Vol. XVI1 OCTOBER, 1912 No. 2
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
General Sam Houston will always be conspicuous in history as one of the most remarkable men of the past generation. Much has been written about him that is misleading. This was natural, for his career was marked by fierce antagonisms, and men generally regarded him either from the standpoint of partiality or prejudice.
I who knew him intimately in his later years now comply with the request of friends in giving my recollections of him, with incidents of his strange career, many of which I had from his own lips in social converse from time to time while he was governor of Texas and I a young district judge, meeting him almost daily in Austin. I know of no other living man who knew him well, and a natural curiosity is felt by this generation to know more of his appearance, his disposition, his habits, incidents illustrating his character, and the peculiarities that distinguished him from other men.
His Early Life.—On the forty-third anniversary of his birth (March 2d, 1836) he signed the Declaration of Texas Independence. When left an orphan at a tender age by his father's death, his mother crossed the mountains from Virginia with him and her other children, and settled in Maryville, Blount county, Tennessee. The family was poor, and after working on a small farm and obtaining such common school education as a new country afforded he was placed by his older brother in the store of a Mr. Sheffy to clerk. He was not satisfied there, and went to the tribe of Cherokee Indians, whose lands were just across the Holston River, and but a few miles distant. With them he remained for nearly two years, fishing, hunting, participating in their ball games and other amusements. His adventurous and ardent nature rejoiced in the wild freedom of the forest and in the companionship of the Cherokees, whose language he learned to speak fluently. The Indians made him a sub-chief and named him Co-lon-neh,2 the raven. He lived in the home of Oo-loo-tee-kah, known by Americans as John Jolly, who became the principal chief of the western fragment of the Cherokees after their removal by treaty west of the Mississippi River. Thus early he heeded the “call of the wild” by disregarding the authority of his older brother, and evinced that impatience of control that marked all his future life.
After leaving the Cherokees he was for a short time a student in the academy at Maryville, until the declaration of war with England, when he enlisted as a private soldier in his twentieth year, and was commissioned as an ensign by President Madison.
His Personal Appearance.—Joseph Guild of Gallatin, Tennessee, states in his Old Times in Tennessee that Houston was six feet six inches high. Guild greatly admired Houston and some allowance must be made for his error, for Houston's height in his prime of life was six feet two inches; he once told me so, and though men shrink in stature when old he could never have been so tall as Mr. Guild describes him. I will describe him as I remember him, though it is difficult to write a picture of any one.
His bearing was always dignified and erect; his form indicated great strength and activity; his face and head were large and symmetrical; his voice deep toned, manly and firm; his speech whether in conversation or addressing an audience deliberate and distinct; and his eyes large and deep blue.
He was a little eccentric in his dress, was occasionally seen with a vest made of leopard's skin, and wore in all seasons a soft, broad brimmed, fur hat. In winter he sometimes wore a Mexican blanket, but in other respects was usually clothed in the fashion of the time. His gestures were graceful and his manners refined, especially when with ladies, with whom he was a great favorite. He was an inveterate whittler, and one of his San Jacinto captains once told me that he always found him whittling when he visited his headquarters. I will be excused for remembering that I often thought of General Houston's appearance during the four years I lived in Europe when I met often in the audience chamber of the Sultan of Turkey and at social functions the ambassadors of other powers, bedecked with the medals and gewgaws of rank. On such occasions I have wished that I could show them Sam Houston, a man commissioned for leadership by God, who needed no artificial decorations, and whose appearance attested his nobility.
A fine marble bust of Houston may be seen in the State Library room in Austin which represents him as he looked in 1859.3 An excellent portrait of him belonging to the Hon. Edwin B. Parker of Houston shows how he appeared in 1863, and another portrait painted in the Cherokee nation now hangs in my hall, and will be given to Texas. Another portrait made at the same time in the Cherokee nation belongs to the State of Tennessee.4 They represent him naked with only a blanket thrown around his waist. He told the artist to paint him as “Marius among the ruins of Carthage,” and so he stands among broken columns with but a few remaining standing, as if to indicate that hope was left.
I quite agreed with the Hon. John H. Reagan, Major W. M. Walton, Governor Lubbock and others that the marble statue of Houston in the National capitol, a replica of which is near the south entrance of our State House, does not convey a correct idea of the man. They are the conceptions of a distinguished artist who never saw him, and who has represented him clothed with a fringed hunting shirt, cavalry boots and wearing a sabre. The marble bust in the State Library would have given the artist a better idea of his face.
I first saw him in 1855 after he had joined the Native American or Know-Nothing Party, but did not then form his acquaintance. He was mounted on a splendid gray horse and rode at the head of a procession of his admirers on Congress Avenue in Austin, going up to the old Capitol building, from the steps of which he spoke to the multitude. He was a fine horseman, and as with uncovered head he bowed to the people who with shouts were saluting him, I thought I had never seen a more attractive figure. He visited Austin again in 1857, and I then heard him speak in a beautiful grove on the very ground where now stands the State University, just north of which a barbecue was prepared. I did not then know him personally, being opposed to his political course. My acquaintance began in the autumn of 1857 after his defeat for governor under circumstances to which I will refer presently, and which marked the beginning of a mutual friendship.
History tells us of his daring at the battle of the Horseshoe, of his being elected to Congress when on account of his age he was barely eligible, of his re-election, and of his then being elected Governor of Tennessee. Also of his marriage to Miss Eliza Allen (who was a first cousin of Mrs. E. H. Mitchell, my mother-in-law), and of his separation from that wife. Every schoolboy knows of Houston's career in the Texas revolution and of his victory at San Jacinto. That battle he once at my request described to me; and some sidelights upon that victory, thus obtained, will be found in my printed address to the San Jacinto veterans at their annual reunion in Houston in 1893.
The music for the Texan troops at San Jacinto was made by a fife and a kettle drum. The soldiers, remembering the recent massacre of Fannin's men after their surrender, and the butchery at the Alamo, were eager for revenge. Houston knew that their courage had hardened into desperation, and he ordered the musicians to play as the army moved to battle the old love song “Will you come to the bower I have shaded for you,” and to change the tune to “Yankee Doodle” when in close rifle range. The Greeks indulged in the pyrrhic dance before battle, but Houston's army at San Jacinto was the only one that ever charged to the music of a love song, except when General Havelock marched to the relief of Lucknow to the music of “Annie Laurie.”
Separated From His First Wife.—Houston's separation from his first wife is a mystery which I presume will never be solved. He and his wife were regarded as the finest looking couple in Tennessee. They were married in January, 1829, he being then governor. His canvass for a second term opened the following April. A few days afterwards he resigned his office and, a few hours later, before the citizens of Nashville knew it, he was going down the river in disguise on a steamboat. When his friends next heard of him he was with the Cherokees west of the Mississippi River. They sent a small stock of goods to him suited to the Cherokee trade, and without his previous knowledge, for they knew his indifference to money. They also sent an artist to paint his portrait.
Henry Sublett, who took my place in the law firm of Hamilton and Terrell in 1857 and whose older brother Phil Sublett had been Houston's friend in boyhood, once told me that he was present when Houston resented the efforts of that brother to discover the cause of his separation from his wife. Phil Sublett lived in eastern Texas and in 1839 Houston often stopped at his house. He was then much given to dissipation and one stormy night rode up to the house out of a cold rain quite intoxicated. After he had thrown himself on the floor, Phil got down by his side and said: “Sam, you know you can trust me. Why did you quit Eliza?” Henry told me that Houston was sober in an instant, and rising up said: “Sir, you violate the laws of hospitality by seeking to tear from my bosom its secret,” and mounting his horse he went forth in the stormy night, rejecting all Sublett's efforts to detain him.
The conduct of his divorced wife who afterwards married Dr. Douglas was equally strange. She never mentioned Houston's name, but, without speaking, would resent every harsh reference to him by promptly leaving the presence of the speaker, and she is said to have read with avidity every notice of his subsequent career. What effect the deep grief that drove Houston into exile had in changing his nature can only be surmised; but certain it is that he is the only man I ever knew who having a keen sense of humor never indulged in boisterous laughter. When his anecdotes or droll sarcasm excited those around him to merriment, he would remain with features unmoved and only show his enjoyment of the pleasantry by opening his large blue eyes as if in astonishment.
Among the Cherokees.—While with the Cherokees he resumed his name of Co-lon-neh, or the raven, and always wore the garb of a Cherokee. His intimate friends were Oo-loo-tee-kah and Apoth-la-a-hoo-lah, neither of whom spoke English. Within a year after separating from his wife he married a beautiful half-breed woman, Tiana Rodgers, who was said by those who had seen her to have been very tall and graceful and devoted to Houston. With her he lived in a log cabin on the banks of the Grand River nearly opposite Ft. Gibson. Judge W. S. Oldham, my first law partner in Texas, and a former supreme judge in Arkansas, had known Houston in Tennessee and sometimes saw him in Ft. Gibson dressed like a Cherokee. He would never then speak English to anyone and a deep melancholy caused him to avoid all intercourse with white men. Such periods would be followed by intoxication, though his former habits in that respect had been exemplary. Often he was seen armed only with the bow and arrows with which he had become dexterous when a boy. He was always a friend of the Indians, and as president and governor did much to preserve peace on the frontier of Texas.
His Method of Campaigning in 1857.—The canvass for governor of Texas in 1857 was marked by great bitterness. Houston had made himself obnoxious by his vote on the compromise slavery measures and was opposing Runnels, who was the Democratic nominee for governor. Wigfall and W. R. Scurry canvassed against him east of the Trinity and Judge W. S. Oldham west of that stream. Though I had never taken an active part in politics, the State convention at Waco made me one of the central executive committee, and afterward I had announced as a candidate for district judge of the five counties embracing the capital. The Hon. John A. Green, son of Chief Justice Nathan Green of Tennessee, was my competitor and he was related either by consanguinity, affinity, or partnership connection with ten other lawyers including a federal judge and John Hancock, a former district judge, all of whom lived in Austin. This alarmed the lawyers who were not in the connection, and they persuaded me to oppose Green. Houston's course in his canvass of the State was defiant; he refused to speak from the same stand with anyone opposing him. Wigfall he called “Wiggletail,” and denounced him everywhere as a murderer. At Tyler he closed his speech by telling his audience that a murderer named “Wiggletail” would follow him, and he advised them not to hear him “unless they were fond of lies.” After speaking he sat in the porch of a hotel near the courthouse and when the crowd left at the close of Wigfall's speech, he rose and met them with uplifted hands and shouted, “Did I not tell you that you would hear nothing but lies?”
His Speech at Lockhart.—He spoke at Lockhart one sultry afternoon in 1857 from a long platform erected in a grove near Storey's spring. A large portion of his audience was composed of his San Jacinto soldiers and their kindred. He was clothed in a long coarse linen duster that reached to within a foot of his ankles, loose pants of the same material, no vest, low quartered shoes, and his shirt collar opened until the audience could see the grizzled hair on his breast a foot below his chin, and as thick as a buffalo mop. I had never before heard him speak when thus attired, but his erect bearing, the majesty of his appearance, his deep-toned, commanding voice, impressive gestures, and perfect composure made a lasting impression upon me. That impression was deepened when he denounced the executive committee, of which I was a member.
While Houston was speaking, Judge Oldham rode up. Oldham took from a large pair of saddlebags two volumes of the Congressional Globe. When the audience in front from curiosity began to move, Houston said, “Be still, my friends, be still, I will report the cause of this commotion.” Then, taking a step to the rear of the platform and looking over, he turned and said: “It's Oldham, only Oldham, I'll tell you what he is doing.” After looking to the rear again he faced the audience and said in a loud voice: “He is opening some books, but they are not the bank books he stole and sunk in White River, Arkansas.”
I was standing by Oldham's side. He bit in two the cigar he was smoking and said: “He wants to provoke an attack and have me assassinated.” Oldham knew the devotion of Houston's friends and how a personal difficulty would terminate.
Referring again to Oldham, Houston said that his name was attached to a paper issued by the Democratic executive committee of the State appointed by “some conspirators at Waco” in which it is said they intend “to handle me without gloves.” He paused a moment, and took deliberately from the pocket of his duster a pair of heavy buckskin gauntlets and with mock gravity drew them on, saying “that paper is too dirty for me to handle without gloves.” Then drawing the paper from his pocket he read that portion which declared that all traitors should be defeated, and in the defeat of Houston “add to theirs a name of fear that traitor knaves shall quake to hear.” Throwing the paper to the floor with quick impatient gesture, he exclaimed: “What! I a traitor to Texas! I who in defense of her soil moistened it with my blood?” Then he took several steps, limping on his leg that was wounded at San Jacinto, and continued: “Was it for this that I bared my bosom to the hail of battle at the Horseshoe—to be branded in my old age as a traitor?”
The effect can hardly be described. A wave of sympathy swept over the audience, and red bandana handkerchiefs were wiping tears of indignation from the eyes of his old soldiers. Then he stooped down and after picking up the paper said: “Let me read you the names of that executive committee.” He read: “Williamson S. Oldham—though he stole and sunk those bank books in White River and ran away to Texas, he is not yet in the penitentiary.”
“J. M. Steiner—a murderer. He murdered Major Arnold.”5
“John Marshall—a vegetarian; he won't eat meat; one drop of his blood would freeze a frog.”
“A. W. Terrell—he used to be a Whig in Missouri. They tell me that the young scapegrace wants to be your judge. A pretty looking judge he would make, this slanderer of a man old enough to be his father.”
I have heard all the great orators of the Republic and State of Texas, except Lamar and the Whartons. Houston as an orator before a frontier audience excelled them all. His voice was clear as a bugle, and his thorough knowledge of the impulses and habits of thought of the fearless men who made Texas enabled him to exercise a wonderful influence when addressing them. He was one of them, and his knowledge of human nature enabled him to impress and move them with consummate skill. Of course, their admiration of the man and his strange career had their influences. He was the product of strange environments which have disappeared in the progress of society, and for that reason we will not see his like again.
The election resulted in the defeat of Houston for governor, and in my election as district judge. After the election I published in the State Gazette a note in which I declared that my name had been placed on the address of the committee without consulting me and, while I endorsed all its political reasons for the defeat of General Houston, I would never have signed the address which called him a “traitor knave,” for his services to the country as a patriot were known to all men. I sent the article to General Houston in a letter, stating that I had delayed making the correction until I was elected, so my motive could not now be questioned. He answered by saying that in a long and eventful career he had never received anything from a political opponent that pleased him more, and he hoped soon to know me personally. From that time I date a friendship between us that lasted until his death. Two years after that canvass he was elected governor, and then I met him almost daily. He and his amiable wife belonged to the Baptist church, of which Mrs. Terrell was a member, and my wife's last sacrament was taken at our home one hot afternoon two miles south of Austin, as she lay on her cot under a spreading live oak tree, when General Houston and wife and nearly all the members of her church partook with her of the cup.
As a Christian.—I have seen two autograph letters, one from General Jackson and one from Houston in answer thereto. General Jackson wrote to him soon after he joined the Cherokees, expressing his sympathy and astonishment. Jackson had reformed and become a Presbyterian; he advised Houston to become a missionary among the Indians; the latter replied, after expressing his pleasure in knowing that he still had the confidence of his old commander, that to be a missionary to the Indians was an employment “neither suited to his inclinations nor capacity.” After Houston's marriage to Miss Margaret Lea in 1840, a lady of strong intellect, a noble wife and mother and devout Christian, she exercised a wonderful influence on his habits of drinking and using profane language. He was baptized near Brenham, Texas, by the Rev. Rufus Burleson; but long established habit is a terrible tyrant, and the Hon. John H. Reagan has more than once related to me an incident in Houston's life that illustrates this aphorism. He was riding with Houston and a Baptist preacher in eastern Texas when Houston's horse stumbled and threw the General upon his neck. When Houston exclaimed, “God d— a stumbling horse!” the preacher said: “Oh! brother Houston, do you still swear?” “Well, what must I do?” asked the General. “Ask God to forgive you.” “I'll do it. Hold my bridle rein,” and then he dismounted and walking to a fence near the wayside kneeled down under a hot sun and prayed.
Once when he came to church late I saw him take a seat near the door at a place where negro slaves usually sat, and kneel down in prayer by the side of a little negro boy.
Whether he ever felt in full measure the Christian virtue of loving his enemies may well be questioned, for while he no doubt felt a desire for the salvation of their souls after death he was always much given to plain speaking about what scoundrels they were in the flesh. He was continually attacked by ambitious men who exasperated him by assailing him through the press. His very last speech in the United States Senate was made in answer to a bitter attack of a personal enemy who charge him with cowardice at San Jacinto.
Only a few weeks before his death I witnessed a touching evidence of how time and the influence of religion had softened his imperious nature. I met him in Houston near the old Fannin Hotel one summer morning in 1863 and at once disclaimed allusion to him in an address I had made at the Capitol; for it had been charged by an Austin newspaper that I had made a covert attack upon him. His answer was, “I know, Judge, I know you did not refer to me, and if you had it would only have excited regret. I feel that my time is short and I have not a root of bitterness here,” touching his bosom with his hand, “towards any human being that breathes.”
That night I met him by invitation at the house of Major E. W. Cave, his former secretary of state. After some conversation he asked my opinion about Texas sending all her young men to distant battlefields across the Mississippi River and said: “We will soon have no one in Texas but old men and boys to defend our homes.” The waste of life seemed to him wicked and unnecessary. He asked my opinion as to how our people would feel in Texas about unfurling the Lone Star flag and calling the boys home, saying to the North and South “hands off.” I declared my belief that it would cause the sacrifice of any man who proposed it. The subject was then dropped. It was agreed between Major Cave and myself that the conversation should be kept secret for obvious reasons. Six years ago shortly before Major Cave died, he was still averse to making public the conversation for reasons that did not appeal to me. The idea of a separate republic for Texas was naturally dear to General Houston, but he failed to realize that such a move as he proposed during the madness of the hour would be regarded as treachery to the other Southern States, and would be treated as an act of treason.
Caning Stanberry.—The caning of Congressman Stanberry, from Cincinnati, Ohio, and events connected with and following it, constitute a most remarkable chapter in the life of Houston. The difficulty had its remote origin in Houston's activity in trying to check the systematic plunder of the Cherokees by government contractors during the great excitement caused by Jackson's veto of the United States Bank charter. In the fall of 1859 I heard his version of the difficulty and his subsequent trial, which I will now relate. It was a long time ago, but I afterwards made full notes of the conversation, and those who know me will bear witness to the tenacity of my memory.
After General Houston's election as Governor in 1859, he brought his young son Sam to Bastrop, where I was then holding a session of the district court, to place him in the military academy of Colonel Allen. Governor Sayers, now living in Austin, was captain of the cadets when Houston with uncovered head inspected his company during that visit, handling every gun. General Houston for several days lodged at the house of Jimmy Nicholson where Jack Hamilton, John Hancock, George W. Paschal and myself were boarding during court. Houston having just been elected governor was in a cheerful mood, and being in the company of gentlemen, all of whom except myself had canvassed for him, entertained us until midnight with interesting events of his career. I had not then read the history of his trial contained in the eleventh volume of the Abridgment of Debates in Congress, but Hamilton had, and requested the General to tell us of it. The air was balmy and the full moon was shining from a cloudless sky as we sat on Nicholson's porch and listened until late at night. Williams's Life of Houston places him in Washington in March, 1832, when Stanberry first made his offensive remark. This is an error. Houston told us that Stanberry went out of his way to assail his conduct, and that a friend sent a newspaper clipping to the Indian nation to inform him. This fact did not appear in the trial, nor did Houston refer to it in his speech, for it was not in the record. He told us that he wrote at once to Stanberry demanding a public retraction of his remarks and sent his letter by a Cherokee Indian to be mailed at Ft. Gibson. After waiting a reasonable time for an answer, he resolved to go to Washington and demand in person a retraction. He borrowed from a Cherokee friend named Apoth-la-a-hoo-lah his fringed buckskin hunting shirt with a beaver skin collar, and armed only with a Bowie knife and hickory cane that General Jackson once gave him, he started for Washington.
There were then no railroads west of the Alleghanies and the journey was tedious. On his arrival in the spring of 1832 he went directly to the hall of the old House of Representatives, for having been a member he had the privilege of the floor. While standing behind the speaker's stand and hidden from view he was conversing with Bailey Peyton, Felix Grundy and James K. Polk, when Stanberry (who perhaps knew of his presence) got the floor and again indulged in an insulting reference to Houston and spoke of him as one of General Jackson's “bullies.” The General told us that he could with difficulty restrain himself, but was influenced by his friends to leave the House.6
He then found his old friend Reverdy Johnson and requested him to bear a note to Stanberry. Fearing that Stanberry would refuse to recognize him on the ground that he was a voluntary exile from civilization, Houston made Reverdy Johnson promise that in such an event he would not pursue the course required by the dueling code and assume the quarrel himself. Stanberry having refused to notice Houston's note, except by denying his right to question him, was just at dark crossing Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the National Hotel when he approached where Houston was standing and conversing on the opposite pavement with Senator Buckner of Missouri. Houston said: “Is this Mr. Stanberry?” The answer according to General Houston was the snapping of a flint-lock pistol close to Houston's breast. Before he could draw again Houston had knocked him down with a cane and then wrenched the pistol from his grasp.
The testimony before the congressional committee makes no mention of the snapping of a pistol but does of Houston's wrenching some object from Stanberry's hands. It was dark; percussion caps were not then in use; and the pistol being a flint-lock and making no flash Buckner did not see it. Knowing the calmness of Houston in danger, there can be no question that it occurred as he stated it.
With his foot on Stanberry's prostrate body he was chastizing him with his hickory cane when the police appeared. The General told us that he then drew his knife and told them to stand off, that he was “whipping a scoundrel who had insulted him, but did not intend to kill him.”
