Hale, John P. Speech. Washington, 1853. lexico 853h '/give iM/a Bootes t'sfir- the founding "if a. College in. thUfCeh/itf1 B - Y^LH«>¥]MH¥JEIESflir¥- • iLmaiiyajsy • RELATIONS WITH MEXICO. SPEECH OF IW HON. JOHN P. HALE, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 15, 1853. WASHINGTON, D. C. BUELL & BLANCHABD, PRINTERS. 1853. SPEECH OF JOHN P. HALE. \3?le-£oM(wiD£ "solution*, submitted by the SSo°n: FMeign RelatL°nS' Weri under "anS^SL eAr^t0Iy »f Mexico. »t the Isthmus of Te- nd no£ 4? Ceded.by that R«P«blio to on* of its citizens. he same ,', LPr°P?rK0f citizeDS of the Unit«l S^tes, as ^mo^nrf^ ,r'-dbylhc<'orresPonden'''' and foments 3tatSPof of.B-^,wef,'"85,«0or the ^'Mentof *o United S„fJ SthJuly. 1852, it is not compatible with the >y negotiaKon emment ^ Prosocute thc BubJ0<;t furth<* f'=?,'-|hOUMttli? GoYcr,am™t of Mexico propose a renewal emln^PrS°nK *%? ^IeX'"00' oot ™«>™»f the Garay grant and tbe Government of Mexico are,.such as no true friend of this country or of Mexico fran look upon with indifference." What does that language mean ? War. It can mean nothing else. Then the President of the United States, in a formal letter to Presi dent Arista, denounces war by this Republic upon the Republic of Mexico, unless.the latter confirms the Garay grant; and it is assumed that citizens of the United States, relying npon the plighted faith of Mexico, have invested their means in the enterprise secured by the Garay grant, and that by the bad faith of Mexico they are debarred from enjoying the privileges of that grant. The same thing is said by Mr. Webster, in his letter to Mr, Letcher dated August 24, 1850. Here is his language : "The present holders are tho assignees of those Sritish subjects. Hence the validity of their title is conceived to have derived a peculiar sanction, which the honor of this Government demands should bo maintained unimpaired." * * * * * "If Mex ico should reject our overtures for this purpose, wo will extend our protection to them alone, according to our own sense of right and duty, and as future events may require" Mr. Webster there threatens, that if the Government of Mexico does not confirm this grant, the Government of the United States will go upon her territory and enforce its own ideas of the protection which is due to its citi zens, without the consent of Mexico, and against its will. But Mr. Webster, in that letter, was not content altogether to act the part of the warrior. Ho manifested, at the close of it, what I think would be called, in the Southern country, a little of the Yankee, for he says to Mr. Letcher: " Perhaps if, on a suitablo occasion; you wero to hint, in connection with this subject, that the money duo to Mexico for tho extension of the limits of our territory, pursuant to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidal go, has not yet been paid in full, and that contingen cies might happen whichwould warrant this Govern ment iri withholding it, an impression might bo pro duced favorable to the result of your negotiation." That is threatening them with war in the first place, and if that threat is not enough, he tells them we will not pay what we have bound ourselves by solemn treaty to pay. Again, on the 30th of April, 1851, Mr. Web ster, in a letter to the Mexican Minister, Mr. De la Rosa, says : ¦ " The undersigned has the especial instruction of the President of the United States to call the serious attention, both of Mr. He la Rosa and his Govern ment, to the serious embarrassments which may re sult if this treaty should bo rejected, and those citi zons of the United States who have, with so much laudable zeal, entered upon tho enterprise, and in curred such heavy expenses in its prosecution, should now be turned back on an appeal to their own Gov ernment, as well for the disappointment of just expect ations as for indemnity for actual losses. " In conclusion, tho undersigned has to say to Mr. De la Rosa, that having seen tho treaty of the 25th of I January negotiated, assented to, and approved by highly respectable and eminent citizons of Mexico,! honorably known in other countries as well as theirf own, and all this under the sanction of a distinguished citizen, just placed by the voice of his countrymen al the head of the Government, the President of the- United States cannot persuado himself that such si calamity as its rejection by Mexico now impends over, both countries." The meaning of that language cannot bel mistaken, and the idea which Mr. Webstei meant to convey cannot be misunderstood. Again, in writing to Mr. Letcher, under date of December 22, 1851, Mr. Webster says: "It is well known that, relying upon tho grant from tho Mexican Government, and upon tho protec tion of the American Government, American citizens have procecdod to the expenditure of largo sums of money, towards tho accomplishment of the groat pur pose which is tho object of the treaty." Mr. Letcher, in writing to Mr. Webster from Mexico, February 14, 1852. says: " Mexico shall have a full view of the dangerous precipice over which she is standing. She shall know that it is the positive determination of the Government of the United States to protect, at all hazards, her citizons who have made large invest ments in the enterprise, relying upon the good faith of tho public acts of Mexico.'