33. Ho. Report 281; 24,2. Sen. 189; 24,2. 52Buchanan to Slidell, no. 1. Tex. Dipl. Corres., i, 181-3, 187-92 (Wharton); 218-21 (Catlett); 273-4 (Greyson); 284-8 (Hunt). Ho. Report 752; 29, 1. Buchanan, Works, iii, 213, 233, 415.
34. Ellis had taken the legation papers to Washington. Sen. 1; 25, 2, pp. 105, 108, 109 (Forsyth). 52Greenhow, Aug. 12, 1837. Certain historians drawing their views largely from the heated anti-slavery writers of that period have been led to misrepresent our relations with Mexico as much as our conduct with reference to Texas. At this point it has been alleged that the United States required Mexico to examine and settle a large number of complicated cases within a week, which our acceptance of the dilatory reply proves that we did not require. Greenhow was merely directed to say that [for the convenience of the Mexican government] he would remain seven days and bring back any communication it should wish to make (56Forsyth to Greenhow, May 27, 1837). That country, on the other hand, had decreed in May that all pending grievances of the two nations might be settled by arbitration, but that should the United States refuse complete satisfaction of any demands Mexico should present, or delay it beyond the time fixed under the arbitration treaty, commercial intercourse with this country should be cut off and preparations be made for war (Ho. Report, 1056; 25, 2, p. 9; Dublán, Legislación, iii, 392). Sen. 1; 25, 2, p. 111 (Cuevas).
35. Sen. 1; 25, 2, pp. 113-27 (Martinez); 30 (Forsyth). Forsyth to Ellis, no. 3, May 3, 1839. Ho. Report, 1056; 25, 2. In respect to one clear case, already many years old, Martínez promised that "every exertion" should be made to have it taken up by the next regular Congress; but when that Congress met, the minister of relations did not even mention it (ibid.). Mayer, War, 343. Ho. 351; 25, 2, pp. 758 (Forsyth); 759 (Greenhow). Richardson, Messages, iii, 377-9. 53Martínez to Forsyth, Apr. 7, 1838; reply, Apr. 21. 77Martínez, no. 1, res., 1837. Martinez coupled his proposal of arbitration with a demand that the United States should reaffirm our neutrality. This was an affront, but Forsyth merely expressed surprise.
36. The plan of arbitration was first brought to the attention of our government during the latter part of Dec., 1837. Ho. Report, 1056; 25, 2. Ashburnham, no. 42, 1838. (Surprise) 52W. D. Jones, nos. 132-3, 1838. Mexico proposed arbitration to France also, but met with a refusal (México á través, iv, 411). Later, Martinez proposed to give the arbitration a scope that would have included Mexican complaints regarding Texas. To admit such diplomatic and political questions would have made the affair practically endless, and thus have nullified it so far as its essential object, the adjustment of private claims, was concerned; and our government properly refused to accept this proposition (Moore, Internat. Arbit., 1217).
37. Ho. 252; 25, 3, pp. 24 (Martínez), 27. Ho. 190; 26, 1. Moore, Internat. Arbit., 1216-8. Forsyth to Ellis, no. 3, May 3, 1839. To save time, the United States transported Martínez's courier to Vera Cruz, but the man spent about three weeks in making the four-days' trip from the port to the capital (ibid.). 63Forsyth to Martínez, Mar. 16, 1839. (Excuse) Ho. 252; 25, 3, p. 21 (Jones, Jan. 10); Ho. Report, 320; 25, 3. (Disavowed) Ho. 252; 25, 3, pp. 2, 14.
38. Pakenham, no. 60, 1840. (Waived) Memoria de. Relaciones, Jan., 1841. Moore, Internat. Arbit., 1221-3. Castillo and León de-