The journals show that Stanberry, who for some days was confined to his bed, complained to the House in a note published in the debates. A committee was at once named to investigate, evidence was taken, and a long debate followed. He claimed in his defense that he had caned Stanberry for the second offense; namely, for publishing libelous matter in the press, and not on account of the insulting language in debate. The case dragged along for nearly a month, but General Houston told us that his friends had counted noses and knew that no degrading sentence would be pronounced. He had kept away from the White House until a few days before the date when he would be heard in his own defense at the bar of the House, when one night he received a note from President Jackson as follows: “Sam, come to the White House. I want to see you.” He told us that, dressed in his buckskin suit (for he had no money to buy clothes), he obeyed at once the summons and found General Jackson pacing the floor in great excitement. His features portrayed his rage, and with the look of an angry tiger he said: “It's not you they are after, Sam; those thieves, those infernal bank thieves, they wish to injure your old commander.”
Never before had he seen Jackson in such a rage, and General Houston told us that he did not believe that anyone could then have looked on his face without a tremor. The President told him that he must prepare for his defense before the House and dress himself like a gentleman, at the same time taking a long silk purse filled with gold pieces from a drawer and tendering it. Houston's pride rebelled, and at first he declined to receive it, saying he had no means of repaying it, but Jackson insisted until he took the purse, for he said: “Sam, you must take this money and when you make your defense tell those infernal bank thieves, who talk about privileges, that when an American citizen is insulted by one of them, he also has some privileges.”
The next day Houston ordered a fine suit of clothes, a silk hat, and boots, which were delivered the afternoon before he was to speak. That night he had as his invited guests at his room Stephenson the Speaker of the House of Representatives who was an old friend, Senator Felix Grundy of Tennessee, James K. Polk and Bailey Peyton, and I now quote verbatim his language:
“Gentlemen, we sat late and you may guess how we drank when I tell you that Stephenson at midnight was sleeping on a lounge in the room. Bailey Peyton was out of commission and had gone to his room, and Felix Grundy had ceased to be interesting. Polk rarely indulged and left us early. Though I drank deeply I could not feel intoxicated, and ordered a bellboy to wake up a barber and bring him. When he came I told him to bring me a cup of coffee at sunrise and his `shaving traps.' Opening a drawer, I said, do you see this purse of gold and this pistol? If the coffee does not stick when I drink it, take the pistol and shoot me and the gold is yours.” He said that he was at the very bottom round of the ladder and that he had rather have died than to have made a failure in his speech, which would occur if the coffee sickened him. The next morning the coffee agreed with him, and being dressed for the occasion he appeared at the bar of the House in custody of the sergeant-at-arms at the appointed time.
The excitement in the city was great, and the gallery was packed with the intellect and beauty of Washington. He gave us the outline of his defense substantially as published in the Abridgment of the Debates, except for an incident during his speech which was omitted, for what cause one can only surmise; but Col. Bailey Peyton many years afterward assured me that the incident occurred. Houston told us that during the debate the anti-Jackson men had made such a wanton attack on his domestic relations that he was tempted to seek higher game than Stanberry, referring to which he said as it appears in the speech: “I ask no sympathy nor need. The thorns which I have reaped are of the tree I planted. They tear me and I bleed.” He said, “That man Stanberry has slandered me through the columns of a newspaper, and refused even to answer a polite note, and I chastized him as I would a dog, and I will visit the same punishment on the shoulders of anyone who insults me, even though it be one of you who now sit in judgment on my conduct.” When the thunder of applause that greeted this remark had ceased the silence that followed was broken by a voice clear as a flute; it was a woman's voice that could be heard all over the chamber. A reigning belle of Washington had risen from her seat in the gallery just above where Houston stood and said: “I had rather be Sam Houston in a dungeon than Stanberry on a throne,” and threw a bouquet of flowers at his feet. He told us that when he stooped down to take the flowers and looking up bowed his thanks to the fair lady he felt a thrill of joy like that he experienced in the flush of victory at San Jacinto.
Four days after his speech the House decided by a vote of 106 to 89 that Houston had been guilty of a breach of privilege. Then, on motion of Henry Clay, a vote was taken on the proposition that Houston should be brought to the bar of the House and there reprimanded by the Speaker for contempt. Henry Clay opposed any penalty except that of a reprimand: the motion was adopted by a vote of 106 to 89. Then a motion to exclude Houston from the privileges of the House was lost by a vote of 90 yeas to 101 nays: Clay, Broadhead, Cave Johnson and James K. Polk voting in the negative.
The curious reader will find in Volume XII of the Abridgment of Debates the censure of the Speaker which reads more like a compliment than a reproof. Houston was fined by the local authorities $500 for assault, which was remitted by President Jackson, “for divers good and sufficient reasons moving thereto.”
His Duel With General William White.—In his long conversation that night in Bastrop in 1859 Houston told us of his duel with General White and its origin. It occurred soon after his return to Nashville after his first term in Congress. He had denounced a postmaster, who threatened to hold him personally responsible, and it was generally believed by his friends that Jno. T. Smith, a noted duelist, would bear a challenge from the offended party, and that Colonel McGregor, whose grandson now resides in Austin, would act as Houston's friend. Smith lived in Missouri; he had killed six men in duels and was known as Jack Smith T. He bore a challenge from the angry postmaster and attempted to deliver it to McGregor, who, without reading it, tore the paper and threw it on the ground, saying, “I'll neither read nor deliver to Houston anything brought by you, sir.” No fight followed between Smith and McGregor, but General White, who was near, remarked that he did not think Smith had been properly treated. When Houston heard of the remark he told General White that if he was not satisfied he would give him any satisfaction he desired. It was reported that White had backed down, and this caused White to resent the imputation by challenging Houston, who accepted it.
Houston went at once to General Jackson's home at the Hermitage to borrow his pistols and practice under his eye. The dueling code required the antagonists to stand with their backs to each other and after answering to the question “Are you ready, gentlemen?” to fire between the words “fire” and “1, 2, 3, stop.” Jackson told Houston to clamp some substance firmly between his teeth to steady his nerve, and also to so place his feet that without turning he could make a quarter turn of his body and thus gain a fraction of time after the word “fire.” Houston and White fought across the State line in Kentucky. Houston escaped, but White was shot through the body, though not killed.
In answer to a question as to what Houston would have done if insulted by Smith T., he told us that it was then thought in Nashville that his enemies had brought Smith there to provoke a challenge from him. Smith was a dead-shot who after killing his victim always walked up to him to see if he had shot him in the eye. General Houston told us that it was believed that Smith wore a shirt of mail, and he said that he had prepared himself with a double-edged dagger and if Smith had insulted him by treading on his foot or otherwise, he intended to seize him and kill him by driving the knife down above the collar bone, for, said he, “Smith was a heartless butcher, and if insulted, I intended to slay him as I would a dog.”
Houston never fought another duel, though his bitter tongue when speaking of his enemies provoked many challenges. He was challenged by General Albert Sidney Johnston, President Lamar, Commodore Moore, President Burnet, and others. He once handed to his secretary the paper containing a challenge, saying, “This is number twenty-four. The angry gentleman must wait his turn.”
It may seem strange that his reputation for courage was not affected, especially when the manner in which he sometimes avoided a fight is considered, for once he said, “Tell him that I won't fight him, for I never fight downhill”; but there was a general feeling amongst the colonists, except on the upper Colorado, that the safety of the republic depended on his services, and that many who aspired to leadership wanted him out of the way; therefore the people did not blame him for refusing to risk his life in personal combats.
Among the most prominent men then in Texas was William H. Wharton who was a brilliant orator and a leading spirit in stirring up the colonists to revolt. Governor Frank Lubbock once told me that after Houston had declined a challenge from Wharton he, with others, was present when they met in the shed room of the house on White Oak Bayou near Houston, where on some festive occasion the gentlemen had retired to mix their toddies. Wharton made an insulting remark to Houston and at the same time placed his hand on the handle of his Bowie knife, when Houston instantly lifted up both his open hands above his own head at arm's length and exclaimed: “Draw—draw if you dare! Lift your hand against the Majesty of Texas and the Almighty God would blast you where you stand.” Such was the strange influence of Houston's voice and gesture that Wharton, whom all knew to be a brave man, left the room.
I witnessed in 1859 the wonderful influence that Houston exerised over a desperate man when both were seated opposite each other at the dining table of Nicholson's Hotel in Bastrop. Ham White had during his early life been a Texas ranger, and had sworn he would kill Houston on sight, because he had said during the “Archive War” after the Mexican invasion of Vasquez that the people of the upper Colorado were horse thieves. White's threat was known, and Houston had been warned. While seated opposite each other at the dining table White made a very insulting remark intended for the General. All heard it and expected trouble; no answer was made, but Houston after laying down his knife and fork straightened up in his chair and looked with defiant gaze straight at Ham White who dropped his head and continued eating. Not a word was spoken, but anyone who has seen a powerful mastiff cow with a look a barking dog can understand the scene.
Strange Renewal of Friendship.—One of my nearest neighbors and valued friends from 1852 to 1860 was Captain James M. Swisher. He commanded a company at San Jacinto, and was a staunch friend of Houston until the latter attempted to remove the archives of the Republic from Austin, and at the same time indulged in harsh criticisms of Austin's colonists on the Colorado. For this Swisher openly threatened to hold Houston responsible. They never met, however, until 1857 when Houston, while making a speech, discovered Swisher in the audience. After a patriotic tribute to the bravery of the Texan soldiers at San Jacinto, the General said: “Yes, I see many of my old boys before me, and yonder sits Captain Jim Swisher, the bravest of the brave.” After the speaking Swisher embraced Houston and weeping, laid his head on Houston's breast. Swisher was a good hater, a stern, vindictive man; but the memory of mutual dangers in the past and former friendship drove every thought of resentment from his breast.
Houston's Solicitude for Long John.—In the winter of 1838 when the seat of government was at Houston a few of Houston's Cherokee friends went there to see him, expecting, of course, to get presents of powder, lead and blankets. Houston was poor; indeed his only property consisted of two negroes Tom and Esau, and his saddle horse. Under such conditions his Indian visitors could not have given the General much pleasure. One cold, rainy night while the Cherokees were in town Dr. Ashbel Smith, Surgeon-General of the army of Texas, received an unexpected visit from Houston, who standing at the door without entering Smith's cabin said: “Dr. Ashbel, have you with you your pill bags?” When he answered “yes” the General said: “then get them quick and follow me to see a sick friend.” He led the way over the muddy streets through the dark and the cold rain until he stopped at the open door of a large cabin built of pine slabs that stood in the rear of the Capitol. At the door Houston removed his hat and stood with bowed head until an Indian medicine man had finished his incantations over a kettle that was placed on a fire on a dirt floor in the middle of the room. Then the General, who had not spoken a word, motioned to the Doctor and pointed to two goods boxes on which Smith saw by the flickering firelight the form of a stalwart Indian. Houston motioned to Smith to approach the man, but still without speaking. The Doctor felt his wrist; he had no pulse. “Your friend, Mr. President, is quite sick,” he said. Houston bowed his head, but said nothing. The Doctor put his ear over the region of the heart; it had ceased to beat, and the Indian's glazed eyes were fixed on vacancy. The Doctor wished to break gently the patient's condition to the President, so he said: “Mr. President, your friend is really in articulo mortis.” Houston bowed his head, but said nothing. “I must be plain. Your friend is dead.” The Doctor told me that Houston bowed his head for an instant, and then lifting high his hands exclaimed: “My God, is Long John dead? I thought Long John was too d— a rascal ever to die.”
His Dislike for General W. R. Scurry.—General William R. Scurry, who was killed at the battle of the Saline during our Civil War, was one of the eloquent men of Texas. He opposed Houston from the stump in 1859 and incurred his enmity. Scurry, who was often careless in his attire, was nicknamed by Houston “Dirty-Shirt Bill.” His hatred of Scurry found expression in a peculiar manner. After the inauguration of General Houston in 1860, A. J. Hamilton and G. W. Paschal, desiring to retain Professor Shumard as State Geologist, introduced him to the Governor who was quite busy, but being introduced Houston laid down his pen and said: “O yes, glad to see you, Professor. Few men in Texas are qualified for your office. You call rocks the bones of the earth and tell how old it is by inspecting them. Yes, yes, a rare sort of learning! I wish a test of your skill. Find out and report to me the composition of the dirt on Bill Scurry's neck. If the report satisfies me I may keep you.” Then rising up, he said: “Good afternoon, Professor, good afternoon,” and with a lordly gesture bowed him to the door.
Soon afterwards I met Hamilton coming from the Capitol who told me that he had just inquired about Shumard's appointment, and the Governor had said: “He is a remarkable man, sir. He reports that he has found six distinct strata of filth on Bill Scurry's neck, and in the lower strata next to the hide he has discovered the fossil remains of animalculae.”
His Views of Education.—When he brought his young son, Sam Houston, to Allen's Military School at Bastrop, he then gave to the Hon. A. J. Hamilton and myself his views of education. He wanted his son to be well grounded in the history and constitution of the United States, to continue his study of English grammar, and to have daily practice in writing until he could write well; to cypher to the “single rule of three,” and learn how to calculate interest so as to protect himself in business, and did not wish him to “waste time” on Greek and Latin, nor keep him at school for years to learn the higher branches of mathematics. “For what profit,” he asked, “is there in learning to tell how long it will take a ray of light from some distant star to reach our planet?” He wished to take Sam from school before he was twenty years old and place him in a clerk's office, or store, to come in contact with men and learn the “great book of human nature.” He said that if Sam was kept at school until he was older in order to study Greek, Latin, and advanced mathematics he would return home “a graduated fool.”
It may well be doubted whether a university education would have better qualified General Houston to lead the rugged men who drifted to the frontier of civilization or to hold his own when surrounded by the turbulent spirits who often opposed him.
His Bird of Destiny.—General Houston once told Dr. Ashbel Smith that a raven, his bird of destiny, fluttered before him in the dust in the road when he was going to Colonel Allen's (his father-in-law) house the afternoon of his first marriage, and its peculiar cry of distress seemed a note of warning. General Houston gave to Major Goree, who grew up in Texas where the General lived, and to whom he was much attached, a singular account of his coming to Texas. He told him that while he lived among the Cherokees, the raven, whenever he saw that bird, would fly in the direction of Texas, and he at last determined to follow the course of his flight.
His Punishment of an Enemy.—Houston had a great dislike for General Besser, who lived in Huntsville. When Houston was Governor of Texas in 1860 he directed that a lean, half-starved, estray dog that came to the Mansion should not be fed by anyone but himself. After dinner he would throw him some crusts of bread, and then while he was eating would beat him with his staff until he howled, and while beating him would say: “How do you like that, General Besser?” Such an act was evidently the result of his early association with the Indians, who thought they could injure an enemy by giving his name to some object and then shooting arrows at it.
One of His Last Speeches.—When he was Governor in 1860 he spoke one cloudy afternoon in December on the north side of the Baptist church that stands in front of the Executive Mansion. His voice was clear and strong, and as he appealed for the union of the States, he uttered no word of bitter invective. His entire speech was an address to the reason, while he was depicting the horrors of civil war and foretelling its progress and result with prophetic truth; not one word of dissent was heard from the great assembly that covered the hillside. I have sought in vain for a newspaper copy of that speech to which I listened, but much of it lingers in my memory. He warned us that civil war would surely follow secession, and would result in the destruction of slavery; he said that at first Southern chivalry would for a time triumph, but our overthrow would follow; that the prejudices of the civilized world were against slavery and would prevent help from coming to us from abroad, while Europe would, if necessary, furnish recruits for the armies of the North. He warned the people of the numerical superiority of the Northern States, and that they were in possession of the navy and all the machinery of organized government, while the South with no previous preparation would soon find its seacoast blockaded and its men fighting with the fear of a servile insurrection behind them. He predicted that our young men would be hurried across the Mississippi River,7 and leave Texas to be protected by old men and boys, and thus fall an easy victim to the North. He said the North would control the Mississippi River and cut the Confederacy in two; New Orleans would be captured, and our boys would die on distant fields. Thus with warning voice he pleaded for peace, and talked like some inspired prophet of disaster. No one answered him, and though Associate Justice Roberts and Attorney-General George Flournoy soon afterwards made able speeches for secession, yet at the election a large majority of votes cast in Travis county and Austin were against secession, and it was defeated in every one of the five counties of my judicial district.
His stern and uncompromising nature provoked antagonism at every stage of his strange career. As early as 1855, while he was a United States senator from Texas, the Texas house of representatives passed “A resolution inviting him `as former president of the Republic of Texas' to a seat in that House,” but it declared that the invitation “should not be construed as an endorsement of his vote on the Kansas-Nebraska bill to which this House is opposed.”
In 1859 he made no concessions to the secession element and made but few speeches, and yet though he denounced secession as madness he was elected by 6,000 votes in a voting population of 63,727. Two years before that he had been defeated by the organized Democracy by a majority of 8,924 votes, on account of his position in opposing the extension of slavery. His majority in 1859, if it had not been overawed by the defiant and aggressive methods of the intellectual men who then had the confidence of the people, might have prevented the secession of Texas.
Lincoln's Letter.—Before the secession convention removed Houston from his office,8 he received a letter from Mr. Lincoln through a confidential messenger about the 28th of March, 1861, in which he was told that Lincoln was willing to send 50,000 troops to aid in keeping Texas in the Union. Undoubtedly the effort already made by Governor Houston to induce General Twiggs to surrender to him instead of to the Convention the government arms and stores in San Antonio was known in Washington and induced Lincoln's letter. When that letter was received, Houston requested his personal friends David Culberson, James Throckmorton, Ben Epperson and his cousin, Colonel Rogers (who was afterwards killed at Corinth), to meet him in the Executive Mansion. He there in confidence showed them Lincoln's letter and asked them to express frankly their opinions. Though all were at that time opposed to secession, they each advised against resistance to the Convention. Then Houston stepped to the fire and burned the letter, saying: “Gentlemen, I had resolved to act in this matter on your advice, but if I was ten years younger I would not.”9
If he ever contemplated resistance to the Secession Convention, the idea was abandoned for he wrote to Colonel Waite at San Antonio, saying: “I have received intelligence that you have, or will soon receive orders to concentrate United States troops under your command at Indianola, in this State, to sustain me in the exercise of my official functions. Allow me most respectfully to decline any such assistance . . . and to most earnestly protest against the concentration of troops . . . in Texas and to request that you remove all such troops out of this State.”
No Relic in the Texas Capitol.—Texas has no relic as a personal memento of her most illustrious soldier and statesman; neither vesture, hat, sword, gun, nor even his walking staff.10 A long goldheaded staff with which he walked habitually in his advanced years was presented to me by his son, Senator Temple Houston, many years ago to keep as a memorial of the General's personal regard. It was delivered to me with the request that it should finally go to the most worthy descendant of the General. After it had remained in my hall for many years, Temple Houston wrote me from Oklahoma requesting that I send it to him. I reminded him that the State had none of his father's belongings, and wrote requesting consent that I might chain it to his father's portrait in the Capitol. He answered saying: “Send me the staff. Texas thinks more of Jim Hogg's old shoes than of my father's memory.” I thought it a harsh reflection on the State, but within a year his sister, an intellectual and accomplished lady, was defeated for the office of postmistress of the Senate.
Houston's inflexible honesty and contempt for the mere money-maker did much to inspire the confidence of the early colonists. He opposed all speculative raids on the public domain, and once proclaimed that he had rather see our treasure emptied into the Colorado River than give it to any sort of corporation.
A Duty of Texas.—To General Sam Houston, more than to any man living or dead, Texas owed her independence, and to his wise statesmanship her preservation against foreign and domestic enemies during the ten years when she was a republic. The prejudice excited by Texas slave holders against him on account of his opposition to the extension of slavery, and which has been transmitted to many of their posterity, is unworthy of our people.
Too long has this State neglected his memory; for not until he had been dead forty-seven years did she do anything to show her gratitude, and then it was done as an act of tardy justice by erecting a monument over his remains in an obscure graveyard in the interior of the State.11
We are now strong and prosperous, and this State should place in front of our Capitol his full length bronze statue of heroic size, on a granite pedestal, with no inscription but his name, Sam Houston.
In a former paper, published in The Quarterly in October, 1911, an account was given of the revolt of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico in 1680, and of the defensive efforts of the Spaniards immediately following the revolt. That paper ended with the decision of the two divisions of refugees, at Santa Fé and Isleta, to abandon the province. It is now proposed to give a narrative of their retreat down the Rio Grande, and of their subsequent settlement at Paso del Norte, subjects on which practically nothing has been written heretofore.12 The present paper has been based largely on the sources described in the introduction to the former. Several additional original documents, however, have been encountered in the Bancroft Collection, and have been utilized here. A large number of older secondary works, in which the Bancroft Collection is especially rich, have also been used. Without essentially changing the story of the revolt as I have previously written it, this new material will supplement it and throw additional light on certain points not clear in that narrative.
As has been pointed out in the account of the revolt, it was on August 14 that the Spanish refugees in Isleta abandoned that pueblo and began their long and perilous journey toward Mexico. The condition of these once prosperous settlers of Rio Abajo was such, however, that a hasty retreat was impossible. Most of the refugees, including hundreds of women and children, were without horses; many of them were barefooted and half-naked; while all suffered in common from a lack of food.13 It is not surprising to learn, therefore, that for the first ten days of the retreat an approximate distance of only twenty-five leagues was covered. For the details of this stage of the journey there is no adequate account, the chief source being an auto of García dated August 24, at which time the pueblo of Socorro had been reached. In that document García unfortunately made mention of only two important succeeding events, and even neglected to give the date for one of these.