.' I will not weary the Senate by repeating declarations of this sort, which are to be found in the published correspondence between the Government of Mexico and our Government, and their various officers, on this subject. It has been assumed by Government, throughout the whole matter, as an incontrovertible fact, that to the citizens of the United States were held out the tempting inducements of Mexico to enter into this matter with their capital, and that now Mexico "is breaking faith with them, and that our Government is bound, by every consideration which can address itself to a Government able and willing to maintain the rights of its own citizens, tp protect the rights thus trampled upon by Mexico. If that is the true state of the case — if such are the facts — I grant there would be some reason in the language that we have assumed, and there -would be some reason for the course indicated by the Committee on Foreign Rela tions, provided that we had not already a sub sisting treaty with Mexico, by which we have bound ourselves, by the most solemn obliga tions that can bind nations, that, if difficulty should arise, war shall not be the remedy we will seek, but that we will first seek a peace able and friendly ai bitration. I say, that if we had not Buch a treaty as that binding upon us to-day, there might be some propriety in the belligerent attitude which has been assumed by the Administration toward Mexico; that is, if what they assume as correct were really facts. I deny the proposition entirely. I lay down this position, and I will prove it by the authen tic and published documents, that so far was the Government of Mexico from ever inviting the citizens of the United States into this affair, and so far were the citizens of the United States from going into it upon any such invitations, that it was a grant made by Mexico to her own citizens; and the first assignment of this grant, or any part of it, made to Manning & Mackin tosh, the English house under whom the pres ent American holders claim title, was made upon the express condition that they must, in the most positive and conclusive manner, re nounce their nationality, so that, whatever cir cumstances may happen, and whatever measures these may require, neither the settlers aforesaid, nor the proprietors, may, in any case nor for any cause, plead alien privileges, nor any other priv ileges, except those which have been granted or may be granted to them by the laws of the coun try, to which both their persons and their property must be subjected, and without this requisite they will not be admitted. In addition to this, the grant had been annulled by the Congress of Mexico, and the Government of Mexico had refused' to acknowledge Manning & Mackintosh as the assignees of the grant, or as having any right in the contract; and that Government had not only refused to acknowledge the assign ment to Manning & Mackintosh, but it had notified those parties that the Government would not consent to the transfer, and it had further notified its Minister, residing at the city , of Washington, to inform Garay, the original holder of the grant, that the Mexican Govern ment would not consent to any assignment, be fore any American citizen was interested in it to the amount of a single dollar. Here, then, is the plighted faith of Mexico ! Instead of inviting citizens of the United States, or any other foreigners, to join in the undertaking, she expressly excluded them all, except upon the express condition that they re nounce their nationality and the protection of their own Government, so careful was she to keep this under her. own jurisdiction. She had annulled the grant; she had refused to ac knowledge the assignment to the English com pany; she notified the English house that she would not consent to the assignment ; and rec sumed the grant, because it had been forfeited bv a neglect to comply with its conditions : the Minister of Foreign Relations had instructed the Mexican Minister near this Government to notify Garay, the original holder of the grant, that the Government refused to consentjo the transfer ; and further, that it resumed all the rights that he ever had. This was done on the 14th or 15th of January, 1849; and the very first notice that Mexico had that there was anybody except her own citizens,interested in it was not given till the 5th of February, 1849, by Manning & Mackintosh; and that Government was not notified that anybody in the United States had any interest in it till six months after that time. Now, I ask with what face the President of the United States, or the Secretary of State, or the Minister of the United States in Mexico, can come before the Senate and before the world, and repeat over and over again, in every form in which they have put it, that American citizens were induced to go into this matter by the plighted faith of Mexico, which faith Mex ico has' broken 1 1 have made the proposition that such is not the case, and I intend to prove it ; and I hope the Senate will attend to it, for I look upon this as a question of great moment. I look upon it as a question which is likely, if it be not arrested by the consideration and ac tion