Samuel Roberts to Barnard Bee, September 7, 1841

Summary: Roberts wrote to Bee about the urgency of getting a trade treaty ratified with the United States. Roberts was especially concerned about free trade along the rivers bordering the U.S. and Texas(specifically the Red River and the Mississippi) and the rights of Texas to use their own ships on those rivers. He gave Bee a set of justifications for these demands and asked him to speak with Daniel Webster about them as soon as possible. As a minor note, he also told Bee to discuss the issue of moving slaves in between the U.S. and Texas if possible. Concluded by saying the President of Texas anxiously awaited the forwarding of the trade treaty for confirmation by the Texas Congress.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Austin 7th Septr 1841.

SIR:

Your communication of the 31st July was received by the last Mail, and with it, a copy of your note to Mr Webster on the subject of the contemplated treaty with the United States. A short time previous to this, yours of the 13th July to this Department also came safely to hand. In this last you mention that you are entitled to a reply from Mr Webster to your note of the 19th May relative to Indian encroachments. This subject is becoming a very interesting one to the people of this country, and it is earnestly hoped, that you will receive a speedy and satisfactory reply from the Government of the United States. Doctor Robertson whose negroes, you will recollect, were taken by the Indians, and were subsequently found to be held by persons residing within the territory of the United States (the evidence of which was furnished to you from this Department on the 20th April) has already gone to great expense in the pursuit of his property; and has been damaged, by the loss of time etc. to an amount, that even a prompt restitution of his property could not repay. But if it is delayed much longer, the chances of finding the negroes again will be very much diminished, and their value greatly lessened by the idle and dissolute habits which negroes so readily contract from a long residence with savages. It is particularly desirable therefore, that this subject should not be permitted to slumber, but that you should press as earnestly as would be becoming, for an answer.

Mr Webster's reply to your communication of the 13th April remonstrating against the violation of our territory by a deputy Marshall (Ferguson) of the state of Arkansas, a copy of which was enclosed in your despatch of the 13th July, if not altogether satisfactory, is at least all that we could reasonably demand under the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is of the less importance in a National point of view, as the like cannot well happen again. The boundary line is completed, and the officers of neither Government can hereafter plead ignorance upon this point.

From your communication of the 31st July, I learn with regret that Mr Webster will probably adhere to his first resolution as to the place of negotiating the Contemplated Treaty. The press of business in his Department and the heavy demands upon his time

will not permit him to give the subject that constant attention which we so much desire; and I much fear the negotiations will be protracted beyond the constitutional term of the present administration. Nothing remains however, but to use all diligence in urging it forward in Washington with all possible despatch.

Your note of the 27th July to Mr Webster, has been carefully read by the President and receives his approval. You were not mistaken in supposing that this Government would claim the right of entrepot; or of transhipping their produce from some point on the Mississippi, free of all charges except the ordinary ones of Storage, wharfage etc. when the produce is to be sent to a foreign country for sale or traffic. What point the Government of the United States may think proper to assign to us for this purpose is not very material (though an eye should certainly be had to its convenience) The principle is what we are most concerned about. In my communication to you of the 21st June, I did not it is true, mention this as one of the principal heads of the contemplated Treaty. I regarded it, as you have rightly conjectured, as included in our claim of the right of free navigation of the Red River to its entrance into the sea, and it is so essential to a full exercise of that right, that it is difficult to conceive how it could be supposed to exist without. It would in fact be manifestly absurd, to concede to us the right of free navigation, and in the very same instrument assert the right of taxing us upon the transhipment of our produce into vessels calculated for the sea; which, from the unfitness of the river craft for the navigation of the ocean, would always have to be done. It involves an absurdity of terms, for how can that navigation be said to be free, when we are compelled at some point to pay the duties exacted by the impost laws for all goods introduced into the country? There can be no need of a Treaty to secure the right to us (I mean the right of importing into the United States all of our produce upon paying the duties thereupon) for we already enjoy it, in common with all Nations who are on friendly terms with the United States. Nor do I conceive that it ought to make any difference whether we employ as our carriers, Texas or American bottoms or bottoms of a third power. You recognize none I perceive in your communication to Mr Webster, though in your letter to this Department, you make a distinction between American bottoms and our own

If the United States have it in contemplation as you seem to intimate, to deny to this country the right of entrepot, they, would be much more likely to do so, if it was believed by them that we were to be our own carriers, while the prospect of opening a new channel to the enterprise and industry of American Ship owners could not

fail to operate as an inducement with that Government to grant our demands. I do not apprehend therefore that you will find any difficulty in negotiating for the right to tranship in American bottoms, if they concede to us the right to tranship in our own. As concerns bottoms of third parties, it is more a subject of Treaty between the United States and such parties than between us. You will however be authorized and expected to see that nothing enters into the Treaty on this subject, which would be injurious to the interests of our citizens.

