Page:The rise and fall of the Emperor Maximilian.djvu/127

Rh . . . M. Drouyn de Lhuys assures us that the French government is disposed to hasten, as soon as possible, the recall of its troops from Mexico. We welcome this notification as a promise that our government shall be henceforth spared the apprehensions and anxieties which I dwelt upon in the communication which M. Drouyn de Lhuys has had under his consideration.

. . . It is my duty, however, to maintain that, whatever may have been the intentions, the aim, and the motives of France, the means adopted by a certain class of Mexicans for overturning the republican government of their country, and for availing themselves of the French intervention to establish an imperial monarchy on the ruins of the above government, have been, in the eyes of the United States, without any authorisation on the part of the Mexican people, and have been carried out contrary to its will and its opinion.

. . . The United States have not seen any satisfactory proof that the people of Mexico have had a voice in the matter, or that they have established or accepted the self-styled empire which is asserted to have been established in their capital. As I have remarked on former occasions, the United States are of opinion that no popular assent can be either freely obtained or legitimately accepted at any time, in the presence of the French army of invasion. The withdrawal of the French forces appears to them a necessary measure to allow Mexico to resort to a manifestation of this nature. Doubtless the Emperor of the French is authorised to define the point of view under which it is his duty to pledge this country to a certain state of things. That under which I present it is, however, that which the Union has adopted. The Union, therefore, only recognises, and can only continue to recognise, the former republic in Mexico, and cannot, under any circumstances, consent to enter into any arrangement which would directly or indirectly imply relations with the prince installed at Mexico, or a recognition of him.

. . . We are thus brought to the isolated question which formed the subject of my communication of December 6, namely, the expediency of the settlement of a question the prolongation of which must constantly impair the harmony and friendship which have always prevailed between the United