A separate bill was then passed, repealing the proviso of the distribution act, so as to allow the distribution to take place notwithstanding the increase of duties; but the bill was retained in the hands of the president, and thus defeated.

Besides the numerous petitions at this session of congress for a modification of the tariff, there were several memorials from the state of Maine, praying for relief from the effects of the want of reciprocity in the colonial trade between the United States and Great Britain, as established by the arrangement of Mr. M'Lane in 1830. It was stated in a memorial from Portland, presented to the house by Mr. Fessenden, that the effect of that arrangement had been to cripple our trade with the British West India colonies—which, though indirect, had been valuable—and to increase largely that of Great Britain. Ninetenths of that intercourse had been carried on in American vessels ; whereas, the amount of British and American tonnage was now about equal. The effect upon Maine had been peculiarly disastrous. Before the treaty went into operation, Maine had ten thousand tons of shipping employed in the trade with the British North American colonies alone. She had now been driven out entirely, while the shipping of the colonies had been increased four-fold, and they had a direct and unembarrassed trade with this country.

Another petition from that state declared that the opening of our ports to Great Britain had been obtained by fraud. She had promised reciprocity, but she would not grant it. A part only of her colonial ports had been opened. Those where return cargoes could be obtained for our vessels, remained closed. Nor did we, at the colonial free ports, enjoy equal privileges. Our vessels were subjected to many vexations and charges from which British vessels were exempt. The petitioners said, of the trade in plaster of paris, so important to that state, Maine had lost the greater part. Nearly 200,000 tons annually were exported from the provinces to the United States; the most of which had been transported in American vessels, but was now for the most part done by British vessels. From some of the quarries, we were entirely excluded. The same was true of the grindstone trade. The petitioners therefore prayed, that the effect of the proclamation of the president in 1830, making our ports free to the navigation of Great Britain, be done away, and that the navigation acts of 1818, 1820 and 1828 be revived. No action beyond the reception of the petitions appears to have been taken upon the subject

. The ineffectual attempts hitherto to settle the north-eastern boundary question have been already mentioned. The want of a territorial line had been the source of constant irritation to the inhabitants of both coun.

tries residing within the disputed territory, and of great annoyance to those of Maine in particular. Military forces had been called out by the authorities of both Maine and Canada to defend their respective territories against intrusion and depredation. A citizen of Maine had been taken prisoner on disputed territory. The act, however, was disclaimed by the British authorities, and the prisoner released. This controversy had been for many years a standing topic of presidential communication to congress, and had generally been represented as being in a state unfavorable to a speedy termination.

A new attempt at amicable adjustment by negotiation was made in 1842; and lord Ashburton was appointed by the British government as minister extraordinary to the United States for this purpose. He arrived in this country the 3d of April, and was introduced in due form to the president on the 5th. The expectations of a successful negotiation, founded upon the character of the British envoy, and the belief of the sincerity of the professed pacific intentions on the part of his government, were not disappointed. Commissioners appointed by the legislatures of Maine and Massachusetts, and also by the government of the frovince of New Brunswick, participated in the negotiation. On the 9th of August, a treaty of boundary was concluded, to the almost entire satisfaction of the negotiators, and to the country generally. Mutual concessions had of course been found necessary, with some of which, as it was natural to presume, the people of Maine were not fully satisfied.

The line, to some extent, corresponded to that proposed by the king of the Netherlands. The claim to that portion of the Madawaska settlement lying south of the St. John's river, strenuously maintained heretofore by Great Britain, was, after a warm contest with lord Ashburton, relinquished to the United States. The Aroostook, also in dispute, was yielded by Great Britain. A tract lying north of the St. John's and claimed by Maine, was relinquished for the free navigation of that entire river. Rouse's point also, of which Great Britain had for many years had possession, was relinquished to the United States. This treaty provided for settling the entire line between the two countries to the Rocky Mountains; for the final suppression of the slave trade; and for the giving up of criminals, fugitives from justice, in certain cases.