Until the receipt of your last communication I did not apprehend much difficulty in settling with the United States the free navigation of the border Rivers to the Sea. That is the last nation that ought to question that right, for no other has taken such strong ground in favor of the principle, or been more consistent in maintaining it. In addition to the references I have already cited you to in proof of this, you have but to turn to her diplomatic correspondence to find volumes to the same effect; Besides This I do not think you will find it difficult to establish that it is now the settled law of nations as recognized by most, if not all the leading powers of Europe, That navigable Rivers are public highways, when they rise in one country and empty into the sea, in another, so far at least, as the country in which they rise is concerned. I well recollect reading in a Newspaper a case of this kind, which was settled some two or three years ago, in some of the European Governments, (I have forgotten which) nor have I as you know such books as would assist my memory; but this I well recollect, that the principle was said to be extended beyond the rule laid down at the Congress of Vienna. Should it be necessary you will probably be able to find the authority last alluded to in the libraries of some of the Legations in Washington.

This question is one of vast importance to us, and I have therefore devoted a large share of my letter to it. It remains now, only to instruct you concerning the conclusions to which the President has come after a mature consideration of the subject in all its bearings.

He directs then, that unless the United States concede to us the right of freely navigating the border Rivers, and of transhiping whatever we may have for export, free of all tariff and impost duties, and the right of landing and storing our produce when vessels are not in readiness to take it off, by paying the customary charges for wharfage, storage etc. that you be instructed to enter into no Treaty at all upon this subject. It is one upon which this Government can make no compromise without inflicting a lasting injury upon that portion of our inhabitants residing on or near the border Rivers; and at the same time jeopardizing a great national right, the enforcement of which, as soon as its importance is felt, and the principles upon which it rests are understood, will be demanded by every

voice of the Nation. We had best therefore, meet the question at once. No Government ever can, without the loss of National honor, stand by and see her citizens stripped of a "right", which, to quote the language of the Congress of the United States on a case precisely similar, is "clear and essential" and one that would be weak enough to allow it, could never be sustained by a free people. We have as little doubt of our right, as the United States had of theirs when contending with Spain, for the free navigation of the Mississippi.

In all your intercourse therefore with Mr Webster, whenever the navigation of the border Rivers is the subject, you will always represent the free navigation and the right of entrepot as a Sine qua non. If both of these points are not conceded, you will not be authorized to consent to any arrangement concerning the navigation of the Red River particularly (for the Sabine stands on a different footing) by which by the remotest implication, there is any abandonment of the principle we have set out with.

If it is found to be impossible to incorporate our demands on this head in the Treaty; then that entire branch of the subject must be left open, and your attention will be turned to the points mentioned in my former communications, and your note to Mr Webster of the 27th July.

If we are balked in so essential a feature of the Treaty as the free navigation of the border Rivers, it will be difficult to make any Treaty which will be satisfactory to this nation. Under these circumstances therefore, too long a period for its duration ought not to be fixed upon. The navigation question must come up again and that before very long; when it will be desirable to have the subject open for discussion. Perhaps the United States, would consent in the treaty (in case you do not come to some understanding now) to leave this particular subject open for discussion at an early period. I only suggest this, leaving it to your discretion whether you will avail yourself of it, or not.

Your omission to say anything to Mr Webster on the subject of introducing slaves from one Country to the Other, when travelling with their owners, as servants, is perhaps, upon the whole well. There cannot however be any objection to ascertaining the views of the Government of the United States upon this subject, which may be best done in personal interviews. If that Government seems much averse to such a stipulation, you ought not to hesitate to abandon it; but if it is a matter of indifference, with them, the opportunity ought not to be lost of securing a privilege, the want of which is so serious an inconvenience to the citizens of both countries.

I have not complied with your request to "draw out in full form such a convention as our Government is desirous of intering into," for the reason that it would be almost a miracle if such an one would

not be so changed and altered in various ways before it could be made entirely acceptable to the United States, that it could hardly be recognized as the one furnished by the Government; besides this it rarely happens that your first demands are all acceded to. You must then fall to a second and frequently to a third. If the Government should furnish a project of a convention, it would of course, embody its first demands on every point, and if not accepted in that Shape, which it would not often be, it would be of little use beyond supplying a form, for which of course you do not feel at any loss.

I enclose as you request a copy of the Treaty with France. This, with those you already have, will be excellent guides in many particulars.

A separate commission to make the Treaty is also enclosed. I knew the necessity of this; and soon after coming into office, made some enquiry about it, and was left under the impression that full powers for this purpose had been conferred upon you.

I think now you are well informed on all the points of a material character that we desire to arrange with the United States. There are of course minor ones, such as enter into all treaties, that have not, been dwelt upon. They are referred to your judgment and discretion.

I cannot close this communication without mentioning the anxiety of the President to accomplish this negotiation with the United States so as to lay it before the Congress at its meeting in November, or at least, before his term of office expires.

I have the honor to be

Your Obt Servt

SAML. A ROBERTS

Secretary of State

Hon BARNARD E BEE

Charge d'Affaires

etc. etc. etc.

Source Copy Consulted: Samuel Roberts to Barnard Bee, September 7, 1841, George Garrison, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1908, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911), 3 vols., 2: 96-100