The place first mentioned as having been passed was Sevilleta, one of the pueblos of the Piros Indians. There the natives were found quiet and peaceably disposed toward the Spaniards, as is shown by the fact that they abandoned their pueblo and moved on with the refugees into the interior of the Piros nation.14 Sometime between the 14th of August, the day Isleta was abandoned, and the 20th of the same month, García and Father Diego de Mendoza despatched letters to Leiva and Father Ayeta informing them of the revolt and of the fate which at that time it was supposed had befallen all the settlers north of Sandía.15 This news was received by Leiva and Ayeta at El Paso on August 25, at eight o'clock in the morning.16 The events attending the receipt of it will be discussed later.
A second and more important event had been the receipt by García of definite news concerning Otermín and the northern refugees at Santa Fé. On August 20, while García and the Rio Abajo people were halting in the pueblo of El Alto,17 there arrived from the north Sebastian de Herrera and Fernando de Chávez, the two18 survivors of the jurisdiction of Taos. These men first gave an account of the revolt at that pueblo. They then told of their flight for safety, and of passing on the seventh day after the outbreak of the revolt in sight of Santa Fé, where they were able to ascertain that a large number of Spaniards were besieged in the government buildings (casas reales). While viewing the progress of the siege from a distance, the Indians had been seen to attack the villa and set fire to houses, the church of San Miguel, and the living quarters of the governor, situated in the casas reales, leaving intact only two small towers of his dwelling.19 On these towers were seen some people, though it could not be determined whether they were Indians or Spaniards. A little later Herrera and Chávez saw the smoke, and heard the dull roar, as they judged, of the Spanish artillery, after which they saw the Indians, “who actually were fighting,”20 withdraw to the fields, setting fire to other houses as they proceeded. Herrera and Chávez, however, did not wait to see whether the enemy had withdrawn for good, or returned later to continue the siege.21
This news brought by Herrera and Chávez was García's first information that any of the northern settlers had survived the revolt, for, as has been seen, the Indians had led him to believe that all had perished except those who were able to assemble in Isleta. Having reason to believe, therefore, that if seven days after the outbreak the Indians had not conquered the refugees at Santa Fé, they might even then be alive and still defending themselves there, García determined, if possible, to learn for a certainty their fate.22
Such a move at that time, however, was impracticable. First of all, it was necessary to find a place where the women and children might be left with some degree of security,23 for the dreaded Apaches, who were allied with the Christian revolters, were almost constantly in sight of the refugees.24 Now that there was hope that some of the besieged in the villa might still be alive, the question of the rescue presented even greater difficulties than when it had come up at Isleta. Some twenty-five more leagues now lay between him and the villa. The supply of provisions, scanty in the extreme when Isleta was abandoned, had perceptibly diminished. There was no place where they might hope to replenish their food supply, or to refill their almost empty ammunition pouches.25 Accordingly, the march was resumed from El Alto, and four days later (August 24) the pueblo of Socorro, near the center of the friendly Piros nation, was reached.
Upon the arrival at that place several circumstances combined to influence García to make arrangements at once for returning to the northern jurisdiction. The inhabitants of Socorro, like those of Sevilleta, were found quiet and still friendly toward the Spaniards. When it was learned that the latter were abandoning the province, the natives of Socorro and Sevilleta expressed their determination to go with them, being afraid, since they had not been invited to join the revolt, that the northern tribes would attack and destroy them.26 Feeling a certain sense of security in Socorro, therefore, García decided to fortify that pueblo as a means of protection to the women and children, and, after attempting to secure men, arms, ammunition, and provisions from the supply train which was supposed by that time to be somewhere near them, to return to Santa Fé.27
The supply train, as was pointed out in the account of the revolt, consisted of a number of wagon-loads of provisions and munitions which the government had granted for the support and protection of the missions of the province. It had left Mexico the year before in charge of Father Ayeta, the custos and procurator general of New Mexico; and, in order that it might have safe convoy, Otermín had despatched, some weeks previously, a troop of thirty men under Pedro de Leiva, to meet it at El Paso and conduct it up the river.28 It was García's intention, upon the receipt of these reinforcements from the supply train, to leave a small garrison at Socorro, and then, with all the force that would follow him, to go to ascertain the fate of the governor, “or lose his life in the attempt.”29
An auto setting forth the above plans, together with an order for their immediate execution, was made public in Socorro on the day of arrival at that pueblo. At the same time García gave an opportunity for anyone who might not agree to. the project, to so express himself in writing. While the men in camp were considering the proposals, García, himself, it seems, was making preparations to carry them out. But he soon found himself in a “chaos of confusion,” on account of the scarcity of arms, ammunition, and other supplies, either for an offensive or for a defensive campaign. Moreover, signs of hostility on the part of the Socorro Indians had been discovered. He therefore decided to suspend operations, call a junta of all the men of practical military experience, and to decide thereafter what was best.30
On the same day, accordingly, all the soldiers who were at Socorro met in assembly.31 The first man to speak was Maestre de Campo Thome Domínguez de Mendoza, a person who had held responsible positions in the province both in peace and war. Mendoza began his remarks by summarizing the events of the revolt. He told how many citizens of the province had been killed, and how the Rio Abajo survivors had been able only “by the very skin of their teeth” to assemble in Isleta. He told how, after the Spaniards had collected there, the natives of that pueblo had become warlike, and how the refugees, fearing death, had held a consultation and decided to retreat toward Mexico until they should meet the supply-train. But especially did he dwell upon the present condition of the refugees. Practically defenseless and without munitions, the camp had the dreaded Apaches ever in sight. Some of the Piros Indians, among whom the Spaniards then were, and who had hitherto shown no unfriendly disposition, were becoming hostile. This was shown by the fact that when a messenger from the northern rebels had arrived among them, they had hid him for three days, at the end of which time he was discovered. The small supply of provisions with which they had started out from Isleta was almost exhausted, while a number of refugees, including several of the religious, were ill. For these reasons, and because the actual condition of the governor's division could not be ascertained from the report of Herrera and Chávez, Mendoza was of the opinion that the force ought not to be divided, but that all should go together to meet the supply-train and its escort. Having met the train, he thought, a body of men should be sent to ascertain the fate of those in Santa Fé, in order that a true report might be sent to the King. To do otherwise would mean death to both those left behind and those in the villa. Such, he said, was what he conscientiously believed to be “most fitting to the service of God and the King,” and in the interest of the safety of the whole body of people.32
Following Mendoza seventeen other officers spoke. All but one insisted that their force should not be divided by sending a part of them to meet the wagons, as García had ordered, since in their absence the apostates, allied as they were with the Apaches, might attack the camp, the result of which would be fatal to all. The only dissenting opinion came from Captain Don Fernando Durán y Chávez, who said that, leaving the camp guarded, it would be “fitting to return to the villa of Santa Fé in order to know for a certainty” whether its inhabitants were dead or alive.33
Two days later (August 26), in “this place opposite the pueblo of Socorro”—from this it seems that they had already moved out of Socorro—the last man gave his opinion. This was Sarjento Mayor Luis de Granillo, also referred to as “Alcalde and capitan á guerra of the jurisdiction of the Xemes and Queres Indians, procurator general of these provinces, and regidor of the villa of Santa Fé.”
The account, given elsewhere, which at that time he made of the revolt at Jemez, Sia, and in Rio Abajo, is fuller and even more important than the opinion which he expressed concerning the question at issue. Suffice it to say here, therefore, that having called attention to their lack of supplies, and to the fact that the majority of the people at Socorro were “naked, on foot, and barefooted,” all of which caused “shudders of horror at the sight thereof,” Granillo emphatically declared that the whole body of the people ought to go on together to meet the wagons, before the Indians might advance and destroy them all.34
At the same time that Granillo gave his opinion García himself drew up an auto summarizing his reasons for continuing the retreat. He stated that in the junta, where all the many difficulties that surrounded them had been fully discussed, he had come to realize that there was nothing else to be done, especially since they had no suitable place in which to resist the enemy in case of an attack. Considering, therefore, his obligation to so many defenseless women and children, he deemed it best to reserve all his efforts until after he had met the wagons containing the royal alms, concerning which he had lately had occasion to be alarmed, because of the report that the Indians down the river were allied in the revolt. (It will be remembered that the northern tribes told the Spaniards while the revolt was in progress that all who might escape them would be killed by the Mansos Indians.) Therefore, having recorded all the autos of the revolt and of the march, together with all the opinions of the men as expressed at Socorro, that all might stand as evidence of his reason for such action, García ordered that the retreat should be continued at once.35
On September 4, when next heard of, García and the Rio Abajo refugees were at a place called Fray Cristóbal, described as being sixteen leagues south of Socorro, six leagues beyond the inhabited part of the province, nine leagues below the pueblo of Senecú, and approximately fifty-seven leagues from the pass of the Rio del Norte.36 On the details of the retreat from Socorro thither no light is thrown, nor is it stated when that place was reached. September 4, at Fray Cristóbal, however, proved an eventful day. At that time, or perhaps earlier, García received a letter written by Father Ayeta at El Paso on August 28. In this letter Ayeta notified the lieutenant-general that Leiva would start on August 30 from El Paso with aid for the Rio Abajo refugees.37 On the same day Father Francisco Farfan and four soldiers reached Fray Cristóbal from the northern division of refugees with a letter38 and certain instructions from Otermín for García. Otermín states that he sent orders for the Rio Abajo people to return to the pueblo of Senecú,39 nine leagues above Fray Cristóbal, there to await the arrival of the northern division. Father Sierra writing at Fray Cristóbal on September 4 states that the Rio Abajo division was instructed to await Otermín's division in whatever place his message should be received.40 Whatever the order, it is certain that either García did not construe it to mean that he was to return to the pueblo of Senecú, or else ignored it. Shortly after receiving this news, accompanied by six men41 he set out to meet the governor with some horses,42 leaving in command in his place Maestre de Campo Thome Domínguez de Mendoza.43
In his letter to García, Otermín had instructed the lieutenant-general to notify Father Ayeta to send him much needed aid as soon as possible.44 Accordingly, before setting out to meet the governor, García wrote to Ayeta advising him of the above-mentioned facts. At the same time Father Antonio Sierra wrote to Ayeta giving him more detailed information concerning the ruin which had befallen his religious order. Both letters were despatched from Fray Cristóbal on September 4 by the same messengers who had brought Ayeta's letter of August 28.45
From this time until the Rio Abajo people were overtaken by Otermín's division on September 13, very little light is thrown upon events at Fray Cristóbal; what is known can best be discussed in subsequent pages.
As was pointed out in the story of the revolt, when García and his soldiers evacuated Isleta on August 14, it was with the hope that they would soon meet the wagon train of supplies which Father Ayeta, the custodio and procurador general of New Mexico, was conducting from Mexico for the missionaries of the province.46 Later, as we have just seen, Socorro was abandoned for the express purpose of meeting these wagons so that the immediate wants of the refugees might be relieved sooner and that an expedition might be better equipped and sent to ascertain the fate of the northern settlers. At that time the train was supposed to be proceeding up the river at no great distance below Socorro, safely escorted by Pedro de Leiva and some soldiers whom Otermín had previously despatched to meet them. In this, however, the refugees were mistaken, for at that time the train was still at Guadalupe del Paso, over seventy leagues south of Socorro, and it was not until August 25 that Father Ayeta and Leiva at that place received news of the revolt. From that time on the activities of Father Ayeta, who was to become the real savior of the New Mexican refugees, are both interesting and important, for it was he who was to furnish supplies for the actual wants of the people, and who was also to go in person to Mexico City to report on the condition of affairs following the revolt and the things needed for a reconquest of the province.
Before discussing the efforts put forth after August 25 by Father Ayeta and Leiva at El Paso for succoring García's division, which then was supposed to contain all the survivors of the revolt, it is necessary at this point to correct some of the misleading statements that have been made concerning the supply-train which Ayeta had in his charge at that time. Bancroft,47 for instance, says in substance that in 1676 the condition in New Mexico was such that a reënforcement of forty or fifty men was needed at once if the province was to be saved; that Father Ayeta, having gone to Mexico for succor, was preparing to start with a wagon train of supplies for the missionaries; that he made an earnest appeal for fifty men and one thousand horses to accompany the train; that the junta approved the measure on September 9th, perhaps of 1677;48 that the viceroy reported to the king his resolution to send aid on January 13, 1678; that the king approved on June 18th; and finally, that after an unaccountable delay, the train started from the city of Mexico on the 29th or 30th of September, 1679. From these statements it can readily be seen that Bancroft supposed that only one supply-train was sent from Mexico City, in charge of Ayeta, for the succor of the northern provinces between 1677 and 1680, when, as a matter of fact, there were two. For a clear understanding of the whole situation a brief summary of the facts is pertinent.
It was the policy at that time for the king to grant every three years, for the support of the religious order in New Mexico, the sum of 61,440 pesos, paid at his command by the Real Hacienda of Mexico.49 In 1676 Father Ayeta went to Mexico City to collect this triennial gift, which he planned to transport to New Mexico in twenty-five wagons.50 But besides this commission, he was entrusted with another. In September of that year Ayeta, with authority from and in behalf of the governor of New Mexico and the Cabildo of Santa Fé, presented a formal petition to the viceroy, Don Payo de Rivera, asking for reënforcements in the form of men, arms, horses, and ammunition to enable the province to withstand the continued invasions of the Apaches and their heathen allies.51 The number of men asked for was fifty, to be armed and provided with twelve horses each, and whose duty it should be to guard the frontiers. In addition, arms for fifty citizens of the province, one thousand horses in all, and supplies sufficient to conduct the same to New Mexico were asked for, all to be provided at an approximate cost of 14,700 pesos, besides the supplies which were to be carried to the religious.52 To support the petition which he presented, Father Ayeta included in it transcripts of the royal cédulas of June 3, 1570, May, 1600, and May 20, 1620, giving the viceroys authority to take such measures as might be deemed necessary for the pacification of the Indians of New Spain. Father Ayeta concluded by urging that the authority thus granted by the royal cédulas cited be applied in the case of New Mexico before it should be too late.53
Besides his own petition, Father Ayeta presented also an opinion (consulta) from the definitorio of the Franciscan missions of New Mexico, and a report (informe) made by the governor of that province.54 These reports, after they had been presented to the viceroy, were referred by him to the auditor general de guerra, Don Francisco Fernández Marmolejo. On September 2, Marmolejo, in a report to the viceroy, favored sending the desired aid to New Mexico.55 The viceroy next sent the petition of Father Ayeta and the accompanying autos to the royal fiscal, Don Martín Solís de Miranda. That officer in reviewing the conditions in New Mexico as he found them stated in the autos of the governor and definitorio of the province, pointed out in substance that the invasions of the Apaches and their allies had been so disastrous that five settlements had been totally destroyed; that churches had been burned, and their furnishings, including an image of Nuestra Señora, carried off by the apostates to be made use of in their dances and sacrileges; that on October 7, 1672, Father Pedro de Ayala, minister of the pueblo of Ajusco, had been killed, and likewise that on January 23, 1675, the same fate had befallen Father Alonso Gil de Avila,56 minister of the pueblo of Senecú; that the natives had lost their respect and reverence for the missionaries; that the defensive force in the frontier settlements amounted to only five soldiers; that Santa Fé itself had only ten such defenders, while many of the citizens of the villa had neither arms nor horses, since they had been carried off by the Indians.57 Accordingly it was stated that if the request was not granted the danger was imminent not only that all the settlements of New Mexico, but even those of Nueva Vizcaya, would be destroyed.58
For all the above reasons, the fiscal stated in his report to the viceroy on September 5, 1676, that he thought it would be inexcusable not to grant the aid asked for by the governor and the definitorio of New Mexico, pointing out that royal authority was not lacking, as the cédulas cited by Father Ayeta showed. At the same time he recommended that the viceroy refer the matter to the Junta General de Hacienda.59 This was done, and on September 9, 1676,60 it was resolved by that body that the viceroy should order the officials of the royal treasury to aid “this time only and no more” the province of New Mexico, with the people, arms, horses, and munitions asked for.61 Accordingly, the treasury officials were instructed to provide all the necessaries and entrust them to Father Ayeta, who was to conduct them to New Mexico in the twenty-five wagons in which he was also to carry the supplies for the missionaries.62
On September 22, 1676, the treasury officials, with the help of Father Ayeta, compiled a detailed estimate of what should be bought, together with an itemized account of the cost. Money was allowed for the following: fifty soldiers to guard the frontiers; eight women to accompany the train to make tortillas and cook for the men; one thousand horses (to be bought in Guadiana, now Durango), twelve being allowed to each frontier guardsman; twelve men to drive the horses; supplies for the caravan sufficient to last six months, the usual time required to make such a journey from Mexico City to Santa Fé; and other miscellaneous provisions. The total cost was 14,700 pesos.63
The aid thus granted by the Junta General and collected and paid for by the treasury officials, was sent to New Mexico in 1677. Proof of this is shown by the following facts. In a royal cédula64 of June 18, 1678, the king stated that on January 13 of the same year the viceroy wrote to him giving an account of the appeal for aid which had been received from New Mexico, and informing him that after the matter had been deliberated upon in the Junta General, that body had made provision for the aid in men, arms, horses, and munitions asked for,65 before referring the matter to him, since the total cost of the supplies did not amount to more than 14,700 pesos. The king concluded the cédula by adding that he approved all that had been done for the support of New Mexico, and asked that he be kept informed as to the condition of affairs there and the results which might follow the grant of supplies. Again, in a cédula of June 25, 1680, the king mentioned the fact that on June 18, 1678, he approved the aid of people, arms, and horses which the viceroy “sent to the provinces of New Mexico in 1677.”66 This is conclusive proof that the supply-train which left Mexico in 1679 was not identical, as Bancroft supposed,67 with the one which Ayeta asked for in 1676 and received in 1677.
Concerning the supply-train that left Mexico in 1679, some facts are known. In the early part of that year Father Ayeta returned to Mexico to receive the triennial gift of 61,440 pesos.68 At the same time he represented to the authorities in Mexico in a letter directed to them and dated May 28, 1679, the advantages and benefits that had resulted from the aid that had been sent in 1677, and asked, for the greater security of those provinces, that fifty more soldiers be provided for a period of ten years, so that a presidio might be established.69 The matter was taken under advisement by the fiscal of the Audiencia in Mexico City, but that official recommended that the matter of sending further aid to the secular authorities of New Mexico be suspended for the present,70 thereby causing the plan to fall through. On June 19, 1679, the viceroy wrote to the king informing him of the facts stated, and at the same time enclosed affidavits of the correspondence between Ayeta and the Mexican authorities.71 In reply the king issued a cédula of June 25, 1680, in which he stated that, because of the benefits that had resulted from the former aid that had been sent to New Mexico, proof of which was contained in the letter of Father Ayeta of May 28, 1679, he ordered the viceroy to apply all the means possible for supplying New Mexico with such aid and defence as might be deemed useful and necessary. He concluded by stating that “you know this [the conversion of the Indians of New Mexico] is my principal care and desire”; and by requesting that he be informed on every occasion offered concerning the state of affairs in that turbulent province. By the time this cédula reached New Spain, however, the ruin which Father Ayeta had asserted to be imminent, had already befallen unfortunate New Mexico.
Having failed in his efforts to secure aid for the secular authorities in the province, Ayeta started from Mexico City on Saturday, September 30, 1679,72 with twenty-eight wagon loads of provisions for the missionaries, though at the start two of the wagons broke down.73 According to Ayeta's own statement, besides the alms which he was carrying to the missionaries of New Mexico, he also carried 14,000 pesos' worth of supplies for other northern settlers and missionaries which he had asked for and received. Of this amount 8000 pesos' worth belonged to Captain Joseph de Retes for citizens of his province, while the other 6000 pesos' worth consisted of clothing for the missionaries of the same district.74 It is thus seen that there was no “unaccountable delay” in the departure of the 1679 supply-train, as Bancroft has stated.75
The progress of the wagons from Mexico had been slow, and although six months was the time usually required for such a trip to Santa Fé, by August 25, 1680, they had not passed beyond the monastery of Guadalupe, near the pass of the Rio del Norte.76 When the wagons reached that place I do not know, yet it is possible that they had been there for some time. The river was on a rise, due to the melting of the snow on the mountains, which usually begins earlier in the summer, and this may account for the caravan's not having continued further. With the wagons at this time were the soldiers under the command of Pedro de Leiva, who had been despatched by Otermín to meet them at El Paso and conduct them up the river. This fact should be noted, for had there been any troops with the wagons that set out from Mexico in September, 1679, as Bancroft supposed, it would have been unnecessary for Otermín to send his own much-needed soldiers to meet and escort them.
