THE
SOUTHWESTERN HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
Vol. XX April, 1917 No. 4
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by
contributors to The Quarterly
THE TARIFF HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS
*
A government which has recently established its independence
is expected to move with uncertain and vacillating steps in set-
ting up institutions; and the establishment of a financial sys-
tem is the most difficult task that confronts it, since inexperi-
enced men must in the nature of things be in control, and many
different interests must be placated. It is not strange, then, that
throughout the period of the Republic many of the laws of Texas,
particularly those relating to finance, partook of the nature of
experiment, and were frequently changed to meet changing con-
ditions. Thus, there were no less than seven laws passed be-
tween 1835 and 1842, establishing custom duties, altering rates
already established, regulating the methods of collection, and pre-
scribing what form of money should be received in payment of
duties; and even in the years when no tariff bill was enacted the
question was up in Congress in some form. In some cases a bill
had hardly had time to take effect before another was passed
altering its provisions or repealing it altogether.
By the ordinance creating the provisional government passed
by the Consultation, November 13, 1835, power was granted to
the General Council "to impose and regulate imposts and ton-
nage duties, and provide for their collection under such regula-
tions as may be the most expedient." In his first message Gov-
ernor Smith recommended the establishment of a tariff, and it
was estimated by the finance committee that tonnage duties alone
would amount to $125,000. On December 8, 1835, the General
Council passed "An Ordinance and Decree establishing and im-
posing Duties on Imports and Tonnage and for other purposes,"
and this ordinance received the signature of the governor on the
12th.
1 The ordinance named without defining six revenue dis-
tricts--Sabine, Galveston, Brazos, Matagorda, Jackson, and Aran-
sas. Duties were to be collected at the rate of 20 per cent
ad valorem on all goods entitled to debenture in the ports from
which they were exported, and at the rate of 10 per cent on all
others, with the exception of household goods, guns and ammu-
nition, which were to be admitted free. On December 27 a sup-
plementary act raised these duties to 25 per cent and 15 per
cent respectively. A supplementary act had already provided on
the 15th for a tonnage duty of $1.25 a ton on all vessels of more
than ten tons, and for a specific duty of 12½ cents a gallon on
whiskey and wines.
2
No reports are available on which to base an estimate of the
returns under this act, but they probably amounted to very lit-
tle. The merchants anticipated the law and imported larger
stocks than usual. The one firm which neglected to purchase
additional supplies because it was purchasing supplies for the
government was exempted from the provisions of the act. On
March 12, 1836, the constituent convention decreed that the pro-
visional government had exceeded its authority in levying import
duties, and ordered what had been collected to be repaid.
3
The act of December 12, 1835, and the subsequent supplemen-
tary acts were makeshifts to serve until the constitutional gov-
ernment could establish a more comprehensive system of tariff
duties. Early in the first session of the First Congress the tariff
policy of the government was taken up for settlement. On Oc-
tober 4, 1836, President Burnet, in his message to Congress, said:
Duties on imports, and in some cases on exports, constitute a
convenient and economical mode of supplying the public necessi-
ties, and are less onerous to individuals than almost any other im-
post. . . . When the abundant intrinsic resources of our coun-
try shall be fully developed, then it may be the glory of Texas to
invite kindred nations of the earth to an unembarrassed inter-
communion of their diversified products.
4
He made no recommendation except that there be a careful
adjustment of the tariff so as to apply equally to all classes and
commodities. And it was in this spirit that an act was discussed
and passed. On October 11, 1836, Moseley Baker of Austin
county moved in the House of Representatives that the commit-
tee on ways and means be instructed to prepare a bill to raise
revenue by import duties.
5 On October 19th Branch of Liberty
county, chairman of that committee, introduced a measure in
keeping with this resolution.
6 At various times during the fol-
lowing two months the bill came for discussion and minor amend-
ments, though it did not become a political question. The dis-
cussion was more or less desultory. On December 15th it passed
the House and was sent to the Senate, where it was passed as
routine business the same day.
7
The policy as indicated by this bill was to lay a rather heavy
duty on luxuries and a comparatively light one on necessaries.
For example, on wines and silks an ad valorem duty of 45 per
per cent and 50 per cent respectively was charged, while on
necessities, such as breadstuffs, coffee, etc., the duties ranged
from 1 per cent to 10 per cent ad valorem. All unenumerated
articles were to pay duty at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem.
This made the general average of duties about 25 per cent.
Other sections of the bill provided for tonnage duty of 25 cents
a ton on all vessels of ten tons or more; for the appointment of
proper officials for each district; for the payment of customs
dues in treasury notes if paid at once.
8
The act of December 20, 1836, was to go into operation June
1, 1837. It made no provision for collection districts, however,
and no collectors had been appointed before that date.
9 Before
it could become effective, however, the Congress was busy in the
preparation of another bill.
The general conditions of trade at that period are summed up
very well by Crawford, vice-consul of the British government,
in Galveston to O'Grorman, Consul-General in Mexico City. On
May 13, 1837, he wrote as follows:
I endeavored to obtain returns of the Trade corresponding to
each port, but as they have had no Duties to collect till this time,
so they have had no Collectors nor port Officers to collect infor-
mation, and I am only enabled to form an estimate of what the
trade is at present, by what I have seen and conjecture that it will
increase proportionately with the population crowding in. At
present about 40 Vessels averaging 100 Tons ea[ch] carry on the
whole Commerce monthly which would give an aggregate of 48,000
Tons in the year, and they are all under the flag of the United
States, with the exception of two or three sailing under the single
star of Texas. . . .
The appointment of the necessary Revenue Officers will no
doubt be made forthwith, but I have reason to think that a modifi-
cation of the Tariff will be carried by the present Congress to the
effect of authorizing the President to exempt from duty for one
year all articles for Agricultural use, provisions of all kinds, seeds
and plants, Saddlery and Harness, Artificers Tools, Lumber and
framed houses with the Glass and fastenings they require, etc.
10
Crawford's opinion that there was likely to be a revision in
connection with the subjects named probably indicates some pop-
ular objection to the tariff act of the preceding Congress. In
the Telegraph
and
Texas
Register
for May 2, 1837, there is an
article giving the price of flour at from $15 to $20 a barrel, and
stating that sugar, coffee, and other provisions cost three times
as much in Houston as in New Orleans. It was likely, then,
that a revision in the tariff would cover all articles of necessity
such as those listed. And Congress did immediately enter into a
discussion of a new tariff measure.
The real tariff history of the Republic of Texas begins with
the act of June 12, 1837. This was the first act to become
effective under the constitutional government, and henceforth
there was a tariff in operation, though the rates and the methods
of collection varied materially. This act is important because it
expresses the attitude of a large majority of the tariff advocates
throughout the period of the Republic. It is further interesting
as it is thus early associated with the land question as a fiscal
policy.
In his message to Congress on May 5, 1837, President Hous-
ton had nothing to say with regard to the tariff. He did say
with regard to the trade of the Republic, however,
Her cotton, sugar, indigo, wines, peltries, live stock, and the
precious minerals, will become objects of mercantile activity. To
establish such intercourse with nations friendly to us, as will in-
duce them to seek our markets with their manufactures and com-
modities, and receive from us in exchange our productions, will be-
come our imperative duty.
11
On May 13th a resolution was submitted in the House of Rep-
resentatives on taxation, which was adopted as follows:
Resolved that the Committee on Ways and Means be instructed
to prepare a bill to raise revenue by direct taxation, and also to
inquire what amendments are necessary in the law that levies im-
post duties after the first of June next.
12
In conformity with this resolution, the chairman of that com-
mittee introduced on the 24th an act to raise revenue by im-
port duties.
13 On the 27th Joseph Rowe of San Augustine
county offered a resolution to defer tariff and tax legislation until
the question of opening the land offices should be settled, and
thus early began the opposition to the tariff of the eastern sec-
tion. This resolution was defeated, however, by a vote of 14
to 10.
14 The tariff bill was taken up on its second reading on
the 31st, and on June 1, it passed its final reading.
15 The amend-
ments to the bill before its final passage indicate an effort to
make the duties on necessaries light and on luxuries heavy. For
example, the original bill had provided for a specific duty of
four cents a pound on coffee. This was changed to one cent.
The duty on salt was lowered from ten cents a bushel to three
cents. On the other hand, the duty on jewelry was raised from
12½ per cent and 25 per cent ad valorem to 33⅓ per cent.
16 The
Senate received the bill on June 1, and under a suspension of
rules it was read a first, second, and third time and passed.
17
On the following clay it was returned to the House where the
Senate amendments were concurred in, and the bill passed to
enrollment.
18
The first draft of this act as it was passed to engrossment and
enrollment had provided for payment of duties in gold, silver,
or properly audited drafts on the treasury. On June 9, the com-
mittee on ways and means recalled the bill for an amendment
striking out the provision for the use of authenticated treasury
drafts, which was passed after an effort of Moseley Baker of
Austin had been made to allow the original holders of such drafts
to pay duties with them. Baker's amendment failed by a vote
of 11 to 12.
19 The measure received the president's approval
June 12.
The preamble to this act declares its purpose to be to raise
a public revenue by import duties, to aid in defraying the pub-
lic expenses, sustaining the public credit, and securing to the
public creditors a fair annual or semi-annual interest on their
stock in the funded debt. Naturally the protective principle did
not appear. There was an effort to lower the price of provision?
by admitting them free of duty with a few exceptions. The free
list included breadstuffs, including corn, wheat, barley, and oats;
pickled beef, salted and smoked pork, neat's tongue; potatoes,
beets, beans, rice, and vinegar. Another free list included tools
of trade, lumber and building material, firearms and ammuni-
tion, these materials being necessary to the development of the
country. Some provisions, however, were required to pay a
rather heavy duty. Among these were butter, 6¼ cents a pound;
white sugar, 4 cents a pound; tea, black, 12½ cents; green, 25
cents a pounds.
The duties on liquors, spirits, and whiskeys were from 25 to
75 cents a gallon, depending on the quality; on wines, from 25
cents to $2; on silk goods, 30 per cent ad valorem; on jewelry,
33⅓ per cent; on playing cards, 50 per cent; cigars, $2.50 a thou-
sand. Iron articles were to pay at the rate of 20 per cent ad
valorem. The duties on unenumerated articles were to be at the
rate of 25 per cent ad valorem.
20
The provision that only gold and silver should be accepted in
payment of duties under this act created some confusion. The
law of June 7, 1837, creating the audited treasury drafts had
provided that they should be receivable for all dues of the gov-
ernment.
21 Under the assumption that the latter act superseded
the former, Henry Smith, the secretary of the treasury, on No-
vember 5, 1837, instructed collectors not to receive audited drafts
in payment of customs.
22 On the 13th he informed them that
the president had overruled him in the matter, and they were
instructed to receive such drafts.
23 On the 15th the House of
Representatives called for a copy of these instructions, and on
the following day he complied with the request. In his com-
munication to the House he complained of the conflict in the
laws, stating that the act of June 12 had provided that duties
should be paid in gold, silver, or such current bank paper as the
authorities should from time to time direct, and as the proceeds
arising from import and tonnage duties were appropriated for the
payment of the interest on the funded debt, he did not think
that treasury drafts should be receivable.
24 On December 24,
Congress passed an act prohibiting the payment of duties in
audited treasury drafts, but creating treasury notes to the amount
of $150,000, which were to be received together with specie in
the payment of customs dues.
25
There seems to have been little if any popular objection to the
tariff under this act, though it was probably felt that commerce
was adversely affected by it. On July 22, 1837, the Telegraph
and
Texas
Register,
in commenting on the general prosperity,
said that commerce seemed to be languishing under a baneful
influence. "The attention of government, however, has already
been attracted to the evil," the writer optimistically continued,
and we feel confident that under the fostering influence of a
liberal policy this powerful arm of the national strength will
soon be restored to its wonted energy.
A little later a writer from Galveston was calling attention to
the fact that duties on imports and tonnage were being collected,
and that the public credit of Texas would be raised thereby, and
that the creditors of Texas would be convinced that their claims
would be satisfied.
26
The campaign for free trade began early in the called session
of the Second Congress, and as was usually the case thereafter
a representative from the eastern part of the Republic stood
sponsor for the resolution to repeal the tariff acts and declare
the ports of Texas free. On September 29, 1837, upon a resolu-
tion by Douglass of Nacogdoches a special committee was ap-
pointed to report a bill repealing the tariff laws then in force.
27
It is interesting to note that as early as June 1, 1837, East
Texas began its campaign for tree trade, and West Texas its
complaint that the eastern portion was escaping taxation. On
that date Joseph Rowe of San Augustine county made a pro-
posal in Congress for the abolition of the revenue district of
Red River. This was objected to by W. W. Gant of Washington
county on the ground that there was no reason why the eastern
portion of Texas should be exempted from taxation, while the
western portion was laboring under a tariff.
28
The committee which had been appointed in the House on
September 29, reported with a bill on October 16, which on the
20th was referred to the committee on ways and means.
29 On
the 23rd the opponents of repeal passed a resolution, introduced
by Patten of Bexar county, for the appointment of a committee
of five to revise the tariff.
30 The effort to repeal the tariff laws
was dropped when the bill was submitted to a select committee
on November 27th,
31 which on the 30th reported a substitute
providing for an extension of the free list.
32 The bill was taken
up on its second reading the following day, when an effort was
made to remove dried peaches, boots and shoes, beef, bagging and
ties, and coffee from the free list. The effort was successful with
regard to dried peaches and beef, but it failed with regard to
the other articles. The proposal to lay a duty on coffee was
defeated by a vote of 24 to 2, the two representatives from Bra-
zoria supporting it. It passed to engrossment by sections at an
afternoon session after it had failed during the morning ses-
sion,
33 and on December 4 it was passed after the duty on un-
enumerated articles had been lowered from 30 to 20 per cent ad
valorem.
34
The Senate passed a substitute for this bill on December 12,
after a substitute by William H. Wharton of Brazoria county
providing for an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent on all articles
except machinery and immigrants' family stores had been de-
feated, and a resolution to repeal the tariff laws had been indefi-
nitely postponed.
35 The substitute of the Senate was accepted
by the House on the 16th,
36 and the bill was signed by the presi-
dent on the 18th.
The general purpose of the act of December 18, 1837, was
to reduce the cost of provisions, as well as to make some con-
cessions to the advocates of free trade. Sugar, coffee, tea, salt,
flour, breadstuffs, pickled pork, and bacon were the foodstuffs
which were added to the free list, while to the industrial free
list were added a number of articles of necessity, as iron and
steel, household furniture, cotton bagging, bale rope, books, sta-
tionery, machinery of all kinds, wagons, carts, harness, with
necessary farming utensils, lime, lumber, and implements brought
in by immigrants for their own use. The duty on cotton goods
was lowered from 15 to 10 per cent ad valorem, and all other
articles were left as in the law of June 12, 1837.
37
A comparison of prices before the act went into effect with
those of a year later shows no marked difference. On August
19, 1837, in the Houston markets butter was selling at 50 cents
a pound, coffee at 17 to 20 cents, sugar at 20 cents, and molasses
at $1 to $1.12⅛ a gallon. On September 30, 1838, in the same
markets butter was selling at 75 cents a pound, coffee at 20
cents, sugar at 17 to 20 cents, and molasses at $1.50 a gallon.
38
The variation in price was due to fluctuation in the currency
and to scarcity of those articles in the market, and not to the
tariff.
After the act of December 18, 1837, there was not another
tariff measure passed until February, 1840. This does not sig-
nify, however, that the tariff question was not of interest to the
people and to Congress in the meantime. The proposal to re-
peal the tariff laws during the Second Congress was dropped with-
out coming to a vote in the House, but in the Senate it did come
to a vote and was postponed indefinitely by a vote of 7 to 3.
39
"One of the People" in a communication to the Telegraph
and
Texas
Register,
July 7, 1838, wanted "the tariff and commerce
laws repealed, and the loafers around the custom houses put to
work." William H. Wharton read in the Senate on December 11,
a memorial from citizens of Brazoria county asking for the aboli-
tion of the tariff laws, which was referred to a special committee
on the tariff.
40
The Third Congress met on November 5, 1838. The next day
Wharton of Brazoria county announced in the Senate that he
would offer at an early date a bill for the total repeal of the
tariff except with regard to certain obnoxious articles which he
would name,
41 and on the 8th he introduced his bill for repeal,
which was referred to a special committee. On the 7th Holmes
of Matagorda offered a resolution in the House for the abolition
or modification of the tariff, which was referred to the committee
on finance, after Kaufman of Nacogdoches county had attempted
to amend the resolution by striking out "modification."
42 Pend-
ing the report of these committees there was little discussion of
the tariff in either house.
It was during this period that the Telegraph
and
Texas
Reg
-
ister
took the lead in the advocacy of free trade. The editor,
Francis Moore, Junior, on November 14, 1838, in discussing the
bills introduced a week earlier for the abolition of the tariff,
said that he had long and ardently desired to see such a meas-
ure carried into effect. He thought that whatever sums were
needed to defray the expenses of government were better raised
by a direct tax; that duties were unequal, unjust, and evaded by
smugglers. In this connection he said:
This is peculiarly the case at present in some parts of eastern
Texas; there are custom-house officers stationed at only two
points along that line of frontier extending about six or seven
hundred miles from the mouth of the Sabine to the waters of
the False Washita or Red River; And it is a singular fact that
the net proceeds of the revenue of one of those districts do not
amount to one-fortieth part of the expenses of the custom-house
officers employed in that district. The population of the districts
on that frontier, is greater than that of all the other districts in
Texas, and yet the amount of duties paid in to the government
from those two districts, amount to less than one-sixth of the
duties paid in from the other districts.
The burden of his objection to the tariff, which continued to be
the chief cause for objections from this time on, was its in-
equality. The eastern counties along the Sabine were evading
the law, while the West was bearing its whole burden. In re-
plying to the objections to repeal, he said:
The chief objection to the repeal of the tariff is, that the meas-
ure may tend to depreciate our currency in the United States, it
is said, the demand for it mainly depends upon the revenues.
This is a mistake; our currency is sustained in that country as
well as at home, mainly because it is based upon the confidence of
the people.
He had been well aware that the proposition for annexation
to the United States would be unconditionally withdrawn, and
that Texas would assume new and important relations with for-
eign nations. "But it is upon our foreign relations," he said,
that this measure will have the most important bearing; for if
our ports are once thrown open to commerce to the world, the
inhabitants throughout a large extent of the adjoining States of
the Union on the East, and of Mexico on the West, will be in-
duced to procure their supplies for foreign goods through Texas.
In other words, that smuggling would be from Texas instead of
into Texas.
In December, 1838, the new president, Mirabeau B. Lamar,
was inaugurated, and on December 22, he sent his first annual
message to Congress. He said that the bias of his mind was for
a total abolition of all duties on imports, and he hoped the time
was near at hand to invite the commerce of the world to "our
free and open ports." "The radical policy of Texas is anti-
tariff," he continued,
because its commercial commodities are of the raw material,
which fears no impost rivalry, and paying no contributions to
manufactories; yet the immediate adoption of free trade as is
proposed by many of our citizens and statesmen, would in the
present situation of our country exhibit an apparent recklessness
and imprudence, which could not fail to affect our credit abroad.
. . . . In addition to this, it should be borne in mind, that
the revenue collected through custom houses has been, and is still,
our chief dependence for sustaining the credit of our public is-
sues, which must most certainly sink into a disastrous and de-
grading depreciation with the repeal of the imposts. Indeed, if
we abolish the Tariff in the present impoverished condition of
the treasury, the government will be left destitute of the means
of sustaining itself during the interval of collection of the neces-
sary fund by direct taxation, or raising it on foreign loans, which
in either case, under the most favorable circumstances, will re-
quire several months to effect.
43
In his issue of December 29, 1838, the editor of the Telegraph
and
Texas
Register
denied the validity of Lamar's reasons for
opposing a repeal or modification of the tariff, though he ad-
mitted that it would be unjust to importers to repeal the laws
immediately. He said that there were no manufacturing inter-
ests to protect, and nothing to fear from the rivalry of importers.
He suggested a gradual increase in direct taxes as the tariff should
be gradually repealed.
On November 13, 1838, a resolution was passed in Congress
calling for a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry
Smith, on the finances of the government. In his reply on the
29th he defended the tariff system at length. He said that the
tariff was the easiest and most just form of taxation; that a
direct tax was odious and unjust, and could not be relied upon
with certainty; and that the abolition of the tariff would result
in too much importation, and take away the means requisite to
prosperity. A wise system of duties on imports would make
other taxes unnecessary. With regard to the unequal administra-
tion of the tariff laws, he said:
If Eastern Texas could be constrained to bear their fair share
of revenue equal to their probable imports, the scale would be
greatly changed in favor of revenue. It will be seen that the
amount of revenue from imports is $335,955.83, of which East-
ern Texas contributes only $47,522, leaving a balance against that
section most numerously populated, of $288,433.83. It is con-
fidently hoped that congress will adopt such measures as a prudent
policy may dictate, to protect and secure collection of duties in
that quarter.
44
The House Committee on Finance, to which had been referred
the various tariff measures, made its report on December 22,
1838. They found it to be unjust and inexpedient at that time
to abolish the tariff. The national treasury would admit of
neither abolition nor modification. They said that if the tariff
were either abolished or modified, the only other alternatives were
either a loan or an increase of direct taxes; that a loan was but
prospective; that the adoption of such, a course would cause the
monied nations to withhold credit. The committee did not be-
lieve that an increase in direct taxes was in accord with a wise
and just policy. In defense of the tariff then existing they said
that all articles of prime necessity were admitted free of duty,
and that a change would benefit only the mercantile interests.
This report was immediately adopted without division.
45
The report of the special committee of the Senate shows a
somewhat different attitude toward the general question of a
tariff. This committee delivered its report on January 8, 1839.