of the Senate, to place the country in a very falso position. S r, if Mexico were a strong Government — if it were a Government like England, or like Russia — I should not have the least concern on earth about these resolutions, but I should take them as some of those harmless ebullitions, Borne of those stupendous jokes, in the shape of solemn resolutions, which Old Conservatism and Young America throw'ijefore the Senate in the race they have to run to get ahead of each other — but that is not the case here. Mexico is weak, feeble, and distracted. She has no defence to make, except what is to be found in the justice of her cause, and in the magnanimi ty with which a powerful nation should always treat a weaker one. I will now proceed to prove what I have said, and I will prove it by reference to the docu ments. I will endeavor to be brief. I will en deavor not to fatigue the Senate by going over a great body of extracts, but I will state the points as britfly as possible. The foundation of this grant was a decree made by Santa Anna to Garay, on the 1st of March, 1842, and it extended to twenty-eight months. Whether that grant was valid or not — whether Santa Anna had any power to make any such grant — is a matter of some sonsequencc, in some aspects of this case. Gen tlemen are in the habit of speaking of these several chiefs of Mexico as dictators. I believe the fact is, that no one of thoso officers ever claimed to be dictator. In the revolutions to which Mexico has unfortunately been subject ed, and the changes which have come some times almost as frequently as the varying sea sons of the year, they have uniformly, so far as my examination has extended, bound them selves by written plans or constitutions. At the time Santa Anna made this decree, he was acting, not under the old Constitution of 1824, which had been subverted by the Central Con stitution of 1836, and again subverted in 1841, by what is called the bases of Tacubaya and the convention of Estanzuela. It was under these that Santa Anna was then acting. Santa Anna, in the decree, states his author ity thus: " It is by virtue of tho powers and faculties vested m mo by the seventh article of the convention signed at Tacubaya, and sworn to by tho representatives and the deputies of tho departments, that I have de termined to issue tho following decree." Then it was by the bases of Tacubaya that he claimed to have authority to issue that de cree. But be it remembered — and I ask the attention of the Senate to the fact— that these same bases of Tacubaya, by which Santa Anna claimed to have the right to confer this grant upon Garay, also contained the provision that all his acts, while acting under these bases, should be submitted to. the first constitutional Congress that was assembled. And Garay, when he took this grant from Santa Anna, knew that he took it subject to the contingency that it was liable to be laid before the first consti tutional Congress, for its approbation or rejec tion. Santa Anna was acting under the bases of Tacubaya and the convention of Estanzuela. Thq seventh article of the bases of Tacubaya is in these words: " The powers of the Provisional Executive Govern ment shall bo everything necessary for the organiza tion of every branch of tho public administration." The second article of the convention of Es tanzuela is as follows : " The acts of the Government of his Excellency, General Don Anastasio Bustamente, and thoso of tho Government that sucoeed him in the moan time, from the 1st of August of tho present year, 1841, of what ever class they may be, shall be submitted to the ap probation of tho first constitutional Congress ; and likewise shall be remitted to tho same Congress tho acts of tho Executive Provisional, in confprrfiity with the basos which tho army of his Excellency General Santa Anna has adopted." The time fixed by the decree of Santa Anna for Garay to go on and complete his work ex pired on the 1st of July, 1844. At that time tho bases of Tacubaya and the convention of Estanzuela had been superseded by what were called, I think, the Bases Organicas, and du ring' that time Canalizo, President ad interim, , extended the'grant to Garay for another year, carrying it to July, 1845. The Bases Organicas, under which Canalizo extended the original grant, were subject to exactly the same condi tions as the bases of Tacubaya, which required that all the acts done by the provisional chief then in power, Bhould be subjected to the ac tion of the first constitutional Congress. Santa Anna — when the progress of revolu tion was such that he saw a constitutional Con gress was about to be assembled, by which the validity of his grants would be inquired into, and the grants confirmed or rejected — under standing perfectly the nature of the grant, and the nature of the authority to pass upon it, took a very sagacious way to get over it, or around it ; and he issued his own decree that the responsibility established by the baseB of Tacubaya, requiring his acts to be submitted to a constitutional Congress, was a mere ex pression of opinion, and was not binding ; that the framers of the bases of Tacubaya had sim ply said they thought his acts ought to be sub mitted, but did not mean to require that they