It was from these wagons and the escort that was with them that García was expecting to secure aid. On September 4, however, at which time he set out from Fray Cristóbal to meet Otermín, García had not heard anything in reply to the letters which he and Father Diego de Mendoza had sent to Leiva and Father Ayeta previous to August 20, the day that Herrera and Chávez overtook the Rio Abajo division with news which seemed to indicate that some of the northern settlers had survived in Santa Fé. These letters of García and Father Mendoza were received by Leiva and Father Ayeta at El Paso on August 25, at eight o'clock in the morning. Immediately Leiva and his men assembled to confer upon the bad news which they contained, while the religious repaired to the monastery of Guadalupe for a season of prayer. It was finally decided to prepare and start aid to García by August 28. Accordingly the 26th and 27th were spent in unloading the wagons, and in making necessary preparations. On the night of the 27th, as Father Ayeta affirms, the full danger surrounding all was realized. The departure of the supplies was delayed, and on August 28, instead of despatching them as intended,77 Ayeta sent a letter to García by Indian runners, informing him that aid would be started on August 30, and suggesting that in the interim he should halt in some convenient place, attempt to fortify it, and then send messengers to guide the train, which would by that time be on the way. Ayeta requested this because, as he stated, they were all badly confused on account of the meager reports which at that time they had received.78 At El Paso the 28th and 29th were spent in arming and equipping the servants (mosos) whom Leiva's escort of twenty-seven77 men had with them when they came from New Mexico, that they might accompany the aid sent to the refugees further up the river. It was found that in all there were seventy-eight arquebuses in first-class condition, and with these fifty-one more men were armed.80 Before starting Ayeta insisted upon the selection of Leiva as provisional governor, Ayeta himself conducting the election; for, having reason to believe that Otermín was dead, he objected to their setting out without an authorized leader. Thereby, Ayeta stated, all the inconveniences that might arise, in case of Otermín's death, from the rivalry for leadership, were averted. On the 30th the cavalcade, consisting of seventy-eight soldiers and four missionaries, set out under Leiva's command. Of these, the twenty-seven men who had come from New Mexico, Ayeta remarked, formed the bulwark of strength.81 Among the things mentioned by Ayeta as having been carried by Leiva and his men were eleven complete outfits for horses;82 coats of mail, helmets, etc., which Ayeta had for the protection of the men conducting the wagons; four pounds of powder and a hundred bullets in each pouch; 4000 bales of provisions (balas de refaccion); and two cases of powder.83 It is thus seen that Leiva was better prepared to furnish means of defense to the refugees than to succor their bodily wants. And, as we shall see, the supplies which he carried proved wholly insufficient for the 2500 persons whom he met later. Ayeta instructed Leiva that as soon as he should meet the refugees, he should send the women and children to El Paso, since Leiva and his men were fully determined to continue as far as Santa Fé for the purpose of aiding the governor if possible, or at least of learning the northern settlers' fate, so that a true and accurate report might be sent to the king.84 It was Father Ayeta's purpose to send back with a second consignment of supplies the men whom Leiva might detail to accompany the women and children to the pass, together with as many other men as he could spare from the train guard, as well as some men who were with a pack train which he had despatched to Casas Grandes for aid. In order to hasten these arrangements, Ayeta himself remained at El Paso, engaged, as he himself states, in making meal, hardtack, cocinas, and bullets.85
As we have already seen, the letter which Ayeta sent to García on August 28 had been received by him at Fray Cristóbal by September 4. On the same day he and Father Sierra sent other letters to Father Ayeta briefly informing him of some of the events that had taken place in the northern jurisdictions, of the retreat of the survivors of those jurisdictions, and of Otermín's request that aid be sent him at once. The messengers bearing these letters set out from Fray Cristóbal on the morning of September 4, but through fear of the enemy they soon deviated from the camino real. That evening, toward sundown, while resting on a mountain, they descried Leiva proceeding up the river. The runners, by signals, informed him that the lower camp of refugees was only nine leagues further on. The messengers then continued their journey, reaching El Paso prior to the 8th of September.86 The news which they carried was Ayeta's first information that the governor and the northern settlers were not all dead. From the fact that at sundown on September 4 Leiva with his supplies was only nine leagues from Fray Cristóbal, Ayeta judged that he must have reached the Rio Abajo people by September 5, and that from there he had proceeded with succor for Otermín.87 More will be said on this point in connection with Otermín's retreat, which will now be considered.
On August 21, as previously noted, Governor Otermín and the survivors of the siege of Santa Fé decided to evacuate that place. It was their purpose in so doing to unite with the Rio Abajo refugees, who, as they thought, were in Isleta, but who, as we have just seen, had already begun to retreat a week previously, and were at that time nearing the pueblo of Socorro, twenty-five leagues further south. The events of the retreat of Otermín's division are much more fully recorded than are those connected with the retreat of García's division, and from the governor's autos we can get a very good account of his movements up to the time when the Rio Abajo division was overtaken.
The first halt mentioned after the abandonment of Santa Fé was made near the pueblo of San Marcos on August 23. On that day while the army was resting at an arroyo near that place, the sarjento mayor, Bernabé Marquéz, and eight other soldiers, brought into camp a captive Tewa Indian named Antonio. Otermín thereupon took the opportunity, as he ever afterward did when a rebel was captured, to examine the prisoner concerning his knowledge of the revolt, and his reasons for taking part in it. According to his own testimony, Antonio had been a servant of Marquéz, and, as such, had been with him in the casas reales during the progress of the siege. However, because he believed that the Spaniards would either be destroyed or else forced to leave the country, and not wishing to go with them in the latter case, he decided to desert his master. The day after making his escape he learned that the Spaniards had abandoned Santa Fé. Thereupon he returned thither, where he found a great many Indians ransacking the casas reales and carrying out what property the Spaniards had been unable to take with them. Among those taking part in this pillage, Antonio recognized a large number of Indians from Taos and Picurís, though there were also natives from every part of the province. A Tesuque Indian, named Roque, in commenting upon the number of dead Indians to be seen in the houses, streets, and plaza, had told him that the rebels did not regard their loss any greater than that of the Spaniards; and further, that it did not make any difference if the latter had gone away,88 since the Indians could live as they wished and where they pleased. Roque also told Antonio that the rebels were talking of uniting in a narrow pass near the house of Cristóbal de Anaya, for the purpose of again attacking the Spaniards when they should pass that place.89 On the next day Antonio left Santa Fé, where pillage had not yet ended, and went back to the estancia of his former master. There he was found hiding in a field when captured and carried before the governor.90
The next day the army had proceeded about a league from San Marcos, when two divisions of Indians were seen on some rocks and mesas, making smoke signals to their allies. There was no offer of battle, however, and soon afterward the army reached Santo Domingo. There were found the dead bodies of the priests and of the other residents of the pueblo. The church, convent, and sacristy had been practically unharmed, and in them were found the images and other furnishings, all of which were collected and turned over to Father Francisco Gómez de la Cadena. Passing Santo Domingo the march was continued until sundown, no more Indians being seen that day.
The next morning a ruse of the enemy came near costing the Spaniards the lives of some of their men. While the army was preparing to break camp, a small number of Indians was noticed on the other side of the river with some horses ranging at large, evidently to induce the Spaniards to attempt to take them. One of the soldiers, Juan Ramos, however, on going down to the river, discovered that a large body of the enemy was in ambush on the other bank. As soon as they became aware that they were detected, and that their intentions were understood, the Indians rose up from their hiding place and fired two shots at him. Many other Indians, on foot and on horseback, now joined those in ambush on the west bank, where they made hostile demonstrations, though they did not attempt to cross the swollen river. Otermín at once gave the order for the army to proceed; after which a number of Indians swam the stream and followed the Spaniards at a safe distanse. A little later the Christian Tanos Indian before-mentioned, Pedro García, closely pursued by the apostates, was able to join the Spaniards. This Indian, it will be recalled, was at Galisteo when the revolt began there, but not wishing to take part in it had attempted to escape to the Spaniards with his wife and an orphan Indian girl. The two women, however, were captured by the rebels, as García would have been had not a number of Spanish soldiers gone out to meet and rescue him. The Indians made no offensive movements, however, and some time later the pueblo of San Felipe was reached. That pueblo, like the others, was found entirely deserted. No more Indians were seen at all until sundown, when a number were noticed spying on them from the mesas, though they gave no signs of hostility.
The next morning at daybreak still other Indians were seen watching the movements of the Spaniards. Some of these spys, as soon as the refugees broke camp, swam their horses across the river and inspected the abandoned camping place of the retreating army, after which they recrossed the stream. Although some of the Indians came so close as to be clearly seen by the Spaniards, no hostilities were begun by either side.
As the Spaniards now approached the narrow pass near the house of Cristóbal de Anaya, Otermín ordered the utmost care and vigilance to be observed, for it was there, the Indian Antonio had said, that the natives were to make another attack. To guard against this, Otermín ordered that the height be covered with mounted soldiers, and that the people generally prepare themselves to resist the enemy in case the necessity should arise. With these preparations made, the march was continued, unmolested by the Indians, though a large number of them were seen on the mesas. A quarter of a league further on the estancia of Pedro de Cuellar was reached, and a little beyond that, those of Cristóbal de Anaya and Agustin de Carbajal. At those places the murders and atrocities elsewhere noted were ascertained. The Spaniards by that time had marched more than ten leagues. Otermín decided to call a halt, therefore, in order that the Indian Pedro García might give an account of the revolt at Galisteo, the story of which has been already related.91
Having heard García's account, the order was given to march, and later in the day (August 26) the pueblo of Sandía, two and one-half leagues further on, was reached. There were seen evidences of many outrages committed both in the church and convent. The doors of the former had been stormed, and the images, pictures, vases and other ornaments had been taken out. All of the altars had been desecrated in the most indecent manner, while on the main altar only a wooden image of St Francis, with its arms broken and otherwise mutilated, remained. The church, having been filled with straw, was ready to be burned; in fact, it had been set afire in several places, though the fire had apparently gone out without having done much damage. In the convent the portería was open, while the doors to the cells had all been torn off, and everything in them had been carried away by the enemy. All the broken images found in the church and convent were put in the custody of Father Gómez de la Cadena, as were some other images and pieces of silver found in the houses of the pueblo. The march was now continued for half a league, when a large number of Indians, some of them mounted and others on foot, were seen on the hills, where they had collected a large herd of cattle. From there the enemy with “much shamelessness and daring” began to harass the Spaniards, shouting and making hostile demonstrations, even shooting at them with arquebuses. Otermín at once called a halt and sent a squad of fifty soldiers to dislodge the Indians, who immediately fled to the mountains, driving their cattle before them. Being relieved from immediate danger, and seeing that the Indians had set fire to the church at Sandía, Otermín, in retaliation, ordered the soldiers to return and burn the whole pueblo. This being done, the retreat down the river was continued.
After leaving Sandía, the next half of which there is any mention was made three leagues below at the estancia of Doña Luisa de Trujillo. No date is given for this stop. At this place, some soldiers, on seeing a large number of cattle grazing on the west bank of the river in the hacienda of the lieutenant-general, Alonso García, asked permission to swim the river and drive them across. But as soon as the Indians, who were ever on the alert, saw this attempt, they came from the mesas on their horses and drove all the cattle away. From this place the army next marched four leagues to the hacienda of Los Gómez “without seeing more of the enemy; and throughout the entire distance thither from Sandía [seven leagues], everything was found deserted and robbed both of cattle and of household goods, many haciendas on either side of the river being sacked and robbed by the enemy.” Soon after leaving Los Gómez, an Indian on horseback was captured in the road, and from his testimony Otermín learned that García and all the people who had escaped from Jemez, Sia, and Rio Abajo had assembled in Isleta on the day following the revolt, and later had left there in a body.
This was Otermín's first information that the Rio Abajo people were not in Isleta. Since learning from the captured Indians at Santa Fé of the assembling of the Rio Abajo people at Isleta, and throughout the entire retreat, the hope of uniting the two divisions in Isleta had been paramount in the mind of the governor. There, and there only, did he look for reënforcements and for the alleviation of the necessities of his foot-sore and half-starved people. Not knowing of the efforts that had been made by García to get in communication with him, nor of the extreme want which had pressed upon the latter's division, it had never occurred to Otermín that they would abandon the province and leave him and his division to their fate.92 But the governor did not commit himself on the matter, and at such a time and under such circumstances this was wise. Sorely disappointed at such discouraging news, there was only one thing for him to do, and that was to continue his retreat by forced marches as best he could.
This course was followed, and the day after learning of the abandonment of Isleta by García, that pueblo was reached by the northern refugees. No dates for the halts made on their retreat thither can be determined after August 26, at which time the army, after marching a little over three leagues that day, was a short distance below Sandía.93 Otermín states, however, that he reached Isleta more than twenty days after the Rio Abajo people left it,94 which, according to his own statement, would make it September 3 or later when he arrived there,95 for García left that pueblo on August 14. If this be true, Bancroft is wrong in stating that “Isleta was reached on the 27th; but the refugees under Captain Garcia had left this pueblo thirteen days before and gone south to Fray Cristóbal.”96
Otermín found Isleta absolutely deserted, both by refugees and native inhabitants. Suffering as he was from scarcity of provisions and horses, he decided to continue the retreat until advice could be sent to those further down the river, with orders to wait for him and in the meanwhile to send him, if possible, some horses and carts to help transport his tired and foot-sore followers. From the hacienda of Francisco de Valencia,97 according to Otermín's own statement, he sent four soldiers, accompanied by Father Francisco Farfan,98 to overtake the Rio Abajo people, which they did at Fray Cristóbal. The letter which these messengers carried from Otermín to García, of which mention has been made in connection with García's movements at Fray Cristóbal, was written from the house or place of Tome or of Bartolomé Domínguez,99 thirty leagues above Fray Cristóbal,100 and therefore fourteen leagues above the pueblo of Socorro. The events attending the arrival of the messengers at Fray Cristóbal, with the news which they brought from the northern refugees, have already been noted.101
On September 6 Otermín's division reached Alamillo, three and one-half leagues above Socorro. The first recorded act of the governor after arrival there was to question more fully Don Pedro Nanboa, the Indian who had been captured in the road further up the river, in order to find out and record what he knew of the motives that had prompted the Indians to revolt. Parts of this Indian's testimony have been cited as authority for various preceding statements, and need not be repeated here.
On the same day, Lieutenant García, who had been overtaken at Fray Cristóbal by the four soldiers of Otermín's division, arrived in the camp. Otermín at once put García under arrest for having abandoned his jurisdiction and having retreated with many soldiers from the province, without authority from his superior, who had expected to find him and his division in Isleta. However, that the matter might be fairly adjusted, and that it might be known for what reasons García had gone out, Otermín gave him opportunity to clear himself of the charge, but ordered that until this was done, he should be imprisoned.102
García had not come unprepared to defend himself, but had brought with him all the autos which he had drawn up since the revolt. Before presenting these he stated briefly that on the day of the revolt the alcalde mayor at Jemez, Luis de Granillo, had appealed to him for help; told of his efforts all that night and next day to aid the survivors of his jurisdiction; how having seen them safely in Isleta, he and his sons had made futile efforts at their home north of that pueblo to get in communication with the governor; how the reports of the death of the northern inhabitants had caused the people at Isleta to become restless and impatient to leave the country for their own safety; and finally, how the best possible means, as it seemed, had been adopted at Isleta for the safety of those under his command. In support of what he had stated he presented thirteen written folios containing the record of his movements and the opinions of his men given at Isleta and at Socorro. He also stated that upon receipt of the first intelligence that the northern settlers were on their retreat south of Isleta he had gone to meet them with some horses. Lastly, he reminded the governor that he was a man who had served his majesty with one hundred horses, six sons, and all his goods in the most severe conflicts of the province, frequently taking part in campaigns in which he had risked his life, and often with very considerable damage. For all these reasons he begged Otermín103 to release him and absolve him from all blame and punishment. The governor did not at once reply to this defense, desiring first to read the autos presented by García. He then ordered them placed with his own, promising the lieutenant-general that justice would be done him.104
After these proceedings the march was again resumed. Shortly afterward, when only about a league below Alamillo, a cloud of dust was detected in the distance. It was caused, as was soon evident, by a body or horsement approaching. This cavalcade, on coming up, was found to be a party of over forty Spanish soldiers and four religious under the command of Pedro de Leiva. Bancroft105 erroneously states that Leiva had only thirty men when he met Otermín at Alamillo on September 6. The document does state that when the cavalcade was first seen by Otermín's division it was estimated that it contained upwards of thirty men, and that when it came nearer Leiva, “the leader of thirty men whom his lordship had despatched” to meet the wagons in charge of Ayeta, was recognized.106 A few lines further along in the original document, however, it is positively stated that Leiva had with him forty soldiers and four religious when he and Otermín met.107 In justice to Bancroft108 it may be stated that the Extractos, his source for this matter, contain only the first few lines of the document dealing with the meeting of Otermín and Leiva, and consequently fails to record later and much more important statements found in the original. As has been pointed out, on September 4 Leiva was only nine leagues from Fray Cristóbal, with the aid that left El Paso on August 30, and, as Ayeta supposed, he doubtless reached the former place on September 5. Having met the Rio Abajo people, and learning that Otermín and his division were near by, Leiva, it seems, leaving some thirty of his men at Fray Cristóbal, decided to continue with the rest in his party until they should meet the governor, as was done the next day. As soon as the troopers recognized Otermín, overjoyed at having met him and his division, they saluted him heartily with a volley.109 For when they left the pass they had thought the governor and all the northern settlers were dead, and, as Father Ayeta in his letter to the viceroy written the day after their departure stated, there were not three of the men whom Leiva had brought with him to the pass who had not lost, as they then supposed, either father, mother, or children, while all had cause for grief in the loss of more distant relatives and friends.”110 It is needless to comment, therefore, upon the joy of these men at actually meeting and finding alive a thousand or more of their countrymen and friends whom they had but lately mourned as dead. Otermín was so moved by the expressions of generosity and loyalty of Leiva and his men, who, as they themselves stated, were determined when they left El Paso to continue until they might know the governor's fate, whatever the cost, that he ordered his acknowledgment and appreciation recorded.111
At this point several errors made by well known historians should be noted. Davis112 and Prince113 both correctly state that at Alamillo Otermín met Leiva with forty men, yet both err in saying that Alamillo was above Isleta, and that several days after meeting Leiva at the former pueblo, Otermín reached Isleta. As a matter of fact, Alamillo, one of the Piros pueblos, was over twenty leagues south of Isleta. Alamillo was not reached until September 6, whereas Otermín had left Isleta several days earlier. Furthermore, Prince states that after meeting Leiva and before Isleta had been reached, Otermín received four wagon loads of corn from “Father Ayeta of El Paso,” while García, who had already “marched to El Paso . . . responded . . . with a portion of his own scanty store.” In the light of facts already stated it will be seen how incorrect and confused are these statements of Prince.
By this time Otermín had completed his examination of the autos presented by García for his defense. He thereupon declared him a free man, and absolved him from all blame for having abandoned the province without superior authority. At the same time, he ordered Francisco Xavier, Juan Lucero de Godoy, and Luis de Quintana to state to García that he was prompted to absolve him because the retreat of the Rio Abajo division had not been with evil intent, but rather had been begun at the request of all those at Isleta and with the agreement of all that they ought not to delay in setting out for Mexico, for the reasons expressed in their autos.114 When notified of the decision of the governor, García expressed his thanks for the justice and kindness shown him.115 With this, the last incident connected with the arrest and trial of García, which, as far as can be judged, was more or less a matter of form, was closed.
The next day (September 7) the northern division reached Sorocco. There, notwithstanding the supplies Leiva had brought, Otermín clearly saw the impossibility of continuing to the pass of the Rio del Norte without additional supplies, for the route lay through a country inhabited by hostile Indians and so nearly desert that it would be impossible to secure any sustenance whatever in it. Accordingly, as the only thing left for him to do, he ordered a company of men to set out at once for El Paso, where were the wagons of provisions in charge of Ayeta, to conduct them up the river with all haste for the aid of his suffering and fatigued people, who had come that far, for the most part, on foot and with a very limited supply of food.116 Davis errs again by stating that at Alamillo “a council of war was called by Otermín, when it was decided to continue the march to Salineta there to await a supply of provisions.”117 Taking the above-cited auto of Otermín as authority, no council of war was held at either Alamillo or Socorro. On the contrary, Otermín, at the latter pueblo, apparently independent of suggestions from anyone,118 decided to send to the pass for aid. Moreover, La Salineta is not mentioned at all in this connection, and the error of Davis' statement that they were to proceed to that place to await provisions is evident when it is understood that La Salineta was only four leagues above El Paso,119 while Socorro was about seventy-five leagues above La Salineta.120
On the same day that Otermín decided to send this company of soldiers to meet Father Ayeta he received a letter from Father Diego de Parraga written at Fray Cristóbal, stating that the Rio Abajo people were in grave necessity, and asking that they either be supplied with provisions or else allowed to proceed on their journey in the hope of getting aid sooner. Otermín thought it strange that he should receive such a letter from Parraga, since Thome Domínguez de Mendoza had been left in command of the Rio Abajo refugees by García when the latter started north to meet the governor. At the same time his own troubles were sufficient in themselves, for by that time the people in his charge had reached the point where they were living on roasted corn. Worried at receiving such a letter under those circumstances, Otermín replied to Parraga the next day as follows:
Reverend Father Preacher Fray Diego de Parraga: Today, the birthday of our lady, I received the letter which your paternity writes from Fray Cristóbal, which it seems to me is the only letter I have had from you in all the time of your government. In it you tell me that that camp contains 1,500 souls, and, because of having exhausted the supplies which were taken out with them, if they remain there longer a great ruin may be looked for. On account of this you ask that I supply them, or that I order them to proceed on their journey until near El Paco, where they can have aid. In reply let me say that Thome Domínguez de Mendoza, in whose care and disposition the camp was left, on account of the absence of the lieutenant general in coming to find and to see me, has not written me, nor sent me any message in regard to this matter [of going to El Paso] nor of the other [the condition of the Rio Abajo refugees]. In regard to the other, provided it be thus, as I am sure it is, it is a serious affair in a desert place like this, and so many leagues from the villa, that supplies should be asked of one sufficient for the sustenance of more than 1,500 persons—from a man who with 1,000 mouths [to feed], after he had seen himself in the dangers so manifest by the many conflicts with the Indians, finally had to set out, opening up the road with arms in the hand, bringing so many people in his charge on foot and barefooted, without food, not only because there was none, but because there was nothing on which to bring it. [However we trusted] in providence and his Divine Majesty has not failed to put before us a free table in the campaigns, of roasting ears, squashes, and other grains. And I passed through all this in order to bring myself nearer to give aid [to those in Isleta] where I judged I would find your paternity and others in an extremity similar to my own. After making the enemy retire with such great losses, I could well have remained at home, at least long enough to make a little matalotaxe for my journey to Isleta, which, as I said above, was the place where I judged all the people must surely remain until they should learn for a certainty whether or not the governor with all the people of the villa were dead. Finally I come here from Isleta, with entrails dragging, as they say, in order to overtake the people of this kingdom, so that, united, I might see and discuss the best method to be taken for the preservation of our lives and for the greater service of both majesties. And now that I am so near to achieving the purpose which has brought me to unite ourselves here, your paternity comes to me for permission to march on to El Paso. If your paternity wishes to go alone, do what you think best, my father, but in regard to that camp, such does not comport with the service of God and his majesty. And if today they are on the point of suffering ruin on account of failing supplies, I say [in reply] that we are suffering the same ruin here, because we have no other provisions than a little mutton and beef, and that even with these articles your camp is better supplied today. Let the maestre de campo, Pedro de Leiva, return to El Paso with all the people that he brought, and with the religious that came with him, with earnest entreaties to the Reverend Father Fray Francisco de Ayeta to aid [us] at once in our extreme necessity. I do not doubt that his reverence will do this; and when we find ourselves with that aid we will strive for what is most fitting to the service of both majesties. In the meantime I will go little by little to join that camp, in order that, being together, we may be more secure from Apache invasions, for we are in the middle of their country. May God guard your paternity many years. Place in front of Socorro, September 8, 1680. I kiss your Reverence's hand.