46
The report concurred in the recommendations of the president,
agreeing that it was inexpedient to abolish the tariff until a loan
was secured or direct taxes levied on all lands. For the present
the tariff furnished a ready revenue which was available each
quarter. After these recommendations, however, the committee
examined the arguments for and against the tariff in comparison
with a direct tax, and came to the conclusion that the tariff laws
should be blotted from the statute books as early as possible.
The argument that the tariff was an indirect tax, and that the
people submitted to it because they did not know it was a tax,
was ridiculed. The committee said that the people knew they
were taxed. The argument that it protected and fostered do-
mestic manufactures was answered by saying that Texas had no
manufactures to protect. With regard to the tariff creating a
demand for the currency the committee said that it created a
demand for only a certain kind of currency, the change notes.
They denied that it was inexpensive to collect. They said that
the tariff was an encouragement to smuggling. The strongest
argument for repeal in the minds of the committee was that the
Republic would receive more favorable notice from England and
a recognition of independence if free trade were adopted, and
that recognition would enable them to make a loan. Finally,
the committee thought that a land tax was much more just and
equal.
47 The Senate immediately voted to accept this report with-
out division,
48 so there was no tariff measure passed during this
session, with the exception of one relating to administration,
which I shall discuss in another connection.
The Senate committee on the tariff in the Third Congress
had reported in January, 1839, that nothing would do more to
secure the favorable consideration of England and a recognition
of their independence by her than the establishment of a system
of free trade. Before this time, however, the executive depart-
ment had already tried the tariff and commerce as an instru-
ment to secure recognition of independence, and in the case of
the United States to obtain both recognition and annexation.
The policy consisted of two well-defined alternatives, the promise
of favorable tariff laws and commercial regulations in return for
recognition, or a threat of discriminatory legislation if recogni-
tion was not given. With this policy in mind various commis-
sioners had been sent abroad to secure recognition. This policy,
out of which grew the low tariff act of February 5, 1840, is of
such importance in connection with the tariff that I shall dis-
cuss it in some detail.
In November, 1836, William H. Wharton was sent as minister
to the United States. He was instructed by Stephen F. Austin,
Secretary of State for Texas, to do everything possible to bring
about recognition and annexation. He was also to keep in touch
with the ministers of England and France, "explaining to them
the great commercial advantages that will result to their nations
from our cotton, etc. and finding a market here for their mer-
chandise, and an outlet for their surplus population, on the
basis of a system of low duties and liberal encouragement which
it will be our interest to establish."
49 Wharton was to cultivate
close and intimate relations, however, only in case the policy of
the United States should be indifferent or adverse.
50 In Febru-
ary, 1837, Wharton became rather discouraged, and wrote that
he had put the British and French ministers in possession of
facts regarding Texas, so that the Republic could turn its atten-
tion to a more friendly court if treated unjustly by the United
States.
51
The formal instructions to Wharton had not suggested that
he use as a threat the possibility of discriminatory legislation
against the United States. The instructions were private and
only for his information. In December, 1835, Memucan Hunt
was sent as Minister Extraordinary to assist Wharton in his
negotiations for recognition and annexation, and in case recog-
nition had been granted he was to urge commercial reasons for
annexation.
In addition to the reasons given in the former instructions you
may urge it on the ground of the verry great commercial advan-
tages as well as the naval strength which it would give to the
United States, for in the event of the refusal of that government
to receive this Country into the Union either as a State or a Ter-
ritory it may become necessary for Texas to form a Treaty of
amity and commerce with England or some other European power
which would forever and entirely preclude the people of the
United States from enjoying any of the benefits resulting in
Texas from the richness of her soil commerce etc etc etc These
reasons may be forcibly impressed particularly upon the Repre-
sentatives of the Northern States from whom we may expect to
meet the greatest opposition, because should Texas be attached to
the United States the immense consumption of those articles prin-
cipally manufactured in the United States will more than com-
pensate for the additional strength which annexation will add to
the political influence of the South. The great and abundant
supply of raw material from this Country will reduce the price
which they will have to pay for the same and at the same time
keep it at a more uniform price thus preventing the great fluc-
tuations so frequently occurring in the United States to the dis-
tress and ruin of thousands. As things now are in the United
States a partial failure one year will raise the price of the raw
material much above its intrinsic or ordinary value, the next it
will be suddenly reduced by an abundant crop, but open as this
Country would do an immence territory for the production of
cotton--land the richest and most productive in the world these
fluctuations would not occur, as no failure w[h]ich could ordi-
narily happen would visibly shorten the supply. On the other
hand should the Government of the United States refuse to ad-
mit this Country into the Union etc etc Texas would in all
probability in order to gain immediate wealth strength and re-
spectibility be induced to form a treaty with England by which
all the advantages of commerce wealth and strength would be
fo[r]ever lost to the United States and important advantages
given to a power on her southern border w[h]ich already con-
fines her on the North.
52
The independence of Texas was recognized by the United
States, March 1, 1837, shortly after the arrival of Hunt in
Washington.
53 It is likely that the desire for a field of com-
mercial expansion, and the danger that Texas would form com-
mercial treaties with other countries, played considerable part
in influencing the United States to extend recognition. On Feb-
ruary 2, 1837, Jackson wrote to a member of the House of Rep-
resentatives,
There is no doubt if the Independence of Texas be not ac-
knowledged by the U. States, an effort will be made by Texas to
Great Britain to have the Independence of Texas acknowledged
by her, giving & securing to Great Britain as a consideration,
exclusive commercial benefits.
54
In August, 1837, John Forsyth, the American Secretary of State,
acknowledged to Memucan Hunt, the Texas Minister Plenipoten-
tiary, that the controlling reason for the acknowledgment of Texan
independence by the United States was that Texas had proved
herself worthy of independence, but still that the hope was enter-
tained that Texas would see the benefit of sustaining amicable
relations with the United States and abstaining from forming
connections abroad.
55
Hunt was presented to the president, July 6, 1837, and on
August 4, he sent a long communication to Forsyth urging an-
nexation, in accordance with his instructions. After listing the
commercial advantages that would accrue to the United States
if Texas should be annexed, he said:
As an independent Power, her interests would conflict with
those of the United States, and without annexation her struggle
in the formation of commercial treaties would most naturally be
directed to the establishment of the principle of a preference
of her cotton and other products in foreign markets over those
of the United States, and such relations, when once established
would, it will be perceived, very much embarrass if not render
totally impractical a treaty of annexation. . . .
It would be impracticable for either Power to enforce its rev-
enue system, and should the tariffs of the two countries differ
essentially as must be the case, nothing but the enforcement of
the most cruel and unpopular laws could possibly secure the just
collection of custom house duties.
56
States the same impartial treatment that the United States ac-
corded to the citizens and vessels of other countries; that if Texas
saw fit to adopt a liberal commercial policy with regard to the
United States, she would be met in a corresponding spirit by
his government; but that
If the answer which the undersigned has been directed to give
to the proposition of General Hunt should unfortunately work
such a change in the sentiments of that government as to induce
an attempt to extend commercial relations elsewhere upon terms
prejudicial to the United States, this government will be con-
soled by a consciousness of the rectitude of its intentions, and a
certainty that although the hazard of transient losses may be in-
curred by a rigid adherence to just principles, no lasting pros-
perity can be secured when they are disregarded.
57
In his reply, September 12, 1837, Hunt said that recognition
by the United States did not bind the foreign policies of Texas;
that since the manufacturing interests of the United States were
dependent upon the tariff, Texas could not guarantee any benefit
to those interests, even if the United States should be treated as
the most favored nation. He disclaimed any purpose to threaten
the passage of any laws directed at the commerce of the United
States, but said that the policy of Texas would be to pass laws
for the benefit of Texas regardless of their effects on others. He
struck more directly at the West when he said:
Should it be found necessary or expedient hereafter, for the
proper promotion of the interests of her citizens to lay high
duties upon the cotton-bagging so extensively manufactured in
the Western States, and upon the pork and beef and bread-stuffs
so abundantly produced in that region, such as would amount to
almost total prohibition of the introduction of those articles into
the country, much as her government and people would regret
the necessity of the adoption of such a policy, she would be ex-
culpated from the slightest imputation of blame for taking care
of her own welfare and prosperity after having been refused ad-
mission into this Union.
58
was real, it is difficult to say. It is clear, however, that it was
intended that the United States should consider it a real dan-
ger: and as that policy was carried out in 1840 and 1842, we
are justified in assuming that the Texan government had it defi-
nitely in mind as an alternative upon the failure of annexation.
On February 17, 1838, the First Comptroller of the Treasury
of the United States ordered all officers of the customs to give
Texan vessels and products the benefit of the fifth and sixth
articles of the treaty between the United States and Mexico.
59
These articles provided for complete reciprocal tonnage and other
local dues, and that the same duties should be charged whether
the articles were imported in Mexican or American vessels.
60
On March 26, John Birdsall, Acting Secretary of State for Texas,
responded with an equivocal agreement,
61 and after April 5, 1838,
the commercial terms of the treaty with Mexico were in force
between Texas and the United States until 1841, when the treaty
expired.
Early in 1841, the Texan government decided to open negoti-
ations with the United States for a treaty of commerce, but on
account of the death of President Harrison the Texan minister
did not get into communication with Webster, the American
Secretary of State, till April 12.
62 At various times during the
following year the Texan ministers urged the formation of a
treaty, but it was not until August 3, 1842, that the draft of a
treaty was signed.
63 It provided among other things for free-
dom of commercial intercourse, reciprocal duties, free use of the
Red River and other rivers rising in Texas or forming a boundary
between Texas and the United States, the unrestricted right of
deposit for five years, and the reshipment of goods to foreign
ports without payment of duty in the United States.
64 The
treaty was ratified with some changes by the Texan Senate on
January 16, 1843, but the Senate of the United States struck
out the articles relating to commerce,
65 and it failed of ratifi-
cation.
On October 12, 1838, Texas formally withdrew its proposal
of annexation and began a more serious effort to secure recog-
nition and to form commercial treaties in Europe.
66 The first
minister from Texas to the United States had been instructed,
as we have seen, to keep in touch with the ministers of the
European countries, keeping them informed of the conditions in
the Republic of Texas in case the United States proved indif-
ferent.
67 In keeping with this policy, J. Pinckney Henderson
was sent as Minister to England in July, 1837. Early in Octo-
ber he held a conference with Palmerston, Minister of Foreign
Affairs in the British Cabinet, on the subject of recognition,
giving as his chief argument for recognition the commercial
benefits that would follow. "He then observed," said Hender-
son in reporting the conversation,
that he supposed that the disposition of the People of Texas to
be annexed to the United States decreased in Proportion to
their increased confidence in their own strength and ability to
maintain their own independence--to which I readily assented
and at the same time observed that the people of Texas were
aware that they would possess many advantages as an independ-
ent Nation, which they could not enjoy as an integral part of
the United States--that as an independent Nation, they would
not be subject to be agitated by the local jealousies and struggle
for political ascendancy between the North and the South, which
has so long disturbed the harmony of the States--that Texas
never could be a manufacturing nor a commercial
people, at least
so far as the Carrying
Trade
was concerned, that it would be
greatly to her interest to be able to open her ports to every
nation, and invite the manufacturies. of every country to equal
competition in our markets, and exchange with us the manufac-
tured articles for the raw material, some of which we could sup-
ply in the greatest abundance,--that as an independent power,
we would be free from the operation of the protective Tariff
which had so long oppressed the Southern planting States of the
Union, that England then could come into our markets on a per-
fect equality with the Northern States and that considering the
low price of labor in this country, they could drive from our
markets the manufactured articles of all other countries and also
engross the carrying trade of Texas.
68
Palmerston was unwilling to grant recognition at that time
or enter into a commercial treaty with Texas, which would be
tantamount to recognition; but on April 6, 1838, he did agree
to allow Texan ships the same privileges granted to Mexican
ships in English ports, in return for a similar agreement on the
part of Texas with regard to English ships in Texan ports.
69
Finding that no other concessions were likely at that time and
that the British ministers were averse to discussing the matter,
Henderson proceeded to France to see what could be done there.
70
He entered into a most favored nation agreement with that coun-
try, November 7, 1838,
71 and about a year later he secured
recognition and a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation.
72
In 1839, James Hamilton was sent to Europe as loan commis-
sioner for the Republic of Texas, and to assist in securing rec-
ognition. He wrote to Palmerston, October 14, 1840, repeating
the arguments used by Henderson in 1837, and added that Texas
had passed a law levying discriminatory duties against all nations
which should not have acknowledged her independence by Febru-
ary 1, 1841, and that Great Britain had an obvious interest in
avoiding this discriminatory duty.
73 He managed to secure a
commercial treaty, November 13, 1840. Ratifications were not
exchanged on this treaty, however, until June 28, 1842, because
Texas had held up the ratification of the treaty prohibiting the
slave trade until January 22, 1842.
74
The treaty with France provided for complete reciprocity as
to tonnage, lighthouse charges, and port charges; the products
of the soil of either country were to pay the same duties whether
imported in French or Texan vessels, and products exported were
to enjoy the same privileges, allocations, and drawbacks, as were
allowed the same articles of the country from which they were
exported; cotton was to be admitted into France on the same
terms from Texas as from the United States; French fabrics of
silk or part silk were to pay one-half the duty as similar goods
from other countries if carried in a French or a Texan vessel, and
in every case the duty was to be as low for France as for any other
nation; on wines and brandies the duty was to be two-fifths and
one-fifth that of other countries, depending on quality. An ad-
ditional article provided that if Texas diminished the duties on
silk it would maintain between silk goods produced in countries
beyond the Cape of Good Hope and similar goods of other coun-
tries a difference of 10 per cent in favor of the latter.
75
By the authority of the Tariff Act of 1840, which gave the
president the right to make any arrangement for carrying into
effect the treaty with France, President Lamar, shortly after
the receipt of the treaty, issued a proclamation admitting French
wines free of duty.
76 This proclamation was revoked by Presi-
dent Houston, December 21, 1842, as being unwarranted under
the law.
77
The treaties with Great Britain and Holland were uniform in
their terms. Both provided for the admission of goods from each
country into Texas and from Texas into the other countries
under the most favored nation agreement, and that no special
concessions were to be granted to other countries which were not
allowed to the country forming the treaty as to tonnage, harbor
fees, lighthouses, pilotage, quarantine, etc.
78
In a letter to James Hamilton, Texas loan commissioner to
France, February 24, 1840, the Texan Secretary of State, Abner
Lipscomb, suggested a very favorable tariff system to apply only
to France, provided France would guarantee a loan. The ports
of Texas were to be open to French goods, and the Texan au-
thorities were to facilitate the expansion of French commerce into
Mexico and the United States through smuggling.
79 Nothing
came of this, however. The following year Hamilton sent to
Texas a memorandum of a tentative agreement with Belgium by
which Texas should admit cotton and woolen goods, iron, and
linen manufactured in Belgium at one-half the existing duty,
while the same articles from other countries should be required
to pay at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem. Arms and am-
munition were to be admitted free for the Belgians, while other
countries were to pay a duty of 100 per cent ad valorem. The
coasting trade of Texas was to be free to Belgian vessels the
same as to Texan. In return for this Belgium was to guarantee
a loan of 37,000,000 francs by a specific endorsement of the bonds
of the Republic of Texas. This plan was rejected by the Texan
Senate, October 20, 1841, with very little discussion.
80 There
was no further effort to make use of tariff and commercial dis-
crimination in order to secure a loan.
The Tariff Act of February 5, 1840, was directly in accord-
ance with the policy of the adoption of practical free trade in
return for recognition of independence. The rate of duties was
very low, 15 per cent ad valorem on all articles except a few
on which a specific duty was charged, and a few that were ad-
mitted free. On account of the depreciated condition of the
currency at that time the rate was not really more than 3 per
cent.
81 Specific duties were levied on wines, liquors, etc., at
from 10 per cent ad valorem to $2 a gallon. The free list con-
sisted of books, farming utensils and implements of husbandry,
furniture which had been used and in use to the amount of
$500, tools or the implements of trade of immigrants, wearing
apparel and other personal baggage in actual use and belonging
to persons arriving in the country.
82 For the execution of the
treaty with France the president was authorized to enter into
any agreement with France in conformity with the treaty of
amity and commerce.
83 A drawback was to be allowed on re-
exported goods, but not to a contiguous State, which would apply
only to the United States and Mexico.
84
It cannot be shown that this act or the commercial treaties
had the effect of discouraging trade with the United States to
any marked degree. The first British vessel from England direct
to Texas was the barque Amabassador
,
which arrived the latter
part of February, 1839. She was received with great rejoicing,
because her arrival seemed to be the forerunner of a direct trade
with England.
85 But from January 1 to September 30, 1840,
only three British vessels, two ships and one brig, came to Texas,
while during the same period 285 vessels of different sizes came
from the United States. The remaining vessels entering the
ports of Texas were one from France, two from Sweden, and one
from Cuba.
86 This indicates that most of the trade was with
the United States, and that the United States was doing almost
all the carrying trade. In fact, of the total imports for the year
ending July 31, 1843, valued at $471,205.32, the United States
furnished $412,983.03, while all the other countries sent the re-
mainder. Of exports for the same period the United States
received $281,342.64 out of a total of $415,768.75. For the fol-
lowing year the same ratio held as to imports, though less than
half the exports went to the United States, England receiving
almost as much. From July 31, 1843, to July 31, 1844, the
total exports amounted to $615,119.34, of which the United States
received $249,151.62, while England received $205,345.05. The
difference here occurs because the chief article of export from
Texas was cotton, and as the United States was raising a sur-
plus and exporting cotton itself, the Texans found no mar-
ket there, and of necessity sent their cotton to England and
other European countries. The Hanse Towns were the other
large importers of Texan produce, of which they received $112,-
095.46. For the fifteen months ending October 31, 1845, the
United States furnished $1,151,733.21 out of a total of $1,204,-
370.22. Exports showed about the same ratio as for the pre-
ceding period, though for this period the United States received
more than half, $486,327.16, out of a total of $829,215.04.
87
On January 27, 1842, a tariff act was passed, one provision
of which was that there should be a five per cent additional duty
when goods were brought in vessels of countries with which Texas
had no treaty.
88 The object of this was to hasten the conclusion
of a commercial treaty with the United States; but the figures
just given indicate that this discriminatory duty had little if
any effect. I have given above the total of importation and the
value of the importation from the United States for the period
of 15 months from August 1, 1844, to October 31, 1845. The
customs for that same period amounted to $310,473.01, of which
the augmentation on account of the additional five per cent duty
was $34,476.45.
89 This predominance of American products was
due to the fact that the importations consisted of articles pro-
duced in the United States in such quantities that they could
compete with other countries in spite of the discriminatory duty.
90
FOOTNOTES:
for the M. A. degree at the University of Texas.
Since preparing the most of the paper I have read A Financial History
of Texas, by Professor E. T. Miller of the University of Texas. This book
contains an excellent summary of the tariff system of the Republic of
Texas. I have made free use of the footnotes in gathering additional ma-
terial, particularly on the relation of the tariff to other fiscal policies. I
desire also to express by indebtedness to Mr. E. W. Winkler, Reference
Librarian in the University of Texas, for many helpful suggestions; to
Mr. Sinclair Moreland, Archivist in the Texas State Library; and to Pro-
fessor Eugene C. Barker for helpful suggestions and criticisms, and for the
inspiration of his teaching.
Quarterly, XIX, 617, 623, 624.
3, 1837.
There are two insertions of this act in Gammel, Laws of Texas. The
first insertion gives the rate on unenumerated articles as 20 per cent, and
the second at 25 per cent ad valorem. The first is an error. In the Tele -
graph and Texas Register for June 3, 1837, there is a statement from the
chief clerk of the State Department saying that the act as passed provided
for a rate of 25 per cent ad valorem on all unenumerated articles.
The Quarterly, XV, 208.
Register, December 2, 1837.
spondence of the Republic of Texas (Annual Report of the American His-
torical Association, 1908), I, 137.
185.
163.
Texas, 60.
Documents, 40, p. 12.
322.
Cor. Tex., I, 348.
137.
815.
III, 857.
III. 1233.
mission, Secret Journals of the Republic of Texas, 218.
III, 1277.
ords remain for earlier dates.
Journal, ap. 70.
exports.
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE
REPUBLIC OF TEXAS
We shall now turn to the efforts to colonize Texas by European
emigration. We shall first notice some of the colonization laws
made to encourage this emigration, and then the efforts of various
colonization companies operating under the laws. The vast amount
of unsettled land in Texas and the sparseness of the population
account for the efforts to induce foreign emigration to Texas.
On January 4, 1841, a law was passed entitled "An Act Grant-
ing Land to Emigrants." This act provided that every free white
person who was the head of a family, who had emigrated to Texas
since January 1, 1840, or who should emigrate to Texas before
January 1, 1842, should be entitled to six hundred and forty acres
of land, provided he would settle on the land, cultivate ten acres,
and have it surveyed. Under the same conditions, any single free
white man was entitled to three hundred and twenty acres. How-
ever, no man was to receive a patent to the said lands, unless he
presented a certificate from the chief justice of the county in which
he resided which showed by the sworn statements of two cred-
ible witnesses that he had complied with the conditions of the
law, and had taken the oath of allegiance. Furthermore, the
president was authorized to form contracts for settling "vacant
and unappropriated lands" in Texas. This contract provided that
the holders of such contracts were to introduce into Texas, within
three years from the elate of the contract, a certain number of
families, and that they should commence settlement within one
year from the date of the contract. The president was to desig-
nate certain limits of territory within which the emigrants were
to reside. Not more than six hundred and forty acres, "to be
located in a square," were to be given to one family, or three
hundred and twenty acres to any single man over seventeen years
of age. No contract between a contractor and families or persons
was to be binding, if it allowed the contractor for transportation
and other expenses over one-half of the land to which such per-
sons were entitled. The contractor was to pay all expenses relat-
ing to the surveying, but this did not release the colonist from
his obligation to reimburse the contractor. The contractors were
to receive ten sections of land for every one hundred families
introduced, and "in the same ratio of half sections for every one
hundred single men introduced and settled." No fractional num-
ber less than a hundred was to be allowed in a premium. A fail-
ure on the part of the contractor was not to deprive the colonists
already introduced of their rights and "quotas of land." One-
third of the whole number of families and single persons provided
for in the contract were to be introduced before the expiration of
one year from the date of the contract, else the contract was to be
forfeited.
