treaty. Congress itself does not possess the power under the constitution to make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 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 territories by the constitution and laws of the United States.

The protocol asserts that "the American government, by suppressing the tenth article of the treaty of Guadalupe, did not in any way intend to annul the grants of lands made by Mexico in the ceded territories;" that "these grants, notwithstanding the suppression of the article of the treaty, preserve the legal value which they may possess; and the grantees may cause their legitimate titles to be acknowledged before the American tribunals;" and then proceeds to state that, "conformably to the law of the United States, legitimate titles to every description of property, personal and real, existing in the ceded territories, are those which were legitimate titles under the Mexican law in California and New Mexico up to the thirteenth of May, 1846, and in Texas up to the second of March, 1836." The former was the date of the declaration of war against Mexico, and the latter that of the declaration of independence by Texas.

The objection to the tenth article of the original treaty was not that it protected legitimate titles, which our laws would have equally protected without it; but that it most unjustly attempted to resuscitate grants which had become a mere nullity, by allowing the grantees the same period after the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty to which they had been originally entitled after the date of their grants, for the purpose of performing the conditions on which they had been made. In submitting the treaty to the Senate, I had recommended the rejection of this article. That portion of it in regard to lands in Texas did not receive a 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 was in possession of the Mexican government during the whole period the treaty was before the Mexican congress, and the article itself was reprobated in that letter in the strongest Besides, our commissioners to Mexico had been instructed that "neither the President, nor the Senate of the United States, can ever consent to ratify any treaty containing the tenth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in favor of grantees of land in Texas or elsewhere." And again: "Should the Mexican government persist in retaining this article, then all prospect of immediate peace is ended; and of this you may give them ap absolute assurance."

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 a construction upon it as to convert it into a vain attempt to revive this article which had been so often and so solemnly condemned? Surely no person could for one moment suppose that either the commissioners of the United States or

the Mexican minister for foreign affairs ever entertained the purpose of thus setting at naught the deliberate decision of the President and Senate, which had been communicated to the Mexican government with the assurance that their abandonment of this obnoxious article was essential to the restoration of peace.

But the meaning of the protocol is plain. It is simply that the nullification of this article was 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 article. Notwithstanding it has been expunged from the treaty, these grants were to "preserve the legal value which they may possess." The refusal to revive grants which had become extinct was not to invalidate 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 accordance with the protocol, is manifest from the fact that, whilst they struck from the treaty this unjust article, they at the same time sanctioned and ratified the last paragraph of the eighth article of the treaty, which declares that, "in the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy, with respect to it, guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States."

Without any stipulation in the treaty to this effect, all such valid titles, under the Mexican government, would have been protected under the constitution and laws of the United States.

The third and last explanation contained in the protocol is that, "the government of the United States, by suppressing the concluding paragraph of article twelfth of the treaty, did not intend to deprive the Mexican republic of the free and unrestrained faculty. of ceding, conveying or transferring, at any time, (as it may judge best,) the sum of the twelve millions of dollars which the same government of the United States is to deliver in the places designated by the amended article."

The concluding paragraph of the original twelfth article, thus suppressed by the Senate, is in the following language, "certificates in proper form, for the said instalments respectively, in such sums as shall be desired by the Mexican government, and transferable by it, shall be delivered to the said government by that of the United States."

From this bare statement of facts, the meaning of the protocol is obvious. Although the Senate had declined to create a government stock for the twelve millions of dollars, and issue transferable certificates for the amount, in such sums as the Mexican gov ernment might desire; yet they could not have intended thereby to deprive that government of the faculty which every creditor possesses of transferring for his own benefit the obligation of his debtor, whatever this may be worth, according to his will and pleasure.

it now stands, contains a positive obligation, "in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States," to pay to the Mexican republic twelve millions of dollars, in four equal annual instalments of three millions each. This obligation may be assigned by the Mexican government to any person whatever; but the assignee in such case would stand in no better condition than the government. The amendment of the Senate, prohibiting the issue of a government transferable stock for the amount, produces this effect and no more.

The protocol contains nothing from which it can be inferred that the assignee could rightfully demand the payment of the money; in case the consideration should fail, which is stated on the face of the obligation.

With this view of the whole protocol, and considering that the explanations which it contained were in accordance with the treaty, I did not deem it necessary to take any action upon the subject. Had it varied from the terms of the treaty as amended by the Senate, although it would, even then, have been a nullity in itself, yet duty might have required that I should make this fact known to the Mexican government. This not being the case, I treated it in the same manner I would have done had these explanations been made verbally by the commissioners to the Mexican minister for foreign affairs, and communicated in a despatch to the State Department.

WASHINGTON, February 8, 1849.

JAMES K. POLK.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 8, 1849.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 5th instant, requesting the President to communicate to that House a correct copy of the original treaty of Gus dalupe Hidalgo; of the instructions of this government to commissioners A. H. Sevier and N. Clifford, together with such other correspondence as appertains to said treaty, has the honor to lay before the President the papers mentioned in the subjoined list, which embrace all the papers in this department called for by the resolution.

Respectfully submitted.

To the PRESIDENT of the United States.

JAMES BUCHANAN.

List of papers accompanying the report of the Secretary of State to the President, 8th February, 1849.

Original treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Treaty as amended by the Senate.

Mr. Buchanan to the minister of foreign relations of the Mexican republic, March 18, 1848.

Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Sevier, March 18, 1848.

Same to Mr. Clifford, March 18, 1848.

Same to Messrs. Sevier and Clifford, March 22, 1848.

Mr. Clifford to Mr. Buchanan, March 26, 1848.

Same to same, April 2, 1848.

Same to same, April 12, 1848.

Mr. Sevier to same, April 18, 1848.

Messrs. Sevier and Clifford to same, May 7, 1848.

Same to Mr. De la Rosa, April 17, 1848.

Mr. De la Rosa to Messrs. Sevier and Clifford, (translation,) April 19, 1848.

Messrs. Sevier and Clifford to Mr. De la Rosa, April 22, 1848. Mr. De la Rosa to Messrs. Sevier and Clifford, (translation,) April 26, 1848

Messrs. Sevier and Clifford to Mr. De la Rosa, April 29, 1848. Same to Mr. Buchanan, May 14, 1848.

Message of President Peña y Peña to the Mexican congress, (translation.)

Mr. De la Rosa to Messrs. Sevier and Clifford, (translation,) May 9, 1848.

Messrs. Sevier, and Clifford to Mr. Buchanan, May 15, 1848.

Same to same, May 21, 1848.

Same to same, May 21, 1848.

Mr. De la Rosa to Messrs. Sevier and Clifford, (translation,) May 19, 1848.

Messrs. Sevier and Clifford to Mr. De la Rosa, May 21, 1848.
Same to Mr. Buchanan, May 25, 1848.

Same to same, May 30, 1848.

Address of the commissioners of the United States to the president of the Mexican republic on delivering their credentials. Reply of the president, (translation.)

Protocol.

Translation of the ratification, by the Mexican executive, of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, as amended by the Senate of the United States.

Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Walker, March 15, 1848.

TREATY OF PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, LIMITS, AND SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC, CONCLUDED AT GUADALUPE HIDALGO, ON THE 2D DAY OF FEBRUARY, IN THE YEAR 1848.