Your servant, Don Antonio de Otermín.121
On January 28, 1861, at the assembling of the convention which adopted the ordinance of secession, Texas had no bonded debt. As early as January, 1860, however, the State treasury had been experiencing difficulty because of insufficient taxation and increased expenditures for frontier defence; and United States bonds were transferred from the university fund to provide the State revenue account with cash. But despite this transfer State warrants were outstanding and there was no cash to pay them. The State was not responsible for any of the funded debt of the Republic of Texas which may have been outstanding on January 28, 1861, for though the State assumed at annexation the debt of the Republic, the United States government by the acts of September 9, 1850, and February 28, 1855, provided for the payment of all of the funded debt.
The first official statement of the debt incurred during the war was made in October, 1865. A. J. Hamilton was appointed provisional governor of Texas by President Johnson on January 17, 1865, and ex-Governor Pease and Swante Palm were appointed by the provisional governor to report on the finances of the State since secession. Their report was made under date of October 30, 1865.122 The following analysis of the debt is based on their report and on the State statutes:
Item I. 8 per cent State Bonds. Authorized by the Act of March 20, 1861, entitled “An Act to provide for the funding of the debt contracted for the protection of the frontier123 $ 16,000.00
Item II. 8 per cent State Bonds. Authorized by the Act of April 8, 1861, entitled “An Act authorizing a loan and imposing a specific tax to meet the principal and interest thereof”124 $ 899,000.00125
Item III. 7 per cent State Bonds. Authorized by the Act of December 10, 1863, entitled “An Act to raise two millions of dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, by the sale of cotton bonds, to provide for the defence of the State and to repel invasion, and for the purhcase of machinery for manufacturing purposes”126 211,130.83
Item IV. Treasury Warrants. These were of two classes, 10 per cent interest warrants and noninterest warrants. The interest-bearing warrants were authorized by the Act of February 14, 1860.127 The amount of 10 per cent interest warrants outstanding, including interest, was given to be about 180,000.00
Non-interest-bearing warrants were authorized by the Act of January 10, 1862.128 The amount of non-interest warrants outstanding was given to be 1,888,997.90
Item V. Due soldiers and for supplies. Amount estimated at 3,150,000.00
Item VI. Due on account of the Republic of Texas. Amount estimated at 110,613.23
Item VII. Due school fund, university fund, and other special funds of the treasury on account of securities and specie borrowed by the general fund and on account of treasury warrants and Confederate notes received by such funds $1,455,913.86
Item VIII. Unclassified debt 199,176.76
Total $8,110,832.58
An account of the objects for which the above debt was incurred is essential to an understanding of later legislative action on it. The 8 per cent bonds of item I were issued to fund treasury warrants on account of liabilities antedating March 2, 1861. The 8 per cent bonds of item II were issued on account of $92,601.67 of liabilities incurred before March 2, 1861, and of $105,600.38 of civil and $700,797.95 of military liabilities incurred after March 2, 1861. The 7 per cent bonds of item III were issued on account of military expenditures after March 2, 1861. The outstanding treasury warrants of item IV are not classified as to use or date of issue, but it is stated that about $1,150,000.00 were drawn after March 2, 1861, for the support of soldiers' families. The claims estimated under item V were obviously of a war character and dated after March 2, 1861. The amount of item VI represented an estimate of the unfunded, non-interest-bearing debt of the Republic of Texas. There existed an appropriation for the payment of such of this debt as had been audited.129 Of item VII, the amount due the school fund was $1,137,406.65 and was on account of United States bonds, interest coupons and specie transferred from that fund, and State bonds and treasury warrants held by that fund. All of the transactions occurred after January 28, 1861. The amount due the university fund was $283,514.22, and was on account of United States bonds, interest coupons and specie transferred from that fund, and treasury warrants and Confederate notes received by that fund. Some of the debt to this fund was incurred prior to January 28, 1861. The balance of item VII was due special treasury accounts, such as escheated estates, county tax funds, etc., and was incurred after January 28, 1861. Item VIII, or the debt of miscellaneous character, was not described by the investigators.
The debt as above described was, both as to amount and character, that which confronted the delegates to the constitutional convention which convened in Austin on February 7, 1866. This convention was composed of delegates elected by such citizens only as had taken the oath of amnesty or had received special pardon from the President of the United States.
Ordinance No. 2, passed by this convention March 15, 1866, declared all debts created by the State of Texas in the aid of the late war, directly or indirectly, to be null and void, and forbade the Legislature to assume or make any provision for the payment of any portion of the debts contracted or incurred, or warrants issued by the State between January 28, 1861, and August 5, 1865, except warrants issued in payment of services rendered, or liabilities incurred, before January 28, 1861.130
Ordinance No. 15 of this convention validated all the warrants issued for the payment of troops called into the service of the State by Governor Houston for the protection of the frontier prior to March 2, 1861.131
Ordinance No. 12 acknowledged the indebtedness of the State to the school fund only for the United States bonds and interest coupons transferred from that fund and which were then in possession of the State or which might be recovered by the State. It also acknowledged the indebtedness of the State to the university fund for the United States bonds and interest coupons transferred from that fund in February, 1860. It directed that the Legislature should issue State bonds to these funds for this indebtedness, and it ordained that the Legislature should have no authority and was forbidden to assume or provide by taxation or otherwise, for the payment of any other claim or pretended liability of the State to the school and university funds.132
The debt repudiated by ordinance No. 2 included all the war debt incurred on account of civil as well as military expenditures. Some ten members of the convention went on record in protest against the repudiation of the debt for civil purposes, on the ground that it was not required by the President's restoration policy.133 The convention appears to have acted, however, in accordance with what it conceived to be the President's restoration policy. “We have by ordinance declared the entire debt growing out of, and accruing during, the war null and void, and forbidden the Legislature assuming or providing for the payment of any portion of it. In so complete and full a manner as language can express, we have declared ourselves on these important questions which have been deemed so vital to sustaining your policy.”134 No record has been found of a suggestion by President Johnson to the provisional governor or to the convention of this repudiative action. He had, however, in the previous year made the suggestion to Provisional Governor Holden of North Carolina that “Every dollar of the debt created to aid the rebellion against the United States should be repudiated finally and forever.”135
The provisional government of Texas ceased and a restored State government went into effect August 20, 1866. An act of November 9, 1866, entitled “An Act to ascertain the amount of, and adjusting and funding the State debt, and to state any and all accounts between the State and individuals,” created an auditorial board “for the purpose of auditing all claims for money against the State and reauditing all the audited liabilities of the State not inhibited by the Constitution.”136 The principal work of the board consisted in separating from the debt incurred between January 28, 1861, and August 5, 1865, that part incurred on account of expenditures authorized before January 28, 1861. The action of the board ceased December 1, 1867.137 An analysis of its report shows the following:
Item I. 8 per cent bonds of March 20, 1861. Amount issued, $16,000. Amount rejected, $86.04. Amount of principal recognized or estimated valid, $15,913.96; interest, $1319.60. Total, $17,233.56. Amount audited, $4133.56. Balance outstanding $ 13,100.00
Item II. 8 per cent bonds of April 8, 1861. Amount issued, $917,000.00.138 Amount rejected, $855,111.95. Amount of principal recognized or estimated valid, $61,888.05; interest, $13,909. Total, $75,797.05. Amount audited, $30,389.88. Balance outstanding and unaudited 45,407.17
Item III. 10 per cent warrants. Amount issued less amounts funded and received in the collection of revenue, $109,988.69. Interest to December 1, 1867, $69,292.44. Total principal and interest, $179,281.12. Amount rejected and estimated to be invalid, $30,591.29. Amount audited as valid, $72,680.05. Amount outstanding and unaudited and estimated valid, $76,009.79. Total recognized and estimated valid 148,689.84
Item IV. Non-interest notes (warrants). Amount issued less amounts funded and received in the collection of revenue, $62,942.82. Interest allowed to December 1, 1867, $27,065.41. Total principal and interest, $90,008.23. Amount of principal and interest audited, $35,047.61. Amount oustanding, of which $11,541.72 was estimated as valid, $54,960.62. Total audited and estimated valid 78,466.51
Item V. Amount of 8 per cent certificates issued in payment of minute companies under Act of November 12, 1866, and audited, $3570.76. Interest and amount unaudited, $354.97. Total 3,925.73
Item VI. Unaudited claims. Amount audited, $3,323.48. Estimated outstanding, $5,000.00 Total 8,323.48
The debt described in items V and VI appears to have been incurred after August 5, 1865.
Omitting these, therefore, for the time being, the total of the debt described in items I-IV, was, with interest, $1,217,517.96; total rejected, $897,331; total valid $320,186.96
Adding the total of items V and VI to the valid, the total valid debt was 332,436.17
Audited 149,145.34
Outstanding and unaudited 183,290.83
The act creating the auditorial board authorized the issue of 6 per cent, ten-year bonds, interest payable semi-annually, for which audited valid claims were exchangeable at the State treasury. The board issued $149,145.34 certificates of valid claims, and $125,100.00 were exchanged for bonds.
The auditorial board confined its action to the debts due individuals and did not audit those due the special funds, such as the school and university funds. The indebtedness of the State to these funds was defined by ordinance No. 12 of the Convention of 1866. Pursuant to this ordinance, the Legislature by Act of November 12, 1866, provided for the issue to the school fund of 5 per cent, twelve-year bonds, interest payable semi-annually, in place of the United States bonds and interest coupons transferred from that fund since January 28, 1861, and which were then in the possession of the State or which might be recovered by the State.139 Bonds of the State to the amount of $82,168.82, bearing date of January 1, 1867, were accordingly debited to the school fund.140 This same Act of November 12, 1866, in obedience to the requirements of ordinance No. 12, provided for the issue of similar bonds to the university fund on account of the United States bonds and interest coupons transferred from that fund in February, 1860, and February, 1861.141 This transfer of the United States bonds was made under authority of the Acts of January 31, 1860, and February 8, 1861. Bonds of the State, bearing date of January 1, 1867, to the amount of $134,472.26, were debited to the university fund in pursuance of the law of 1866. Ordinance No. 12 specifically provided that these were the only liabilities of the State to the school and university funds which the Legislature had any authority to assume or provide for by taxation or otherwise. Despite this prohibition, however, every Comptroller's report from 1866 to 1883 included in the school fund statement 6 per cent State bonds for $320,367.13, dated May 13, 1865, and in the university fund statement, a Comptroller's certificate of indebtedness for $10,300.41, dated June 8, 1865. The 6 per cent bonds were issued to the school fund for the purpose of funding State treasury warrants received by the school fund from railroad companies in payment of interest on their bonds.142 The warrants funded were received during the period from August 31, 1863, to June 8, 1865. The certificate of indebtedness held by the university fund was on account of treasury warrants received by that fund from land sales which were fundable in the 8 per cent bonds of April 8, 1861.143 The warrants were received between February, 1861, and June 8, 1865.
The action on the debt of the State taken by the constitutional convention of 1866 and by the Legislature of 1866 was not to be the final one, however; for the civil government which had been inaugurated on August 13, 1866, and under which an orderly ascertainment of, and provisions for, the debt had been made, was short-lived. Under the Reconstruction Acts of Congress of March and July, 1867, Texas was held to be unreconstructed, her civil government was abolished, and a military or provisional government again established.144 Another constitutional convention was ordered and held in Austin from June 1 to August 31, 1868, and from December 7, 1868, to February 6, 1869. A constitution was framed which was accepted by the people in an election held from November 30, 1869, to December 3, 1869, and this constitution was ratified by the Congress of the United States on March 30, 1870. Between the date of the amending of the constitution by the convention of 1866 and that of the framing of the constitution adopted in 1869, the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution of the United States had been adopted. This amendment was proposed on June 16, 1866, and was declared by Congress adopted on July 21, 1868. Section 4 of this amendment provided that “neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States . . .; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” Accordingly, the Texas constitution of 1869, Article 12, Section 34, provided:
(1).That “All debts created by the so-called State of Texas, from and after the 28th day of January, 1861, and prior to the 5th day of August, 1865, were and are null and void; and the Legislature is prohibited from making any provision for the acknowledgment or payment of such debts.”
(2).That “All unpaid balances, whether of salary, per diem, or monthly allowance, due to employes of the State, who were in the service thereof on the said 28th day of January, 1861, civil or military, and who gave their aid, countenance, or support to the rebellion then inaugurated against the government of the United States, or turned their arms against the said government, thereby forfeited the sums annually due them.”
(3).That “All the 10 per cent warrants issued for military services and exchanged during the rebellion at the treasury for non-interest warrants are hereby declared to have been fully paid and discharged.”
(4).“Provided, that any loyal person or his or her heirs or legal representatives may, by proper legal proceedings, to be commenced within two years after the acceptance of this Constitution by the Congress of the United States, show proof in avoidance of any contract made, or revise or annul any decree or judgment rendered since the said 28th day of January, when, through fraud practiced, or threats of violence used towards such persons, no adequate consideration for the contract has been received; or when, through absence from the State of such person, or through political prejudice against such person, the decision complained of was not fair and impartial.”145
Nothing was done by the Legislature about the debt until 1871, when by the Act of May 2, 1871, provision was made for its reauditing.146 An auditorial board was created by this act whose duty it was made to examine the work of the auditorial board of 1866 and to audit all other claims against the State. The act provided that bonds issued by the board of 1866 for claims void under the constitution should be considered void and should be canceled. A comparison of the provisions of 1866 and of 1869 shows that the only claims interdicted by the constitution of 1869 and not by that of 1866 were: (1) the unpaid balances due those employes of the State on January 28, 1861, who did not remain loyal to the government of the United States, and (2) the 10 per cent warrants issued for military services and exchanged during the war for non-interest-bearing warrants.
The auditorial board created by the Act of May 2, 1871, made its first report under date of September 1, 1871.147 The report stated that, “upon a careful examination of the transactions of the board of 1866, we have been unable to discover any error in the auditing with the exception of $10,283.12 allowed as interest on non-interest warrants—, but this is a question about which persons may honestly differ.” In regard to the unpaid balances due disloyal persons on January 28, 1861, and the 10 per cent interest warrants exchanged during the war for non-interest warrants, each of which was interdicted by the constitution of 1869, the board stated that the former character of claims would not exceed $10,000, the latter $78,466.51, and that the board of 1866 had funded about $40,000 of these claims in 6 per cent bonds. On account of the higher interest (10 per cent) which the valid portion of the claims would bear if reaudited as compared with the 6 per cent interest which the bonds bore, the board estimated that the State would save only about $25,000 by repudiating the claims. Because of the comparatively small amount involved and because the holders of the bonds refused to submit them for cancellation, on the ground that they were issued in accordance with the constitution and laws of Texas and of the United States, the board, which was composed of the Attorney General, the Comptroller, and the Treasurer of the State, recommended that the action of the board of 1866 in regard to these claims be confirmed. The recommendation of the board in regard to the bonds was adopted by the Legislature and appropriation for the payment of interest on the claims was made in the Act of November 13, 1871.148
This legislative validation of the action of the board of 1866 extended only to the bonds based upon the certificates of indebtedness issued by that board. But for this validating act some $40,000.00 of the 6 per cent bonds issued under date of January 1, 1867, would have been held null and void, because they represented either debt to disloyal persons or were on account of an exchange of interest warrants for non-interest warrants during the war. It will be remembered that there were some $24,045.34 of unfunded certificates issued by the board of 1866. The Act of November 13, 1871, validated these also, subject to the provisions of the constitution of 1869. The board of 1866 had reported that the estimated valid portion of the outstanding and unaudited debt amounted to $183,290.83. These claims were also subject, in auditing by the boards of 1871 and subsequent years, to the provisions of the constitution of 1869. It will thus be noted that the Act of November 13, 1861, observed the distinction between bonds and unfunded claims. Although some of the bonds issued during the war and based upon liabilities incurred before the war would be included in these unfunded claims, their amount was not known and they could not be properly classed as a part of the bonded debt of the State until they had been audited. The life of the auditorial board was extended by the Act of November 13, 1871, to January 1, 1873, and it was also provided that all interest-bearing claims should be presented on or before March 1, 1872, on pain of not bearing interest after that date.
The Act of May 2, 1871, provided for the issue and sale of 6 per cent, twenty-year bonds to secure the money needed to pay the valid claims ascertained by the auditorial board; it was also provided that holders of claims might exchange their claims for these bonds. The claims subject to payment from the proceeds of the sale of these bonds, or to funding in them, were the valid certificates of indebtedness issued by the board of 1866 and the other valid claims of the same period. The Act of November 13, 1871, not only validated the bonds of 1866, amounting to $125,100.00, but also appropriated $40,269.15 to pay the interest upon them from date of issue. It also appropriated $15,000 to pay the principal and interest of the bonds issued under the Act of March 20, 1861. These amounts were drawn during the fiscal year ending August 31, 1872.149
All of this legislation of the State and all the acts of the auditorial boards related to the debt of the State to individuals. The 5 per cent bonds, amounting to $82,168.82, issued under the Act of November 12, 1866, to the school fund, and the 5 per cent bonds, amounting to $134,472.26, issued under the same act to the university fund, were issued to those funds because of transfers made from them to the State revenue account. Those held by the school fund were on account of the United States bonds and interest coupons transferred under authority of the Act of January 11, 1862, and which in 1866 were in the possession of the State, or which might be recovered by the State.150 The Comptroller's reports for 1874 and subsequent years err in describing the State bonds issued to the school fund at this time as indemnity for United States bonds used during the war. They were only transferred from the school fund during the war, but as the ordinance of 1866 and the Comptroller's reports of 1866 and 1867 make clear, they were used for general revenue purposes between August, 1865, and January, 1867. The 5 per cent bonds issued to the university fund were on account of the United States bonds and interest coupons transferred from that fund to State revenue account in February, 1860, and February, 1861. It is highly questionable whether one should regard the bonds of the State held by its special funds as binding State obligations, subject, like the State debt to individuals, to all debt conditions against non-payment of interest and failure to pay principal at the contracted date. It is certainly questionable in the case of the State obligations held at this time by the school and university funds. Neither the constitution of 1846 nor the amended constitution of 1861 protected the educational funds against the transfer of the funds authorized by the acts of January 31, 1860, and January 11, 1862.151 Legislative action alone was responsible for the possession of the 5 per cent United States bonds by these funds and legislative action was unrestrained by any constitutional provision against recalling them at any time. But even if they should be regarded at the time of issue as a binding, bonded obligation, the failure of the State to acknowledge their validity, as it did the other debt authorized in 1866, throws doubt on their validity after the overthrow of civil government in 1867. Neither the Legislature nor the auditorial board of 1871 took any cognizance of these 5 per cent State bonds, and this appears to have been fatal to their position, for they were in every Comptroller's report after 1870, except that of 1881-2, classed as doubtful or worthless. The passage of the Reconstruction Acts of Congress in 1867 and the consequent overthrow of civil government and the establishment of military government in Texas, threw the State back exactly to where it was at the close of the war in 1865. As the bonded debt due individuals and authorized by the Act of 1866 had to be reviewed to be valid, so it would seem any other bonded debt authorized in 1866 should have been reviewed and validated to be a binding obligation. This was not done for the 5 per cent bonds held by the school and university funds, and they remained of doubtful validity, no interest being paid on them and their date of maturity passing without payment, until 1883. By the Act of February 23, 1883, they were validated and were ordered paid with accrued interest.152
The reports of the Comptroller after 1865 carried also among the debt of doubtful validity the 6 per cent State bonds dated May 13, 1865, and the Comptroller's certificate of indebtedness dated June 8, 1865, the bonds being held by the school fund, and the certificate by the university fund. As has been explained these were specifically declared void as war debts in 1866, and they were not validated until 1883. Their validation and payment under the Act of February 23, 1883, was, so far as legal obligation was concerned, a pure gift under the guise of payment of a debt. The failure of the State up to 1883 to pay the interest or the principal of the above obligations held by the school and university funds was therefore legally justifiable in the light of the history of the obligations.