86
On February 5, 1842, the act of January 4, 1841, "Granting
Lands to Emigrants," was extended so that the president could
make contracts with any colonization companies that he might "in
his judgment" approve.
87
Before discussing the French colonization of Texas, we shall
turn aside to notice the unsuccessful attempt to pass through
congress a land bill, known as the "Franco-Texienne Bill." On
July 21, 1841, there appeared in The
Austin
City
Gazette
a copy
of the "Franco-Texienne Bill," and a discussion of it. According
to this bill, Jean Pierre Hippolyte Basterreche, Pierre Francoise
de Hassauex, and their associates were to be formed "into a body
corporate," and were to have the rights and privileges belonging
to corporations, necessary to carry out their contract. Before
January 1, 1849, they were to settle in Texas eight thousand emi-
grants above the age of seventeen. One thousand were to be
settled within two years after the passage of the act, with an
additional thousand each year until eight thousand had been set-
tled. The emigrants were to take the oath of allegiance to the
Texan government and were to be subject to its laws.
The company was to establish and maintain a line of posts for
military service from a point "thirty miles above the town of
Presidio, and extending to the Red River, at some point above
and near to the Cross Timbers." There were to be twenty posts
and they were to be kept up for twenty years beginning with
January 1, 1843. Ten posts were to be erected within two years
after the passage of the bill and the remaining ten "within five
years from the same period." Likewise, the company was to
"establish and keep in repair for the same period of twenty years"
for public use lines of communication between each of the posts.
Furthermore, the company was bound to appoint a sufficient num-
ber of competent geologists, mineralogists and botanists to ex-
plore "the whole of the country embraced within the limits of this
Republic above the said line of posts," and make a "full report"
of all mines that should be found. They were to open and work
all mines of value for twenty years, and give fifty per cent of the
proceeds to the government of Texas.
If they carried out the provisions of the bill, they were to
receive three million acres of land, but were to get a "conditional
title" which would become null and void, unless the provisions of
the bill were carried out. Over one-fifth of the lands donated
were to be west of the Nueces river. The Gazette
argued that this
grant of land would be a means of settling the controversy be-
tween Texas and Mexico over the jurisdiction of the territory,
"lying west of the Nueces river and east of the Rio Grande." The
lands of the act were to be free from taxes until January 1, 1845.
To this, the Gazette
objected, saying that "every citizen should be
willing to contribute his mite towards the exigencies of the State."
It favored "taxation commencing from the time of location, in-
stead of allowing a lapse of four years as contemplated by the
Bill."
The company was to have the right to "import from Europe
and elsewhere" for fifteen years all goods and wares which should
be necessary "for conducting and carrying on trade and com-
merce." For goods sold beyond the limits of the Republic, they
were to be charged a transit duty of three per cent, ad valorem,
and for goods sold within the Republic they were to pay "at
such rates of import as may from time to time be established by
law." The Gazette
considered that it was "the true interest of
every Government to encourage its citizens in the extension of its
commerce," but thought that the above provision should be made
the subject of general, not special legislation.
The company was to have the right to pass all by-laws neces-
sary to the carrying out of the objects contemplated in the bill,
provided that they were not in violation of the constitution and
laws of the Republic. Indian wars were not to be considered as
an excuse for non-performance of its contract. In case of
failure by the company to fulfill "any one of the conditions at
the time specified" for its performance, all rights of the com-
pany together with all forts and roads were to be forfeited to the
Republic.
The last section of the bill provided that the head of each
family brought over by the company was to receive three hundred
and twenty acres of land, and every single man over seventeen,
one hundred and twenty acres of land. The colonists were not to
have the right "to alienate this land for three years after taking
possession of the same."
On the whole, the Gazette
favored the bill, and declared that,
"In vain have we sought for constitutional objections--none could
we find." James Hamilton said that "The Franco-Texian Com-
mercial and Colonization Company" was "a private company, in
which the French government had no participation, and of which
the French Ministry have, I believe, no knowledge."
88
The Telegraph
and
Texas
Register
said that President Hous-
ton favored the bill, on the ground that "Texas was too weak
to protect her frontiers," and that "he was glad that chivalrous
France should come forward to to aid us."
89 The bill passed the
house of the fifth Texas congress, but was killed in the senate.
90
In accordance with the act of January 4, 1841, and the act of
February 5, 1842, President Houston made a contract with
"Henri Castro and John Jasaud and their associates" on Febru-
ary 15, 1842.
91 "For and in consideration of the grant and
privileges, and rights and immunities" given to them, Castro and
Jassaud promised to introduce six hundred families or single men
into Texas. One-third of the whole number of families or single
men over seventeen years of age was to be brought over within
one year from the date of the contract, but as the colonists had
to come from Europe, the president extended the time of bring-
ing over the first third six months "over and above the time of
one year." It was agreed that if any part of the contract con-
flicted with the acts of congress, it was to be considered to that
extent "null
and void," the other provisions of the contract re-
maining in full force.
92
In speaking of emigration, Castro said that great enthusiasm
prevailed in France . . . relative to this subject" and that
"thousands of thrifty farmers" were getting ready to emigrate
to Texas. The Telegraph
and
Texas
Register
rejoiced to find that
the current of European emigration was turning towards Texas,
and expected that within a few years the desert portion of the
republic would ring "with the songs of industry."
93
On October 15, 1842, Castro wrote to the secretary of state
telling him of the "fine ship Ebro, of five hundred tons," sailing
from Havre to Galveston on November 1, and of "the fast sailing
Curiene of three hundred tons," sailing from Dunkerque on No-
vember 30. After a fifty-nine day voyage, the Ebro
arrived at
Texas, having had two deaths and two births on the voyage.
94
Castro planned to continue his sailings from month to month. He
impressed upon Jones the importance of giving protection to the
first settlers, as future emigration depended "entirely" upon the
reception that these received. Their "relations and parents" in
France would be waiting to hear of the treatment accorded to
the first emigrants.
95
Each family and single person over seventeen deposited one
hundred francs with Castro as a guarantee that they were going
to the place chosen for the colony. This was to be returned to
them after their arrival and settlement in Texas.
96 The Tele
-
graph
and
Texas
Register
of September 27, 1843, thought that
Castro ought to be able to make a good deal of money this way,
as it doubted whether many of the colonists would fulfill their
contracts. The Ebro
was chartered to carry one hundred and
fourteen persons, who were "skilled agriculturists," bringing with
them implements of husbandry as well as means for the cultiva-
tion of the land. They only brought part of their property. The
remainder was to be sent later, if they were satisfied and wished
to remain in Texas.
The Mexican question was a thorn in the side of the emigra-
tion movement. On the day of the sailing of the Ebro,
news
was received of the capture of San Antonio de Bexar by the
Mexicans.
97 On January 10, 1843, the Lyons
left Havre, bear-
ing ninety-two individuals, and was followed on February 27,
by Le
Louis
Phillippe,
carrying forty-nine emigrants.
98
On the 25th of October, 1843, the Jean
Key
left Anvers for
Galveston with one hundred and twenty-nine emigrants.
99 Accord-
known for agriculture.
On July 9, 1844, Castro made a report to Houston in which
he gave a brief survey of his colonial activities. In this he said
that the fifteenth of May, 1842, found him busy at work in the
execution of his contract. There were three great things which
had hindered him in his work. One was the unsettled condition
between Texas and Mexico, another was the opposition to the col-
onization movement by some of the people in France. The third
hindrance was the objection of the French government to Castro.
Gruizot, French minister of foreign affairs, told Ashbel Smith,
Texan chargé d'affaires to France, of the dislike to Castro. In
view of this, Castro's commission as consul general of Texas, which
had been sent him on February 28, 1842, was revoked in October,
1842.
100 The government of Texas appreciated the obstacles, and
on January 4, 1843, assured Castro that his efforts gave it "much
satisfaction," and that every government aid would be extended
to him "in the prosecution of an object so manifestly for the
interest of Texas."
101
Castro said that he required four conditions of persons who
wished to be his colonists: (1) Necessary clothing, (2) farming
implements, (3) means of paying their passage, (4) means of sub-
sistence during the first year. According to Castro, Texas de-
rived several benefits from foreign emigration. She was aided by
having her population increased by good, sturdy farmers. Her
financial condition was improved, as these vessels brought over a
variety of goods subject to the Texas tariff laws.
Castro claimed that it was by no means easy to induce emigrants
to come to Texas. Really poor people could not come as the Texas
laws refused "to recognize contracts in virtue of which, the time
and services of a party were engaged before hand." Hence, capi-
talists would not advance them money on a mere promise to pay.
The farmers in easy circumstances did not care to break up their
homes and go to a wild country troubled with frequent wars.
Castro thought that after a colonist reached Texas and was settled
inducements should not be offered which would cause him to leave
his land and move about.
The survey closed with a statement of Castro's expenses up to
June 1, 1844. The total was 79,578.25 francs. Among these
expenses are mentioned postage, salaries of agents, expenses of
various trips, and office expenses.
102
Among the towns founded by Castro are Castroville, established
in 1844, and Quihi, founded in 1845. Castro has left us a graphic
description of the founding of Castroville. He and his colonists
left San Antonio, Texas, on September 1, and proceeded to the
bank of the Medina, twenty-five miles from San Antonio. On the
second, they established a camp, and built a log house. Then,
with the aid of Mexican laborers, sun dried bricks were made which
were to be used in building houses for the colonists. A small
garden was laid out and planted for vegetables. Milch cows
were brought in and beeves were killed for meat. A constable
and two judges were elected to take charge of the government
affairs. A surveyor laid off the ground. Monsiegneur
l'Eveque
Odin and the abbé
Oge came out to lay the cornerstone for a church.
The cannon which was to be used for defense was covered with the
flags of Texas and France.
103
There were many obstacles which deterred Castro from bringing
Colonists to Texas. Among these difficulties were the opposition
of the French government officials, the lack of equipment and
finances by the colonists for making a settlement after their arrival
in Texas, the opposition of the Texan and French press, and a
decree of the court of Strassburg. French government opposition
to Castro's colonization work came from both home and foreign
officials. On April 12, 1843, the Prefet
of Doubs addressed a
circular to the Sous-prefets
and Maires
concerning emigration to
Texas. This circular stated that the emigrants to Texas from
Lorraine had had the indiscretion to exchange their money for
drafts payable in Texas. They were deceived, and after their
arrival in Texas there was no one to pay the drafts, and they
found themselves without resources.
104 Such a statement as this
coming from an official was certain to attract attention. Guizot
excused the circular on the ground that the publication of the
prefet
had been made through the order of the government be-
cause it was necessary to protect French emigrants and put them
on their guard against the intrigues of certain persons who were
acting without a mission and who sought to take advantage of
the credulity of emigrants going to Texas.
105 According to Anson
Jones, secretary of state of Texas, there was no such complaint in
Texas as the prefet
of Doubs alleged.
The French chargé d'affaires to Texas in 1843 said that the
condition of the French colonists after their arrival in Texas was
often pitiful. He claimed that some died from unfavorable cli-
matic conditions, while others were killed in Mexican and Indian
attacks. Many of those remaining were applying for money to
return to France.
106
There is probably no doubt that many French colonists did come
to Texas not properly equipped for settlement, and without the
means to buy such equipment. Doubtless most of the colonists
left France with a very slight knowledge of Texas and of the place
where they were going to settle. They did not reckon well the
expense of making a new home in the wilderness, infested by
hostile Indians. The Telegraph
and
Texas
Register
of Septem-
ber 27, 1843, says that the French emigrants were often destitute
of money, and had little clothing and provisions. Frequently they
did not have enough money to tide them over until a crop could
be made and harvested.
The Texas newspapers with their unlimited freedom criticised
the colonization movement as well as the loan project. They char-
acterized the government of Texas as weak, inefficient, and doomed
to failure.
107 Because of unfavorable criticism of his colonization
work in a provincial paper, Castro sued the editor for libel.
108
An article appeared in the Gazette
des
Tribunaux
of August 2,
1844, concerning the condemnation of Castro's colonization work
by the court of Strassburg. The court said that Castro failed to
put the colonists in possession of lands promised them, after hav-
ing received one hundred francs from each married adult and
fifty francs from each single person over seventeen years of age
as a deposit for the faithful fulfillment of their contracts. Ashbel
Smith considered that the action of the court was "severe," as
Castro was not present in person or representel by counsel during
the court's proceedings.
109
According to Castro, the court had condemned his operations,
as "chimerical" and declared that his credit was "factitious."
110
In opposition to the court's decree he cited the fact that he had
sent ten ships to Texas, and had established a settlement of six
hundred colonists at Castroville. The head of each family now
owned land which, valued at the same rate as public land in the
United States, would be worth 5,000 or 6,000 francs. At the
least estimate it was certainly worth 2,000 francs. Was this
"chimerical," Castro asked, and had it been done with a "facti-
tious credit ?" Castro considered that the judge of the court had
not taken an impartial view of his work, and had been occupied
only with the interest of the colonists. They had forgotten to take
into account the fact that he had gone to Texas to aid person-
ally in the settlement of his colony and had borne its dangers.
In conclusion, he thought that the judges had condemned him
with "a complete disregard for the fate of the seven hundred
Frenchmen," who had already been transported to Texas and who
were dependent on his actions.
111
On January 30, 1844, a law was passed repealing the laws
authorizing the president to make colonization contracts, and for-
feiting all which had not complied with the law. The president
was forbidden to make any contracts granting "any further time,
privileges, or facilities" to persons with whom he had already made
contracts. The attorney-general was to ascertain as far as pos-
sible the proceedings of the contractors, how far they had com-
plied with the laws, and to make a report to the next congress,
in order that it might take any action that it should see fit and
proper. The president, when he found out that any contracts
had been forfeited by the failure to comply with the conditions
required, was ordered to make an immediate proclamation to
that effect.
112
From the debates in the Texas constitutional convention of
1845, we learn some of the main reasons which led to the passage
of the act of January 30, 1844. The question as to whether the
colonization contracts could be annulled came up in the consti-
tutional convention, as the Constitution of the United States says
that no State can pass laws impairing the obligations of a con-
tract. It was alleged that the colonization contracts "were
fraudulent and unconstitutional in their inception." The op-
ponents of foreign colonization declared that "inasmuch as there
was a general lien upon the public lands for the payment of the
soldiers and other public creditors, the grants to the contractors
were unconstitutional." However, the supporters of the coloniza-
tion movement said that after all military claims had been paid
off, there would still be left one hundred and eighty million acres
of public lands.*.
Although the law of 1844, was to cancel emigration contracts
which had not been complied with, the senate and house on Janu-
ary 27, 1845, voted to allow Castro an extension of two years on
his contracts of February 15, 1842. However, each emigrant
upon his arrival in the territory of the Republic would, by virtue
of his contract, make an oath to become a citizen of Texas before
taking possession of his land.
113
By 1846, the total number of vessels which had brought emi-
grants to Castro's colony was twenty-six. He had sent over four
hundred and eighty-five families and four hundred and fifty-seven
single persons, chiefly Alsatians. Castro died in 1861 in Mon-
terey, Mexico.
114
We shall now notice the efforts of Bourgeois to bring colonists
to Texas. On June 3, 1842, President Houston entered into a
contract with "Alexandre Bourgeois (d'Orvanne), and Amand
Ducos, and their associates," at Houston, Texas, by which Bour-
geois and Ducos agreed to introduce "a colony of twelve hundred
families or single men over seventeen years of age," within three
years from the date of the contract. The colonists were to be
free whites. The location of the colony was to be as follows:
Commencing at the junction of the Rio Potranca with the Rio
Medina, thence extending up the Potranca to its source, thence
due north to the Sabinos [Sabinal], thence extending along the
Sabine to the source of that stream, thence in a direct line to
the source of the Arroyo d'Uvalde, thence in a direct line to the
source of the southern branch of the Rio Frio, thence extending
down the said stream to the junction of the Rio Frio with the
Arroyo de Uvalde, thence extending along the line of the grant
made to Henri Castro and J. Jassaud to the northeastern corner
of said grant, thence in a direct line to the place of the beginning.
Each family was to receive six hundred and forty acres and
each single man three hundred and twenty, title to be acquired
after three years of residence, having built a log cabin, and cul-
tivated fifteen acres. Bourgeois and Ducos were to receive a com-
pensation like that of Castro. Every settlement of 100 families
was to get six hundred and forty acres for "the erection of
buildings for public religious worship." Bourgeois and Ducos
were to respect "all legal locations" made prior to August 1,
1842. Like Castro, Bourgeois and Ducos must introduce four
hundred families into "the limits of the Republic, before the ex-
piration of one year from the date of this contract" or the con-
tract with all its privileges was to be forfeited, but nevertheless
all families and single persons who should have settled under the
contract were to have "their respective quotas of land." The fol-
lowing was to be taken as a definition of a family: "First, a
married man and his wife; second, a widower and two or more
children, if males under the age of seventeen, if females, un-
married; third, if a widow, the same as a widower."
The colonists were to be of good moral character and free from
criminal offences. They were not to furnish the Indians with
intoxicating liquor, gunpowder, lead, firearms, or with any other
kind of warlike weapons. If they did so and were convicted, they
were to lose all lands which they had acquired by the contract.
Each alternate section of land "except for the premium and church
lands" was to be reserved and set apart for the Republic of Texas.
Bourgeois and Ducos were to have the privilege "to introduce
and settle upon the lands herein designated, an additional number
of four hundred families or single men over seventeen years of
age," provided they gave to the government of Texas within one
year of the date of the contract a written notice of their intention
to do so. These emigrants were to be settled under the same
contract terms as the previously mentioned twelve hundred fam-
ilies or single men over seventeen years of age. Bourgeois and
Ducos received an extension of six months over the time of one
year from the date of the contract. Like the contract with Castro,
should any of the provisions of the contract be found to conflict
with the laws of congress, to that extent the contract was to be
null and void.
115
In February, 1843, Bourgeois wrote the secretary of state that
Ducos would come to America with the colonists, while he would
remain in France to carry on the work of enlisting colonists. He
declared one of the main hindrances to bis work was the unsettled
condition of affairs between Mexico and Texas. He complained
that he had not been treated as well as Castro, and objected to the
alternate sections of land in his grant being reserved to the gov-
ernment of Texas.
116
In July, 1844, Bourgeois wrote to the Texan government con-
cerning his grant and the work which he had done. He gave
several reasons why he had not been able to carry out his contract.
In the first place, an organization of that kind required much
"care, method, and wise arrangement." It was necessary to take
into consideration both the wants of the emigrants and those
offering a home to emigrants, so as not to make emigration a
weight to both parties. Under the influence of this principle,
and a desire to render a truly worthy service to Texas, Bourgeois
employed himself in the completion of his plans. No sooner had
be returned to Europe and taken up his work than the report of
a Mexican invasion of Texas spread over Europe. To have dis-
patched emigrants to Texas under these circumstances would have
been unjust to the emigrants, and might have embarrassed the
government of Texas. If the company was to aid the emigrants
and add to the prosperity of Texas, Bourgeois thought it was best
to await a more favorable moment. However, he declared that it
would have been easy for him to have sent to Texas a thousand
emigrants. It was not the lack of material that kept him from
fulfilling his contract, but his own moral principles. Still Bour-
geois claimed that he had not been inactive, but had done all
that he could to advertise Texas and her future. He took an
active part in the "Triple Intervention," a plan which proposed
the combined intervention of the United States, Great Britain and
Prance to bring about peace between Texas and Mexico, but which
failed to secure the joint action of all three powers.
Bourgeois did not want his contract annulled. He thought that
there would be doubt of his obtaining from the coming congress
the confirmation of his grant, if he was supported by the cabinet.
He thought that the interest he had shown in Texas, and the serv-
ices which he had rendered her should be taken into consideration.
He considered that the law of 1844 required the attorney-general
to make a report to congress upon the position of each grantee,
and hence no settlements could proceed until this report had been
brought up before congress. With respect to his own word and
the promises made to the colonists, he did not think that he could
transplant them to any other part of the Republic. He main-
tained that these considerations should induce the government to
do for him that which "the law, justice and equity, with respect
of persons or of the relations of friendship," required upon the
part of Texas.
117
In the summer of 1843, Bourgeois had visited Germany and
on September 19, 1843, had sold his colonization contract to the
Verein, a German colonization society which was formed in Ger-
many in June, 1843, with a capital of $80,000.
118 It had for its
object "the purchase and settlement of land areas in Texas." Bour-
geois became a member of the company, taking the position of
colonial-director of the company. He was to assist Prince Charles,
of Solms Braunfels, the general agent of the company, to carry
on the colonization work of the company. Bourgeois' contract of
June 3, 1842, provided that he should have four hundred families
settled in his grant in eighteen months (six months extension had
been allowed him). His contract would, therefore, expire if not
complied with on December 3, 1843. By the law of January 30,
1844, all contracts, whose conditions had not been fulfilled, were
to be null and void. In May, 1844, Bourgeois and Prince Charles
set out for Texas, and arrived there in July, 1844. In two letters
of July 8 and July 10, Bourgeois begged for an extension of the
time of his contract. Bourgeois does not seem to have been "open
and above board" in his transactions with the Verein. Prince
Charles was in a difficult situation as the colonists of his country
would soon begin arriving and he had no land on which to place
them. He, therefore, signed for the company a contract on June
24, 1844, with the government of Texas, and by September, 1844,
two hundred families of Germans were brought over to Texas.