should be. But a Congress did assemble, and on the 1st of April, 1845, they took up the subject of these decrees, and one of the very first acts which they did was to declare that all the doings of the Provisional Government, except so far as they fell within the very letter of the authority which was conferred upon them for the extra ordinary emergency out of which they had been created, were annulled, and under that act these grants were annulled. But, whether that decree of the Congress was sufficient or not, suppose that Santa Anna had the power and authority to make the grant — suppose that Canalizo had authority to extend it, and suppose the first constitutional Congress of .1845 had not power to annul it — what, then, is the condition of things ? Why, the time expired in July, 1845, and not one step had then been made towards doing any thing under the grant. What next do you find ? Garay then peti tioned, not the President, not the Chief of the nation, but he petjoned the Government for an extension of his grant ; and the Council refused. to act upon it, and they submitted the question to the Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber of Deputies granted the request, and it was sent to the Senate. In the Senate the subject was referred to a committee ; the committee report ed favorably, but no action was had upon the matter by the Senate, and thus the grant was not extended by any act of the Government. But at that time General Salas was Provisional Chief in Mexico. It must be borne in mind that General Salas, on the 22d of August, 1846, he then being in supreme power, published a decree restoring the Constitution of 1824. That Constitution was then restored over the whole of Mexico ; the military Governors went out, and constitutional Governors were elected in their places, and the machinery of the Consti tution of 1824 was put in full operation all over Mexico. Under that Constitution, the Presi dent of Mexico had .no more right to make such a grant than had the President of the United States. Yet General Salas, on the 5th of November, 1846, nearly three months after the restoration of the Federal Constitution of 1824, which has been in operation from that day to the present, took the very bill which Bad passed the Chamber of Deputies and had been suspended in the Senate; and made a de cree similar to it, extending- the grant to Garay for two years. Immediately upon this grant of Garay being extended by the decree of Salas, Garay applied to the Government for a con firmation, or, as it is styled in the papers of that conntry, credentials. The Government took the matter into consideration, and con firmed the grant, with two essential modifica tions — one was, that all contracts that were to be made relative to the matter should be sub mitted to the Government for consideration and approval ; and the second was, that all the col onists who went on to work upon the proposed railway, or other interoceanic communication, should renounce their nationality and give up their alien privileges. • Upon these terms, and these conditions being incorporated into the decree, or into the credentials, Garay took the grant. The grant to Garay was of a twofold char acter ; and I beg the Senate to bear this in mind, because, if they do, they will avoid some of the very errors into which the Administra tion has fallen. One of these grants was for colonizing the country, and the other was for making an interoceanic communication, and both were separate and distinct. On the 7th of January, 1847, Garay assigned to Manning, & Mackintosh— what ? What the Committee on Foreign Relations suppose by their report, what Mr. Webster says in his letter, was a contract for making a way over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. No such thing. On the 7th of January, 1847, Garay assigned to Manning & Mackintosh that part of the grant which rela-; ted to colonization, and he expressly said : " That by this transfer on tho part of tho covenant er, D. Jose1 Garay, it is not to be understood that he confers upon Messrs. Manning & Mackintosh, and Schneider & Company, any right whatever to carry on navigation from one sea to the other ; but he de clares that he transfers to the gentlemen aforesaid the right of navigating said Coatzacoaloos river, for- all such purposes as may be suitable and useful to the business connected with tho transfer of the lands in question, without any detriment accruing in vir tue of such act to the priviloges vested in the afore said Garay." That Garay reserved to himself in the most formal manner possible. He retained all the privileges relating to the construction of a rail road, or other transit, across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and he sold to Manning & Mack intosh the simple right of colonizing the coun try. Manning, & Mackintosh, as they were perfectly aware that they were bound to do by the conditions that had been inserted into the contract that was drawn up upon the decree of Salas, submitted this transfer to the Govern ment for approval. Did the Government ap prove of it ? No, sir ; but they rejected it, until something else was inserted ; and I want to read the note which was inserted in the deed : " The most oxcellent