A question pertinent in the consideration of the charge of repudiation is this: Did the State pay promptly during war time the interest on the bonded indebtedness which the auditorial boards of 1866 and 1871 found to be valid? Since the State had no bonded debt on January 28, 1861, this question is more specifically: Did the State during war time pay the interest on the 8 per cent bonds of March 20, 1861, and the 8 per cent bonds of April 8, 1861? It appears from the report of the auditorial board of 1866 that the interest on the 8 per cent bonds of March 20, 1861, had been paid up to January 1, 1867, and that the interest on the 8 per cent bonds of April 8, 1861, had been paid up to July 1, 1865. The interest on the bonds of April 8, 1861, was payable in specie, and evidence of the payment of it in specie is to be found in the special loan tax accounts.153
Also pertinent is the question: Was the interest on the bonded indebtedness found to be valid by the auditorial boards of 1866 and 1871 paid after the war? It appears from the report of the auditorial board of 1866 that interest on the bonds of March 20, 1861, was paid to January 1, 1867, and that no interest was paid on the bonds of April 8, 1861, from January 1, 1865, to January 1, 1867. Such of this debt as was found to be valid by the board of 1866 and was funded in the bonds authorized by the Act of November 9, 1866, had no interest paid on it until the passage of the Act of November 13, 1871. The failure to pay interest as it fell due is not chargeable to the dereliction of the State of Texas but to the Congress of the United States. If there had been any bonded debt which antedated the war, there would have been no question as to the obligation of the State to pay interest on it at the time stipulated; but all of the bonded debt of the State was authorized during the war or after January 28, 1861. Therefore, the question as to payment of interest on the valid debt subsequent to the war depends on the date of the establishment of the validity of the debt. Because of the abolition of the civil government and the re-establishment of the military government by the Reconstruction Acts of Congress in March and July of 1867 the action of Texas in 1866 providing for its ascertainment was nullified, and Texas may be said not to have had any known valid debt until 1871. As soon as the valid debt was determined, payment of accrued interest was promptly made, and interest thereafter on it and on all other debt was always promptly paid.
It may be asked, finally: Was the principal of the valid debt promptly paid at maturity? The bonds issued under the Act of March 20, 1861, were payable July 1, 1871. Because these bonds were issued during the war period, though to fund floating liabilities incurred before the war, they were subject to auditing before their validity could be established. In view of the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, there was no legally constituted body that could finally determine their validity until 1871. By the Act of November 13, 1871, appropriation was made for the audited and valid portion of this debt. The bonds issued under the Act of April 8, 1861, were due sixteen years from their date. Such of these as were valid and were exchanged for the bonds issued in 1866 were paid at maturity; those valid and which were not exchanged for the bonds of 1866 were either exchanged for bonds authorized by the Act of May 2, 1871, or were paid before their maturity. The principal of the bonds issued under the Act of November 9, 1866, and which were due January 1, 1877, was also paid at maturity. Except in the cases described above; namely, the repudiation of the debt incurred in aid of the war, and the delayed payment of the interest and principal of the bonds authorized in 1866 and of the bonds issued to the school and university funds, the State of Texas has always since January 1, 1861, either paid or refunded its bonded debt at maturity, and met the interest charges on the date stipulated in the bonds.
KENNEDY TO BIDWELL154
Life Cert. Circular. On board the Ship. “Ellen Brooks,” At Sea. December 31st. 1842 Sir.
I have to report that, from the 16th of November to the present date, I have been a passenger in the Ship “Ellen Brooks,” bound from Liverpool for New Orleans (U. S.) by way of which city I am to proceed to Galveston, Texas, there to enter upon the execution of my duties as Her Britannick Majesty's Consul.
William Kennedy. John Bidwell, Esq., etc.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN155
No. 1. Galveston January 5th 1843. My Lord,
With reference to my despatches No. 10 and No. 18 of last year, I have now the honor to transmit to Your Lordship the copy of a note from Mr. Jones, the Secretary of State upon the subject of those communications.156 Being aware that certain respectable British Merchants here, have duties to pay into the Custom-house in the course of a month, I propose to call upon this Government to let those Gentlemen hold themselves liable to me for the sum of $3840, presenting my acknowledgement to the Custom-house in satisfaction of their duties to that extent. I can hardly doubt that it will be in my power to satisfy the Government of the necessity of forthwith adjusting the claim for the “Eliza Russell” by these reasonable means, and indeed I take the liberty to submit to Your Lordship that I perceive no risk in the immediate advance of a sum of £700 to Mr. Joseph Russell157 if Your Lordship shall see fit to recommend such a step to the consideration of the Treasury. The sum of £700 is specified, because that amount would fall so far within the extent appropriated by Congress as to leave sufficient room for deficiency from course of exchange, or by any other mode of remittance that might become necessary arising from the manner that payment may be made.
It has occurred to me, that Your Lordship, taking into consideration the length of time that Mr. Russell has waited for the adjustment of his claim, may desire to afford him some relief, and believing that, that may be safely extended him under the circumstances now stated, I have ventured to offer this suggestion
Charles Elliot To the Right Honorable The Earl of Aberdeen. K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN158
No. 2. Galveston, January 15th. 1843. My Lord,
The detention of the steam boat which conveys these despatches to New Orleans, enables me to forward a note of intelligence this morning received from Houston. It is much to be wished, that these confusedly reported accounts may be exaggerated, but there is certainly reason to apprehend that some sinister event has occurred.159
I learn that Congress was to separate in the course of the ensuing week, and that no material alteration of the Tariff had been carried.
In other particulars affairs remain in the position reported in my last despatches.
Charles Elliot To the Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN160
No. 3. Galveston, January 23rd. 1843 My Lord,
I have the honor to acknowledge Your Lordship's despatch No. 20 of December 3rd. 1842.
It will be observed in Mr. Jones's note161 of the 24th Ultimo transmitted in my despatch No. 1 of this year, that the claim of certain British subjects for lands in Texas will be presented to the consideration of Congress by the President
Since I have been in Texas I have deemed it my duty to examine the nature of these claims, with all the attention in my power, and I have formed the opinion that the Land Law of this Country is utterly unsustainable, violating universally received principles of a general nature, and carried out by Congress beyond the plain intention and limitations of fundamental authority, that is, beyond the Constitution of the Republic.162
That instrument declares that “the protection of the public domain from unjust and fraudulent claims and quieting the people in the enjoyment of their lands is one of the great duties of this convention,”163 and there upon specially provides that a certain grant made in behalf of John Mason of New York, by the Legislature of Coahuila and Texas in 1834, was “from the beginning null and void,” because it was contrary to articles 4th, 12th, and 15th of the laws of 1824 of the General Congress of Mexico, and because one of the said acts had for that reason by the said General Congress of Mexico been declared “null and void”
The special declaration of this case is [in] the Constitution, the distinct specification of the cause of the defect of that title, and the inherent character of that defect, prove that the Constitution never intended to concede to Congress a right to violate titles, and actually disturb possession, lawfully emanating from the Congress of Mexico. The violation of the possessions of that authority, and its special act, were, on the contrary the fundamental grounds for the annulment of the grant declared to have been irregularly made to Mason in 1834.
But the Constitution further provides that “with a view to the simplification of the land system and the protection of the people and Government from litigation and fraud a General Land Office shall be established, where all the Land titles of the Republic shall be registered, and the whole territory of the Republic shall be sectionized in a manner [hereafter] to be prescribed by law, which shall enable the officers of the Government or any citizen to ascertain with certainty the lands that are vacant, and those lands which may be covered with valid titles”
I certainly do not find any authority in this provision for the Constitution to confiscate property lawfully acquired, and partially possessed, under the provisions of the general law of Mexico, legally carried out by the legislature of Coahuila and Texas: and I am satisfied that the special provision of the Constitution in the case of Mason's grant, and the causes of that provision, plainly proves, that the subsequent Confiscatory enactments of Congress were fundamentally illegal.
It may not be misplaced to observe here, in further proof of the intention and limitations of the Constitution that it provided that “whereas many surveys and titles [to land] have been made, whilst most of the people of Texas were absent from home serving in the campaign against Bexar, it is hereby declared that all the surveys and locations of land made since the Act of the late consultation 13 Nov. 1835164 closing the Land Offices, and all titles to Land made since that time are and shall be null and void.”
It was not said or intended that all the contracts, surveys, and locations made agreeably to law before that act of Consultation should be null and void, but it is particularly, and justly provided in the 16th article of the declaration of rights that “no retrospective or ex post facto law or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.” In the short history of this Country it is difficult to turn to any advantage achieved, to any evil averted, or to any mischief foreseen or deprecated, without finding General Houston's name and weight, enlisted upon the side of conduct, wisdom, and justice.
The original Land Bill and the one which forms the law of the land were passed in spite of his veto by the Constitutional majority, and I cannot do better in this brief acknowledgment of Your Lordship's instructions in the despatch No. 21. than to forward copies of those sound and striking papers.165
I transmit also an abstract of the present Land law in which Your Lordship will observe that Congress consummated the manifest injustice of their proceedings by shutting out aliens or the assignees of aliens from the relief provided in the bill, for other claimants.166
Under all the circumstances of the case I have considered it adviseable to pause 'till I am in possession of the determination taken by Congress upon the claim of Messrs. Egerton, Pryor, O'Gorman, etc.167 and the grounds of it, before I enter at length, upon the subject of this most important claim, forming the subject of Your Lordship's present instructions. But reflection leads me to the opinion that the firm establishment of these unquestionable rights of the Queen's subjects might most justly and conveniently be made the subject of an express article, in any treaty concluded between this Republic and Mexico; and I would further submit that it might be left optional by that article, with the claimants, to accept a commutation in other land in this Republic, under special Government patents, or in money, as they may best like: The amount of Land or money compensation to be determined by a joint commission of persons named by the British Government, and by the Government of this Republic with the power of umpire in British hands.
It will be my duty to communicate, with Your Lordship again at an early date upon this subject.
Charles Elliot. To The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. P. S. I take this occasion to acknowledge Your Lordship's despatches Nos. 18 and 19 of Decr. 3. 1842
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN168
No. 4. Galveston, January 28th. 1843. My Lord,
Since the date of my despatch No. 2 of this year (15th January) I am concerned to report, that authentic information has reached this place from Matamoras via New Orleans, confirming the surrender of that portion of the Texian force, under Colonel Fisher, which had separated itself from the direction of the Officer appointed by this Government, and continued the movement beyond the Rio Grande: a movement to which the disregard of the authority of the Officer, acting under the orders of Government has given a character that may be attended with very unhappy consequences to these prisoners. It appears that this disaster occurred at a small town called “Mier” on the right bank of the Rio Grande between 20 and 30 leagues above Matamoras.169 I have not seen the Mexican report, but it can scarcely be necessary to say to Your Lordship, that the statement of their loss in the Texian account forwarded in my despatch No. 2, deserves no credit.
I hear in various quarters that a volunteer expedition of some extent is preparing in the South Western part of the Union, with the purpose to make another attempt to penetrate into the Northern Provinces of Mexico through Upper Texas, during the approaching spring, strengthening themselves with such reinforcements as can be collected in the passage through Texas, and it is also said that a simultaneous attempt is to be made on Matamoras by sea.
It appears to me to be proper to mention this rumour but I have no means of judging of it's accuracy. Indeed it is not easy for a person in public employment in this part of the world to determine what of rumour ought to be stated, and what may be left unheeded; for whilst common report is at least as discursive and venturous here, as elsewhere, it is a material consideration that Government has less control in the United States, than elsewhere: And strange projects and hazardous modes of operation with respect to Mexico, seem to be in the fair way of attempt, whenever they become the subject of general conversation.
Perhaps Your Lordship will give me leave to add to this reflection that the increasing white population of the Slave States (persons engaged in professions, and emigrants from Europe not ashamed to labor, excepted) is almost entirely without steady occupation. Unscrupulous, fearless, and enterprising, and with exaggerated notions of the wealth of Mexico, it is certain that the project of an incursion into that Republic, is highly popular amongst the people of that part of the Union. I believe that the least success of one of these chance expeditions to the westward of the Rio Grande would be the signal for a formidable irruption into Mexico, of which the first stage, it is quite possible, would be permanent settlement as far as the mountains.
It may be thought in some degree to sustain these reports that the Texian Congress during its recent session passed a Law appointing General Rusk170 to be Major General of the forces of the Republic whenever they should be called into the field, and placing the appropriation for military purposes at his disposition, irrespective of any control on the part of the President; known to be adverse to aggressive war against Mexico. The gentleman in question is an inhabitant of Eastern Texas, and it is possible that his nomination was considered likely to be acceptable to volunteers in the United States, preparing for the incursion into Mexico. The President of course returned this bill without his approval, but it was passed by the Constitutional Majority.
The movements of Mexico with respect to Texas will probably be determined by the results in Yucatan, and Your Lordship must no doubt receive earlier and more trustworthy information upon that subject, than any that it can be in my power to transmit from this quarter: But in the mean time I regret to say that this country is bereft of resource, and the counsels best suited to its situation have been disregarded with disastrous consequences.
Upon the whole, so far as I can judge, it seems clear that the eager party in Texas for aggressive war, on the one side, and the Mexican Government on the other are rapidly accomplishing the purposes which the Mexican Secretary of State, in the late correspondence with the American Government,171 charges to the Cabinet at Washington. The chance of the permanent re-establishment of Mexican Authority in Texas is gone, but this harasing mode of warfare on the part of Mexico at vast expense and danger to itself, and this futile response on the part of Texas, present a high probability of one of two results: Either the Mexicans will achieve so much of success in Texas, as will induce a complication, east of the Sabine, or the Texians and their American volunteer allies, very eager to visit Mexico, will force their way into that country, in considerable strength, and with what may be taken to be, a certainty of drawing on a war with the United States.
In every way that the consequences present themselves to my mind, it seems next to certain, that, unless a peace between these two Republics can be accomplished in some brief space of time, on terms calculated to encourage a good feeling on the part of Texas to Mexico, Texas will soon be annexed to the United States: And entertaining that opinion, I join to it the belief, that there is no earnest disposition at Washington to see the Independence of Texas acknowledged by Mexico, particular[l]y since it has been supposed that Her Majesty's Government takes an interest in accomplishing that result.
I avail myself of this occasion to mention that we have been recently visited by Her Majesty's Sloop Electra, touching here on her way from Havana to Vera Cruz, and I have also to report that Mr Neill, concerning whom I wrote to Your Lordship, has made his escape from Mexico,172 and is now in Texas.
Carles Elliot To The Right Honorable The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN173
No. 5. Galveston 4th February 1843. My Lord,
The inclosure is a letter which I have addressed to the Secretary of State of this Republic agreeably to Your Lordship's instructions of the despatch No. 20 of last year.
Finding from an account of the proceedings of Congress during last Session that no steps had been taken, founded upon the representation I had made to this Government on the 30th September last respecting the claim of Messrs. Egerton, Prior, O'Gorman, etc. etc. I have felt it incumbent upon myself to put forward this claim of Mr. Beales without further delay.
Charles Elliot To The Right Honorable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO JONES174
[Enclosure.] Galveston 4th February 1843. Sir,
Requesting your reference to a note, which I had the honor to address to you on the 30th September last, in support of the claim of certain British Subjects to Lands in Texas, it is now my duty to put forward another and more weighty case of the like nature, recently committed to me by Her Majesty's Government, namely, that of John Charles Beales, and others Her Majesty's subjects claiming under Beales.
The Lands comprised in these last claims, are those known as the “Arkansas grant” the “Milam or Rio Colorado grant,” “the Rio Grande grant,” and nine grants in fee simple, of eleven leagues each containing 438,411 793/1000 acres English, located on the Rio Nueces.
I am sensible that the limits of these extensive claims and generally the particulars of the title must be known to the Government of the Republic, but for the sake of form, I have considered it proper to annex the accompanying abstract of the dates and limits of the grants collected from the “Exhibits” of a memorial presented to Her Majesty by J. C. Beales, in the course of last year, on his own behalf and that of others claiming under him. And in order that the grounds of Mr. Beales' appeal to the Queen, may be fully known to this Government I also transmit herewith a copy of his memorial presented to Her Majesty
Since I have been in Texas, it has been incumbent upon me to consider these claims with all the attention in my power: And confining the expression of my opinion upon the Land Legislation of this Republic, solely to those provisions which affect the rights and claims of British subjects, I must declare that the provisions of Law complained of by Mr. Beales and the others, seem to me to be unjust and untenable. This opinion rests upon the principles, that the Sovereignty of this Republic could succeed only to the possessions of the former Sovereignty; that private rights ought to have been secured; that the New Sovereignty is bound faithfully and fully to carry out the obligations entered into by the former; and finally that well established rules, with respect to rights not matured, or with respect to conditions prevented, interrupted or rendered impossible by a circumstance of such overruling force as the breaking out of the War of Independence in 1835, and its continuance to this period, have been violated by the Confiscatory Enactments of Congress, in the particulars set forth by these British subjects. But beyond this, it seems plain, to my judgment that the Constitution inhibits Legislation of the nature here complained of, by clear general reservation and by implication, unavoidably deducible from its own provisions respecting defective titles, said to emanate from the former Sovereignty.
“No aliens” says the 10th Section of the General Provision of the Constitution shall hold lands in Texas except “by titles emanating directly from the Government of this Republic.” This exception certainly appears to involve a ratification of all titles emanating directly from the Government of which this Government is the successor, and to the obligations of which it is lawfully and justly bound: In other words it appears to have been the purpose of this provision to place this Government for the maintenance of the public faith, and for objects of policy, in the exact situation of the former Government. There can be no warrant in this provision of the Constitution to distrust what has been legally done by the former Sovereignty in behalf of Aliens, and it certainly remains to seek for that sanction elsewhere.
The Constitution declares that “whereas the protection of the public domain from unjust and fraudulent Claims, and quieting the people in the enjoyment of their lands, is one of the great duties of this Convention, and whereas the Legislature of Coahuila and Texas having passed an act in the year 1834, in behalf of General J. T. Mason of New York and another on the 14th day of March 1835, under which the enormous amount of eleven hundred leagues of land has been claimed by sundry individuals, some of whom reside in foreign countries, and are not Citizens of the Republic, which said acts are contrary to articles fourth, twelfth, and fifteenth, of the laws of 1824, of the General Congress of Mexico, and one of said acts, for that cause, has by said General Congress of Mexico, been declared null and void. It is hereby declared that the said act of 1834 in favor of J. T. Mason, and of the 14th March 1835 of the said Legislature of Coahuila and Texas, and each and every grant founded thereon, is, and was from the beginning, null and void; and all surveys made under pretence of authority derived from said acts, are hereby declared to be null and void; and all eleven league claims, located within twenty leagues of the boundary line between Texas, and the United States of America which have been located contrary to the Laws of Mexico, are hereby declared to be null and void.”
The specification of the causes of the defects of Mason's title, and the alledged intrinsic character of that defect, and the annulment of all eleven league claims located within 20 leagues of the United States of America, said to be located contrary to the Laws of Mexico, prove; that it was never intended to delegate to Congress, a right to confiscate titles, and disturb actual possession lawfully emanating from the Congress of Mexico. The declared violation of the provisions of the authority of the Congress of Mexico, and it's own special act thereupon, were on the contrary, the fundamental grounds for the annulment of the grants represented to have been irregularly made to Mason in 1834 and 1835.
In the same Session it is declared “with a view to the simplification of the Land system, and the protection of the people and Government from litigation and fraud a General Land Office shall be established, where all the Land titles of the Republic shall be registered, and the whole territory of the Republic shall be sectionized, in a manner hereafter to be prescribed by law, which shall enable the officers of the Government, or any other citizen to ascertain with certainty, the lands that are vacant, and those lands which may be covered with valid titles.”
The enactments of Congress for the establishment of a Land Office founded upon this provision, contain the clauses of which these British subjects complain, but it never can be maintained that the Constitution granted or intended a sanction for such enactments in delegating to Congress, the task of establishing an Office for the registry of land titles. The Lands now in question were covered by valid titles; and it assuredly required the prevailing force of a Confiscatory declaration from which there was to be no appeal, to abrogate those titles.
In further proof of the purpose and limitation of the Constitution, if further proof be necessary, it was declared “that whereas many surveys and titles to land have been made whilst most of the people of Texas were absent from home, serving in the Campaign against Bexar it is hereby declared that all the surveys and titles to land, made since the act of the late consultation closing the Land Office, and all titles to Land made since that time, are, and shall be null and void.”
This provision (with the provision respecting Mason's grant, and the specification of the objects and purposes for which a Land Office was to be established) appears distinctly to define, and limit the power delegated to Congress respecting Legislation upon the subject of titles to Lands.
And mindful of the principle of the Constitution of Texas that every right not expressly delegated is reserved, it certainly does seem impossible to claim a tacit sanction for enactments of retrospective and confiscatory Legislation, in an instrument of fundamental and limitary authority, so express upon the subject of titles to land, and of which it is a cardinal rule that “no retrospective or ex post facto law or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.”
I need scarcely say that the President's messages returning the Land Bills to Congress, without his approval, are known to me; and bearing as they do, so forcibly upon the subject of these claims, I have thought it convenient to forward copies of them to Her Majesty's Government.
Upon the general consequences of that Legislation so clearly foreseen, and so emphatically deprecated, in those masterly papers, it is not my province to remark: But speaking of the particular rights forming the subject of this communication it is a source of regret indeed, that the President's objections to the Bills was unavailing
I had hoped that Congress would not separate, without passing some just and effectual measure of relief for alien claimants, in the situation of these parties founded upon the representation which I had the honor to address to this Government on the 30th September last: That hope, however, has been disappointed, and it remains for me to state, in obedience to my Instructions, that unless the facts set forth by these British claimants are refused or a satisfactory explanation given, The Texian Government must be aware that Her Majesty's Government would be fully authorised to take the necessary steps for enforcing the just claims of Her Majesty's subjects.
I commit these cases, recommended by every consideration of justice, and I use the freedom to add of sound policy, with the confident persuasion, that they will have the cordial support of the President. I cannot but express the sanguine hope too, that Congress at this more advanced period of the progress of the Republic will remedy in the behalf of these claimants, the effects of wrongful Legislation, probably attributable to haste and pressure, incidental to the early and disturbed state of affairs in which it was passed.
