1329.

THE ADVICE OF ALAMAN.

553

by law. The order of 1826, forbidding colonization by adjoining nations; the order of 1827, restricting families in the new settlements to the number authorized in the contracts; that of 1828, providing that in colonies formed on territory along the boundary line of the United States and Mexico there must be no families from the United States-have all been disregarded. Not a slave has been set free as required. by law; not one colonist in Texas is a Roman Catholic, as required by the contracts; and the importation of slaves has not stopped.

Not only were these North American colonies in Texas formed under pretext of colonization, but others of considerable extent established without any authority. Such a one was Aires, five leagues beyond Nacogdoches, which, with the adjoining settlements at Atoyac and Sabinas, formed a population of two thousand souls, not one of them a Mexican. They all came from the United States, and were the people who showed such unmistakable signs of insurrection against the decree abolishing slavery that the commandant general was forced to declare it did not apply to Texas.

Having gone so far, the United States, the Secretary continued, was about to complete her policy by a bold attempt to acquire Texas. Government newspapers were already discussing the rights of the North Americans to that country as far as the Rio Grande; handbills had been printed on the subject and thrown into circulation; the matter was soon to be taken up at Washington; a fifty-gun frigate, the Brandywine, was to be sent to the Texan coast; and it was well known the new chargé d'affaires was specially empowered to offer five million dollars for the territory. If not accepted, the United States would probably propose to appoint an arbitrator, as in the Maine boundary dispute. This done, Texas would be lost to Mexico unless measures were promptly taken to prevent it.

These measures, the Secretary said, were five in number: Increase the Mexican population by sending men condemned to the galleys to certain places in Texas where, under the eye of the army, they might become farmers; colonize Texas with people whose language, customs, manners, and interests

were different from those of the people of the United States; bring Texas into closer relations with other states of the Republic by encouraging the coastwise trade; suspend the colonization law of 1824, and make Texas dependent on the General Government in matters of colonization, and send an agent to the colonized territory to see that all contracts are truly executed. A firm attitude such as would give the United States to understand that Mexico would preserve her territory inviolate and would not suffer it to be dismembered was most important.

The advice of Alaman was not taken in all its fulness. Had it been, the revolution he so much feared would surely have broken out, and Texas, as was said, would have come into our hands without the cost of a dollar.* Yet it was not wholly neglected, and in April a law passed the Mexican Congress forbidding citizens of the United States to settle in Texas.†

Despite the display of anti-American feeling, the hostility toward Poinsett, the bitter attacks in the newspapers, the report of Alaman, and the exclusion in future of our citizens from Texas, Butler for awhile continued to believe that the territory in question might be acquired. But a little experience in Mexico convinced him of his error, and for the third time the attempt was abandoned.* "No hopes need therefore be entertained," said the Arkansas Gazette, "of our acquiring Texas till some other party more friendly to the United States than the present shall predominate in Mexico, and perhaps not until the people of Texas shall throw off the yoke of allegiance to that Government, which they

* Butler to Van Buren, March 9, 1830.

"ARTICLE IX. On the northern frontier the entrance of foreigners shall be prohibited, under all pretexts whatever, unless they be furnished with passports, signed by the agents of the Republic, at the places whence they proceed.

"ARTICLE XI. In the use of the power reserved by the general Congress, in the Seventh Article of the law of August 18, 1824, it is prohibited to neighboring nations to settle in those States and Territories of the federation which border on their nations. Consequently, contracts which have not been executed, and are opposed to that law, shall be superseded." Law of April 6, 1830.

Butler to Van Buren, April 15, 1830.

#Ibid., May 19, 1830.

1829.

GREAT BRITAIN AND THE TARIFF.

555

will no doubt as soon as they have a reasonable pretext for so doing."

While the opposition press and the antislavery men were thus attacking the policy of the Administration in attempting to buy Texas, another incident happened which led the followers of Clay to believe that Jackson was bent on destroying the American system. Mr. Louis McLean, of Delaware, had been appointed Minister to Great Britain, and when about to start for London a statement went the rounds of the press that he was to negotiate a treaty doing away with the objectionable features of the tariff. Great Britain was to relax her corn laws in favor of the United States, and in return her manufactures were to be admitted on the payment of a moderate duty. The purpose of General Jackson, it was said, is to rid the country of the many hateful provisions of the tariff, and especially of those which have caused so much dissatisfaction at the South, without the interposition of the House of Representatives. With this end in view, a treaty of commercial reciprocity, stipulating that neither power shall tax the produce or manufactures of the other above twenty per cent ad valorem, has been in agitation, and it is understood that the British Minister at Washington has expressed the belief that his Government will come into the agreement. A few of the opposition journals scouted the story as too improbable to believe and, even if true, declared the scheme could not be executed. The British Ministry might have power to set aside an act of Parliament, but it could not for a moment be pretended that the treaty-making power of the President and Senate could do away with an act of Congress. Some of the Administration papers flatly denied the tale, but there were others which were not quite so sure, and were much disposed to encourage the attempt.

If, it was argued, in the course of negotiations intended. to reopen the colonial trade, lost by the incapacity of the late President, the interests of our commerce, our navigation, our agriculture, could be furthered without injury to our manufactures, the plain duty of the Administration is to do so by the lasting obligations of a treaty. We do not

expect to see those barriers which, in the language of our adversaries, protect the industries of both countries broken down, but we do hope to see justice done to all branches of industry at home and in Great Britain, and, to avoid the evil of encouraging one at the cost of the others, some stipulation ought to be made to abolish prohibitory duties on each side. We trust, therefore, that some such treaty will be made, and when it is, we will refer the question of right to the decision of the grain- and cotton-growing sections of the country.

As to the right to do this the argument was: the President, says the Constitution, shall have power, by and with the consent of the Senate, to make all treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. So far as foreign nations are concerned, the President therefore may, by treaty, set aside an act of Congress, provided two thirds of the Senate consent. True it is that Congress has power to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, but a treaty is the supreme law of the land and must be obeyed by Congress as well as by the people. True it is that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Rep resentatives, and that the House might retaliate by withholding supplies. This would bring the Government to a stand, or, in the case of a treaty requiring an appropriation, prevent its full execution. But important commercial privileges may be and often are given to nations without the payment of money. True it is that the House might impeach the President, but, as the Senate tries impeachments, such a proceeding would be useless.

Discussion, having drifted from the question of fact to that of constitutional right, gradually died away, but the belief that the new President and his followers were planning an attack on the tariff in the interest of the South remained unshaken, and received yet further confirmation from the steadily growing excitement in the cotton States.

Page 433. For William J. Barry, of Kentucky, read John McLean, of Ohio.

Page 500, line 29. For Kentucky read South Carolina.

Page 523. For Samuel Adams Otis read Samuel Allyne Otis.
Page 555. For Louis McLean read Louis McLane.

557