119
We shall now turn aside to notice what promises to be an im-
portant innovation in the commercial relations between Texas and
France. As the steamship connection between France and Texas
was poor and uncertain, the French government made a formal
move on September 30, 1843, towards the establishment of a line
of royal steam packets for the better transportation of mail and
passengers between Texas and France. A commission was sent
over to Texas on the French vessel Comer,
which was to gather
information necessary to the establishment of this line.
The steamboats of this line were to belong to the royal marine
of France. They were to embark and disembark their passengers
and cargoes at Texas ports after complying with the proper for-
malities. These vessels were to transfer gold and other valuable
material formerly carried by warships, but they could also haul
merchandise. If merchandise was transferred, a note setting forth
the articles to be disembarked and the consignees was to be given
to the Texas customs officials. Tonnage duties corresponding to
the amount of goods disembarked and embarked was to be paid to
the Texas government. All disputes which should arise were to
be settled by arbitrators. The Texan government was to choose
one and the agents of the King another. These were to choose
a third party in case of a disagreement.
120
Anson Jones, secretary of state, was sent to treat with Cramayel.
President Houston was anxious to facilitate by all possible means
the commercial relations between Texas and France, but the enter-
prise was abandoned in February, 1844. France gave as a reason
for this action the enormous expense in keeping up the line. The
ships which were to be used in the line were needed in her Med-
iterranean commerce.
121 The La
Grange
Intelligencer
quoted the
New
Y
ork
Herald
as saying that France's abandonment of the
steamship project was due to the expense she had undergone in
fortifying Paris, and to the expense of her proposed railway pro-
jects. The Texas paper believed that the stoppage of the proposed
steamship line showed little foresight by the French government.
122
The Telegraph
and
Texas
Register
held the same view.
123
[Chapter IV of the paper discusses the attitude of Texas toward
the annexation of Texas to the United States. It is based largely
on Smith's Annexation
of
Texas,
Chapter XVIII, and adds noth-
ing to that discussion. The same subject is covered at length in
E. D. Adams's British
Interests
and
Activities
in
Texas
(1910),
Chapters V-VIII.—Editors.]
First Biennial Report of The Texas Library and Historical
Commission. (Secret Journals of the Senate.) Austin, 1911.
House Documents, number 2, 25th Congress, 3rd Session,
Washington, 1838.
Gammel, H. P. M., Laws of Texas, Sixteen Volumes, Austin,
1898.
Garrison, G. P., Texas. Diplomatic Correspondence, three vol-
umes, Washington, 1911, in the Annual Report of the American
Historical Association, 1908.
Tariff Acts, 61st Congress, 2nd Session, House Documents, No.
671, Washington, 1909.
Colonization Papers, State Library, Austin, Texas.
Financial Papers, State Library, Austin, Texas
The Treaty between France and the Republic of Texas, State
Library, Austin, Texas.
Niles'
Register,
1843-1844, university of Texas Library, Aus-
tin, Texas.
The
Telegraph
and
Texas
Register,
1838-1845, State Library,
Austin, Texas.
Appleton, edited by J. Gr. Wilson and John Fisk, Cyclopedia of
American Biography, seven volumes, N. Y. 1894.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe, North Mexican States and Texas, two
volumes, San Francisco, 1899.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe, History of Mexico, seven volumes,
San Francisco, 1887.
Benjamin, G. D., The Germans in Texas, Philadelphia, 1909.
Castro, Henri, Le Texas, Anvers, 1845.
Debidour, A., Histoire de L'Europe Depuis L'Overture du
Congres de Vienne Jusqu'a La Fermeture du Congres de Ber-
lin (1814-1878), two volumes, Paris, 1891.
Garrison, G. P., Texas, N. Y., 1903.
Garrison, G. P., Westward Extension, K. Y., 1906.
Gouge, W. M., Fiscal History of Texas, two volumes, London,
1841.
Maillard, N. D., History of the Republic of Texas from the
Discovery of the Country to the Present Time and the Cause of
Her Separation from the Republic of Mexico, London, 1842.
Smith, Ashbel, Reminiscences of Texas, Galveston, 1876.
Smith, Justin H., Annexation of Texas, N. Y., 1911.
FOOTNOTES:
and was a member of the Paris National Guard in 1814. He came to the
United States after the overthrow of Napoleon, and was naturalized. In
1838, he left America and returned to France, where he became a member
of the banking house of Lafitte and Company. In 1842, he became consul
general for the Republic of Texas in Paris, and entered into the work of
colonizing Texas (Appleton, Cyclopaedia of American Biography, I, 555).
Castro, J. Jassaud, and Sam Houston. It is attested by Anson Jones, Sec-
retary of State.
Library. Castro to Jones, July 9, 1844, in the Colonization Papers gives
the date of the sailing of the Ebro, November 3, 1842.
Library.
Etat des Colons envoyés au Texas. Ibid.
1843. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., III, 1441-1444.
ination of the constitutionality of these colonization contracts, and inhibit-
ing the legislature frm extending any contract or granting relief to any
contractor.--The Editors.
ruary 15, 1845.
Colonization Papers, State Library.
Papers, State Library.
State Library.
1466.
JARED ELLISON GROCE
Jared Ellison Groce was born in Virginia, October 12, 1782.
He had one brother, whom he lost sight of after leaving Vir-
ginia, hence we have no record of him.
His father came to America from England about the year
1772, accompanied by his elder brother. Their relationships were
very friendly until the Declaration of Independence, when the
elder sided with the mother country and the younger with the
suffering colonists. When he enlisted in the army under George
Washington, his brother's anger toward him was so great that a
quarrel ensued, in which they separated never to see each other
again. The younger, with impetuosity, changed the spelling of
his name from Gross to Groce, saying he was no longer a sub-
ject of King George, but an American through and through.
It was his love for adventure, and a roving disposition, which
caused him to leave England. This trait has been inherited by
many of his descendants. It was this roving nature which caused
his son, Jared Ellison Groce, to leave the parental home in Vir-
ginia, and settle in South Carolina when twenty years of age.
He invested in lands there, which proved valuable property, and
two years later he was married to Miss Mary Ann Waller, daugh-
ter of Leonard Waller, August 29, 1804. The Waller family was
a prominent one, both in political and social life. Shortly after
his marriage he removed to Lincoln county, Georgia, where
he invested in a large plantation. Many of the slaves on this
place had accompanied him from Virginia, but they were inade-
quate to cultivate so large an estate, so he purchased many more,
and cultivated cotton extensively. Four children were born to
them in Georgia, Leonard Waller, Edwin (drowned while still
young), Sarah Ann, and Jared Ellison, Jr.
His wife died in South Carolina while visiting her relatives,
November 7, 1813, her youngest child being only one year old.
Her sisters, went to Georgia to pare for the motherless little
children. After her death, despair again awakened in the breast
of Jared E. Groce the old longing for new scenes. He entered
his children in college, Sarah Ann, in Nashville, Tennessee (she
was only eleven years old at the time), and his boys in Macon,
Georgia. After disposing of his plantation in Georgia, he re-
moved to Alabama, where he invested in thousands of acres of tim-
ber lands, putting his negroes to work clearing them; he converted
the timber into lumber, clearing several hundred thousand dollars.
It was at this time that the Mexican government offered great
inducements to all settlers in Texas. There was quite a stir
among the people in the old States. Some longed to go, but
were prevented by many obstacles; others were afraid to venture
into the wild, unsettled country. But to Jared Groce it offered
just the balm to soothe the aching of his heart, adventure, some-
thing strange and exciting. He did not wait to sell his lands in
Alabama, but gave them to his wife's piece, Caroline Waller (Mrs.
Dr. Mordicia), of Mobile.
He sent a trusted servant to Georgia for his eldest son, Leonard
Waller (a lad of sixteen years), to ask if he would like to accom-
pany him to Texas; it was only a few days before the boy rode
up to his father's gate, flushed and eager to take the long trip.
The next few weeks were spent in buying farming implements,
tools, seeds, etc., and when they left Alabama, the procession was
more like a caravan than anything else. Mr. Alfred Gee, the
overseer who had come with him from Georgia, had charge of
the negroes, nearly one hundred of them. There were fifty or
more covered wagons, in which the women and children traveled;
the men, most of them on horseback, horses, mules, cows, sheep,
hogs, came next; then more wagons containing furniture, spin-
ning wheels, looms, provisions, etc.; and lastly came Colonel Groce
and his son on beautiful thoroughbred horses, accompanied by
their body servants, Edom and Fielding. It was said that when
they passed through small towns and villages the inhabitants ran
out to their gates to watch wonder eyed at such an unusual sight.
It was in December, 1821, when they reached New Orleans.
There they purchased provisions to last many months. In Jan-
uary, 1822, they arrived at the Brazos River. Groce did not take
up all the lands he was entitled to, for he was entitled to eighty
acres for each slave. He chose as his home site a league of land
on the Brazos River, four miles south of the present town of
Hempstead. He had four leagues in Waller County, two or three
in Austin County, one in Grimes County, and several in Brazoria
County. The present town of Velasco is situated on a part of
his land, which was never disposed of.
His son Leonard was allowed to stay only long enough to see
the men felling huge trees, and beginning the building of their
future home, "Bernardo." Very reluctantly he and Fielding, his
body servant, returned to Georgia and to college. He did not
come to Texas again until five years later, at the age of twenty-one,
for the trip was a long and tedious one as well as dangerous.
"Bernardo" was a large, rambling log house. There were many
expert carpenters and brick masons among the slaves, and the
house when finished was comfortable and had not the appearance
of having been built with logs.
The logs were cottonwood hewed and counter hewed, smooth
as glass, about a foot thick; the edges were perfectly square. There
was a broad hall fifteen feet wide, with two large rooms on each
side twenty by twenty feet, which made the front of the house
fifty-five feet across. A broad porch ran the full length supported
by huge posts of solid walnut, beautifully polished. There was a
broad staircase in the hall, which led to two bedrooms above, sit-
uated in the two gable ends. There was an old-fashioned fire-
place in each room, built of sandstone, taken from the Brazos
River. Shingles were of post oak, made with drawing knife. The
floors were of ash, sawed by hand, and planed. As was the custom
in those days, the kitchen was built a few feet away from the
house. A fireplace occupied one whole end of this kitchen, on
which was done the cooking. Next to this was the dairy, ten by
twelve feet, built of cedar. Two other rooms were in the back
yard, one for the doctor, who cared for the negroes when sick, and
the other a room thirty by thirty feet, with a rock fireplace in
each end, called "Bachelor's Hall." There were six beds in this
room, and seldom were they unoccupied by travelers, friends, and
relatives. Jared Groce welcomed to his home all weary and heavy
laden travelers. He treated rich and poor alike, sent his servants
to care for their horses, and others to wait upon them. All were
sure of a hearty welcome, and never was a stranger turned from
his gates. Many distinguished men and women were guests at
"Bernardo," and many a consultation took place within its walls.
While some of the negroes were improving the dwelling and
surroundings, others were breaking ground, and making prepara-
tions for the planting of cotton, the first ever raised in Texas.
Below is a clipping from The
Houston
Chronicle,
entitled "Hous-
ton the Leading Inland Cotton Market." There are several errors
in it. Thrall's History
of
Texas
states that Jared E. Groce had
the first cotton gin in Texas, and he and his children were of that
opinion:
The first cotton planter in Texas, according to the Year
Book
of the Texas department of agriculture, was Jared E. Groce. He
came to the State with his family in 1821, bringing with him
about 100 negro slaves. In 1822 he planted the first cotton and
began its culture on a limited scale. In 1825 he began to ship
cotton to New Orleans. The first cotton gin in Texas was owned
by John Cartwright in the "Redlands" of East Texas, while
Groce established the second gin in 1825 on the Brazos River at
the plantation opposite which the army of General Sam Houston
camped for some time on its march to San Jacinto battle ground
in 1836. Colonel Groce soon became the richest planter in Texas
with a vast landed estate, owing to the fact that under the regu-
lations of Stephen F. Austin's first colonial grant, he was en-
titled to eighty acres of land for each slave introduced in addi-
tion to his headright.
The following description of plantation life before the war may
be of interest to the present generation:
The negro quarters were about three-fourths of a mile from the
dwelling house. The cabins were built fronting one side of a
large lake. Nearby was the overseer's house, a large kitchen,
eating hall, and day nursery. To the nursery the mothers brought
their babies and children each morning to be cared for by several
women, trained for the purpose, while they were working. Many
cooks were needed to prepare food for so large a crowd of negroes,
and they were in the kitchen by four in the morning. The first
thing done was to brew steaming pots of strong coffee and, when
the gong sounded at daybreak, all hands came to the "hall," which
joined the kitchen, and each was served a large cup of coffee.
This was done principally by the young boys and girls. It was
the duty of some to feed the mules, which are attended to before
coffee was served, then all hands went to the field, the men to
the plows and the women to the hoes. At 7 o'clock the breakfast
was done, consisting of ham, or bacon, hot biscuits, fresh steak, etc.
This was packed in buckets, and sent to the field in carts and
distributed among the negroes. At 12 o'clock dinner was cooked
and served in the same manner. At 6 p. m. all work was finished
and all gathered together at the "hall" for hot supper. The little
people were fed and the mothers took them to their own homes;
the elder ones sat in front of their doors, or around their fire-
places, and talked about old days back in Virginia; the younger
element gathered in the "hall," pushed the long dining tables
back, and then the fun began. There were always good musi-
cians among the negroes, and how they danced and sang! Their
voices could be heard every night at the "Big House" in laughter
and song. Many of the old melodies still live with us today.
Several beeves were killed each week to supply the table with
fresh meat, and the slaves of Jared Groce never lacked any good
thing. Of course there were days when the women had no hoe-
ing to do. and weeks of rainy weather when the plow hands could
not work, and all hands were off on Saturday afternoon, and
Sunday was spent as they pleased, mostly in fishing and frolicking.
Life at the "Big House" was entirely separate and distinct
from that at the "Quarters." They raised their own chickens,
milked cows for their own use; it wras like a small village of
several hundred people. Milk was supplied them from the dairy;
their clothes were woven and made by those selected for such
work; of course, the most intelligent were chosen for this work.
The kindest and most tender-hearted were made the day nurses,
while the strongest were chosen for field hands. The servants
at the "Big House" felt themselves superior to those at the "Quar-
ters." Being thrown constantly with their master and his family,
they naturally absorbed intelligence and some refinement. Colonel
Groce's body servant, Edom, had been with him since youth in
Virginia, and he had every confidence in him. Myra, his house-
keeper, was also brought from his father's home in Virginia.
When he knew he could live but a short while, he set her free,
and had his sons promise that they would tenderly care for her
as long as she lived. This they did, and she lived to be nearly
one hundred; lived in her own house and had servants to work
for her. Deer and wild turkey were plentiful, and "Uncle Mose,"
with his gun and hounds, kept the table supplied with them.
The cedar dairy was presided over by Aunt Liddy. There were
shelves on either side with troughs of running water in which
the pans of milk were set, then a cover of thin muslin tacked
to a frame went over this. Aunt Liddy was selected for this
task on account of her neatness. It was certainly a pleasure to
step into the spotless, sweet-smelling dairy, and watch her churn,
keeping time to the old tune, "Come, Butter, Come," and then
she would insist upon your drinking a glass of fresh buttermilk.
The milking was done in a very primitive way. It was Matt's
duty to drive up the cows, and while others milked he would hold
off the calves, which had been allowed to get enough milk to
"draw it down." Aunt Sallie had nursed all the children. She
was four and one-half feet high, and almost as broad. She was
a privileged character, and even after the children were grown
up she still kept up her watchful and careful attitude toward
them. Her room was among those of the other house servants
in the backyard; her bed was the customary four poster, and in
the winter she used a thick feather bed, which completely hid
her from view. No one could cook like "Davie." He was cook-
ing in the St. Charles Hotel in New Orleans, when Colonel Groce
bought him for $250. Uncle Mack kept the table supplied with
vegetables; Jerrie was butler; Arimenta was wash woman; Caro-
line, house maid; Frances was seamstress. There were many
other, such as carriage driver and hostlers.
For five years, there were no ladies in this home. Groce's
daughter, Sarah Ann, did not return from school until she was
seventeen, and even then she did not remain long, for she was
soon married to William H. Wharton whom she had become en-
gaged to while in Nashville. Sarah Ann looked like her mother's
family, the Wallers. She was a blonde, and slight of figure,
but what attracted one to her more than anything else was her
character. She was bright and entertaining, a favorite at school,
and an acquisition wherever she was. Naturally brilliant, and
highly educated, she was very entertaining. Her loving and un-
selfish disposition (inherited from, her father) caused her to be
an ideal wife, mother, daughter, and sister.
years after his arrival in Texas, his son Leonard brought home
his bride from Louisiana. It was then that "Bernardo" seemed
like home again. About two years later his younger son, Jared,
Jr., married, and it was then that Colonel Groce decided to
divide his property and negroes between his children, and "re-
treat" to Grimes county. He had previously given his daughter
(Mrs. Wharton) her share, which consisted of two leagues of
land in Brazoria county and a large home, "Eagle Island," the
first frame house built in Texas. To his eldest son, Leonard,
he gave "Bernardo," and to Jared, Jr., he gave a league joining
"Bernardo," on which he built his home, "Pleasant Hill." Other
leagues were left to these sons also.
When about to leave for his new home, "The Retreat," in
Grimes county, carrying with him only twenty of his favorite
negroes, Colonel Groce laughingly made the remark that he would
take twenty negroes, and in ten years he could buy them both
out. But he did not live long enough to carry out this boast,
for he died about three years later, November 20, 1836. His
remains were carried to "Bernardo" for burial.
Eighteen years later, Leonard Waller Groce built his beautiful
home, "Liendo," six miles northeast of "Bernardo." This home
was spoken of as "The Dixie of the South."
1
About eighteen months after Jared E. Groce arrived in Texas,
they suffered for lack of salt, so he took many hands to the coast
country, dug shallow wells, and boiled the salt water down, thus
procuring salt enough to last a long time.
A tribe of friendly Indians, Bidais, lived a few miles from the
plantation, and they were constantly coming to the house, beg-
ging for meal and other things. For a long time they were sup-
plied, but one day Mr. Groce gave them each a sack and told
them to go into the field and pick it full of cotton, and when
they returned he would empty the sacks and fill them with meal.
The old chiefs were not accustomed to such work and thought it
beneath their dignity, nevertheless with frowns and sullen looks
they went among the negroes, of whom they were in much dread,
and began to pick. They made very slow work of it, and after
that they never asked for any more meal.
Jared E. Groce was very exact in his business relations, hon-
est to the core. Upon one occasion, he loaned to his son Leonard
several thousand dollars. Shortly before it was due, Leonard went
to his father and told him that he did not think he would be
able to pay it at the time appointed, and asked for an exten-
sion; but his father told him he would have it to do. Leonard
lost no time in raising the money and on the day it fell due he
went to his father to pay the note. His father said, "I am glad
you have been prompt, and hereafter, my son, never give your
note, unless you are certain that you can pay it the day it is due.
Now, I will make you a present of it."
Upon realizing the abundant possibilities of the Texas soil,
experiencing the delightful climate, etc., he wrote back to the
old States hundreds of letters, advising friends, relatives, and
others to come to the "Land of Promise."
2
Austin was a great man, and rightly called "the Father of
Texas," for he brought many colonists here, but Jared E. Groce
was instrumental in bringing many, among them influential and
prominent men, who helped to make Texas what it is. He
spared no money to advance the progress of his adopted country,
but this was done in such a quiet and unobtrusive manner, that
no credit was ever given him.
head of all. Colonel Groce did not go to him for advice as the
other settlers did, he did not need his care and protection. This
incensed Austin. There was also a misunderstanding between
Austin and Groce's son-in-law, William H. Wharton. But Jared
E. Groce went about in his quiet way, entirely ignoring this feel-
ing. A reconciliation was brought about later between Wharton
and Austin, when both men, for love of country, let personal feel-
ings die, and joined their efforts to defeat the enemy. It was
paid by William Russell, that had this not taken place, Texas
would not have won her freedom at that time.
It was a personal letter from William H. Wharton to Sam
Houston that brought Houston to Texas. The Whartons had
known him in Tennessee, and one night at "Bernardo" William
H. Wharton was telling Colonel Groce about Sam Houston and
his success as a fighter. Groce in his impetuous way said, "That's
the kind of men we need in Texas. Sit right down and write
to him, urge him, to come, and I will send the letter by the next
post."
Jared E. Groce did not acquire all his land through the Mexi-
can government; many leagues he bought. One league he bought
for $25 and a horse and saddle. A man from Alabama, had set-
tled in Austin county, across the river from him, but getting
homesick, and not having money to improve his place, begged
for a horse and saddle to return home on, and said he would sell
out for the same and $25. This property Jared Groce gave to
one of his wife's sisters as an inducement to her to come to Texas.
Many of his relatives followed within a few years, among them
his nephew, Judge Edwin Waller, and Judge Lipscomb. The
large plantations were near, and very pleasant was it in those
days. After the sons and daughters married, the family con-
nection was quite large, and many descendants are scattered over
this big State.
In an article which he published in the Houston
Post
in 1904,
3
Captain W. P. Zuber gives some interesting information concern-
ing Colonel Groce.
to Texas that Colonel Groce loaned him a cook and several other
negroes, until he got settled and was able to procure servants of
his own.
He was, says Captain Zuber, "a man of large and manly form,
though crippled in both arms. . . . He was distinguished
as a most hospitable landlord, and better, as a man of sympathy,
who was always ready to help worthy indigent men who honestly
tried to help themselves."