President has made himself acquainted with tho contents of the clause of this document, and in view of the antecedents which havo been borne in mind, he has been pleased to ap prove of said contract, but with the additions which have been deemed wise and just, in order to fill up the vacuums alludod to in the deed itself — vacuums which might become the source of all sorts of discus sions, that are to be avoided. It has been noticed that no mention has been mado in the contract of the renunciation of nationality, provided for by tho thirteenth article of tho law of November 5, 1846. According to the spirit of tho aforesaid law, this re nunciation must take place in tho most positive and conclusive manner, on the part of the settlers, so that whatever circumstances may happen, and whatever measures these • may require, ncithor the settlers aforesaid, nor the proprietors, may not, in any case nor for any cause, plead alien privileges, nor any other priviloges excopt those which have been grant ed or may bo granted to them by the laws of the country, to which both their persons and their prop- erty must bo subjected ; and without this requisite thoy will not be admitted. Nor is it stated whether the transferees havo to givo an account to the Su premo Government of the contracts thoy may enter into for tho introduction of families ; nor is there any 8 mention made of. the record ordered to be kept, in pursuance of the fourteenth article of the aforesaid law of November the 5th. All these obligations are of -a relative character, and as thoy havo boon con tracted by you, thoy must bo binding upon the trans- This note, containing this explicit direction to the proprietors that settlers must renounce their nationality, and submit themselves entire ly to such justice as Mexico would give them, to be fully and explicitly understood, was in serted in the contract itself, and signed by Manning & Mackintosh. They took the as signment of that part of the Garay grant with the full knowledge that they divested them selves of all protection that the Government would be bouud to extend to them under other circumstances, if they had not thus divested themselves. Thus the matter remained until September, 1848. It is said that then — and the deed ap pears to be so — in September, 1848, there was a transfer made to Manning & Mackintosh of the remaining part of the contract, and that was the part which related to making an inter oceanic communication between the two seas. Early in January, 1849, Manning & Mackin tosh notified the Mexican Government that this contract had been assigned to them in Septem ber, 1848. What did that Government do? The very first moment that the Mexican Gov ernment had any notice that anybody else ex cept a Mexican citizen was coming in to take this contract, they notified Manning & Mack intosh that they would not consent to the transfer ; and they further notified them that the Government resumed to themselves all the concessions which had been made in the Garay grant, for the reason that the time limited in the grant for the performance of the work had expired. They not only did that, but they in structed the Minister of Mexico resident in the United States to serve upon Garay, who was then residing in New York, a like notice, which I ask the Secretary to do me the favor to read. The Secretary accordingly read it, as follows : Mexican Legation to the United States of America. To Senor Don Jose Garay, New York : His Excellency tho Minister of Foroign Affairs of the Mexican Republic, in his note' of the 8th of tho last March, commands me, by order of his Excellency the President, to notify you that the time of tho ex tension of the privilege for opening a way of inter course, of interoceanic communication through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec having oxpircd, all tho con cessions made to you by the decree of March, 1842, have ceased, and the Republic has resumed all her rights upon this matter. God and liberty ! Luis de. la Rosa. Baltimore, April 8, 1849. That Garay received that notice in season is substantiated by the fact that on the 12th of April he answered it. Now, it must be re membered that up to this time there had not been the least intimation to Mexico that any body except Garay had any interest in the con tract for making the interoceanic communica tion. They had been notified of the transfer of the colonization grant, and probably good rea sons were suggested why they should favor that assignment, because they wanted foreigners to come in and settle. But up to this moment they had never received any intimation that anybody but Garay was interested in the other grant ; and when they did hear it, they noti fied Manning & Mackintosh that they did not recognise them as transferees of Garay ; and inasmuch as the two years granted by the de cree of 1846 had expired, the privilege had be come extinct. In view of all these facts, I wish the Senate to look at the position of the President of the United States, of the late Secretary of State, and of our Minister to Mexico. The complaint has gone out to the world, that,induced by the tempting offers of Mexico, Ameriean citizens have gone on and invested their money, their means, in this grant, relying