that in December, 1830, the President of these United States was duly informed of the existence of a conspiracy for invading Texas, producing a revolution in that province, and ultimately separating it from the Republic of Mexico, of which it constituted an integral part, and that the whole design was conducted under the command of the individual who is now President of Texas.... Tedious as my argument may have appeared to many, instead of amplifying it, I have, on the contrary, been obliged to abridge three fourths of what I desired to say, and of what ought to be said on the various topics touched upon. But I was aware that sufficient time could not be allowed me at the present session. I do hope, however, that we shall never more hear of the gag, and that at the next session, ample time and opportunity will be given for every gentleman to express his opinions on all the topics which shall be reported to us from the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I have adduced these documents simply as proofs of the existence of both duplicity and hostility on the part of this Government toward Mexico, and that from the commencement of the last Administration. We have come down as far as the close of the year 1830. I have read to the House a report of the Mexican Secretary of State, made to the Mexican Legislature during the very time in which General Houston is said to have been engaged in that conspiracy to which the President's letter alludes; and in which report the conspiracy is shadowed forth in all the particulars of its progressive development. All this time, be it remembered, our Chargé near the Mexican Government was charged in a letter of instructions to propose a cession of Texas to the United States; to urge that proposition with all his influence, and to back it by an offer of five millions of dollars. And at the same time he was charged with the negotiation of a treaty of commerce, and for the purpose of carrying into effect the boundary line agreed upon in our former treaty with Spain. The House has seen that the Legislature of Mexico, having, in consequence of these proceedings, its suspicions very much roused in regard to the views and purposes of this Government, refused to sign the treaty of commerce unless an article should be introduced into it recognizing the line marked out in our Spanish treaty as the boundary line between Mexico and the United States. Such an article was accordingly introduced, and the commercial treaty was concluded by Mr. Poinsett, in 1828. But, owing to those delays which frequently happen in matters of this description, that treaty was not ratified in time. Whereupon, Mr. Butler was charged in his instructions to reconclude the same treaty, which he did in 1831 and '32, and in it the same article was inserted, establishing the boundary line as agreed upon in 1819. WEBSTER-ASHBURTON TREATY, 1842 This treaty was for the purpose of settling the question of the northeastern boundary of the United States. The limitation of territory had been partially declared in the treaty of 1783, and subsequently the question had been the subject of much diplomatic negotiation, as a considerable area of territory remained in dispute. Text from "Revised Statutes Relating to District of Columbia . . . 1873-74 · together with the public treaties." Washington: Government Printing Office, 1875, pp. 315-320. (See page 115.) Whereas certain portions of the line of boundary between the United States of America and the British dominions in North America, described in the second article of the treaty of peace of 1783, have not yet been ascertained and determined, notwithstanding the repeated attempts which have been heretofore made for that purpose; and whereas it is now thought to be for the interest of both parties, that, avoiding further discussion of their respective rights, arising in this respect under the said treaty, they should agree on a conventional line in said portions of the said boundary, such as may be convenient to both parties, with such equivalents and compensations as are deemed just and reasonable; and whereas, by the treaty concluded at Ghent on the 24th day of December, 1814, between the United States and His Britannic Majesty, an article was agreed to and inserted of the following tenor, viz.: "Art. 10. Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice; and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object;" and whereas, notwithstanding the laws which have at various times been passed by the two Governments, and the efforts made to suppress it, that criminal traffic is still prosecuted and carried on; and whereas the United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland are determined that, so far as may be in their power, it shall be effectually abolished; and whereas it is found expedient, for the better administration of justice and the prevention of crime within the territories and jurisdiction of the two parties respectively, that persons committing the crimes hereinafter enumerated, and being fugitives from justice, should, under certain circumstances, be reciprocally delivered up: The United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, having resolved to treat on these several subjects, have for that purpose appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries to negotiate and conclude a treaty, that is to say: The President of the United States has, on his part, furnished with full powers Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States, and Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, has, on her part, appointed the Right Honorable Alexander Lord Ashburton, a peer of the said United Kingdom, a member of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, and Her Majesty's Minister Plenipotentiary on a special mission to the United States; Who, after a reciprocal communication of their re |