On more than one occasion Colonel Groce joined with his
slaves in campaigns against the Indians; and in 1827 when Col-
onel Ahumada was marching to Nacogdoches to put down the
Fredonian rebellion he offered the use of his ferry boats, slaves,
and wagons, for transporting the troops.
Leonard Waller Groce married Miss Courtney Ann Fulton of
Alexandria, Parish of Rapides, Louisiana, November 17, 1831.
Her father Alexander Fulton was a wealthy sugar planter, a
man of high morals, a highly educated gentleman. Her mother
was Mary Ann Wells, sister of the honored and beloved Thomas
Jefferson Wells; her other brother was Governor of Louisiana.
When the Texan army was en route to the field of San Jacinto,
it camped for some time at Leonard Groce's plantation, "Ber-
nardo." Leonard Groce supplied the army with hundreds of
beeves, and thousands of bushels of corn.
Jared Ellison Groce, Jr., married Miss Mary Ann Calvit,
daughter of Alexander Calvit of Brazoria county, October 1, 1833.
The Calvit plantation joined the Wharton plantation, and it was
when visiting his sister (Mrs. William H. Wharton) that he met
his future wife. He lived only a few years after his marriage;
died February 3, 1839, leaving a widow and two small children,
Jared E. Groce, Jr., and Barbara (Mrs. Clark).
Colonel Groce's oldest grandson, General John A. Wharton,
lived to be a distinguished general in the Confederate Army.
4
Many of his descendants inherited his roving disposition and
longing for adventure, among them his great-grandson, Colonel
Leonard Waller Groce, Jr., who was executed in Nicaragua, Oc-
tober 16, 1909. A Houston paper published the following sketch
of this young soldier of fortune:
"Leonard Waller Groce, Jr., son of Dr. and Mrs. L. W. Groce,
was born at the old family home, "Bernardo," near Hempstead,
Texas, October 12, 1874. He spent his childhood in Hempstead,
but at the age of seventeen went to Galveston, working for the
firm of Hawley and Company several years. In 1897 he went
to Bluefields, Nicaragua, where he later engaged in the mining
business. At the outbreak of hostilities between Nicaragua and
Honduras, he occupied a lucrative position as superintendent of
the La Luz and Los Angeles mines, which position he resigned
to accept a commission in the Nicaraguan army. His knowledge
of military affairs was amply exemplified and his practical advice
of much value during those troublous times, and the government
was not slow in showing its appreciation of him as a man and
as a soldier."
FOOTNOTES:
history of "Groce's Retreat": "After his death the heirs sold the retreat
to Mr. Dunham, a prospector from Tennessee. Mr. Dunham returned to
Tennessee and died there, but his family came to the Retreat and resided
there during many years, until Mrs. Dunham's death. While she lived a
postoffice, named Retreat, was established there. Later another postoffice
of the same name was operated several miles distant. After Mrs. Dunham's
death Dougald McAlpin purchased two and a half leagues of land, includ-
ing the Retreat, pulled down the houses, which had become dilapidated, and
settled one mile north of what had been Grace's residence. After this
event, the premises were known as McAlpin's plantation."
death of Colonel Jared E. Groce, paid him the following tribute: "His
extraordinary success in cultivating the growth of cotton, first engendered
the surprise of the planters of the west, to whom the highly exuberant
quality of Texas land was little known, and then was ancillary by the
comparative excellence of the article in its quality, in encouraging the emi-
gration of neighboring planters. His habits having been domestic, and
his time occupied in rural employments, little is known of him politically
as a public character, save that he served and was deemed an active mem-
ber of the convention of 1833."--The Editors.
RECOLLECTIONS OF STEPHEN F. AUSTIN
1
San Luis, February 28th 1844
Dear Guy,
In answer to yours of the 8th inst., respecting what I know
of your uncle, I am sorry to say, that after much reflection on
the subject, I can afford you but little information of the kind
you desire--such as it is, I communicate--but if led to speak
too much of myself, you must rather attribute that to a wish to
define causes than to egotism. You will therefore destroy what-
ever appears extraneous to your object.
My acquaintance with your uncle commenced in the City of
Mexico, at the time he went there to get Texas admitted as a
State.
3 I was then residing on a Hacienda (a large Farm or
Plantation) distant about 14 miles from the City. This Hacienda
belonged to Mr. James S. Wilcocks, Consul General of the United
States. I rented from him an undivided half of his Estate, we
kept house and lived together on the most amicable terms. Mr.
Wilcocks was a friend of Genl. Austin's, and through him I be-
came acquainted, and afterwards on terms of intimacy and friend-
ship with your uncle, who would occasionally ride out and stay
a few days with one or the other of us.
I can recollect very well, that during one of these rides out
to the Hacienda, your uncle observed to me in words of the fol-
lowing import, "Hammeken, I never advise any one to go to
Texas, but I would like you
to see that country. You are of
the right age to grow up with a country." My reply to him in
substance was, "that in order to be a Texian, I must become a
Mexican Citizen, and that no pecuniary interest would tempt me
to that." This by the by was an improper remark, because he
was a Mexican Citizen,--but my youth and thoughtlessness were
the cause. I added, "if Texas ever becomes Independent, then
Colonel, perhaps you will see me there." He replied "Pshaw!
By the time you are as old as I am, you will think differently."
Whether his remark was intended for the former or latter of
my observations I cannot tell.
We had more conversation respecting the Independence of
Texas at the same time, but I cannot remember either his ob-
servations, or my own--these things now seem to me almost as
a dream--when you awake, you can recollect the subject of your
dream, but cannot call to mind the particulars.
At the time Col. Austin was endeavoring to get Texas ad-
mitted as a State, I heard, from, whom I cannot now tell, whether
from: himself, Mr. Wilcocks, or some other friends, that besides
other embarrassments which he experienced, were the intrigues
of Anthony Butler, the mis-representative of the American Peo-
ple at Mexico,
4 John T. Mason
5 and others--who wished to have
Texas declared a Territory, with a view to its being subsequently
sold to the United States. This, your uncle opposed; not, I be-
lieve, from any aversion to belonging to the United States, but
being better acquainted with Mexican character than those gen-
tlemen he knew that instead of the Mexican Government selling
Texas, their jealousy and suspicion would be aroused, and would
retard the progress of his Colony. For this reason, he declared
himself on all occasions, opposed to being one of the United
States, and always in conversation seemed to seek for arguments
why it was the interest of Texas rather to form a State of the
Mexican Federation, than to become one of the United States.
He well knew, that if he joined Butler, Mason, and others, in
their efforts to make Texas declared a Territory, that he would,
as I have observed, arouse the jealousy and suspicion of the
majority of the Mexican Statesmen. I will here mention a re-
mark he made to me in New Orleans in January, 1836,
6 "Ham-
meken, if they
had let me alone, I would have had 200,000 in-
habitants in Texas, before attempting a separation from Mexico."
Who they
referred to I cannot tell.
It is essential, to elucidate one of the main questions of your
uncle's life, that all possible light should be thrown on his ulterior
views with regard to Texas. His foresight, for which he was
remarkable, arising from, the good sense which was the principal
ingredient of his character, must have led him to the conclusion
that at some future time two races, so dissimilar in every point of
view as are the citizens of the United States and of Mexico, must
come into collision, but at the same time he knew that so long
as Mexico could be lulled, Texas would advance in strength and
prosperity. But alas! it is no new thing for the plans of the
wise and prudent to be overthrown by the rash and designing.
But, if you make it appear that his ulterior
aim was to have
Texas become one of the United States, what becomes of his
character for fair dealing with regard to Mexico? I think the
just solution of the question would be, that so long as Mexico
remained true to her compacts, that he would also remain true,
and that the violation of the compact by her would absolve him
and others. I refer to his speech at Louisville
7 to prove suffi-
ciently, that Mexico was the first to violate the compact.
Col. Austin left the City of Mexico in ——— of ——— [De-
cember 10, 1833]. I was astonished some weeks after to learn
that he had been brought back a prisoner and was confined in
one of the dungeons of the Ex-Inquisition.
8 Wishing to see him,
I was answered that he was "incommunicado" (not to be spoken
with). He was subsequently removed to the Acordada, another
prison, where his friends were allowed to see and converse with
him. I carried him books, and went to see him as often as I
came to town. The situation of a friend in distress would nat-
urally awaken in any one, not destitute of feeling, a desire to
relieve him.
The laws with regard to Robbers have seldom been very ac-
tively in force in Mexico, since their separation from Spain. I
was at the time acquainted (he called himself my friend) with
a certain Vicente Saldaña--a bold, daring Liberal
--always op-
posed to the Gachupines (old Spaniards). When not engaged in
public service, this fellow would carry out his patriotic
sentiments
in private. He assured me, he never robbed a Liberal
--perhaps
because your Democrats are generally of the poorer class.
Don Vicente would occasionally honor me with his company
at breakfast or dinner on my Farm, and if in a hurry would
leave me a tired horse, and take a fresh one from my stable--
which to do him justice he always returned. This though he did
not do with small amounts of cash which he would sometimes
condescend to borrow.
In [1833] he with some of his band, con-
ducted Zavala with safety to the coast, and on another occasion had
accompanied me a considerable distance to recover a very valu-
able horse that was stolen from my partner Mr. Wilcocks. He
had a different name, but seemed to be well known in all the lit-
tle villages through which we had occasion to pass.
I believe that uncertainty
was the greatest torture Col. Austin
endured--his mind was too great to be affected by the compara-
tively trifling inconveniences of want of exercise and bad diet.
At one time it was currently reported that he was to be banished
for Ten years to California. I told him whilst he was in the
Acordada what an invaluable friend
I had possessed in Vicente
Saldaña, and that he could be depended upon. The room in
which Col. Austin was confined had a window with a small bal-
cony projecting over the street. Almost beneath this window is
the principal entrance to the Acordada, before which a Sentinel
was constantly placed, and immediately at hand were placed the
arms of 10 or 15 soldiers, who were generally lounging around,
during the day--at night every thing appeared quiet, except the
solitary sentinel.
I explained my plan to your uncle, which as well as I can
recollect was this--that on some dark night, he should slip down
from the balcony by a rope, that my friend Vicente would be at
hand, and I would have horses near the prison, and we could
be off before they could see in which direction we went. The
Acordada is on the outskirts of the city, and near to it is the
principal Promenade at the end of which several roads fork in
different directions. Colonel Austin approved my plan, but re-
marked that he would not attempt to escape in that way, as long
as he had a chance of getting clear, but as soon as he could as-
certain that his cause would be determined on unfavorably, we
would then try it. I never mentioned these things to any one
living--not even to my partner Wilcocks, nor to Saldaña. I
told him merely that I had a good job for him in view, and to
report himself as constantly as possible--he did so [so] con-
stantly, that when your uncle's prison was changed I was glad
to get rid of him.
This new prison is called the Diputacion, and is situated in
front of the Public Square, in the heart of the City. He was
there confined, at the time Grayson and Spencer Jack arrived,
9
in a secluded apartment, which would prevent our carrying out
my plan with regard to the Acordada.
The greatest cause of delay in the trial arose from the diffi-
culty of ascertaining which Judge should try his cause. The
processes in Mexico are carried on in writings--the papers are
stitched together as the cause proceeds--this forms one or more
volumes, which are called the Expediente. His expediente was
carried to a Judge who after keeping it in his possession for a
long time would decide that it did not belong to his Jurisdiction,
and that such a Judge ought to try it, who again would act in
the same way. All this I think was ordered by the Government,
who probably aware that there was not sufficient cause to con-
demn attained their object by this manoeuvring.
Gomez-Farias, Vice-president, was performing the duties of
President, during the absence of Santa Anna from the Capital.
He is no doubt one of the most disinterested Liberals in Mexico,
but is at the same time as obstinate and stubborn as a mule.
Whether influenced by others, or from his native jealousy of the
citizens of the United States, I know not, but there is no doubt
he believed he was serving his country by detaining Col. Austin
in prison.
After his removal to the Diputacion, a general amnesty law for
all political
offences passed the Mexican Congress, and if I mis-
take not Colonel Austin's liberty was procured on account of this
measure.
10
Mr. Wilcocksi was the guardian of two Mexican young ladies
residing with their mother in the city. I was very intimate with
this family, and introduced your uncle to them before he was
imprisoned. He was particularly pleased with one of them, and
went frequently to the house--he became a favorite not only with
the family, but also with their immediate neighbours and friends.
Among the latter, was a very sprightly young lady whose family
had influence with Santa Anna. This young lady contributed
both to his being set at liberty by giving bail, and subsequently
to his final freedom. Not having it in his power to evince his
gratitude by any important acts, your uncle endeavored by many
little attentions to make this lady and the family some return to
manifest that he was sensible of the interest they had taken for
him. Neither of these families were rich, therefore could not
afford those extravagances which are so prized by young ladies
of all nations. For the first time, an aeronaut was going to
make an ascension and nothing else was talked of in Mexico--
but the high price of a Ticket (I think $20) put it out of the
power of many to witness it. I accompanied Colonel Austin to
take a Box for the use of these ladies and their friends--on the
way we conversed about different men, among others of Anthony
Butler. With much warmth he remarked to me that "Butler
had been the principal cause of his detention"--he did not tell
me in what way, nor have I ever learned. Whether Butler's
motive was private dislike, or whether he considered Col. Austin
as an impediment to his schemes, I do not know--most likely,
both. Butler was also a visitor, and on friendly terms with the
family to which I have alluded. Mr. Wilcocks at a subsequent
period represented to his government that he, Butler, had made
proposals of marriage, although at the time he had a wife liv-
ing in the United States, to the same young lady, for whom Col.
Austin shewed some preference, which fact was probably known
to Austin, and contributed to his contempt for that base man.
I cannot call to mind any other little circumstance, that could
possibly interest you, during my acquaintance with your uncle in
Mexico. We lived, when I went to the City, in the same house
which was rented by our common friend Capt. Washington W.
West--who was also devoted to your uncle. When Centralism
was talked of, West observed "well, Colonel, of course you will
be Duke of Texas"--and Duke was his appellation in the corre-
spondence which I afterwards held with West, and in the private
intercourse of us three. Col. Austin was cautious and prudent,
and therefore but seldom spoke of the politics of the different
parties of Mexico. When he could serve a friend, however, he
would lay aside his caution and prudence. Our friend West had
got into a difficulty with two Mexican Officers--one of them a
Colonel--they sent a file of men to take West, and forced an
entrance into the house. West escaped. This happened towards
the close of the clay. Notwithstanding the delicacy of his situa-
tion, and the risk of making enemies of the Military, he did not
hesitate in efforts to serve West, but continued up that evening
till past 12 o'clock, and renewed his efforts the following day.
I have heard some of his opponents in Texas accuse him of a
want of firmness and decision. In my intercourse with, and in
whatever I could learn of him, wherever a proper construction
was placed on his motives and actions, his conduct was decidedly
firm and decisive, but most men are too apt to judge of others
conduct only as affecting their own interests--making no allow-
ances for circumstances. Colonel Austin would probably listen
with all patience to the communications and suggestions of those
around him--sometimes, their opinions might coincide with his
own; and if he acted in accordance with those opinions, his
enemies would cry out "he did so, because such a one advised
him."
Our friend West accompanied him on his way to Vera Cruz
as far as Jalapa. The Stage was frequently at that time robbed
between Mexico and Jalapa. On West's return, I asked him how
they got on. He answered me "very well, I told the Duke that
if we were attacked I meant to fight. 'So
do I, says the Duke,'
and nothing more was said on the subject, as we understood each
other."
General Barragan had travelled through the United States
with Capt. West, and on his return to Mexico came frequently
to West's house--where I became acquainted with him. After
Farias was put down by Santa Anna's turning from the Liberal
Party, Barragan, during the absence of Santa Anna from the
Capital, exercised the functions of President. I went to the
Palace occasionally to see him--this was in 1835--before and
after your uncle left Mexico.
I saw General Austin in New Orleans in January, 1836, and
walking with him one day in Canal Street I asked him, if he
did not think it would be better to pay Mexico millions, than
to expend money and blood in perhaps a fruitless strife; or words
to that effect. At the same time I offered, if he approved of
the plan, on my return to Mexico, to see Barragan about it.
General Austin did not hesitate a moment in expressing him-
self strongly--he said he could give me no official
authority, but
that if such a thing could be brought about, he would use his
influence as far as possible, and he did not doubt that it could
be effected, if arranged before blood was shed in Texas.
I shortly after returned to Mexico--but unfortunately found
that General Barragan was on his death-bed——which frustrated
the whole scheme. Barragan was benevolent and humane and
was said to have possessed considerable influence with Santa
Anna. He had travelled and was very well informed. He had
a very high opinion of Americans.
I mention this circumstance to shew that the object which
Houston and Lamar have endeavored to obtain, i. e. purchasing
peace from Mexico, was originally one of Genl. Austin's meas-
ures. I repeated our conversation to Peter W. Grayson, who
told me afterwards that he had spoken to Houston, and that
the measure could be carried through, if Mexico would assent.
I mentioned it likewise to Lamar, who also adopted the policy
of your uncle, and in fact the friendly offices of England have no
doubt been obtained in a great measure by the holders of Mexican
Bonds, to whom the amount was to have been paid.
11 I saw
General Austin again in New Orleans in June, 1836. He had
heard previously of Barragan's death. We came out to Texas
together in the Pilot boat Union--afterwards when a Privateer,
called the Terrible. I remained in Texas but a short time, dur-
ing which I can remember he went up to [Orozimbo] to see
Santa Anna. I rode from Brazoria with him on his return to
Mr. Perry's,
12 where I copied sundry letters for him--of which
you ought to have copies, as they contain matter of interest--
addressed to President Jackson and to General Gaines--enclosed
in the one to Jackson, was a letter from Santa Anna to Jackson.
13
Having been absent, from home for five years, I went to New
York, and returned in December, 1836, and shortly after went
up to Columbia where I found General Austin on a sick bed.
and I'll let you have some of my stock--they say, it will be very
valuable." I replied to him, "that I did not want any place--
that in Mexico he had told me his private affairs were greatly
deranged in consequence of his attention to public matters, and
that if he chose, I would aid him in arranging his own affairs."
He then said, that it would suit him exactly, and that when he
got better we would talk more about it.
I continued with him from that time (the afternoon of Fri-
day, Dec'r 23d) until his death, which occurred on Tuesday the
27th.
He was taken with a severe cold about a week before his death,
but such a cold would not be a cause of fear, as the physicians
assured me, in a person of sound constitution. I found him
somewhat stupefied from the effects of the opium they had given
him, and conversed but little with him that evening. On the
following morning (Saturday) be appeared much relieved, and
told me that it gave him satisfaction to converse. The next day
was Christmas (Sunday) he seemed so much better that Capt.
Henry Austin,
14 who was the only friend I found with him,
advised him to be shaved and have his linen changed, and brought
him out of the little room where his bed was (which room, was
enclosed with clapboards, very open and without a fire-place or
stove) and placed him on a pallet before the fire. This was in
the morning--the weather was very mild and pleasant. About
10 o'clock a strong norther came on, and it turned very cold--
we put him to bed again, at his request.
Shortly after he was in bed two papers were brought to him
for his signature--—one of which Capt. Austin read; the other I
read--—after finishing it, I observed to Capt. Austin, "he must
not sign this"—"nor this either," replied he. "Go in and tell
him so." I went in to the little room, and said to him, "General,
they have brought you two papers to sign, which Capt. Austin
and myself agree you ought not to sign, at least in your present
condition." He asked me, "What is the nature of them." I
told him that they would compromise his whole estate, and fur-
ther remarked that I did not recollect ever asking a favor from
him, but that now I would take it as a great favor if he would
not at that time sign these papers--"Well," says he, "I won't
sign them." I immediately went out and told the bearer, Dr.
Archer, that General Austin by the advice of his friends would
not at that time sign papers of so much importance as to com-
promise his whole estate. The Doctor remarked "It is no more
than I have done. I have compromised my
whole estate, and he
must either sign or relinquish his interest."
I told General Austin of his words, and observed that I was
sure no pecuniary object had induced him to enter the associa-
tion. "Let them draw out the relinquishment" was his only
reply, for he was very weak, and conversed apparently with effort.
This relinquishment he signed that same day--he got much worse
towards evening.
The following morning (Monday) I sent for Mr. Perry. In
the afternoon Dr. Levi Jones and Dr. Leger (one an American
the other a French Physician) held a consultation and differed--
they referred to me. Dr. Jones wished to administer an Emetic,
which Dr. Leger opposed. Dr. Jones observed, that if he did not
take it he would die in two hours. He was so exhausted, that
his strength failed him when he wanted to throw up the phlegm.
Dr. Leger replied, that the exertion, if the Emetic should be
given, would kill him, but did not suggest any way to get rid
of the phlegm, which momentarily increased the difficulty of his
respiration. In this situation I had no alternative,--if he did
not take the Emetic, he would certainly die, although his life
might, by not taking it, last a few hours more. I therefore re-
quested Dr. Jones to give him the Emetic and whilst it was pre-
paring Dr. Leger observed to me "You are right. I have changed
my opinion within the last few minutes--it is now his only
chance."
They commenced with ipecac, which failed to produce any
other effect than to make him strain and weaken himself still
more--they then gave him Tartar Emetic, which had the desired
effect. He breathed easier but his strength was almost entirely
gone. The Doctors were very anxious that he should get a little
sleep, but he passed the night without closing his eyes, for a
moment. He would at times leave his bed and sit on a chair
with his arms resting on a small table before him, with his head
buried in his arms. This position seemed to be more agreeable
to him than the bed, but his weakness would not allow of this
for a long time--he rose and laid down several times during the
night, which he passed in the room adjoining his bed room on
a pallet before the fire.
