim to the intermediate region (52Trist, no. 27). To ask the consent of the people in the acquired territory was not deemed necessary by the United States (Butler, op. cit., i, 83-4), but citizenship was not forced upon Mexicans by the treaty (art. viii). Art. x was demanded by the Mexicans (13Doyle, no. 10, 1848). Art. xix harmonized the American pledge that goods imported during our occupation of the ports should pay only the American tariff (52Buchanan to Trist, June 14, 1847), with the Mexican view that our tariff could not be operative beyond the limits of our occupation (Exposición dirigida).
An error regarding the assumption of our claims has prevailed. Two classes of claims were provided for: 1, those liquidated under the convention of 1839 but not covered by the three Mexican instalments (vol. i, p. 81); 2, all unliquidated claims antedating Feb. 2, 1848. Under the first head the United States paid, under the act approved July 29, 1848 (Statutes at Large, ix, 265), $2,090,253.19 including interest (A. J. Peters, asst. sec. treas. to the author, Nov. 30, 1915); under the second head the claims commission awarded (in 1852) $3,208,314.96, including interest (Sen. 34; 32, 1; documents preserved in the state dept.). The treaty provided that under the second head the U. S. should not be liable for more than $3,250,000. The phraseology of our projet regarding this matter, when literally translated, did not readily penetrate the Mexican