Charles Elliot To The Honorable Anson Jones. N. B. The inclosures adverted to in the letter of which the above is a copy have not been forwarded to England because, it is understood, that a copy of Mr. Beales' Memorial and of the book from which the abstract has been drawn up must be in the Department.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN175
Secret. Galveston February 5th. 1843 My Lord,
The boat from Houston has just brought me a private letter from the President, of which I beg leave to transmit an Extract. Your Lordship will no doubt be struck with the importance of these views, coming from that quarter, and they have certainly strengthened me in those opinions which I had felt it my duty to submit in my despatch No. 4 of this year, written a few days since.
This is the first hint I have ever had of the President's ideas upon this Subject, drawn from him, I have no doubt, by strong impression of the direction and force of circumstances, by the pressure of opposition made to his administration, and mainly by a feeling of entire confidence in the friendly professions of Her Majesty's Government.
Your Lordship will be best able to distinguish what there is of mere advocacy in this Statement of opinion, or what may be taken to be the result of General Houston's sincere Convictions, or of actual suggestion from influential quarters in a contiguous Country
So far as my own judgment in that respect may be considered worthy of attention, I would say that I have no doubt General Houston has said what He believes, and probably less than He knows; neither do I question that the settlement of this Country upon an independent footing would be most agreeable to his personal opinion, and ambition.
But He perhaps thinks that there is no choice between very early settlement on that principle, or very early adhesion to the growing feeling for annexation
I have thought it my duty to place this letter under cover to Mr. Fox, with the impression that Your Lordship might desire the advantage of any views or information from him without loss of time, and I shall also send a copy to Mr. Pakenham.
Charles Elliot. To The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
HOUSTON TO ELLIOT176
[Enclosure.] Extract from a Private letter of President Houston to Captain Elliot dated Washington January 24. 1843.
“There is a subject now mooting in Texas which it seems to me will appeal directly to Her Majesty's Government. I mean that of annexation to the United States
“Some of our Journals are much in favor of the Measure. Eastern Texas contains but few dissenting voices to the Measure. I find from the incertitude of our situation that nine tenths of those who converse with me are in favor of the Measure upon the ground that it will give us peace. Upon this point of our National existence I feel well satisfied that England has the power to rule! At this time the Measure has an advocacy in the United States which has at no former period existed. From the most authentic sources I have received an appeal on this Subject, and my co-operation solicited in producing the result of annexation
“It is a political question in the United States, as well as Sentimental. I take it that it is a Measure of the democratic party. The South is in favor of it for various reasons. The West and North West desire it because of a monopoly of the trade of Santa Fé, and the Californias. The Yankees will not be blind to the trade which such a Union will open to them in disposing of their Manufactures
“The relations which such a Union would create in the Pacific, and then the Bay of San Francisco as [have] a connexion with the extension of of the Oregon Settlements. If I am not mistaken I think you will readily perceive that the probabilities of the Measure succeeding in the United States are greater than they have been at any former period. Mr. Tyler is of the South. Mr. Clay is of the West. Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Webster are of the North.
“Annexation is to be a question with the political parties and aspirants in the United States. My own opinion is that both parties will advocate the policy. To defeat this policy it is only necessary for Lord Aberdeen to say to Santa Anna, `Sir, Mexico must recognise the Independence of Texas.' Santa Anna would be glad of such a pretext. He could then say to the Mexicans `You see how I am situated. I cannot go to War with England, our best friend with a probability of War with the United States and France.'
“This state of things would be desirable with him, in my opinion, as it would leave him free to establish his power and dynasty! The Texian Subject has answered the use of `a tub for the whale' long enough, and He would like to get rid of all external troubles. But for this He requires a pretext, and He has incurred so many voluntary committals, that to get out of difficulty He must seem to act under constraint. This He could render as a satisfactory reason to the people, and even acquire favor by the course. In all these matters I may be mistaken, but I am honest in my convictions, that Texas and England would both be beneficiaries by this course. Time will tell the tale.”
N. B.
The chief portion of the remainder of the letter is upon the subject of the General's anxiety respecting the persons lately Captured West of the Rio Grande.177 And requesting that Mr. Pakenham may be moved to do what He can to avert dangerous consequences from them. The General grants that the disorderly action of their separation from the Officer acting under the orders of this Government is of highly serious consequence to them, but presses upon the fact that there was a Capitulation, and that the Mexican Government is bound to respect it. I am endeavouring to write to Mr. Pakenham upon the subject agreeably to the request, by this opportunity.
Charles Elliot [Endorsed] In letter from Capn. Elliot marked “Secret” of Feb. 5. 1843.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN178
No. 1. Galveston. Texas. February 11th. 1843. My Lord.
I have the honor to inform Your Lordship that I arrived at Galveston on the 5th Instant, and immediately reported My arrival to Captain Elliot, R. N. Her Majesty's Consul General and Chargé d'Affaires in Texas.
In accordance with My Instructions, I have placed Her Majesty's Commission appointing Me Her Majesty's Consul at this port in the hands of Captain Elliot, by whom it has been transmitted to the Government of the Republic with an application for the necessary exequatur.
Permit Me to remark that the Communication I have had the honor to hold with Captain Elliot leads me to look forward to future Cooperation with that géntleman in the public Service as a very agreeable duty.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ADDINGTON179
Private. Galveston. March 26th. 1843. My Dear Sir:
I had hoped that the last Steam Boat from New Orleans would have brought me acknowledgments to the communications forwarded from here to the 16th Decr. but I have been disappointed, and I hear accounts of the rather careless modes of conveying the Mails from New Orleans to the Northward, particularly in the Southern part of the route, which leave me uneasy till I hear from England that my letters have been duly received.
It has occurred to me, however, that Her Majesty's Government may prefer to forward some of the communications by the way of the West Indies, and that consideration tends to reassure me. The last despatch in the diplomatic series which has been acknowledged in England is dated here on the 2d November.
In outward appearances affairs in this quarter remain much as they did when I wrote to you last, in the past Month, but I cannot help believing that this sameness is apparent rather than real, and that in point of fact we are hastening forwards to material changes. So far as the aggressive power or purposes of Mexico be considered, in respect to this Country, you must no doubt have better means of judging than I can furnish, but it seems reasonable to suppose that the protraction of the Struggle in Yucatan must be shaking General Santa Anna's influence, and exhausting the crippled and severely collected resources of the Government.
We hear here, too, (but all our information concerning Mexican affairs comes to us through the United States, and must be received with great reserve) that another Federal movement is ripening, and that it will be supported by some leading Military Chieftains. Leaving these reports out of question, it may still be thought to be a reasonable calculation that any existing condition of things in Mexico will be replaced by another, within three or four years from it's Establishment, and if I am not mistaken the last final Settlement has already reached that measure of venerable duration.
We learn from New Orleans, that the two Texian Vessels of War at that place are at last preparing for Sea, (assisted by funds from Yucatan) and that they will get out in the course of a week or ten days. I am not able to judge of the well foundedness of these statements, but would observe generally of all manner of reports in these parts that they should be received as Dr. Johnson recommended of Short's Stories; Not too easily believed, for the very great probability is that they are false, not entirely disregarded for they may be true. What with my Ultra Malayan and Trans Atlantic drilling, it will be no wonder if I fall into an obstinate Pyrrhonism.
I have heard so little truth, and experienced so much injustice, that doubt and distrust is my way of being. The Treaty180 between this Country and the United States has not yet been ratified by the Senate of the last, as it is alleged I am told, upon the ground that its provisions would lead to demands for concessions of a similar nature upon the part of the other South American Republics (and the Foreign powers having possessions in the West Indies with which the United States have Commercial treaties) thus disturbing the protective effect of their own tariff, upon their own South Western produce.
But it may be that there are other motives for declining to ratify the treaty. The N. Eastern interest would perhaps feel that relaxation of the contemplated nature in favor of Texian produce would gratify the demands from the opposite points of the Union for a general relaxation of the tariff. “You have let in Texian produce,” they would reason “to our detriment.” “Admit foreign articles of our Consumption, for our relief.” Again mindful of the extremely pressed condition of this Country, and sensible of the difficulty of carrying the formal annexation of Texas by Legislative means, the S. W. party may think that the next best thing would be to leave affairs in such a state that the same result might virtually be achieved by a treaty of Commerce, and hence perhaps an unwillingness to conclude any treaty with this Country (it is most remarkable that there never yet has been one) till affairs are in their agony, from which they do not seem to be far removed.
Another topic deserving particular attention at this conjuncture is a Movement by an Anti Slavery party here. I always knew that such sentiments existed amongst some of the Settlers from the Free States, and a few of the most respected Citizens, but an Englishman who has just returned from travelling through a great part of the Republic assures me that there is a much more general and strengthening feeling in favor of such a course than he had conceived possible. I think he is mistaken in respect [to] the actual state of feeling, and a considerable degree of excitement here last week ending in the sudden dismissal of a Mr. Andrews from this Island (a Lawyer of talent and respectability of Houston who had come down to Galveston to test the state of opinion here) is a proof that in this Island at least there is in [no?] readiness for the immediate entertainment of such views. Upon the whole, however, I believe that sound opinions upon this topic are gaining strength and these South Western people are so exciteable, and so ready to jump from extreme to extreme, whenever they perceive the advantage of the leap, that it would never surprize me to find the subject thrown upon favorable public attention by the very event of M. Andrew's forced departure.181
First comes violence, and then come reflection and sympathy, and indeed it is manifest that the advantages of abolition would be so immediate and so momentous, that they only need to be calmly thought of to make their way in the public mind. I am waiting in much anxiety for the next arrivals from New Orleans with the hope that it will bring me some acknowledgment of my despatches and letters as far down as the 27th Decr.
The “Great Western” I observe she was to sail from England on the 10th February. As soon as the Boat arrives I am going up to pay a short visit to the President at Washington [on the Brazos] which I have been prevented from doing for some weeks, by the extraordinary floods of the Rivers. The Mischief of extensive inundation has added itself to all the other troubles that have plagued this poor Country for the last 12 Months.
The people are rough and wild, but their constancy and courage are admirable. I hardly know any more painful and indeed humiliatory subject of reflection than the comparative helplessness of our own poor English people, when one finds them thrown amongst these scheming, enterprising, and it is most distressing to add, almost invariably much better informed persons than themselves. The truth is that the poorer Classes of English people are broken in, or I should say broken down to do but one thing in this world, and then accustomed to all the conveniences and facilities of locomotion etc. etc. in our Country, they make but sorry work of it in taming the wilds, compared with the American races.
The training of our social and political mechanism (and my experience has taught me, military too) unfits men for rough uses and reverses. It must all work together perfectly smoothly and successfully, or it will scarcely work at all. These strange people jolt and jar terrifically in their progress but on they do get, and prosper too under circumstances where our people would starve and die. I am sure it would be a wise and a right course to put forward some authoritative recommendation to the Queen's Subjects to direct their Emigration to parts of the British Dominions, or at all events not to entirely new Countries on this Continent.
Whenever the born British Emigrant comes into contact with the American or frontier Stations, you find the first squalid, poor and a Wreck, and the last making way chiefly upon the Capital which the others have brought with them.
With my excuses for this long letter and small amount of information
Charles Elliot. H. U. Addington, Esqr.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN182
Private. Galveston March 29th. 1843. My Lord,
The delay of the Steam boat for a few hours enables me to transmit to Your Lordship the accompanying Statement of intelligence from Mexico received here two days since, via New Orleans.183 I entertain no doubt of the genuineness of their proposals, but am necessarily without any means of forming an opinion upon the purposes or situation of the Mexican Government in relation to them
Upon the face of them, however, it is hard to think that General Santa Aña can entertain a serious hope or wish that they should be accepted in their present form. Their effect would be to leave this Country virtually independent of Mexico, with abundance of pretext for further disturbance and pretentions West of the Rio Grande, as soon as Texas is well strengthened, and Mexico still further enfeebled by unsuitable institutions, and that state of intestine trouble, which appears to be almost the usual condition of the Country.
Indeed it seems to me to be quite unintelligible that this project of a Federal scheme of polity as respects Texas, and Central as respects the remainder of the Republic can be seriously put forward or expected to work particularly in the present situation of parties in Mexico.
It is possible however that these proposals may be no more than the first approach to some practicable solution of the dispute, and upon that point Your Lordship will of course have the means of forming a better judgment by the direct intelligence from Mexico, than any that can be provided upon information or suggestions from this quarter.
I do not write officially till this Government has signified it's course regarding these proposals, but I naturally conjecture that, they will not openly take notice of them.
I am about to proceed to Washington to pay a short visit to the President, and shall address Your Lordship again as soon as I have returned.
My last dates from the Foreign Office are of the 2d February, but then without, acknowledgments of any despatches from here beyond those of the 2d November.
Charles Elliot. To The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN184
No. 2. British Consulate. Galveston March 29th 1843 My Lord,
I have the honor to inform Your Lordship that, on the 24th of February, I received from the Seat of Government, at Washington on the Brazos, a Note from the Secretary of State of the Republic of Texas accompanying the President's official recognition of My Commission as Her Majesty's Consul for Galveston
I beg to inclose an extract from the Government paper published at Washington,185 not because of any terms of eulogy applied to so humble an individual as Myself, but as indicating the light in which the appointment is Viewed by the President, and the prospect it holds out of My being enabled to promote British interests in this quarter
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ADDINGTON186
Steam Boat “Dayton” On the Passage from Houston to Galveston April 15th. 1843. My Dear Sir,
The inclosure is the Copy of a letter which I have addressed to Mr. Packenham187 at the request of the President that He should be moved to make the Communication it contains to General Santa Aña, and I have added some reflections of my own because it occurred to me that Mr. Packenham would wish to judge of any views of mine upon the effect of these propositions on the Government and people of this Country.
I took occasion to mention to the President that I was without any other Instructions than had already been made known to him respecting the feelings and purposes of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject of the close of the Contest, but I was persuaded they had in no degree relaxed. He assured me, and begged the assurance might be particularly conveyed to Lord Aberdeen that He continued to place implicit confidence in the friendly declaration of Her Majesty's Government, and it was in that spirit, and that trust, that He had felt himself bound to communicate to me what He had done respecting the condition of feeling concerning annexation to the United States.
I must feel that in the state of this Country it was no wonder that men['s] minds should turn that way, and it might be depended upon that the feeling was growing and gaining strength both here, and in the United States. I thanked him for what I was sure was the motive of this frank exposition of his views upon this subject; but it was one of great importance, and I could only say that I had lost no time in forwarding to England what He had been so good as to write to me on that Matter.
My letter to Mr. Packenham contains the general substance of the President's remarks, and I must hope that indisposition will be my excuse to you for these few lines by the present occasion. Perhaps a few days rest at Galveston in the comparative comfort, (and at all events the cleanliness) of my own Cabin, will restore me, but the truth is that my health is shattered, and I do not look to make good weather of it through the ensuing hot season, so far to the South as this Country.
Charles Elliot. To H. U. Addington, Esqr.
ELLIOT TO PAKENHAM188
Private. Houston April 14th. 1843 My Dear Sir,
The last Boat from New Orleans has brought here a Citizen of this Republic of the name of Robinson who was captured at San Antonio on the occasion of it's Surprize by General Woll in September last, and the accompanying paper will place you in possession of his own account of the circumstances, and purposes of his release by General Santa Aña.
I was upon the point of starting to Washington to pay the President a short visit when these strange, and vaguely promulgated tidings reached Galveston, and I was with General Houston when Mr. Robinson arrived at Washington. The President placed in my hand the original of the paper General Santa Aña had delivered to Mr. Robinson, but except that it developed the particularity that New proposals were drawn from him by an approach from Mr. Robinson, I did not detect that that Gentleman had more to communicate to General Houston than had already been made known to him through the medium of his Newspaper.
In fact General Houston explicitly told me that Mr. Robinson brought him nothing but the papers in question; the substance of which you have here before you.
He observed that although this approach had found it's way before the Public, and came to him in a strange and informal manner indeed, still He would [state] his belief that it evinced a peacefulness of Spirit on the part of the Mexican Government, and [he was] disposed on his own side to proceed to all proper lengths for the Establishment of an honorable and desirable pacification, He hoped it might not be incompatible with your position to state to General Santa Aña that He was ready to send Commissioners to Mexico in furtherance of that object. He had to remark, however, that an armistice would be indispensably necessary before any proposals of a peaceful Nature could be entertained for without that there would be no deliberating calmly, or determining wisely on either part. General Houston then conversed with me upon the subject of this approach.
He believed that General Santa Aña had long since been convinced that there was no hope of the permanent re-establishment of Mexican Authority in Texas, and He was equally satisfied that General Santa Aña's avowed desire for a close of this futile contest was sincerely felt, both upon political considerations of various kinds, and pressing moment, and no doubt also for the sake of putting an end to a fruitless Waste of human life and happiness. He could readily understand the feeling which led General Santa Aña to shape this approach upon the condition of the acknowledgment of Mexican Sovereignty by Texas, but he could not suppose there was any deliberate purpose to adhere to that condition.
General Santa Aña's scheme involved the virtual separation of this Country from Mexico. They were to elect their own Officers from the highest to the lowest, there were to be no Mexican troops in Texas; they were to initiate and prepare their own Laws. He certainly could no[t] understand to what extent or by what means this Sovereignty was to be enjoyed or exercised. It would be a shadowy Sovereignty indeed, but it was plain to his mind that the renewed difficulties and complications to which it would give rise would be very substantial answers. He could not but hope that calm consideration, and the voice of great powers, equally friendly to both Nations would lead them both to some safe resting place.
I told the President I should not fail to communicate what He had said to you, and living amongst these people I hope it may be unnecessary to offer you any excuse for some reflections of my own upon the same Subject.
It is certainly in no great spirit of disparagement of the people of Texas. In many respects, on the contrary I think them worthy of high admiration, for example in the spirit of daring adventure, and disregard of every kind of difficulty and hardship, I know not by whom they can be surpassed. It is certainly, then, I would repeat in no spirit of general disrespect, but purely of dispassionate observation of their variable and excitable political humour that I would remark I have never lived amongst any people more likely to abandon their solemn declaration of separation to any plausible exhibition of what was best for their immediate interests. Joined to this expansiveness of political consistency, you will scarcely need to be reminded of their actually pressed condition, and of the absence of those impulses which produce what we understand by patriotism; not to be looked for indeed amongst a people strange to the soil, and compounded for the most part of wandering and restless Emigrants. from the S. W. States of the neighbouring Union.
Speaking then of things as they actually are here, and of the people now living in this Country it would certainly not surprize me to find this project, temporarily favored, and perhaps it would not be hard for its advocates to shew them that General Santa Aña's scheme would be as profitable an arrangement for Texas and the United States as I am sure it would be a mischeivous one for Mexico.
The President, I confidently believe, will act only upon large and honorable views of what is due to his Country and to himself. But whilst He is sincerely and wisely averse to aggressive War in Mexico, I am persuaded that He is steadily anxious to secure the Independence of the Country, and I do not doubt that He is secretly preparing to resort to that course as vigorously as He can if the interference of Foreign powers shall not otherwise and promptly close this combat. There seems good reason to believe that He will succeed in establishing treaties with most of the Border Indians and when that is accomplished He will be in a better situation to turn to other projects.
General Santa Aña will be greatly mistaken indeed if He thought that Houston's real influence in this Country is weakening, or wished that it should, for He is very moderately disposed towards Mexico, and will strive hard to reach some safe and creditable conclusion. But if he once raises his voice in the opposite way He will be followed by twenty thousand riflemen from the Western States of the Union, in less than 6 Months. To return however to General Santa Aña's scheme, I think you will concur with me that there is no soundness in a System, flimsily pretending to be of one kind, but essentially of a diametrically repugnant description. And of all the people and Governments on the Earth to select for this experiment of resting contented under a scheme of policy, declaratorily masterful, and really powerless, these reckless and enterprizing races that have found their way to this region, and the scantily scrupulous Government of the United States would assuredly be the most certain to shiver the fragile Machinery to atoms, at their first convenience
That the Government and people of the United States, moved under different motives, are perfectly agreed upon one point in this affair of Texas and Mexico, I make no doubt, and that is a disinclination to the recognition of it's Independence by Mexico. The adoption of General Santa Aña's present scheme would probably suit them all much better. It would effectually sponge out all that has been done in that way, and leave things as they were in 1836 (when they never expected Foreign Powers would recognize the Independence of Texas) with leisure to all parties, and full convenience to strengthen this Country, and open out renewed troubles and pretensions in a Westerly direction. I believe that that Government has no more settled purpose than to stretch itself Westward, and I think the present Cabinet at Washington is of the mind that Texas upon an independent footing would be a serious and growing obstacle in their progress thitherwards.
It appears to be reasoned that independent Texas with a very liberal commercial policy would adhere steadily to a balancing system, for it would leave Her a great emporium between Countries with high tariffs, and eager dispositions, and ready facilities to set them at nought. There is reason too in the suggestion (it has been put forward by leading people in America) that the influx of foreign Capital and principles to this Republic from other parts of the world, particularly from England, would pretty rapidly modify present sympathies. Men, they think, would soon begin to feel Texian, as well as to call themselves, Texians. Indeed it is more true of the United States races, than of any other in the World that their first best Country ever is at home.
They will live friendly or fight with any people for profits sake. Long before I heard of this proposal of General Santa Aña's the impression was gaining strength in my mind that some intrigue was ripening at Washington (on the Potomac) for I had good reason to believe that there had been personal Communications between General Almonte, General Hamilton, Mr. Tyler and Mr. Calhoun, during last Autumn. Revolving the probable subject of that intercourse in my mind, it has sometimes occurred to me (and there is nothing in this proposal to disturb the surmize) that a formal and temporary reannexation of Texas to Mexico might be one of the proposed devices, and thereupon after some decent length of time, a renewal of General Jackson's Negociation for the purchase of Texas from Mexico.
