commission met in Washington, and that it was their right to insist that this one should meet in Mexico. The only reply that I could make was, that the claims presented to that commission were all against Mexico, and that nearlj^ all the claimants resided in the United States ; to which they replied that this commission will also be charged with the claims of the Government and citizens of Mexico against the United States, and that they eould not concede this point. I thought there was much reason in their demand ; and, as it was matter of punctilio, and as with a Spaniard punctilio is everything, I was well satisfied it would be a sine qua non, and there- fore yielded it, in consideration of their allowing me to name the arbiter—a much more important consideration."
The mere details of this treaty were of course matters of discretion to which the Government at Washington had the strict right of objecting. But the United wStates had, by a' solemn convention duly ratified, agreed that the complaints of the Government and citizens of Mexico should be referred by treaty to a tribunal for settlement ;
to refuse therefore to consent to such a reference, was a breach of faith plighted by treaty. Yet of such a breach was the Senate of the United States guilty. The treaty was conditionally ratified by the Senate, first striking out of it the right of each Government to prefer before the commission claims against the other ; and secondly, alter- 78 " REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
ing the place of meeting to Wasliington.* There was nc dispute about the treaty of 30th January, 1843. Mr.
Upshur, Secretary of State, in his correspondence with Tliompson, acknowledged and regretted the obhgation it imposed, of referring to a tribunal wholly judicial in its character a subject " strictly diplomatic." Yet, in defiance of a plain treaty stipulation, the Senate refused to refer the claims of the Mexican Government to the decision of the