For the suppression of the slave trade, each of the parties was to maintain in service, on the coast of Africa, an adequate squadron, carrying not less than eighty guns; to be independent of each other, but acting in concert and coöperation. Persons charged in either country with murder, or assault with intent to commit murder, piracy, robbery, or forgery, and found in the other, were to be delivered up to justice. The treaty was ratified by Great Britain the 13th of October, and on

--- -

the 10th of November, proclaimed by the president of the United States.
The news of the ratification by the British government was received
with general satisfaction. In some places public rejoicings were held;
and much applause was bestowed upon Mr. Webster for his successful
negotiation of the settlement of this long standing difficulty. Some of
the British papers contained expressions of strong dissatisfaction with
the concessions made by lord Ashburton.

CHAPTER LXIV.

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. --THE PROJECT DEFEATED. -DEATH OF

UPSHUR AND GILMER.

a

SINCE the rejection, by the administration of Mr. Van Buren, of the proposition for the annexation of Texas to the union, the subject had been permitted to rest in a state of comparative slumber. The project, however, had been by no means abandoned. Both the purpose and the object of anuexation had been avowed by southern men and southern legislatures. A report of a committee of the legislature of Mississippi speaks of the importance of the annexation of Texas. It declares that slavery is "highly beneficial to the country within whose limits it is permitted to exist;" that "the south has very peculiar interests to preserve;" that "protection to her best interest will be afforded by the annexation of Texas; an equipoise of influence in the halls of congress will be secured, which will furnish us a permanent guaranty of protection.”

The intentions of the south had been thus avowed by Mr. Wise, a confidential friend of president Tyler, on the floor of congress in 1842: “ True, if Iowa be added on the one side, Florida will be added on the other. But there the equation must stop. Let one more northern state be admitted, and the equilibrium is gone-gone for ever. The balance of interests is gone--the safeguard of American property—of the American constitution—of the American union, vanished into thin air. This must be the inevitable result, unless, by a treaty with Mexico, the south can add more weight to her end of the lever !

Let the south stop at the Sabine, (the eastern boundary of Texas,) while the north may spread unchecked beyond the Rocky Mountains, and the southern scale must kick the beam."

Mr. Gilmer, a member of congress, and formerly governor of Vir.

6

United States, and Isaac Van Zandt, and J. Pinckney Henderson on the part of Texas, and communicated to the senate on the 22d, and ordered to be printed in confidence for the use of the senate.

From the correspondence accompanying the message, it would seem that the fresh impulse given to the annexation movement on the part of our government, was the apprehension that Great Britain was about to enter into a negotiation with the opponents of slavery in Texas, which contemplated its abolition in that country. This apprehension purported to be founded on a letter from a private citizen of the United States in London, stating that a Mr. Andrews, deputed by the Texas abolitionists, was then there for that purpose. The project was said to be, that money was to be advanced by a company to be organized in England, to purchase the slaves in Texas, and lands were to be taken in payment for the money thus advanced. Mr. Upshur, in his letter of the 8th of August, 1843, to Mr. Murphy, our chargé in Texas, after having made the above statement, says, “a movement of this sort can not be contemplated by us in silence;" and he states as a reason, that it was not to be supposed that the design of England was limited to the emancipation of a few thousand slaves in Texas; but that it was a part of her plan " to seek to abolish slavery throughout the entire continent and islands of America.” As sugar and cotton could be raised cheaper by slave labor than by the labor of white men, Great Britain desired the abolition of slavery in the United States, Texas, and Brazil, in order to create a market for the productions of her East and West India colonies. It was stated, also, that Texas would afford a shelter for fugitive slaves. In view of these and other reasons given in his letter, he presses the subject upon the attention of Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy, in his answer, dated September 23 and 24, 1843, having given some account of this Mr. Andrews, says he had, on his return from London to Texas, been driven away by force.

The letter says also : “But the negotiation now on foot between Texas and Mexico, through the medium, or rather under the control, of Great Britain, has changed entirely the whole character of affairs, and demands the most prompt and energetic action of the government of the United States;" and he advises that immediate steps be taken for the safety of our "domestic institutions." Simultaneously with the date of the above letters from Mr. Murphy, September 23, Mr. Upshur writes again to Mr. Murphy, expressing the deep concern of the president in regard to the policy of England, and requests Mr. Murphy to communicate fully and freely with Mr. Thompson, our minister in Mexico. He also expresses fears that the British are endeavoring to obtain control of the gulf of Mexico, and urges the most untiring vigilance of the movements

al