That might be a convenient mode enough of adjusting United States Claims on Mexico, without any transfer of funds, and perhaps it might be made more palatable to Mexico by proposing to pay a few more Million than General Jackson had offered. The Mexicans would perhaps be instructed by such advisers that this course would save appearances, and give them a handsome Salvage out of what was lost to them for ever, and their own aversion to have a Neighbour with a liberal Commercial policy would possibly help at the scheme. You are a much better judge of the probability of these speculations than myself, but entertaining no doubt at all of the answers of the Cabinet at Washington on the subject, I have thought it convenient to submit them to you. Considering the shape that this Matter has now assumed, (from the point of view that I regard it, and with such means and opportunities of forming a judgment as are within my reach) I cannot help thinking that Her Majesty's Government would regard a renewal of this futile Contest, always pregnant with more risk of inconvenient complication with the United States than there are any safe means of estimating, With great dissatisfaction General Santa Aña has now proposed a concession of all practical hold over the Country, and it will scarcely be agreeable to Her Majesty's Government to learn that a struggle has been reopened for a matter of form.
On the other hand you will know much better than I, how the intelligence would be received in London that affairs here had been adjusted upon General Santa Aña's present scheme; a scheme effectually breaking up existing arrangements, and leaving behind the certainty of renewed and more serious complications. By late papers from England I observe that Her Majesty's and the French Governments have recently joined in a Note to the Republic of Monte Video, and Buenos Ayres saying in effect, that they might suit their own convenience about making a peace, but that it was necessary they should keep the peace. And I hope you will pardon me for expressing the wish that you may now think yourself in a situation to request the Mexican Government to suspend hostilities, and recommend me to say the like to this Government for such a length of time as might enable you to learn the pleasure of Her Majesty's Government upon this turn of affairs.
In my mind it is a scheme amounting, in few words, to nothing less than a swamping of this Country's Independence. And all the military and other arrangements, present and prospective, depending upon it, for the better convenience of the United States. They would be what General Houston calls the “beneficiaries” of such a solution. It is of course impossible that General Santa Aña can have any such thought or purpose as this last, but with deference, it seems hard to reconcile his entire earnestness in these proposals with any moderate degree of knowledge of character of these people, or of the circumstances connected with their situation
In every way that I regard this subject, looking at it from here, (but your point of view and experience will at once enable you to arrest any misconception into which I have fallen) it certainly seems to me important that there should be a complete pause, till you can receive Notice of the views of Her Majesty's Government. After the present turn of affairs shall be known in that quarter.
We learn here that the two Texian Men of War are to get to Sea immediately from New Orleans, but the President privately assured me that the Commodore had orders to give up the Command of the Squadron for repeated disobedience of Instructions, and for a most unwarrantable interference in the affairs of Yucatan and Mexico. He shewed me his Messages to Congress upon that subject, and they were strongly averse to the least interference of this Country in that struggle.
I have to make an excuse for my hard hand writing, but bad as it always is, I write with some considerable discomfort from sickness, in the hot room of a Houston Boarding House which is a manner of existence that I would not wish to my worst unfriends, and I have had bitter. The Steam Boat is to leave for New Orleans tomorrow, and having no time or convenience to write a despatch from here.—I shall take the liberty of enclosing a copy of this letter to Mr. Addington. I should add that the President wished the Communication to you to be made in a private form.
Charles Elliot. His Excellency Richard Packenham, Esqr. Copy. C. E. [Endorsed] In letter from Captain Elliot of April 15. 1843.
REVIEWS AND NOTICES
American Colonial Government, 1696-1765. A Study of the British Board of Trade in its Relation to the American Colonies—Political, Industrial, Administrative. By Oliver Morton Dickerson, Ph. D. (Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Company. 1912. Pp. 366.)
The Relations of Pennsylvania with the British Government, 1696-1765. By Winfred Trexler Root, Ph. D. (New York: Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, D. Appleton and Company, Agents, 1912. Pp. iv, 396.)
It is only within the last twenty years that scholars have begun to study the American colonies as parts of a great empire and to examine from that point of view their relations to the economic and administrative system of Great Britain. In this field Osgood, Andrews, and Beer have been the pioneers, but most of their work has been confined to the seventeenth century. The highly important period from the establishment of the Board of Trade in 1696 to the Revolution has been traversed only by the occasional monograph and yet awaits comprehensive treatment. The two books here reviewed are the most important recent contributions to this hitherto neglected division of the subject.
In his American Colonial Government Professor Dickerson gives us the first adequate account of that very important subject, the British Board of Trade, which has been neglected hitherto largely because its importance has not been fully appreciated. Here at last is presented a careful and somewhat detailed account of the organization, nature, and personnel of the Board, its relations to the other organs of the British government, and its relations to the colonies.
The chief duties of the Board were the care and fostering of English trade in general and the supervision of colonial administration to that end. But it was never able to fulfill all the purposes of its creation. Subordinated on the one side to the Privy Council, on the other to the secretary of state for the southern department and excluded from direct control over the enforcement of the Acts of Trade, after a few years of efficiency it passed from the control of the Crown to that of the Parliamentary chiefs, fell into the hands of Whig spoilsmen—of whom Newcastle as secretary of state for the southern department exercised the most “pernicious interference”—and sank gradually into such a condition of helplessness that its only function was to gather occasional information. Indeed, one is led to believe that, if Professor Dickerson's view be correct, Newcastle was more responsible than any other man for the conditions which brought about the revolt of the colonies—so lax had become the administration and control of imperial interests, and so many new powers had the colonial assemblies been allowed to assume. During the presidency of the energetic and ambitious Halifax, 1748-1761, there was not only a revival of the original powers of the Board but an extension of them. But the mischief had already been done; the colonies were already beyond the control of the administrative organs of the imperial government. The problems were passed up to Parliament with what results we know.
The reader is likely to feel that the space given to such a topic as the personnel of the Board could have been reduced without serious loss and more given with profit to the explanation of the rise of the assemblies and the weakening of the colonial executive; but the author probably felt that the excellent work of Professor Evarts B. Greene in this field had made an extended discussion of those subjects less necessary. Though sometimes too brief, the account of the Board's efforts to retain imperial control over the colonial judiciary, to bolster up the waning powers of the royal governor, and to lop off by the weapon of royal disallowance the unconstitutional extensions of the powers of the assemblies is very illuminating. Likewise clear is the story of how the work of the Board was hampered by wretched means of communication, of how the frequent wars and the urgent need of supplies placed the governors at the mercy of the assemblies, and of the failure of the ministers to bring Parliament to the support of the royal officials.
Professor Dickerson has seemingly exhausted the sources of the subject, the chief of which are the manuscript records of the Board of Trade itself. If one is inclined to criticise the proportion of the book, he must, nevertheless, praise the clarity of style and treatment. The title, however, is entirely too broad,—the subtitle is a more accurate indication of the contents of the book.
Dr. Root's book has a peculiar interest, not only in that it deals with one of the most important colonies, but because it affords an excellent example of the futile reaction of imperial laws upon a charter-protected colony and of the anomalous position of such a colony in a well-ordered imperial system. The treatise is admirably arranged. Beginning with a brief examination of Penn's charter and the relation of his colony to the crown, the real point of departure is in the second chapter, which deals with the central institutions of colonial control—that is, the Crown, Privy Council, the great officers of state, treasury and admiralty, the Board of Trade, and finally Parliament. There follow chapters on the administration of the acts of trade, the Court of Admiralty, royal disallowance, judicial system, finance, religious questions, imperial defense and imperial centralization. In these chapters Dr. Root clearly sets forth the helplessness of the Board of Trade because of its subordinate powers, the lack of thorough coordination in the administrative system, the poor type of royal official frequently sent out by English politicians and the wretched fee system which rendered corrupt officials more corrupt, the skillful evasion by the colonists of the royal veto, the quarrel over paper money, the failure of certain colonies, especially Pennsylvania, to respond to the needs of imperial defense, the utter futility of the system of requisitions—which we remember Franklin was not ashamed to praise when opposing a general tax—and the necessity for a general reorganization of the empire after the close of the French and Indian war. The author shows a full sympathy for and understanding of the conditions of colonial life which led to the most strenuous assertion of the right of local self-government and distrust of centralized control from across the sea; but the reader is led irresistibly to the conclusion that the empire needed reorganization and that from the point of view of the imperial officials the abrogation of the remaining colonial charters, the grouping of the colonies and the raising of a general revenue for better defense, and the stricter enforcement of the laws of trade were matter of prime necessity. How far is this from the notions that high school and even college students still imbibe from their text-books that the measures of the British government were the acts of a wicked and stupid despotism! One must regret that the style is somewhat hard to follow and that the diction is often careless. Perhaps it is this carelessness that leads the author to say (p. 43) that by 1765 the colonies had “autonomous governments with parliaments of their own co-ordinate with the British Parliament,” a statement which is contradicted on pages 202, 311, and 395, where it is variously explained that the Parliament was legally supreme “over both realm and colonies.”
There is much to praise and little to find fault with in this volume. Dr. Root has searched widely through the sources with the utmost care, and he has made a solid and notable contribution to little known period.
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
An Artillery Officer in the Mexican War, 1846-7. Letters of Robert Anderson, Captain 3d Artillery, U. S. A. With a Prefatory Word by his daughter, Eba Anderson Lawton. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1911. Pp. xvi, 339.)
This is a volume of the letters of Captain Robert Anderson to his wife. The first letter is dated at Fort Brook, Florida, December 28, 1846, and the last from Mexico City, October 28, 1847. The writer participated in the capture of Vera Cruz, the battle of Cerro Gordo, and the battle of Molino del Rey, and was with the army at the battle of Churubusco, but was kept out of that engagement by a severe attack of malaria. He was disabled in the battle of Molino del Rey, and was invalided home in October. Covering as they do practically the whole of the southern campaign, one expects these letters to cast valuable side lights on General Scott's invasion of Mexico, but the expectation is disappointed. They are interesting human documents, and inspire abundant respect for the character of the writer; they occasionally contain excellent descriptions of the towns along the route from Vera Cruz to Mexico; but they are singularly devoid of material for the historian. The reason for this is partly explained by the writer: “The newspapers give you so regularly and constantly the last news from the Army, that it is hardly worth while for me to chronicle events as they transpire, or to detail rumors as they fly.” Again, “I, from my position, am debarred from all knowledge of the secret plans (if they have any) of our Commanders.” Trist is mentioned in several of the letters, but never a word is said of his relations with General Scott. Captain Anderson was a personal friend of Scott's, and had great admiration for his military qualities. The book is without an index, but this is less serious than would be the case if the letters were of greater historical importance.
E. C. B.
The Story of My Life, or More Than Half a Century as I Have Lived it and Seen it Lived. By G. C. Rankin, D. D. (Dallas: 1912. 12mo, Pp. 356, Vol. I.)
This volume covers the life of Dr. Rankin down to the time of his election as editor of the Texas Christian Advocate, fourteen years ago. Previous to that election he had spent four years at Shearn Church, Houston, and two years at First Church, Dallas. The volume, therefore, covers only a small portion of his activity in Texas. The author promises another volume, the material for which has already been accumulated but is too warm to hand out. “In that second and final volume there will be something racy and rare in the literature of the Lone Star State.”
The present volume “is not technically an autobiography, for it deals with many persons and incidents outside of myself.” “I have grouped certain periods and certain incidents around myself and told the simple story without much accuracy of chronology.” These sentences indicate somewhat the plan of the book. The first half of the volume is superior to the second half both as regards choice of subject matter and treatment. The story of his childhood, the courage with which the fatherless boy faced the world, the privations he endured to obtain an education—the account of his kind grandmother, of his own mother's fortitude, of the helpfulness of friends—the pictures of life in his native community, of the scenery of East Tennessee and of the character and originality of the leaders in that region—all these are well told and will win the sympathy and admiration of his readers, young and old.
The second half of the volume is different. The plan of the book is not adapted to the subject matter treated; as a result, the narrative is fragmentary; the style becomes repetitive, digressive, and perfunctory. The author's statements in the Foreword, “I owe nothing to fortune, to kindred or good luck” and “I have had to become, from sheer necessity, the architect of my own position and character in the world,” must have found their origin in writing this portion of the book. However, they are amply refuted by the narrative itself.
The volume is illustrated with reproductions of the photographs of the author, his mother, and members of his family, and of Professor and Mrs. M. H. B. Burkett, Revs. W. E. Munsey, Jno. H. Brunner and Abe Mulkey and Gov. W. G. Brownlow. A few crude pen sketches are also included.
E. W. Winkler.
A Thumb-Nail Histoiry of the City of Houston, Texas, from its founding in 1836 to the year 1912. By Dr. S. O. Young. (Houston: 1912. 8vo, Pp. 184.)
This book was written, the author says, “more for my own pleasure than for anything else.” He waives all claim to literary ability, but assures the reader that “every precaution has been taken to guard against error. Wherever possible, I have consulted original documents and newspapers.”
The subject matter is divided into twelve chapters, each devoted to some phase of the city's activities and tracing its history from the inception of that interest to the present. Chapter 1 (Pp. 7-43) gives an account of the founding of Houston and outlines its municipal history; Chapter 2 (44-62) tells of the building activities, private and public, at different periods, and of the organization of fire companies; Chapter 3 (63-84) does the same for railroad building, and gives some notes on the lawyers and doctors; Chapter 4 (85-93), newspapers; Chapter 5 (94-108), banks and trust companies; Chapter 6 (109-119), churches; Chapter 7 (120-130), military companies; Chapter 8 (131-138), manufacturing; Chapter 9 (139-150), literary clubs, public library and organized labor; Chapter 10 (151-169), cotton, lumber, oil, rice and insurance; Chapter 11 (170-175), telegraph lines, telephones, and electric lighting; Chapter 12 (176-184), William M. Rice and the Rice Institute.
The book is far from being a complete history of Houston. A large portion of the text is devoted to a description of the city and its business institutions in 1912. There is enough history, however, to indicate the leading rôle Houston has played in the business enterprise of the State, and the wonderful transformation within the last few years of the old Houston into a modern city.
The absence of any notice of the schools, street railway, hospitals and other charities is remarkable. On page 85 the statement is made that, prior to the establishment of the Telegraph in 1835, Texas had no publication worthy of being called a newspaper. Coming from one who has been connected with newspapers, this remark is all the more surprising. Further down the page it is stated that the Telegraph was begun at Columbia, while as a matter of fact it was begun at San Felipe. It is also stated that its first number appeared on October 10, 1835, “the very day that the Texans, under Fannin, stormed and took Goliad.” Fannin was not at Goliad on that date. On page 88 the statement is made that the tri-weekly Morning Star was begun “in the early fifties.” This is, perhaps, a misprint, for “in the early forties,” for the Morning Star was begun in April, 1839.
The illustrations include Sam Houston, after whom the city was named, the Allens, founders of the city, W. J. Hutchins, T. W. House, Sr., Charles Stewart, Paul Bremond, William R. Baker and others, prominent in the city's development.
The volume has neither table of contents nor index.
E. W. Winkler.
Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas, adopted at the Regular Session of the Thirty-second Legislature, 1911. Published by authority of the State of Texas. Austin, 1912, 8vo, Pp. 90+1996. After much delay, these statutes were delivered about the end of July.
“Geographic Influences in the Development of Texas” is the title of an article published by Dr. Frederic W. Simonds in the May number of The Journal of Geography (University of Wisconsin).
Letter from a Bexar Prisoner.—The San Antonio Express of September 15, 1912, contains a letter from S. A. Maverick to General Waddy Thompson, dated “Castle de Perote Decr 5, '43” and reproduces the first page in facsimile. The letter contains some interesting passages. The date, however, is incorrect; in all probability the correct date is January 5, 1843. The Diary of Judge Hutchinson, a fellow prisoner, printed in The Quarterly, XIII, 294-313, furnishes several reasons for this conjecture.
E. W. W.
The growing interest in the late O. Henry is shown by the recent appearance of the following articles by Harry P. Steger: “Some of O. Henry's letters and the Plunkville Patriot,” in the Independent, September 5, 1912, p. 543-47; “O. Henry—New Facts About the Great Author,” in the Cosmopolitan, October, 1912, p. 955-57. “Recollections of O. Henry” by George P. Warner appeared in The Texas Magazine, August, 1912, p. 322.
A Family of Millers and Stewarts. By Dr. Robert F. Miller. Printed privately, 1909. Folio, Pp. 64. This volume contains a good biographical sketch of the Rev. James Weston Miller, D. D., a nestor of the Presbyterian Church in Texas. The sermon preached by Dr. Miller at the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Synod of Texas, in November, 1876, is reproduced.
The Call of the New South. Edited by James E. McCulloch. Nashville: Southern Sociological Congress, 1912. 8vo, Pp. 387. The above title has been given to the addresses delivered at the initial meeting of the Southern Sociological Congress, held at Nashville, May 7-10, 1912.
The following articles have recently appeared in The Texas Magazine (Houston): The Bohemian Farmers of Texas, by LeRoy Hodges (June); The Texas Overland Mail, by Mrs. Lipscomb Norvell (July); Japanese Farmers in Texas, by W. Jett Lauck (September).
NEWS ITEMS
The Dallas News of July 7 describes the presentation of a dramatized version of the career of General Sam Houston by the Senior Class of the Sam Houston Normal College at their last Commencement. The play was written by the students, and was staged in the open at the old Houston homestead.
Rev. W. S. Red, of Mexia, is engaged in preparing a history of the Texas Presbytery, to be published under the auspices of the Presbytery. Associated with him in the work are Rev. F. E. Fincher of Houston, and Fred S. Robbins of Bay City.
W. L. McGaughey, former Land Commissioner of Texas, died at his home, Tolar, Texas, on March 28, 1912. He was born at Mount Hope, Alabama, February 27, 1836; became colonel of the Sixteenth Alabama Regiment during the Civil War; he removed to Texas in 1872. A sketch of his life is printed in the Dallas News of March 29.
Bryan Callaghan, mayor of San Antonio, died on July 8, 1912. He was a native of that city; born April 1, 1852; he studied law at the University of Virginia, and then spent some time studying in France. He was mayor for many years. The San Antonio Express of July 8 and 9 has a full sketch of his life.
Carl Urbantke, whose autobiography was noted in The Quarterly, VI, 256-57, died at his home in Brenham, July 12, 1912.
Richard M. Wynne, Superintendent of the Confederate Home at Austin, died July 15, 1912. He was born in Haywood county, Tennessee, June 2, 1844, but came to Texas in his early boyhood. During the Civil War he served as an officer in the Tenth Texas Regiment. In 1880 he was elected to the Texas Senate, and in this position helped to frame the law which established the University of Texas. A brief sketch of his life is contained in The Dallas News of July 18, 1912.
John H. James, Chief Justice of the Fourth Court of Civil Appeals, died at his summer home near Comfort, Texas, on July 17, 1912. He was born in San Antonio sixty years ago, was trained in law at Harvard, and had been on the bench of the Fourth Court of Civil Appeals continuously since its organization in 1893. A brief sketch of his career is printed in the San Antonio Express of July 19.
T. S. Miller, of Dallas, died at Petosky, Michigan, August 3. He was born at Jackson, Louisiana, in 1850. From 1895 to 1897 he was Professor of Law in the University of Texas, being for one year Chairman of the Faculty and Dean of the Law Department. A brief sketch of his life is in The Dallas News of August 4, 1912.
Dr. Sylvester Primer, Professor of Germanic Languages in the University of Texas, died at his home in Austin, August 13, 1912. He was born at Geneva, Wisconsin, December 14, 1842. He served through the Civil War in two New York regiments, the 108th Infantry and the 15th Cavalry. After the War he graduated at Harvard, and studied at various German universities, taking the Ph. D. degree from Strassburg. He had been at the University of Texas since 1891. A brief sketch of his life can be found in Who's Who in America for 1912-1913.
Judge A. W. Terrell, President of the Texas State Historical Association, died at Mineral Wells (Texas) on September 8, 1912. A sketch of his life will be published in a later number of The Quarterly.
The annual reunion of the United Confederate Veterans of Texas will be held at Cleburne on October 3 and 4.
The Harris County Bar Association recently placed in the courthouse portraits of Andrew Briscoe, first chief justice of Harris county; J. W. Henderson, an ex-Governor of Texas, and Charles Stewart, former Congressman. Among the rules governing the admission of portraits one provides that the subject must have made a distinct contribution to the history of the bar of Harris county; another provides that he must have been dead at least fifteen years prior to admission.
A monument to commemorate the bravery of Colonel William P. Rogers, of the Second Texas Infantry, was unveiled at Corinth, Mississippi, August 15, by a committee of citizens of Victoria, Texas, assisted by the Corinth U. D. C. Colonel Rogers was killed in the battle of Corinth, October 4, 1862, while leading a charge at Fort Robinett.—Austin Statesman, August 16, 1912.
Miss Elizabeth H. West, archivist in the Texas State Library, has been in the City of Mexico since the first week in August. She is supervising the copying of historical manuscripts in the Archivo General of the Secretaría de Fomento, relating to the colonization of Texas from 1820 to 1836.
A CORRECTION
A line was omitted from Dr. Bolton's article in the July Quarterly at the bottom of page 16. The sentences there affected should read: “This account of the Texas is of special interest as being the earliest extant, so far as is known, although, as we have seen, reports of them had reached New Mexico as early as 1650. One of the objective points of the Spaniards both of New Mexico and Coahuila was thenceforth the Kingdom of the Texas.”