At day break Mr. Perry and Austin Bryan
15 arrived. The
General was perfectly sensible, he was indeed so until the last-
he immediately recognized them--they were told that there were
no hopes. At about nine o'clock A. M. Doctor Leger applied a
blister to his breast, and afterwards General Austin observed,
"Now, I will go to sleep," and with his left elbow on my leg
and his cheek resting on his hand, he seemed to be more at ease.
Austin was on his right also supporting him. He would at in-
tervals ask for a little tea, and during one of those intervals
uttered his last words in a very faint voice, which were, if not
exactly in these words yet the import most certainly was, as
heard and distinctly understood both by Austin and myself.
"Texas recognized. Archer told me so. Did you see it in the
papers ?"
In about a half hour afterward he ceased to breathe, in the
presence of Mr. Perry, Dr. Archer and Austin Bryan.
Dear Guy,
I have now concluded by melancholy task. If your uncle
had been spared for a few years longer, I would, by my atten-
tion to his business, probably have learned from himself many
particulars relating to his life which would interest you. Those
which I possess I have written with much prolixity, in order to
help my memory as I proceeded. If you can cull out as many
lines
as I have written pages,
I shall be most amply repaid. You
may rely on the truth of all I have written; for I would not set
down that of which I was not positive and certain.
Should I at some future period revisit Mexico, in either a
public or private capacity, it will afford me much pleasure to aid
you in collecting material for your uncle's life. I left many
friends there, and by their influence could have access to many
State papers.
Wishing you all success, I remain yours,
Geo. L. Hammeken
FOOTNOTES:
punctuation.
that little indicates that he was a man of some importance in business and
public affairs. He was, perhaps, a native of New York; went to Mexico
about 1831, and there made the acquaintance of Stephen F. Austin about
the middle of the year 1833. He came to Texas in October, 1835, as the
agent of English bankers to place loans with some planters; the revolution
interfered with these plans. He does not appear to have participated in
the revolution, for early in January, 1836, he was in New Orleans, and
about the end of February he was in the City of Mexico. By June he
was once more in New Orleans, again met Austin there, and accompanied
him to Texas. He soon proceeded to New York, returning to Texas by
December. It is probable that he became a resident about this time. In
1837 he translated Filisola's Defense. On January 2, 1839, he addressed
a letter to President Lamar, expressing the opinion that conditions in
Mexico were favorable to peace, and requesting to be appointed one of the
commissioners, or secretary to the commissioners, to negotiate with Mexico.
He was appointed secretary to Barnard E. Bee, Texan agent to Mexico,
March 12, 1839. Since Bee could not speak Spanish and was entirely un-
familiar with the people and customs of Mexico, the position of secretary
involved much responsibility. Bee's mission did not succeed, and when
James Webb was sent to make another effort to open negotiations, Ham-
meken was appointed his secretary, April, 1841. I have been unable to
ascertain what Hammeken's business was up to 1840. In that year Andrews
& Hammeken are engaged as commission merchants at San Luis. In the
winter of that year they erected a cotton press capable of compressing
seventy-five bales of cotton in twelve hours. They possessed large ware-
houses and an excellent wharf. Hammeken, too, was president of the
Brazos and Galveston Railroad Company, with such well known Texans as
David G. Burnet, Lorenzo Zavala, Asa Brigham, and Moses Austin Bryan
among the stockholders. Within less than a year after writing the rem-
iniscences here printed he was overwhelmed by misfortune. In a letter
of January 7, 1845, Guy M. Bryan said, "Mr. Hammekin has been for some
time crazed; he is now in N Orleans. I think his difficulties here, in
finances, etc., brought it upon him. I regret this extremely for he was a
noble generous kind-hearted man."--E. W. W.
close of 1829 to December, 1835.
Land Company of New York. A sketch of him by his granddaughter,
Miss Kate Mason Rowland, appeared in The Quarterly, XI, 163-198.
liam H. Wharton, as a commissioner from Texas to the United States to
solicit aid for the Texas revolution.
his return February 13.
Mexico to solicit on behalf of the Texans Colonel Austin's release. Gray-
son's account of their mission is in The Quarterly, XI, 155-163.
Vera Cruz and New Orleans, reaching Texas on September 1.
of the British representatives in the respective countries arranged an
armistice to treat for peace. The Texan government was entirely willing
to assume five million dollars of the Mexican public debt, most of which
was owing to English capitalists.
Bryan, to whom this letter was written.
sity of Texas.
BRITISH CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING TEXAS
XXII
New York.
Augt 31. 1845
My Lord,
I have the honour to transmit herewith a statement of the
United States Naval force in various parts of the World, ex-
tracted from the Government paper of the 26th Instant.
2 Intel-
ligence from Texas to the 30th Ultimo reports the temporary
Cantonment of an American force of 11 or 1200 Men on St
Joseph's Island (which faces the Coast between the Mouths of
the Aransas Stream and the "Nueces,") and from the various
accounts I have seen in the prints of this Country I should judge
that reinforcements to the extent of about 2,500 Men are now on
their way to the same destination, but the whole strength could
hardly be completely assembled in Western Texas before the 10th
of next Month, at the earliest.
I presume that St Joseph's Island has been selected for the
disembarkation of the troops in preference to Corpus Christi be-
cause the entrance at that Pass has the advantage of rather
more water, than that at Corpus Christi, (about a degree further
to the Westward) and probably also because the Coast at that
point is rather nearer to San Antonio de Bexar, where I conclude
it is intended to canton the troops and form the main depots,
upon the ground of it's situation with respect to the main routes
into the Country, and superior comparative healthiness. It should
be said that there will be considerable inconvenience and diffi-
culty in transporting the troops and Materiel rapidly from San
Josephs to the Coast in consequence of the Shallowness of the
Bay and the want of a sufficient number of light boats: And
if the rains set in as early as September as they have done of
late years, the March through the lower Country will be ex-
tremely slow and trying
If the Mexicans are advancing rapidly in force, and are ac-
companied by strong levies of effective and well mounted ranch-
eros, thoroughly acquainted with the Country, and commanded
by active partizan Chiefs, of whom there is no want in Mexico,
the American force may find it more difficult to establish them-
selves firmly on their intended basis than appears to have been
contemplated. In fact the inconsiderable amount of the force
originally sent on, and the hurried and piecemeal manner in
which reinforcements are now following strengthen me in the
impression that the first movement in Texas was dictated chiefly
by a desire to commit the Legislatures and people of the two
Countries beyond any change of retraction, and not by appre-
hension of early irruption into Texas by Mexico.
Upon any other reasoning the manifest course, more particu-
larly at this season of the year, would have been to assemble
the expeditionary force at some convenient station in the Upper
Mississipi, where it would have been beyond the range of yel-
low fever, and from which it could have been conveyed by Steam
in a few days in complete strength and an effective condition
to the most eligible place of disembarkation, nearest to the points
which it was to act upon, or to cover. If there had not been
any movement into the Country by the American Government
till the Congress of the United States had met, I think there
can be no doubt that Mexico would have been contented to wait
for the final action of this Legislature, but other motives have
been operative in this quarter and I am afraid that it may now
be very difficult to avert a collision.
Amongst the impulses disposing the present Government of
the United States to provoke hostilities with Mexico (and if hos-
tilities do ensue it must be plain to the World that they have
been incited by this Government both primarily and immedi-
ately,) would be the desire of a pretext for taking sudden pos-
session of San Francisco Bay; and it is sincerely to be hoped
that the Government of Mexico may lose no time in shaping
their policy with respect to that part of their territory on large
and sound principles.
But whatever the secret intentions, or political necessities or
liabilities of this Government may be, as to the temper of Con-
gress and the Country on more mature reflection, and better in-
formation than have hitherto obtained, it is certain at all events
that the American force in advance has been exposed, in a Mili-
tary point of view, to serious and perfectly avoidable risks:
And if the Mexican Warfare and policy are vigorously and
judiciously managed, they have fairer means of disturbing the
early aggressive proceedings of this Government than it was rea-
sonable to suppose would have been given to them.
The outset of these operations has been defective, either as to
the need for such haste with a handful of men, or the period at
which they have been commenced, or the confused and desultory
manner in which the force has been prepared and directed to
the theatre on which it is to act, or finally as to the point of
disembarkation.
Mexico in my judgment is in a better situation than could
have been looked for, to fall at once and at advantage, upon
schemes of warfare best suited to her strength and necessities,
and to drop simultaneous suggestions of possible accommodation
upon principles that will diminish the risk of vigorously pro-
tracted hostilities with the sanction of the Legislature of this
Country; and without that sanction the Executive of the United
State have neither the power nor the means to do much mischief
to any other Country, or their own. Your Lordship will ob-
serve by the papers of this Country that the Governor of Louisi-
ana has been called upon by the General Officer in Command of
the S. W. division of the Army to reinforce the regular troops in
Texas with drafts from the Militia of New Orleans.
They are unfitted for the circumstances and warfare which
they would have to contend with in Texas, and will be a burden
and an expense rather than of use in this struggle. The Militia
best suited to such Service would be the hardy Yeomanry of the
Western free States, not the unpractised youth of the Southern
Cities, and I feel I hazard nothing in the prediction that if they
are detached in force at this Season to the Coast of Texas, they
will perish in great numbers, and with great rapidity. Neither
can it fail to strike the most careless observer that with the reg-
ular force in advance, there is need for keeping the Militia at
home, and prepared for Service, to guard against the contingency
of negro movement, perfectly probable in the pursuit of a war
with Mexico, undertaken mainly for the purpose of prolonging
and extending the System of Slavery; a fact, of which it would
be irrational to suppose that the Slave population of the United
States is not quite aware.
Before I close this despatch I may add that it appears from
the casual accounts I have seen in the papers, that a considerable
portion of the force sent to Texas is Artillery with an unusually
large number of Guns for so small an expedition.--So far as I
have been able to judge of the weather and Country in Texas
that arm would not be very effective in the warfare there except
for a few Months in the year, owing to the dry state of the
prairies and rush bottoms in the Autumn and Winter months;
and if the war should be carried beyond the Rio Grande the in-
convenience would be increased, by reason of the Mountainous
nature of the Country, and the impossibility of using any other
means of transport than Mules.
During the period of more than three years since my arrival
in Texas, there have not been more than 10 Months in all, pend-
ing which Military operations could have been carried on in this
Country, owing to deluges at one time, or drought and a want
of fodder at another, and the utter impractability of keeping a
force in the field during the great stress of the heat.
With the view to afford the Commander in Chief all the means
in my power of forming a judgment on the state of circumstances
in Texas, I have taken the liberty of forwarding this despatch
to him for his perusal.
Charles Elliot
To The Right Honourable,
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
New York
August 31st 1845
Private.
My Lord,
Since I closed my despatch No 26 of this date (forwarded
through the Admiral) I have heard a report which I think it
proper to mention to Your Lordship.
It comes to me from a Merchant of great respectability here,
and directly to him from a person closely connected with Mexico,
and he thinks, likely to be accurately informed
My informant states his belief that letters of Marque have
been for some time actually in Rio Janeiro, Havana, and other
ports in various parts of the World, ready to be issued by the
Mexican Consuls, as soon as they shall know of the commence-
ment of hostilities between the United States and Mexico. I
have no means of Judging of the truth of this statement, but
Your Lordship will no doubt know what degree of credit should
be attached to it. The Gentleman who mentioned the report to
me thinks that an early rupture is inevitable, founding his opin-
ion chiefly on the difficulty of restraining the American force in
Western Texas.
Charles Elliot
To The Right Honourable
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
Her Majesty's Consulate
Galveston,
September 6th. 1845
No. 23.
My Lord,
I have the honour to inform Your Lordship that the Conven-
tion assembled at Austin closed its deliberations and adjourned
on Thursday the 28th Ultimo.
Enclosed herewith, are--a printed Copy of "the Constitution
of the State of Texas,"
5 adopted in the Convention, and a Copy
of a Proclamation by President Jones--invoking the decision of
the people of Texas, in reference to that Constitution, and "the
expression of their opinions for
and against
Annexation,"--to-
gether with their adoption, or rejection, of an Ordinance passed
by the Convention, having relation to Colonization Contracts.
It is to be observed that the final Vote respecting the State
Constitution and the question of Annexation is to be declared
"vica
voce."
--In the elections of the Republic the Votes, hitherto,
have been taken by ballot.
The opponents of Annexation in Gal-
veston appear to consider that (the open) Mode of arriving at
the sentiments of the people, as unfavourable to the uncontrolled
developement of opinion.
Appended to the printed copy of the "Constitution of the State
of Texas," is an ordinance adverse to the existing Contracts for
Colonization, and calculated, if not to invalidate them directly,
so far to impede their operation as to render them useless to
their holders—The interests to be affected by this Ordinance are,
all but exclusively European.—The German Association, lately
represented by the Prince of Solms, forwarded emigrants to Texas
on the faith of one of these Contracts.
When General Murphy arrived at Galveston, as Chargé d'
Affaires of the United States in June 1843; he instituted in-
quiries respecting the Colonization Contracts, and took occasion
to denounce the introduction into Texas of Settlers from
Europe.--He remarked that--"the inhabitants of Texas wanted
emigrants like themselves, and no others—Men speaking their
own language, and subject to their own customs and laws"
Mr Terrell—lately representing this Country in England——re-
turned to Texas, in the Brig "Hope Howes," from New Orleans,
on Tuesday the 2d Instant.--He appears desirous to correct mis-
representations that have been current of the course pursued by
Great Britain in reference to Texan affairs, but Annexation be-
ing considered virtually settled, it is not likely that he will be
afforded a suitable opportunity for explanation.--The number of
those who would testify to that which is right, at the risk of
detriment to their worldly hopes, or expectations, is not greater
here than elsewhere, and the will of the people being Sovereign,
the majority by which it is pronounced is by no means indulgent
to openly-avowed dissent, or tolerant of active opposition.--—Un-
ceasing endeavours--which circumstances have aided, have been
made to render the name of England a bugbear in this quarter,
and the fruit of these endeavours will doubtless remain after the
object which inspired them is accomplished.
For my own part, I am unable to perceive the advantages to
be derived, by the present inhabitants of Texas, from the accom-
plishment of Annexation, as contrasted with the attainment of
peace and independence.--Popular impulse,--(however generated)
for the time bears down every suggestion of prudence and public
spirit, but the day is not remote when the feverish Joy of the
National "espousals" must yield to cold considerations of a State
debt, without internal resources for its liquidation--of the liti-
gation of Land Titles before an unfamiliar, and, practically for-
eign tribunal--and of a State revenue to be drawn from a source
inadequate and unwilling--which has never yet supplied one
third of the amount that will inevitably be required for the effi-
cient working of the new Administrative machinery.
Since my despatch No 22 of the 23d Ultimo, small bodies of
regular troops, and volunteers, with arms and stores, have been
transported from the United States to Western Texas. Up to
the date of the present communication, no intelligence on which
reliance can be placed has, to my knowledge, been received at
Galveston from Mexico. The last accounts from Corpus Christi
represent Mexican traders as still resorting thither.
In my despatch No 10, of the 25th of April last, I mentioned
that the "Texas National Register" (official Journal) had de-
fended Mr Ashbel Smith against the charge of being unfriendly
to Annexation. The "Galveston Civilian" of this day, contains
a reply to the same charge from Mr Smith himself, of which I
take leave to enclose a copy.--It's author is still in the United
States.
William Kennedy.
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
New York.
September 13th 1845
No. 27.
My Lord,
I have thought it may be convenient to forward for Your Lord-
ship's perusal, the protest of Mr L. D. Evans, a Delegate in Con-
vention from Fannin County (extracted from the Texian Na-
tional Register of the 14th August) against the passage of the
resolutions inviting the troops of the United States into Texas.
Without dwelling upon any particular measure of a Body, un-
constitutionally assembled to sacrifice the separate existence, and
revolutionize the institutions of the country, Mr Evan's protest
has certainly strengthened me in the belief that the movement
of the United States troops beyond the Sabine was made mainly
to commit the Legislatures and people of the two Countries be-
yond all possibility of retractation. But beyond that motive, I
cannot but think, that the advance of the American force within
the territory which the Government of Texas in the preliminary
conditions sent on to Mexico palpably admitted to be subject to
Negotiation and compromise, affords conclusive proof that the
Government of the United States desired to provoke hostilities
by Mexico; probably with the view to the sudden seizure of cer-
tain positions on the Coast of California. I avail myself on this
occasion to acknowledge the receipt of Your Lordships despatches
to No 12 inclusive, and a Circular despatch of the 30th June.
To The Right Honourable Charles Elliot
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
Private.
New York.
September 14th 1845
My Lord,
I have the honour to forward for Your Lordship's perusal a
series of letters signed J. H. E. dated at Corpus Christi on the
8th, 13th, and 27th August which I have extracted from the New
York Tribune of the 12th and 13th Inst
They appear to me to contain a good account of the Country
in which the American force is now posted, and I think are other-
wise very worthy of Your Lordship's notice. Prom a paragraph
towards the close of the Communication No 1—I collect that it
is not intended at present to maintain the positions West of the
"Nueces," but I should add that my own private letters from
Texas, and the tone of the Government press in this Country
would lead to different inferences. I have also extracted the 3d
Edition of the same paper of this day's date, containing the latest
information which I have seen from the Expeditionary force.
This letter is sent to the Admiral for his perusal
To the Right Honourable.
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
Charles Elliot.
P. S.
New York. Sepr. 15.
By an American Brig arrived yesterday from Tobasco (sailed
on the 20th Ulto) reports have reached this place of a revolu-
tionary Movement in that quarter against the Mexican Authorities
Consular
Foreign Office
September 17th 1845
No. 3.
Sir,
I have read with painful attention the explanations contained
in your Despatch, Consular No 1 of 1st of July last, which, in
compliance with the Instructions conveyed to you in my Despatch
Consular No 1 of the 3d of June, you have given me on the
subject of the Charges which you preferred against Her Majesty's
Consul at Galveston.
As you have in part expressed concern at having made those
Charges, and have in part withdrawn from the prosecution of
them, I am unwilling to dwell further upon the subject of them,
than to express my regret that you should have allowed yourself
to have been led away by a momentary feeling of irritation into
the serious error of bringing accusations against one of Her
Majesty's Subjects, which were calculated so greatly to injure
him in the estimation of Her Majesty's Government.
At the same time, however, I make allowances for the hasti-
ness of the act, considering your infirm state of health, at the
time at which it was committed, and I willingly acknowledge the
candour with which you have admitted your error.
Aberdeen.
Captain Elliot.
Texas.
No. 13.
10
Foreign Office.
September 18th. 1845.
Sir,
I perceive by your Despatch No 23, of the 13th of August, en-
closing your Correspondence with Her Majesty's Minister in
Mexico on the subject of your departure from Texas, prior to the
passing of the Act of Annexation to the United States, that you
have somewhat misapprehended the drift of my Despatch No 10,
of the 3d of July, with reference to your contingent continua-
tion, or departure from Texas, while the question of annexation
was still pending in that Country.
In the uncertain prospects under which that Despatch was
written, it was impossible for me to give you fixed and definite
instructions for the guidance of your conduct under every cir-
eimstance which might arise. Much was therefore necessarily
left to your discretion. But you will find it pretty clearly in-
timated in the concluding part of that Despatch that Her
Majesty's Government rather contemplated your remaining at
your post until the Act of Annexation should have been passed.
As, however, the preceding correspondence between yourself and
this Office has left Her Majesty's Government in uncertainty as
to whether, on tne arrival of my Despatch of the 3rd of July,
you might not have already quitted Texas, the alternative of your
remaining in Texas, or in some part of the United States, until
you should have received further instructions from home, was
mentioned.
Her Majesty's Government would on the whole have preferred
that you had remained at your post until the Annexation had
been formally decided by the Government of Texas; but they
are not disposed to blame you for not having done so, and are
willing to admit that the reasoning by which you support the
expediency of your departure is not without force, although they
are inclined to take a different view of the matter, and are of
opinion that your waiting passively the vote of Annexation,
would in no way have compromised either Your Government or
Yourself.
You will still continue to reside in some port of the United
States until Her Majesty's Government shall have been able to
see more clearly what turn Affairs may have taken, or may be
likely to take, in Texas, and to instruct you accordingly.
Aberdeen.
Captain Elliot. R. N.
No. 28.
New York.
September 29th. 1845
My Lord,
Intelligence from Galveston to the 6th Instant reports the dis-
solution of the Assembly at Austin on the 28th Ulto.
The popular vote on the Constitution was to be taken viva
voce, and should it appear by the returns to have been adopted,
the President was to issue his proclamation on or before the 2d
November next, for the election of the officers and representa-
tives of the State Government, who however were not to enter
upon their functions until after intelligence had been received
of the acceptance of the Constitution by the Congress of the
United States. I learn from private sources of information
worthy of credit, that efforts were made to establish an ad in-
terim Government at once, but other influences prevailed. The
Constitution and authorities of the Republic will therefore con-
tinue in force till the Measure of Annexation is completed in
this Country; Neither can I dismiss the impression that the Gov-
ernment of Mexico has it in it's power by very prompt and judi-
cious proceedings, if not to defeat this plot, at all events to give
it a shape and result that will materially mitigate it's mischiev-
ous consequences
My own papers from Texas have not yet reached me, but I
have extracted from a Journal of this Country an ordinance
submitted to the people with the Constitution of the State. I
believe that it is mainly directed against a particular Coloniza-
tion Contract between General Houston and certain Citizens of
this Country, made in the early part of the year 1843, and al-
leged by his enemies to have been irregularly if not illegally
completed. But the Measure may have a more general bearing,
and affect interests which Her Majesty's Government would con-
sider it right to protect. I have therefore submitted it for Your
Lordship's notice.
The latest dates I have seen from Corpus Christi are of the
16th Instant. The American forces there consisted at that time
of about 2,200 Men of all arms, but reinforcements to the extent
of about 1500 more were looked for in the course of a few weeks.
