of both sides. Orders have been issued leading to this, and the capture of a ringleader some of his followers three months ago are the result. Others of the same band have been brought to justice, while a part of the stolen cattle has been turned over to the military authorities of that line, or the value thereof paid to the owners whenever they have presented themselves to claim the clock, which had been sold to avoid the expended of keeping the same.

The Mexican authorities have put into play every means to destroy the organized band of Zapata, and have fulfilled their duty to the State of Texas as part of a friendly nation. The two cases to which you refer in your note were beyond their control, and therefore the neutrality of the Republic in the struggle between the Confederate and Northern States has not been violated; for if parties of men crossed the river and committed depredations they were pursued in the Mexican Territory by Mexican troops, and in their dispersion some of them were captured. The mere fact that they should a refuge on this side is not a violation of the principle of neutrality, inasmuch as they had withdrawn from the obedience of all law; they acted on their own account, and were subject, like all criminals, to answer before the courts for their acts. When raising the flag of the United States and crossing to the left bank of the Bravo they committed an offense which affected the Republic of Mexico, and in proceeding against them the latter observed the position of neutrality, which has been its policy. There are many acts similar to this to be found in the history of the United States. Expeditions fitted out against friendly nations have been prosecuted by the authorities, and when, notwithstanding their efforts, they were carried out the responsibility of the nation was saved; and, moreover, if the expedition failed the participators were brought to trial after seeking an asylum and protection in the American territory. These are the requirements of the law of nations, and only when they are not respected can nations be made responsible for their toleration of the wrong committed.

The Mexican authorities therefore have not violated the principle of neutrality; they have not contravened the law of nations, but have satisfied the demands which have been made under that law, and they have in all their actions demonstrated their fealty and good faith, as required by the interests of the Republic and of the Mexican citizens residing on the frontier.

The indemnification for stolen property, when the authorities of Mexico have fulfilled the duties imposed on them by the law of nations, would be a precedent established to the disadvantage of the Republic; for you are informed that in other State, as well as New Leon, has been the victim of similar forays to those suffered by Texas, and that the same men who to-day, under the name of Mexicans, attack your frontier have previously, calling themselves Texans, committed their robberies in Mexico, betaking themselves, with the proceeds of their pillage to the left bank of the Bravo. Likewise in the political contest of Tamaulipas, and especially the last one, the citizens of Texas, either of Mexican or American origin, have crossed the river and attacked all the Mexican towns, greatly to the injury of the Government and of private individuals, after which they sought impunity by fleeing to Texas, where they even now remain. The obligations to be deduced from the law of nations are founded on reciprocity, and therefore wheaten may be the duty of the Mexican Government it is justified in identical cases to require the same conduct from the author

62 R R-VOL XV