upon the good faith of Mexico ; and that Mexico having re fused to keep her faith, this Government is called upon to go even to the extreme resort of war, to vindicate the outraged rights of those American citizens who have been thus trampled upon by Mexico. Why, sir, this was a Mexi can grant to a Mexican citizen, to be perform ed on Mexican soil, and the time and the time again for' which the extension had been sought and granted had expired, and nothing had been done. Then it was sold to Manning & Mack intosh, to induce the English Government to come in and see if they could not enforce it. It was transferred to English subjects, in order to try to get England to bully Mexico into what her sense of justice would not dictate to her. I do not know, and I have not the facts that I can state to the Senate sufficient to warrant me in saying, that an application was made to the British authorities to induce them take up this claim of Manning & Mackintosh. 1 have not such evidence as will authorize me to lay it before the Senate, but I have as much as satisfies my own mind that their interposition was asked, and that the British officials refused to. touch it with their fingers. What then? Six months after this — six months after the contract had expired, and had been annulled, we find — what? After the Government of Mexico had notified Garay, had notified Manning & Mackintosh, and every body, that the grant had expired by its own limitation, and by a neglect to comply with its conditions, after an attempt had been made to enlist the powerful support of the British Gov ernment in behalf of the claim assigned to Manning & Mackintosh, British subjects, and it stood in their hands, Mackintosh sending day after day, notes to the Mexican Govern ment, and his own Government not appear ing to back him up — what then do we find ? Why, on the 15 th of July, 1849, six months 9 after this,. Mr. Mackintosh informed the Gov ernment of Mexico that he was going to in form his partners, residing out of the Republic, of what had taken place in regard to his enter prise, the headquarters of which, by common consent of all parties interested, had been defin itively established in the United States; the company being represented by Senor Don Pe dro Amadeo Hargous, who for the future would deal with the Government of the Republic, Bince he, Mackintosh, had ceased to represent the interests of said company. That is the first time, the 15rh of July, 1849, that Mr. Har- gous's name appears in this matter. The grant had before that time expired by its own lim itation in 1848. It had been annulled by the Mexican Congress, and resumed by the Mexi- oan Government. Mackintesh, the English assignee, had been notified of tfiis; Garay had been notified of it ; the thing was as dead as death could make it. Then, in order to revive it, if possible, it was-assigned to citizens of the United States, and the Government of the Uni ted States was called upon to go in and vindi- ¦ cate the rights of its citizens, who had been in duced, upon the tempting offers of Mexico, to invest their capital in the enterprise. What were those offers? Why, sir, the Mexican Government said to every citizen of the United States, "Before you can be inter ested in this contract, or before you can go on to this line as a settler, you must renounce your nationality — you must give up the idea of ap pealing to your own Government — you must come here upon Mexican soil, and take a Mex ican contract, and be content with Mexican laws, and such a judgment and adjudication of your rights as Mexican tribunals can give you." These were the tempting offers that were held out. That was the plighted faith of Mexico upon which the citizens of the United States went there, and invested their means in this contract. Now, I know very well that there is an at tempt made by the Committee on. Foreign Rela tions and by the Secretary of State, to show that, notwithstanding the grant had expired by its own limitation ; notwithstanding the objections to the authority of Santa Anna, and of Canali zo, and of Salas, to make the decrees; notwith standing that the two years prescribed by Salas in his decree of November 6, 1846, had also ex pired, there are yet reasons enough by which it can be made to appear that Mexico has ac knowledged the grant subsequently. I will take the reasons given by the Committee on Foreign Relations. The Committee say : " The Committee will now proceed to show that tho Mexican Government has, subsequently to this de cree of November, 1846, recognised, in tho most un equivocal manner, the binding validity of this grant, and admitted its obligation to abide by it, "In 1846-47 tho assignment of tho grant to .Man ning & Mackintosh was duly notified to tho Govern ment of Moxico, and. on their complaint, President Horrera issued ordors to the Governors of Oaxaca and Vera Cruz to prevent the cutting of mahogany, on the lands granted, by any other than tho English company." That is one reason, and the answer to that must have suggested itself to everybody who ' has listened to me. The assignment spoken of here, made in 1847, to Manning & Mackin tosh, was not an assignment of the right to make a communication between the two oceans, but it was an assignment