When the whole is assembled, I remark that at least a third of
it will consist of Artillery.
It did not appear that General Taylor expected to be attacked,
and nothing certain was known of the positions or extent of force
of the Mexicans.
Charles Elliot.
To The Right Honourable.
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
No. 29.
New York.
Sep. 30. 1845.
My Lord,
The accompanying Newspaper
13 containing a Schedule direct-
ing that the Constitution of the proposed State of Texas, as
passed by the Body lately assembled at Austin, should be sub-
mitted to the people, has this morning reached me in time for
the Mail of tomorrow from Boston.
It further contains a Copy of the President's proclamation,
from the terms of which it will appear that he has also sub-
mitted the question of Annexation or Not to the popular vote;
and it occurs to me that there is some ambiguity of expression
as to whether that last question is to be taken viva voce, or other-
wise.
Charles Elliot
To the Right Honourable.
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
New York.
October 6th. 1845
No. 30.
My Lord,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Lord-
ship's despatch No 13.
I take the liberty to remind Your Lordship that I did re-
main in Texas till the 15th of June last, that is till the day
before the Meeting of Congress when there could be no reason-
able doubt that the Measure of Annexation would be formally
adopted by that body and the Executive within a very brief
period. The Measure was immediately adopted, and I believe
that the ill success of the efforts to set aside the Government at
once is chiefly to be attributed to my departure before they could
be made.
My own view and intention has always been to return to New
Orleans in the event of any change of temper or affairs in Texas
indicating the advantage of my near neighborhood to that point,
and I may perhaps be able to form some judgment in that re-
spect when the result of the election for the 10th Congress are
fully known. So far as they have yet been reported there is
no ground for movement upon my part in that direction, but
I should say at the same time that they do furnish some slight
evidence of recovering strength in the Anti-Annexation party in
particular sections of the Country; that is, if I may judge from
a few of the names of the Elected Candidates.
Should any considerable portion of the new Congress in Texas
be wisely and honourably disposed, and should there be the least
pretext for retracing what has been done, in the course of the
ensuing Congress in the United States, it is probable that the
President of Texas will forthwith call a Session, and do what
may be in his power to save the independence of the Country.
Late though it be, I still lean to the opinion that it is in the
power of Mexico to give a shape to these affairs which would
effectually break up the present Scheme of Annexation in the
United States, and defeat the other dangerous designs with which
She is menaced from this quarter. If there should seem to be
any necessity for my movement to New Orleans or Texas before
I could receive Your Lordship's sanction, I should state my im-
pressions to Mr. Pakenham, and guide myself by his opinions.
Charles Elliot
To the Right Honourable.
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
No. 28.
Her Majesty's Consulate
Galveston
October 16th. 1845.
My Lord,
I have the honor to enclose a printed Copy
16 of a Speech de-
livered by Mr. Terrell, lately representing the Government of
Texas in England, to a party of political and personal friends
by whom he was entertained at Galveston, on the 2d of this
Month Although (acting in conformity with a rule to which I
have uniformly adhered since my residence at this Consulate) I
was not present at the entertainment,--I am enabled to assure
Your Lordship that the enclosed copy of Mr Terrell's Speech
is deemed by that gentleman to be a faithful record of his senti-
ments. The party assembled on the occasion was small in num-
ber, but respectable; its paramount object was to afford Mr Ter-
rell an opportunity for explanation. Of this opportunity--when
time, and place, and circumstance are duly considered--it will
be admitted that he availed himself with a considerable boldness.
There are but two passages in the Speech which seem to call
for present remark: these I have marked: One, in page 2.,
adverting to the probable disposition of the Federal Union, in
consequence of the extension of the territory of the United
States;--the other, in page 3d., commenting upon the alleged
design of Her Majesty's Government to effect the abolition of
Negro Slavery in Texas.--With regard to the first of these pas-
sages, the apprehensions it embodies are entirely speculative, and
with quite as little prospect of being realized now as at any
previous time:--with regard to the second passage, Mr Terrell
errs in attributing the excitement respecting Slavery in Texas to
Your Lordship's remarks in the House of Lords,--spoken, if I
mistake not, in August 1843.—The excitement had its origin in
the town of Houston, in March 1843, and the leading facts in
relation to it were submitted to Your Lordship in my Despatches
of the Slave Trade Series for that year. It was immediately after
England that the Southern States of the Union appeared to take
the Movement of which Mr Andrews was the representative in
alarm on the subject of Slavery in Texas, and that direct and
strenuous endeavours were made by the American Executive to
accomplish the Measure of Annexation as speedily as possible.
William Kennedy.
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
No. 31.
New York.
November 14th 1845
My Lord,
I have the honour to forward to Your Lordship a Galveston
Newspaper
18 of the 18th Ultimo containing the report of a Speech
delivered by Mr Terrell at a public dinner recently given to him
by some leading Citizens of that place.
The respect which is so generally and justly felt for him in
Texas will no doubt have great weight to his opinions on the
subject of Annexation in point of policy and interest. And he
has joined to those views what should be matter for serious re-
flection throughout the Country in this honourable exposure of
the misrepresentation and indirect proceedings by which the peo-
ple were beguiled and precipitated into a shameful measure of
National annihilation.
Indeed it is beginning to be generally understood by the peo-
ple of Texas, though probably too late, that the demand for the
entrance of the troops of the United States, and the foregone
compliance of this Government, were not attributable to any well
founded apprehension of Mexican invasion, but chiefly to sur-
render the Country forthwith into the Military possession of the
Executive of the United States, for the purpose of overawing the
friends of the independence of the Republic, and of silencing any
inconvenient reconsideration of the subject in the Legislature of
the United States. A state of actual war with Mexico would
probably have that last effect; and a pretext for suddenly engag-
ing the force in Texas in proceedings of still further aggression
and invasion upon Mexico, rendering collision inevitable, could
always be found at a short notice, in the event of any political
pressure upon the administration here arising out of the renewed
discussion of the principles and details of the present Scheme of
Annexation, in the Congress of the United States.
The latest accounts from Galveston are of the 1st Instant, and
at that date the general result of the popular vote on Annexa-
tion was not known, but it was sufficiently ascertained that there
would be a large majority in favour of it. I remark, however,
that the vote taken on the occasion at Galveston, did not amount
to much more than half the whole vote of the County. The
Annexation party polled what may be taken to be about their
whole strength, 270, but the opponents of the measure refrained
in a great degree from a viva voce vote which they probably felt
in the present temper of the Country, would only unavailingly
expose them to suspicion and ill-will. Their vote however reached
121. In Harris County in which Houston is situated, similar
feelings seem to have prevailed. Upon the whole judging from
the information I have received, I think there may be some
ground for the opinion that the Anti-Annexation party is rather
recovering strength, and if Congress in the United States should
not fulfill the expectations raised in the Correspondence of Major
Donnelson with the Government of Texas, it is possible that the
reaction there will be stronger and more general than is antici-
pated in this quarter.
There is a respectable party in Texas cordially in favour of
maintaining the Independence of the Republic, and some of the
most influential persons in the Country are probably only wait-
ing for a favourable opportunity, and some turn of the popular
tide, to head the movement. At my last dates, the United States
force in Texas consisted of about 4,000 troops, and there had
been no change in their position.
The continuance of the illicit traffic on that frontier, notwith-
standing the presence of the force, strengthens me in an impres-
sion I have for some time entertained that it would be a wise
and safe policy for Mexico at the present conjuncture, to declare
the Brassos San Jago a free port for the vessels of all friendly
Nations, admitting goods there on an ad valorem duty, not ex-
ceeding 5 per Cent. If that Measure were accomplished by a
rigid enforcement of the prohibitions against the entrance of
goods by the land frontier, I think the land traffic would soon
be beat down by the safety and superior cheapness of the other
channel. No better mode of checking some of the very dan-
gerous purposes of this Government against Mexico has pre-
sented itself to my mind, and I am sure that it consists with
the security of Mexico to fall forthwith upon sound means of
diminishing the Commercial intercourse with the Americans by
the land frontier. The present purpose of this Government is
to make Texas the emporium of a great smuggling trade into
the Northern Provinces of Mexico, but I believe it is more in
the power of Mexico, by judicious courses, to make Matamoros
an emporium for an extensive trade with the United States.
If goods can be purchased much cheaper at Matamoros than
at New Orleans (or Galveston, as part of the United States)
the people in Texas will purchase them there, and they will find
their way by that channel through the whole South West of the
United States. The Mexicans have but to beat the Americans
in a liberal Commercial policy, at their frontier ports, (no hard
task,) and the trafficking spirit of the Neighbouring people will
effectually secure to them the fruits of their victory.
I take this occasion to acknowledge the receipt of Your Lord-
ship's despatches No. 14 and 15.
Charles Elliot
To the Right Honourable
The Earl of Aberdeen K. T.
Secret.
New York.
November 26th. 1845.
My Lord,
Since I last had the honour of addressing Your Lordship I
have received some information from a quarter where mistakes
are not likely, which Her Majesty's Government may desire to
know.
The substance of it is that the Executive of the United States
is fully committed to the expectations raised by Major Donnel-
son's correspondence with the Government of Texas, especially
as to provision for their debt in some satisfactory form, or the
security to Texas of the whole of their legislative territorial pre-
tensions. It seems that Major Donnelson found it necessary to
address a letter to this effect to two leading Members of the late
Convention at Austin (whose names are known to me) to secure
their support. And I think Your Lordship may depend that Mr
Polk has subsequently authorized the Agents of Texas at Wash-
ington to communicate to their Government his unreserved adop-
tion of Major Donnelson's pledges, and his determination to use
all the influence of the Administration to give them full effect.
According to my information it is probable that the President
will confine himself in his opening Message to a recommendation
of the immediate acceptance of the State Constitution, leaving
all the other details, (for fear of embarrassment) to be the sub-
ject of a separate Communication, as soon as the main part is
carried. I am further informed that one idea of the Govern-
ment of the United States was to propose to Mexico that the
Northern and Western limits of the new State should remain as
they are legislatively claimed by the Republic of Texas till the
descending line of the Rio Grande reaches the Presidio del Rio
Grande (a point noted on Arrowsmith's Map,) and thence, that
the lower river and all the Country South and East of the Pre-
sidio, as far as the "Nueces" shall be restored to Mexico, the
harbour, however of Brassos Santiago, to be ceded to the United
States, and the navigation of the river to be common. A fur-
ther scheme appears to be that the whole Country between the
Rio Grande and the Pacific, North of the parallel 36°. 30".
should be purchased of Mexico, and it is the impression of the
party by whom I was informed, that no arrangement would be
satisfactory to this Government, and a large party in the Legis-
lation of the United States that did not involve the acquisition
of San Francisco Bay.
Whether this information is entirely accurate, or to what ex-
tent it is, I cannot undertake to say; but it reaches me from
such a source that I have considered it right to communicate it
to Your Lordship, as well as privately to Her Majesty's Minis-
ters at Washington and Mexico. It is to be hoped that the Gov-
ernment of Mexico, (taking warning by the past, and heedful of
the palpable purposes of this Government, and of the people of
the growing parts of this Country) will, before it is too late,
shape their future policy by a steady regard to the strength and
security of the Country in their actual possession, or which they
can effectually defend. And if the Government of Mexico will
conduct their negotiations with the United States upon these
principles, skilfully and temperately, availing themselves of the
Sectional jealousies in this quarter, and avoiding any agreement
upon the Texas question unless the menaced difficulties in Cali-
fornia can be simultaneously and satisfactorily adjusted, I be-
lieve that they may lay the foundations of a better balance of
political power on this Continent, involving more of security to
themselves and all the kindred races, South of them, than there
appears to be otherwise much reason to hope for.
Charles Elliot.
To The Right Honourable.
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
Foreign Office.
December 3. 1845.
No. 16.
21
Sir,
Your Despatch No. 30 of the 6th of October last, has been
received and laid before the Queen.
Until the final Annexation of Texas to the United States shall
have taken place, Her Majesty's Government consider it indis-
pensable that you should be at your post at the Seat of Govern-
ment in Texas, in order to maintain the Communications be-
tween the two Governments, and to keep Her Majesty's Govern-
ment regularly and authentically informed of all that takes place
in Texas.
I have therefore to desire that you will forthwith repair to
your post, and that you will remain there until you receive orders
from Her Majesty's Government to leave it.
Aberdeen.
Captain Elliot, R. N.
No 34.
Her Majesty's Consulate
Galveston
December 8th. 1845.
My Lord,
In my Despatch No 7., of the 2d of April last, mention was
made of certain Military operations contemplated by Doctor
Branch T. Archer, formerly Secty of War in Texas, and others.
Since that period, Doctor Archer, and the partner of his coun-
sels, General Thos. J. Green,
23 who formed one of the Texian
expedition beyond the Rio Grande, in 1842, has spent the greater
part of their time in Washington, United States, where they ap-
pear to have been favourably noticed by the President, and the
leading Members of his Cabinet.
Mr Terrell's Speech at Galveston, of which I had the honor
to enclose a Copy to Your Lordship, in Despatch No 28, of Oc-
tober 16th, has not been published in any Texan Newspaper
save that in which it originally appeared. Nor, so far as my
information extends, has it been transferred to the columns of
any Journal in the United States. The only notice I have seen
of it, East of the Sabine, is contained in a Whig Newspaper,
the "New York Courier and Enquirer," which taunts the official
Journal at Washington with its silence touching the grave
charges advancel by Mr Terrell against the Government of the
United States.
Since my Despatch of the 16th, no event of importance has
occurred here. In addition to the encampment at Corpus Christi,
small bodies of United States troops have been stationed at Aus-
tin, Goliad and San Antonio, all of which places are on the
Western frontier. The establishment of the force at Corpus
Christi was effected slowly, and at a great expense, and an active
enemy might have found it no difficult matter to cut off the
troops as fast as they landed. The want of good water, with
other local causes, has produced much sickness in the Corpus
Christi encampment. It appears to me that if war were to be
conducted with the same absence of System and prodigality of
outlay that have characterized this frontier occupation, a great
European Power, having the command of the Gulf, could carry
on a campaign in Texas more efficiently and less expensively than
the United States--provided always, that the European Power
would take the trouble to ascertain what really are the strong
and the weak points of American organization. This, experience
shows, the pride of an old Sovereignty will hardly permit it to do.
Some artillery and small arms have been landed at Galveston,
but the Island remains without regular troops, or defences. This
would seem to be a singular oversight, if hostilities have been
anticipated; as Galveston is the Key of the Country, and presents
peculiar advantages for the establishment of a large force,--cov-
ered and supplied by a fleet in the Gulf.
Annexation having opened a new career to Texan politicians,
each party pretending to popular favour and office has been en-
deavouring to prove itself entitled to the credit of having car-
ried the Measure The first movement in this direction is
ascribed to General Houston, who, in a speech made at New Or-
leans, on the 28th of May last, is represented to have said that
he was the friend of Annexation, although he has "coquetted a
little with Great Britain."
General Houston returned from the United States to Texas
in October, and, on the 12th ultimo, attended a Public Dinner
given to him at Galveston. This Dinner I was invited to attend,
but declined the invitation, for reasons of obvious propriety.
Mr Ashbel Smith and the Mayor of Galveston severally called
upon me, from General Houston, conveying from him expressions
of regard, and of the pleasure he would feel in meeting me. My
reply was that I had personally no grounds for ill will to Gen-
eral Houston, but that a sense of what was done [d ] to the
Commission which I held, must deprive me of the pleasure of
Meeting him, so long as the statement contained in the report
of his New Orleans Speech--that he had "coquetted" with Great
Britain,--remained uncontradicted. It being authoritatively de-
nied that General Houston had made the remark, I suggested
that the contradiction, to be of value, should be as public as the
report. A public address subsequently delivered by General
Houston, afforded a suitable opportunity for any explanation he
might deem befitting, but the occasion passed without any refer-
ence to the New Orleans Speech;--and there the Matter rests.
The controversy as to who carried, or was most earnest in the
endeavour to carry, the Measure of Annexation, has induced the
publication of various official and non official documents of which
I beg leave to enclose the more interesting: namely,
24
1st Letter of Instructions from the Secty of State of Texas
to the Texan Charge d' Affaires to the United States, dated Jan-
uary 20th 1842.
2d. A similar letter, from the Secry of State of Texas, to
the Texan Charge d' Affaires to the United States, dated Febru-
ary 10th 1843
3d Secret Message of President Houston to the Texan Con-
gress, dated Jany. 20th 1844.
4th. Letter of President Houston (Confidential) to the Texan
Chargé d' Affaires at Washington, U. S., dated January 29th and
February 15th 1844
5th Letter (Strictly confidential) from President Houston to
General Murphy, U. S. Charge d' Affaires in Texas. dated Feb-
ruary 3d. 1844.
6th Ex. President Houston's letter to Certain Citizens of
Washington (Texas) dated October 20th. 1845.
7th Ex-President Lamar's letter to Citizens of Galveston,
dated November 15th 1845
I also enclose herewith a printed Copy of a Proclamation by
President Jones, announcing the result of the appeal to the peo-
ple in regard to the ratification, or rejection, of the State Con-
stitution, and a printed copy of a Proclamation naming a day for
holding the elections under that Constitution.
There are three candidates for the representation of Texas in
the Senate of the United States--General Lamar, Houston and
Rusk: it is supposed that Houston and Rusk will be elected.
A considerable number of German emigrants have arrived this
season. I propose to transmit a return of the whole number to
the close of the present year.
William Kennedy
The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
No. 26.
FOOTNOTES:
1845, have been omitted. Both acknowledged receipt of despatches.
18, 1845, have been omitted. Both acknowledged receipt of despatches. Ab-
erdeen to Elliot, No. 17, December 3, 1845, notifying Texas that Great
Britain will still hold her to her treaty obligations, is in Garrison, Dip -
lomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1203, in Am. Hist.
Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
he early in life removed to Texas, and was brigadier-general of volunteers
in the War of Texan Independence. In 1842, he led the disastrous Mier ex-
pedition, was captured, and not released until September, 1844. He pub-
lished "The Mier Expedition" (1845). (Appleton, Cyclop. of Am. Biog -
raphy.)
endared by Garrison as in the Telegraph and Texas Register, November 26,
1845. No. 2 is in Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of
Texas, II, 123, in Am. Hist, Assoc. Report, 1908, II. No. 3 is in Secret
Journals of the Senate, 294-296. Nos. 8 and 9 (as well as Nos. 1, 3, 4 and
5), were later transmitted by Elliot also (F. O. Texas, 16, Elliot to Aber-
deen, No. 7, January 20, 1846) and were stated to have appeared in the
"National Register Newspaper of the 29th November last."
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES
The
Founding
of
Spanish
California.
The
Northwestward
Ex
-
pansion
of
New
Spain,
1687-1783.
By Charles Edward
Chapman, Ph. D., Assistant Professor of History in the
University of California. (New
York: The Macmillan
Company, 1916. Pp. xxxii, 485.)
Most of the contributions that have been made in recent years
to the history of the Spanish Southwest have dealt with their re-
spective fields largely from a local point of view. The writers
have been interested in the presentation of new facts of a narra-
tive nature, rather than in the discussion of the broader aspects
of their subject--in many cases with too little recognition of the
fact that the region in question was merely a small division of a
great colonial empire, and not an isolated, self-sufficient political
entity. Such treatment is more or less inevitable in the pioneer
work of developing a new field of historical research. Dr. Chap-
man's book shows clearly that the writing of the history of Cali-
fornia, at least, has passed beyond this early stage. Emphasis is
laid, not on the local events connected with the founding of Span-
ish establishments in California, which have been fairly well
known, but rather upon the general attitude and policies of the
Spanish government which were responsible for and explain such
local occurrences. The chief contribution of the book may be said,
therefore, to lie in the creation of a new and broader perspective
from which facts of local interest may be approached and inter-
preted. Such a study as Dr. Chapman has made is possible only
in the light of the great mass of original source materials to be
found in the archives of Spain, and it is to be noted that the
author has based his work almost entirely upon new documents
discovered by him in the General Archive of the Indies at Seville.
In order to provide a proper background for his subject, Dr.
Chapman first traces the northward expansion of New Spain from
its conquest to the beginning of settlement in the peninsula of
Lower California. In this opening chapter he has given an ex-
cellent summary of the complex movements which resulted in the
far northward extension of the frontier down to the close of the
seventeenth century. He next shows, by the use of many previ-
ously unstudied documents, that the settlement of Upper Cali-
fornia was not the sudden development that it has usually been
considered, inspired almost exclusively by fears of Russian and
English encroachments, but that it was a movement of slow and
gradual growth, which was practically continuous throughout the
first half of the eighteenth century. That these early plans did
not materialize sooner than they did, he shows to have been due
to the many obstacles on the northwestern frontier, and to the lack
of an efficient leader. These obstacles were largely removed by
the work of the visitador-general,
José de Gálvez, who put long-
deferred plans into execution, and made possible the founding of
San Diego and Monterey.
The larger part of the volume is devoted to the movement which
led to the founding of San Francisco. The author discusses the
various problems in this connection with great detail, but from
the broad standpoint of governmental policy. He brings out the
importance of the question of overland communication more thor-
oughly than has ever been done before, and shows the intimate
relation between the whole California project and the general de-
velopment of the northern frontier. The part played by Spanish
fear of foreign aggressions is discussed at great length. Dr. Chap-
man believes that Spain was really less alarmed at the danger
from the English and the Russians than the facts would have war-
ranted, and that her policy of strengthening the establishments of
California was due chiefly to natural and permanent distrust of
foreigners, and not to knowledge of any definite designs against
her territory. A valuable chapter on the administration of the
commandante-general,
Teodoro de Croix, is included. Croix is
given the blame for the failure of the government to carry out
the greater projects that had been planned by the viceroy, Bu-
carely, for the development of California. The concluding chap-
ter gives a brief summary of conditions in California down to the
end of the Spanish régime, but the evident haste with which it
was prepared has doubtless, prevented the author from continuing
the careful work of his earlier chapters. The book contains an
interesting general introduction by Professor H. Morse Stephens,
and a number of new maps are reproduced.
