They would already be in our possession, and they would, ultimately, have been ceded to the United States.

WHY WAS THE TREATY NOT RATIFIED.

That treaty, however, failed to receive the ratification of the Senate. It is true that this treaty pledged the United States to uphold the Monroe doctrine (as it was then understood, and as it has been until now understood) in Mexico. Was that the reason why it was not ratified? Whatever the reason was, the refusal of the Senate to ratify this treaty, prepared the way for the downfall of the Mexican Republic, and opened the way for the establishment of the empire.

Mr. Buchanan, under whose administration this treaty was negotiated, thus speaks of it :—

"The President having failed in obtaining authority from Congress to employ a military force in Mexico, as a last resort adopted the policy of concluding a treaty with the Constitutional Government. By this means he thought something might be accomplished, both to satisfy the long-deferred claims of American citizens, and to prevent foreign interference with the internal Government of Mexico. Accordingly, Mr. McLane, on the 14th day of December, 1859, signed a 'treaty of transit and commerce' with the Mexican Republic, and also a 'convention to enforce treaty stipulations, and to maintain order and security in the territory of the republics

of Mexico and the United States.' These treaties secured peculiar and highly valuable advantages to our trade and commerce, especially in articles the production of our agriculture and manufactures. They also guaranteed to us the secure possession of the Tehuantepec route, and of several other transit routes for our commerce, free from duty, across the territories of the republic, on its way to California and our other possessions on the northwest coast, as well as to the independent republics on the Pacific coast and in eastern Asia.

"In consideration of these advantages, 'and in compensation for the revenue surrendered by Mexico on the goods and merchandize transported free of duty through the territory of that republic, the Government of the United States agreed to pay the Government of Mexico the sum of four millions of dollars.' Of this sum two millions were to be paid immediately to Mexico, and the remaining two millions were to be retained by our Government for the payment of the claims of citizens of the United States against the Government of the Republic of Mexico for injuries already inflicted, and which may be proven to be just, according to the law and usages of nations and the principles of equity.' It was believed that these stipulations, whilst providing two millions toward the payment of the claims of our citizens, would enable President Juarez, with the remaining two millions, to expel the usurping Government of Miramon from the capital, and place the Constitutional Government in possession of the whole territory of the

Republic. This, we need not say, would greatly promote the interests of the United States. Besides, what was vastly important, these treaties, by vesting in the United States territorial and commercial rights which we would be bound to defend, might for this reason have prevented any European Government from attempting to acquire dominion over the territories of Mexico, and thus the Monroe doctrine would probably have remained inviolate. With this view Mr. McLane was seriously impressed. In his dispatch of September 14, 1859, to the Secretary of State, communicating the treaties, he expressed the apprehension that, should they not be ratified, further anarchy would prevail in Mexico, until it should be terminated by direct interference from some other quarter.

On the 4th of January, 1860, the President submitted to the Senate the treaty and the convention, with a view to their ratification, together with the dispatch of Mr. McLane. These, on the same day, were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Whether any or what other proceedings were had in relation to them we are unable to state, the injunction of secresy never having been removed by the Senate. Mr. McLane, who was then in Washington, had a conference with the committee, and received the impression that a comparative unanimity existed in favor of the principal provisions of the treaty; but in regard to the convention, the contingency of its possible abuse was referred to as constituting an objection to its ratification. Certain it is that neither the one nor the other was ever approved

by the Senate, and consequently both became a dead letter. The Republic of Mexico was thus left to its fate, and has since become an empire under the dominion of a scion of the House of Hapsburg, protected by. the Emperor of the French. The righteous claims of American citizens have therefore been indefinitely postponed.

CHAPTER II.

How the Mexican Empire came to be Established-Origin of the French Intervention-The United States had "Conquered and Divided" Mexico, and then Left it to its Fate-Touching Appeal of the Gentlemen of Mexico to the United States Government-Its Rejection-They Appeal, as a Last Resort, to the Emperor Napoleon-Landing of the French Army at Vera Cruz-Military Operations-Capture of Puebla-The French Army Enters the City of Mexico-The Emperor's Instructions to General Forey-Contrast between our Treatment of Mexico in 1847, and the Treatment of Mexico by Napoleon-Convocation of the Assembly of Notables-Their Address to the Mexican Nation-General Forey Returns to France-He is Succeeded by General Bazaine.

SUCH was the deplorable condition of Mexico, when ‹ the Emperor Napoleon determined to deliver that unhappy country from anarchy, and give her a permanent government. France had had claims of long standing against Mexico, of which it had been impossible to obtain a settlement, owing to the absence of any permanent government with which to treat. When France made war against Mexico, in 1861, what she required was, the redress of grievances and a government able and willing to give guarantees for the future. That was certainly not more than we had required of Mexico, when we made war against her in 1816. We required ample indemnity for the past, which we took in the shape of nearly a quarter of her