insult to Mexican citizens and the Mexican flag, and asked reparation. He promised in turn that the Mexican commanders who had suffered the insult should be brought to trial if they were charged with improper conduct. Poinsett replied that the United States would give satisfaction if it should prove that the collector had acted improperly. A letter to Poinsett from Commodore Ridgeley at Pensacola declared that the conduct of the commanders of the Mexican privateers had been disgraceful to Mexico, and enclosed papers in support of his declaration. Poinsett answered him. that the evidence he had submitted was insufficient and asked for more.50 In reporting the matter to Clay Poinsett said the commander of the English forces in the West Indies had ordered the seizure of any Mexican vessel which should attempt to take any -enemy goods from an English ship. This he said had created a sensation. He advised that the United States should take the same step.51

Porter was only the most prominent of many citizens of the United States who entered the Mexican naval service, some voluntarily and others against their will. In April, 1826, a note from Poinsett

50 Cañedo to Poinsett, August 16, 1828, Poinsett to Cañedo, August 21, 1828, Ridgeley to Poinsett, August 18, 1828, and Poinsett to Ridgeley, September 7, 1828, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, September 15, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV.

51 Poinsett to Clay, September 15, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. This is not the letter referred to in note 50, but another of the same date.

complained that a Mexican press gang had recently seized in Vera Cruz a number of seamen from United States merchant vessels. Several others were being detained on Mexican ships of war after their term of service had expired, and others had been dismissed unpaid. He asked the punishment of offending officials and the release of the detained seamen.52 About a year later Poinsett protested against the concealment on a Mexican war vessel of deserters from merchant vessels of the United States. He said if this were allowed to continue it would cause great injury to commerce. The Mexican secretary for war claimed that sailors from merchantmen were free to enter whatever service they chose; but gave orders for dealing with those who were responsible for concealing the deserters. Poinsett protested vigorously against the assertion that sailors from merchantmen were free to change employment whenever they chose.53

Besides the controversies arising directly out of commercial transactions Poinsett was frequently called upon to present claims against the Mexican government for losses to merchants and travelers at the hands of robbers and bandits. From the mass of

52 Poinsett to Secretario, April 11, 1826, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, April 30, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I.

53 Poinsett to Secretario, March 7, 1827, Espinosa to Poinsett, March 20, 1827, Poinsett to Secretario, March 26, 1827, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, April 12, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II.

correspondence concerning claims which has accumulated in the archives of the Mexican foreign office one is almost forced to the conclusion that the adjudication of these claims has been the principal business of that office from its inception to the present time.54

54 The documents in the archives of the Department of State in Washington relating to these are too numerous, and most of them of too little value, to cite. The archives of Relaciones Exteriores in Mexico contain boxful after boxful of correspondence on these claims.

CHAPTER IX

TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE

It is the purpose of this chapter to consider diplomatic relations only. Internal affairs in Texas will be alluded to only when they furnish an occasion for or exercise an influence upon diplomatic communications.

The secret instructions given on October 31, 1822, to Zozaya, the first Mexican minister to the United States, required him to ask the views of that government with reference to the limits of Louisiana. He was told that the imperial Mexican government considered the treaty of February 22, 1819, between the United States and Spain valid, and was disposed to carry out its provisions for establishing permanent landmarks. He was to learn whether any settlements had been effected or were being planned which would prejudice the rights of the empire under that treaty.1

Spain's refusal to ratify the treaty for almost two years in the vain effort to induce the United States to agree not to recognize her rebellious colonies had delayed its execution until Mexico had become de facto independent. The recognition of that independence by the United States in the early part of

1 Instrucciones Reservadas para Zozaya, 31 de octubre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 85. This treaty, later known as the Florida Treaty, is always spoken of in the correspondence of the time as the Treaty of Washington.

1822 made it necessary to reckon henceforth with Mexico in any matter concerning the southwestern boundary. In the meantime much had been said concerning the treaty and the claim to Texas which many asserted the United States had acquired in purchasing Louisiana from France. There was a strong disposition on the part of many people, some having considerable influence with the government, to take advantage of the change of sovereignty to regain the territory which they insisted had thus been bartered away.2 This sentiment in the United States was strengthened by a statement of Onis, the Spanish negotiator of the treaty, to the effect that "it is improperly called a treaty of cession, as it is in reality one of exchange or permutation of one small province for another of double the extent, richer and more fertile."

The language of Onis also strengthened the suspicious fears of the Mexican government concerning the intentions of the United States. Elsewhere he

2 The discussion of the basis for, the character of, and the justice of this claim is not in place here. See Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 1-26; Smith, Annexation of Texas, 5-8; Babcock, Rise of American Nationality, 285-289; Cox, "Louisiana-Texas Frontier," Texas Historical Quarterly, X, 1-75, XVII, 140-187; and Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 46; and footnotes in each.

For the discussion by President Monroe's cabinet of the question whether the provisions of the treaty for marking out the boundary line should be carried out in conjunction with the commission to be appointed by Spain, or whether Mexico should be consulted, see Adams, Memoirs, V, 493.

3 Onis, Memoir, 146. Onis, Memoria, was printed in Madrid in 1820, and this translation was printed in Baltimore in the following year.