Some readers are apt to feel that Dr. Chapman, in his desire to
furnish a broad perspective and exhaust the new material at his
command, has at times gone too far afield from the topics under
consideration, thereby impairing the unity of the work. This
tendency has been corrected to some extent by the summary which
introduces each chapter, but it would have been exceedingly help-
ful to the reader if a general concluding chapter had been ap-
pended, summing up the various contributions, which are often
obscured by a great mass of details. On the whole, very few
errors have come to the reviewer's notice. A slip or two in the
first chapter might be noted. New Orleans was not founded by
1716 (page 5). The Spanish establishments of eastern Texas can
hardly be said to have been destroyed by the French in 1719
(ibid).
It seems possible that further investigation of the events
of the administration of Teodoro de Croix may result in the light-
ening of the burden of condemnation which Dr. Chapman has
placed upon him. The reviewer personally would prefer to see
the citations to documentary sources given in full in the foot-
notes, instead of being concealed in the catalogue scheme that has
been adopted.
In spite of certain minor defects in style and organization, too
much praise cannot he given to Dr. Chapman's book. It sets a
new standard for historical writing in the field of Spanish col-
onization within the United States, and should do much to cor-
rect the narrow perspective characteristic of previous State his-
tories in this field. W. E. Dunn.
W. E. Dunn.
Collections of the Archive and History Department of the Texas
State Library. Executive Series. Governors' Messages,
Coke to Ross (Inclusive), 1874-1891. Edited by and for
the Archive and History Department of the Texas State
Library, 1916. 8vo, pp. viii, 820.
Ordinarily one expects to find in the Introduction a statement
of the scope and plan of the book, something concerning the
sources from which the materials contained in the book were
drawn, the arrangement of the materials decided upon, and what
special problems, if any, the editor encountered in his work,
knowledge of which may be of importance to those who use the
book. No such information is vouchsafed the reader of this vol-
ume, except that the messages are arranged chronologically.
"It was thought expedient to publish the Governors' messages
first, beginning with the Coke administration and chronologically
follow the administrations of the several Governors down to and in-
cluding the present." In these words the editor defines the scope
and plan of the series of volumes of which this is the first. The re-
viewer regrets that the scope was not broadened so as to include
the Governors' proclamations, and thus have in one series all the
formal official messages issued by the Governor to the Legislature
and to the people.
There were four called sessions of the Legislature during the
period covered by this volume. The proclamations convening two
have been printed in full, those convening the other two have been
passed over without mention, although they appear in the jour-
nals quite as prominently as do those which are included.
The editors statement quoted above warrants one in assuming
that it was his intention to include every message from the Gov-
ernor to the Legislature during the period covered by this book.
A hasty and incomplete examination of the principal sources only
—the journals of the Senate and House of Representatives—-
shows that two hundred and seventy messages from that source
alone were omitted and not mentioned. The volume contains
about two hundred and fifty messages, printed in full or in sum-
mary. The omission of this large number of messages, without
one word of explanation from the editor, is difficult to account
for. There is no evidence that the editor searched outside the
printed journals for messages that may not have been included
in the journals, such as veto messages filed after adjournment.
Some of the omitted messages are of the same general character
is those included. The annual message to the Fifteenth Legisla-
ture, over forty pages in length, has been omitted (H. J., 10-54;
S. J., 16-60). The biennial message to the Seventeenth Legis-
ature (H. J., 8-11; S. J., 5-10), and a message on quarantine,
a message on the sale and exchange of bonds, and a message on
the judicial department, all long messages, have been omitted. A
mmber of veto messages have been omitted, and a great many
messages making nominations and requesting the advice and con-
sent of the Senate have been passed over without a reference.
It has not been possible to examine the messages for the pur-
pose of ascertaining whether they are true and exact copies of
the originals. The following errors were discovered by a cursory
reading: On page 288 the word "Tamaulipas" is misprinted
"Camaulipas" and entered in the index under "C." The mes-
sage on indebtedness of railroads to the school fund (page 340)
is incomplete, about nine-tenths of it being omitted. The mes-
sage in the middle of page 386 and the proclamation on page 488
are incorrectly dated. The sum vetoed in the message on page
523 is $3,970 instead of $970.
Turning to the editorial contributions to the book, one notes
the absence of a table of contents. This is a serious defect in
itself, and it makes the accrediting of messages to their proper
legislative sessions practically impossible without some additional
source. Reference to the journals without indicating the Legis-
lature intended is even more troublesome.
The explanatory footnotes are too few, in many cases too brief,
and lack uniformity. When the Governor in his message refers
to other documents for additional information, it is the editor's
privilege and duty to indicate where such documents can be found,
whether printed in the journals or not. In this manner the editor
can enrich the work with the fruit of his own scholarship and
smooth the path and economize time for all who come after him.
The unsurpassed facilities offered by the files of the State Library,
the Executive Office, and the other State departments have, how-
ever, in too many instances been ignored in the present work.
Errors in the footnotes occur on page 54 (205 should be 206),
pages 55 and 57 (the reference is to page 54 not 80), page 88
(198 should be 47), page 283 (912-913 should be 1005-6, and
1207-1208 should be 1321-22), page 387 (6 should be 3), page 488
(1 should be 3 in both cases), page 599 (929 should be 959),
page 655 (208 should be 205-6). Beginning on page 140, the
editor has supplied the messages with titles; preceding messages
are without title. Titles are wanting on the following pages:
147, 196, 282, and 361. When one comes to the biennial and
general messages, obviously no more definite title is possible, but
the editor, nevertheless, has discarded them, and introduced in
their place the term "initial message." As a consequence, there
are two "initial" messages to the Eighteenth and to the Twentieth
Legislature, and in the case of the called session of 1879 there is
an "initial message," followed by three "supplemental" messages.
In the opinion of the reviewer, the index is constructed with-
out judgment, is poorly arranged, and is very incomplete. What
reason is there for indexing under "Debt, public," and "Public
debt"—"Expenditure, public," "Public expenditures," and "State's
expenditures"—Health officer, State," "Public health," and "State
Health Officer," data that should be grouped under one head in
each case. In some instances the information indexed has been
misinterpreted; for example, Alta Vista is said to have been the
former name of Prairie View Normal, and Thomas S. Gathrigbt
is called the president of this school.
The publication of its archives is a public duty which Texas
has too long neglected. Such work, when done, should conform
to the highest standards. E. W. Winkler.
E. W. WINKLER.
San Antonio de Béxar: Historical, Traditional, Legendary. By
Mrs. S. J. Wright. (Austin, Texas, 1916.)
This volume is the work of Mrs. S. J. Wright, Past-President
of the Texas Federation of Women's Clubs, and at present Chair-
man of the History Committee of the same organization. It is
intended to present in brief and popular form the chief facts in
the history of San Antonio. As the title indicates, the author
does not limit her narration to strict historical facts, but includes
may romantic episodes which have been handed down through tra-
dition, but hitherto inaccessible to the busy men or women, who
have no time to search them out for themselves. The first ten
chapters contain a running summary of the history of early Texas
and San Antonio from the first occupation by Spain down to their
absorption in the Union. For the Spanish period, Mrs. Wright
has followed closely the work of Clark and Bolton. By so doing
she has kept her narrative comparatively free from the blunders
which have hitherto disfigured most popular historical sketches on
early Texas history. Still later research than was accessible to
Mrs. Wright, however, has changed some of the facts which she
has gleaned from the two specialists cited above. On the whole,
however, her summary is well written, and gives the essential
facts correctly. An interesting portion of the book consists of
various legends collected in regard to San Antonio, and a descrip-
tion of the missions as they exist today. The general reader in-
terested in early San Antonio history will find much of value in
Mrs. Wright's book. W. E. D.
A
Brief
History
of
the
Lower
Rio
Grande
Valley,
by Frank Cush-
man Pierce (Menasha, Wisconsin. 1917. Pp. 200, illustrated,
maps). Mr. Pierce's long residence at Brownsville, since 1859,
and his legal practice on both sides of the Rio Grande have fur-
nished the information for this little book. Events on both sides
of the line fittingly find a place in his survey. The most inter-
esting, as well as the most useful portion of the book is that
which sketches the development of the troubles in Mexico which
led to the recent movement of United States troops to the border.
His estimate of the Diaz regime is not novel, but it is very
sound: "Experience had taught that there was but one way to
rule a people of whom 80 per cent were ignorant, uneducated,
barbarians, and that was with the iron hand. Under him the
country soon took place among the nations of the world. . . .
In fact, during the thirty-one years in which Don Porfirio ad-
ministered the affairs of the Republic, every change which took
place was destined to the uplifting of his people."
Chapter XI reviews the service of the Texas Rangers in the
Brownsville region; and Chapter XIII constitutes a brief guide
to the towns within a radius of a hundred miles of Brownsville.
Hyphenated,
by August Anderson (published by the author
[Austin, 1916], is the fanciful title of what appears to be a faith-
ful biographical sketch of S. M. Swenson during his career in
Texas. While the author has chosen to tell his story in the
guise of historical fiction, that is for the purpose of "putting it
over." He thoroughly appreciates his obligations as a biographer,
and his facts are reliable. The book is a welcome contribution
to the history of the Scandinavian element in Texas. Swenson
landed in Texas in 1838, and before the outbreak of the Civil
War he had accumulated a fortune. When the War came he was
a Unionist and after a time was compelled to take refuge in
Mexico. In 1865 he moved to New Orleans and shortly there-
after established his bank in New York.
A
Foundation
Builder:
Sketches in the life of Rev. James B.
Simmons, D. D. Compiled by Robert Stuart McArthur,
D. D. Published under the direction of the trustees of
Simmons College, Abilene, Texas. 1911. 12mo, pp. 141.
James B. Simmons was born and reared in New York. He
entered the Baptist ministry and served congregations with much
success in Providence, R. I. 1854-57; Indianapolis, Ind., 1857-61,
and Philadelphia, 1861-67. Beginning with April, 1867, and ten
years thereafter, he was corresponding secretary of the American
Baptist Home Mission Society; during this period he secured lo-
cations for seven negro schools at Washington, Richmond, Raleigh,
Columbia, Augusta, Nashville, and New Orleans. In 1891 his
interest was enlisted in the establishment of what is now Sim-
mons College at Abilene. His interest in and attachment for
this school increased as the years passed, and when he died in
1905 his remains were laid to rest on the campus. The book will
serve as a pleasing introduction to this apostle of Christian edu-
cation.
The
Architectural
Record
(July, 1916) published seven illus-
trations and the ground plan of Santa Gertrudis Ranch House,
with a brief description. The
American
Architect,
January 24,
1917, contains an article by Samuel E. Gideon on "Early Archi-
tecture in Texas." Austin residences of the colonial type, most
of them antedating the Civil War, are described in word and
picture.
The
Texas
History
Teachers'
Bulletin,
V, No. 2 (February 15,
1917), prints two letters from the Austin Papers. Thomas White
writes from Franklin, Louisiana, January 31, 1829, to inquire
about the character of Austin's colonists. Evidently he has heard
some pretty alarming stories about these early Texans. In his
reply, dated San Felipe, March 31, 1829, Stephen F. Austin gives
his colonists a favorable character, and details some of the diffi-
culties he has encountered in keeping the settlement free of
criminals.
The
Scientific
Monthly
(January, 1917) contains an article by
Edward L. Troxell on "Fossil Hunting in Texas." He describes
the Gidley Quarry on Rock Creek, Parker county, and some of the
prehistorical animal skeletons that he and others have uncovered
there in recent years.
"A
Play for San Jacinto Night" is the title of a little masque
for Texas school children, written by Marjorie Wilson Crooks and
published as Bulletin
of
the
University
of
Texas,
1916, No. 72.
Anti-Trust
Legislation
in
Texas,
noted in The Quarterly,
XX, 202, has since been published in pamphlet form.
NOTES AND FRAGMENTS
E. G. Maetze.--In a letter to the Editor, Mr. Charles Nagel
pays the following tribute to E. G. Maetze:
"I
read with particular interest the account of E. G. Maetze,*
whose country school referred to in the article, I attended. Only
later in life did I learn to appreciate that probably Maetze was
the ablest teacher I had ever had, and I say this, fully appreci-
ating that rare fortune at one time or another had brought me
into the presence of very competent men. As I recall it, Maetze
must have been a born teacher. Books he had but few. How-
ever, he managed to present the accumulation of his own work
to his pupils in such fashion that his pictures never faded. To-
day the impressions of Greek history that I treasured, go right
back to the little school room at Millheim, where I can almost see
my teacher telling the story of Marathon.
"I was first made conscious of the power of this man in 1893,
while visiting the Chicago Exposition. Among the statues exhib-
ied there was one entitled 'The Messenger from Marathon.' It
was a very spirited statue, a replica of which I now possess, and
the original of which I saw in Berlin in 1914. As I stood be-
fore it I involuntarily said to myself, that is precisely the way in
which my teacher described it,' and this led to the reflection,
and finally to the conclusion that among all the teachers to whom
it had been my privilege to listen, not one possessed his power to
impress and to give out what he himself had attained."
NEWS ITEMS
Mrs. Edward Rotan, of Waco, has presented to the Library
of the University of Texas an interesting memento of the close
of the Civil War. It is a poem, written on the back of a ten-
dollar Confederate bill, entitled "Tender but not a legal one."
The poem follows:
Representing nothing on God's earth now,
And naught in the waters below it,
As the pledge of a Nation that's dead and gone,
Keep it dear friends and show it
Show it to those who will lend an ear
To the tale that this trifle can tell,
Of a liberty born of the patriot's dream
Too poor to possess the precious ores,
And too much of a stranger to borrow.
We issued today our promise to pay
And hope to redeem on the morrow
The days rolled by and the weeks became years
But our coffers were empty still;
Coin was so scarce, that the treasury would quake
If a dollar should drop in the till.
But the faith that was in us was strong indeed
And our poverty well we discerned,
And this little check represents the pay
That our suffering Veterans earned.
We knew it had hardly a value in gold,
Yet as gold each soldier received it.
It gazed in our eyes with a promise to pay
And each Southern Patriot believed it.
But our boys thought little of peace or of pay
Or of bills that were overdue.
We knew if it brought us our bread today
'Twas the best our poor country could do.
Keep it; it tells all our history over,
From the birth of the dream to its last.
Modest and born of the Angel of Hope
Like our hope of success, it has passed.
Through a State commission California is now engaged in mak-
ing a survey of the materials dealing with its local history. The
members of the commission are: Hon. John F. Davis, Chair-
man; Dr. Herbert E. Bolton, and Mr. James M. Guinn, while Mr.
Owen C. Coy is its Secretary and Archivist. Already the Com-
mission has examined the archives of the fifty-eight counties of
the State and expects before the end of the year to publish a re-
port of its findings. In addition to the work in the county
archives the Commission intends also to make a survey of the
State archives and of the United States land and other Federal
offices within the State. A directory showing the location of the
files of all papers published in California is also being compiled
and will probably be published as a separate volume. Together
with this work, an effort is being made to locate and report
upon all historical documents in the various public libraries and
museums, or in the hands of private parties. Other lines of ac-
tivity planned by the Commission include a report upon the
archives of the California missions and the archives of the later
religious, fraternal, and leading business organizations.
Professor Charles E. Chapman, of the University of California,
recently returned to take up his work at that institution, after
an absence of nine months, from May, 1916, to January, 1917.
From June to November, Dr. Chapman was engaged in a profes-
sional tour of South America, mainly with a view to procuring
material for his work in Latin American history. While in Buenos
Ayres in July, he represented the University of California at the
American Congress of Bibliography and History, one of several
congresses held to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary
of the Argentine declaration of independence. An article by him
about the proceedings of the congress was published in the Octo-
ber number of the American
Historical
Review.
Professor Chap-
man also investigated the archive materials and the facilities for
students at the various South American capitals.
The most conspicuous recognition of scholarship at the Uni-
versity of California is the selection, each year, by the Academic
Senate, of some member of that body to deliver the faculty re-
search lecture. This year, the honor was conferred upon Dr.
Herbert E. Bolton, Professor of American History. The appoint-
ment is in recognition of Dr. Bolton's pioneer work in the Mexi-
can archives for the Department of Historical Research of the
Carnegie Institution, his own published writings in American
history, and his leadership of one of the most productive histori-
cal seminars in the country. The subject of Dr. Bolton's lecture,
which was given on the night of March 22, was "The Mission as
a Frontier Institution in the Spanish-American Colonies."
Professor Carlton Hayes, of Columbia University, has taken
charge of two of Professor Stephens' courses at the University of
California this semester.
George Leslie Albright, M. A., University of California, '16,
and holder of the Native Sons Traveling Fellowship in Pacific
Coast History, died at Seville, Spain, in December, 1916. His
death was due to typhoid fever. Mr. Albright was engaged in
preparation of a thesis bearing upon Escandón's settlement of
Nuevo Santander in the eighteenth century. His master's thesis,
"Official Explorations for Pacific Bailroads," is soon to be pub-
lished by the University of California.
Mr. Charles W. Hackett, of the University of California, has
recently been appointed Associate Editor of Old
Santa
Fé,
a com-
paratively new quarterly devoted to history, archaeology, geneal-
ogy, and biography. This magazine is published at Santa Fé,
New Mexico, with Ralph Emerson Twitchell as editor. Frederick
Webb Hodge and Sylvanus G. Morley are contributing editors.
Judge J. A. Martin, assistant reporter for the Supreme Court
of Texas, died January 26, 1917.
Mrs. Martha E. Whitten, author of a volume of poems entitled
Texas
Garlands,
died at her home in Austin, February 8, 1917.
Mrs. James H. Raymond died at her home in Austin, March 6,
1917, aged nearly ninety-three years. Her husband was chief
clerk of the Sixth to Ninth Congresses of the Republic of Texas,
and Treasurer of the State from 1846 to 1858.
FOOTNOTES:
AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION
On March 2 the Texas State Historical Association met in
room 158 of the main building of the University of Texas. The
President, Mrs. A. B. Looscan, of Houston, presided. Plans
were adopted for the publication of an index to the Quarterly
of the Association, which is now closing its twentieth volume,
and Miss Elizabeth H. West received the grateful thanks of the
Association for preparing the index to the first fifteen volumes.
A committee was appointed to apply for space in the old Land
Office Building for storing the collections of the Association and
for establishing a historical museum. Pledges aggregating $2,150
to the endowment were reported, and several gifts were received.
Mrs. Looscan presented several interesting manuscripts. R. D.
Tillinghast, of McDonald, Pa., presented a photograph of his
grandfather, Don Carlos Barrett, who played an important part
in the legislative history of the Texas Revolution, and Mrs.
Ellen Reily Smith, of Houston, gave the Association a set of
malachite jewelry, which was presented to her father, Colonel
James Reily, while he was United States Minister to Russia.
Colonel Reily was at one time minister of the Republic of Texas
to the United States.
The Association adopted the following resolution thanking
Major Littlefield for his gift to the University of Texas:
"Since the last meeting of this Association, Major George W.
Littlefield, one of its members, has contributed to the University
of Texas more than $10,000 to supplement his previous gift of
$25,000 for the purchase of material on the history of the South.
His purpose, as he announced it with his original gift, is to
promote full and impartial study of the South and of its part in
American history.
"Resolved, therefore, That the Texas State Historical Associa-
tion express to Major Littlefield its sincere appreciation of his
enlightened generosity, and its conviction that his plan of col-
lecting and making accessible to students the scattered sources
for the history of the South is the only effective way to assure
the South its true place in United States history."
Forty new members were elected to the Association. From
Dallas, R. B. Allen, Alex Camp, L. M. Dabney, J. J. Fogan, J.
L. Goggans, H. T. Henry, S. P. English, T. A. Knight, J. E.
Lee, L. M. Mays, H. J. Porterfield, H. E. Prather, W. C. Proc-
tor, J. C. Saner, C. L. Simpson, Rembert Watson, A. F. Weis-
berg, G. S. Wright, Towne Young. From Houston, H. J. Bering,
F. C. Proctor, Mrs. C. B. Chapman, J. C. Hutcheson, Jr., Mrs.
F. A. Anderson, Kenneth Krahl, J. L. Croker, George Jones,
0. M. Duclos, E. G. Blake, M. F. Hammond, A. R. Miller, L.
C. Phelps. And A. P. Barrett, San Antonio; W. H. Bewie, Clif-
ton; Roland Gouger, Cotulia; Marion Levy, Galveston; Miss
Mabel Hare, Fort Worth; Mrs. Arthur Geissler, Oklahoma City;
Mrs. A. L. Beatty, New York.
Ingham S. Roberts, of Houston, and Professor Ephraim D.
Adams, of Stanford University, California, were elected Fellows
of the Association.
The officers elected for the ensuing year were: Mrs. A. B.
Looscan, of Houston, President; R. C. Crane, of Sweetwater,
Miss Katie Daffan, of Austin, Dr. Alex Dienst, of Temple, Mrs.
Cornelia Branch Stone, of Galveston, Vice Presidents; Professor
Charles W. Ramsdell, Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer;
and Judge John C. Townes, of Austin, and Professor J. W.
Barton of the Southern Methodist University, members of the
Executive Council. The Treasurer made the following report:
The above is a correct statement of receipts and disbursements,
as evinced by the books kept by the Treasurer of the Association.
The balance agrees with the balance at the Austin National Bank
on February 28, 1917.
(Signed) J. Anton de Haas,
Adjunct Professor, School of Business Training.
How to cite:
Volume 20, Number 4, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v020/n4/issue.html
[Accessed Sat Mar 20 16:39:07 CDT 2010]