of the mere right to colonize the country. It related to colonization entirely. That was an object which the Mex ican Government was anxious to have effected, to have the country settled, and therefore it confirmed that assignment. It is an abundant answer to that, further to say that Manning & Mackintosh so understood it; Garay so under stood it; and everybody so understood it ; be cause in September, 1848, Garay executed an other conveyance to them, by which he gave them, in addition to the right of colonization, the right of making this way across the Isth mus of Tehuantepec. The committee go on to give their second reason : " In 1847, whilst the treaty of peace was under ne gotiation, Mr. Trist, the Commissioner on the part of the United States, by instruction from his Govern ment, proposed a large money consideration to Mex ico for a right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuan tepec, and was answered ' that Mexico could not treat on this subject, because she had, several years beforo, made a grant to one of her own citizens, who had transferred his right, by authorization of tho Mexican Government, to English subjects, of whose rights Mexico could Dot dispose.' " Whatever these negotiations may have meant — whether they meant to have a little diplomacy there— whether they meant to rep resent the matter a little stronger than it was — nothing is clearer than that they could not have had in their heads or hearts the idea that Garay had assigned to any English sub jects the right of making this interoceanic com munication, because the contract under which Manning & Mackintosh claimed that right was not executed until some eighteen months after wards. That contract was executed in Sep tember, 1848, and these negotiations were go ing on in the early part of 1847. It is, there fore, perfectly plain that the negotiations could not have referred to a grant to make that way across the Isthmus, because it was not assigned to Manning & Mackintosh for more than a year afterwards. What, then, did the Commis sioners mean ? They meant the right of col onization, because that was the only contract which had been made. But the committee go on and give their third reason, to show that Mexico acknowledged this grant, and that rea son is in these words: " Aftor tho assignment of tho grant to tho present American holders, the Minister of tho United States in Mexico was instructed by his Government to ap prise that of Mexico of the desire of this company to commence thoir work by a thorough survey of the Isth mus ; and the Minister was further instructed to inako overtures for a treaty securing to the enterprise tho 10 joint protection of tho two Governments. The Mex ican Government, as we learn from the correspond ence of Mr. Letcher with the Mexican Minister of Foreign Rolations, ' made not the slightest opposi tion to forwarding passports, and issued orders to tho departments of Oaxaca and Vera Cruz, not only to avoid interposing any obstacles in their way, but, on the contrary, to afford them aid and hospitality.' " As has been remarked, 1 think by the Sena tor from New York, [Mr. Seward,] who ad dressed the Senate upon this subject some days ago, it is a very curious fact, that while there are so many letters and so many short notes given, which passed between Mr. Letcher and the Mexican Government upon this subject, this very important letter, in which he com municates to them the fact, as would seem to be supposed by the Committee on Foreign Re lations, that this company were desirous of sending on engineers to pursue the work, is not found in the correspondence. There is no account of it. Mr. Letcher made some sort of a communication, soliciting for some engineers, upon some terms, the right to go over there and make a survey. Did Mr. Letcher tell the Mexican Government, when he made this ap plication, that the engineers were the servants of this company, that the holders of the Garay grant were about to commence operations, and that he wished passports for them ? You cannot tell. So far as Mr. Letcher's applica tion is concerned, there is a perfect vacuum. We do not know what he said, but I think the Senate will be at no loss to gather what it was, from the answer made by the Mexican Minis ter, Mr. Laennza. to' the Governor of Oaxaca, because in that he recites the application to him. The letter of Mr. Lacunza is in these words : Mexico. April 5, 1850. Most Excellent Sie : Several American engi neers having been appointed for the purpose of ex amining the possibility of opening a communication between the two seas, by way of tho Isthmus of Te- tuantepec, and desirous as is his Excellency the President, during their travels in your State that they sh(Aild meet with no embarrassments, but, on the contrary, be treated with all hospitality, he has been pleased to direct that his wishes should bo communicated to you, as I now have the honor to do officially; repeating, at the same time, the assu rances of my esteem. God and Liberty ! Lacunza. Sis Excellency the Governor of State of Oaxaca. I think the Senate will be at no loss to un derstand what sort of an application was made to Mr. Lacunza for these passports. It was a representation that engineers had been appointed