One of Peña's minor points was that it did not appear from Slidell's credentials that he had been confirmed by the Senate; and in fact, since the American Congress had not been in session at the time of his appointment, he had not been. This was not only to inquire into our domestic affairs, but to hold that the Executive of the United States could not appoint a diplomatic agent during a recess of the Senate. Shannon's letter of credence had said nothing regarding his confirmation, and Murphy had acted as our chargé in Texas for about nine months before his name went to the Senate. Another point was that Slidell's letter of credence did not expressly state that he had full powers for the business in hand; put it was practically absurd, after the United States had taken so much trouble and shown its good faith by withdrawing our fleet, to suppose that we would send an agent to Mexico without giving him the authority to do what we were evidently so anxious to bring about. When this complaint was brought to his attention, Slidell replied that his credentials described him as minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary, and also that it was not usual to exhibit one's full powers at so early a stage in such negotiations, adding that he would have done so, however, had any desire to see them been suggested. Buchanan was doubtless right in calling the objection a quibble; and one cannot suppose that under different circumstances it would have been presented. The council of state rejected Peña's objections in both of these cases.
27. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 31, 58 (Peña); 28 (Black). 52Slidell, Dec. 17.
28. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 58 (Peña). 77Relaciones, circular to govs., Dec. 11. Comunicación circular. Memoria de. . . Relaciones, Dec., 1848. Sen. 337; 29, 1, pp. 21, 24, 25, 28, 32 (Slidell); 22 (Black); 25, 30 (Peña). Slidell, Dec. 17.
Even the unfriendly Mexican correspondent of the London Times wrote, "For once" the United States is right, for the documents prove that Mexico made no ad hoc condition (Times, Mar. 13, 1846). The matter can be viewed in another light also. Peña agreed to receive a "comisionado"; later he said he had agreed to receive a "comisionado ad hoc." If the words "ad hoc" added anything, they indicated a difference between his earlier and his later positions; if not, why were they used? Many Americans, doubtless without perceiving what the significance of the act would have been, have insisted that the United States ought to have humored poor little Mexico by sending an envoy ad hoc. Aside from the weightier objection to so doing, such a concession would probably have led to further demands (see note 34). Pefia, instead of recognizing our magnanimity in taking the first step to heal a breach caused by Mexico, described our overture as "a tacit but clear and strong confession of the rights of Mexico [and] of the wrongs done to her" (77circular, Dec. 11). Gallatin stated that treaties of peace were always negotiated by special commissioners, but this was incorrect (see e.g. Jenkinson, Collection, iii, 355).
29. Memoria de. . . Relaciones, 1846. The council of state said: From the language in which the ministry "explains the condition of receiving the proposed envoy (enviado), we cannot draw a satisfactory reason for not receiving Mr. Slidell." Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 28-49, 56. Bankhead, no. 127, 1845.:
In his manifesto of July 26, 1846 (Diario, July 30), Paredes mentioned, as third among the causes of the war, the attempt of the United States to induce Mexico to receive a resident minister, so as to restore friendly