by the American Government. What is the language? " Several American engineers have been appointed." For what purpose ? For commencing work under the Garay grant? No; nothing of that sort, but " for the purpose of examining the possibility of opening a communication between the two seas, by way of the Isthmus^of Tehuantepec." Such was the representation that was made to Mr. Lacunza, the Mexican Minister, upon which the passports were granted. Mexico was as desirous of ascertaining the possibility of that communication as tjie Government of the'United States ;. and finding that .this Gov ernment had appointed its engineers to ascer tain the practicability of this great work, which was to do so much for Mexicq, for the United States, and for the world, they did what was becoming the offices of a friendly, Government. 'They issued a request to the Governor of the State through which the en gineers were to pass, that they might be hos pitably received and treated, while they were ascertaining the practicability of this commu nication. These are all the reasons assigned by the Committee on goreign Relations, to show that Mexico has recognised this grant, except what is to be found in the treaty itself; that is, the treaty which was signed by the Mexican and the American Ministers, and transmitted to this Government, ratified by the American Senate, and rejected by the Mexican Congiess. Now, I take it for granted that I need not argue before this enlightened body that nothing in such a treaty as that can by any possibility be binding upon Mexico. Who ever heard that a treaty reduced to writing, and signed and rati fied by oi-.e Government, imposed any obligations upon a Government which rejected it ? It is a new doctrine, and one which cannot be sustain ed. With all deference to this honorable com mittee, I think they must have been hard pushed for reasons when they undertook to find, in the fact that the Garay grant was acknowl edged in a treaty which Mexico rejected, evi dence that Mexico had admitted the grant. But even that bare apology of a reason does not exist, because there is nothing of that sort in the treaty ; but there is a simple provision- that the actual holder of the right, be he who he may, should be consulted. Thus I have disposed of the reasons why3 Mexioo has acknowledged this right, so far as the Committee on Foreign Relations are con cerned. But Mr. Webster in one of his let ters has more reasons than the committee, if* they are not better. In a letter" to Mr. De la Rosa, dated Washington, April 30, 1851, (after Mr. De la Rosa had notified him, and after this Government had been notified times innumer able that Mexico did not and would not rec ognise this grant,) Mr. Webster wrote back, evidently with a good deal of temper, and tola them that Mexico did recognise it. Mr. De la Rosa wrote an earnest and respectful letter to Mr. Webster, telling him that his Government never could recognise the Garay grant, and Mr. Webster wrote baek, telling him that Mexico did recognise it. Mr. Webster went on, and gave eleven reasons to show that Mex ico acknowledged the grant. His first reason is the decree of the Mexican 11 Government of the 1st of March, 1842. Well, sir, as that expired in 1844; it seems to me that the first reason of the eleven must fall to the ground. The second is the contract made be tween the Mexican Minister of Foreign Rela tions and Don Jose de Garay. Under that de cree the contract was limited to the time speci fied in the decree, and died with it — that is to Bay, in July, 1844 — but was subsequently ex tended to 1845. The third reason given by Mr. Webster is the Mexican deeree of the 9th of February, 1843. That was a decree giving the lands that were conveyed by the contract of the 7th of January, 1847, into the posses sion of Garay ; and how the sagacious mind of Mr. Webster could have gathered from the fact that Mexico consented that the lands which were afterwards assigned to Manning & Mackintosh for colonization should be given up to Garay, was proof that they had recog nised the existence of this grant, which ex pired in 1845, and afterwards in 1848, passes my comprehension. The next reason given by Mr. Webster is the decree of the same Government, of the 4th of October, 1843; that is the decree permitting engineers to go on and make a survey. The fifth reason is the decree of the same Govern ment of the 28th of December, 1843 ; that is the one which extended the grant to 1845. The sixth reason is the Mexican decree of Novem ber 5, 1846 ; that is the decree of Salas, which expired in 1848 ; and how Mr. Webster could find evidence in the fact that a decree which expired in 1848 acknowledged the existence of the grant after 1848, is also a matter that I cannot comprehend. The seventh reason is the jnote of the Mexican Commissioners to Mr. Trist, of September 6;h, 1847. I have already commented upon that, and I have shown that that note had nothing to do with the Garay grant, properly so called, but related to colo nization. Mr. Webster's eighth reason is cer tainly a curious one; and it is "the note of Mr. Clifford to Mr. Lacunza, of the 20th of June, 1849." Mr. Clifford wrote to Mr. La cunza, inquiring of him if the grant had been annulled. Mr. Lacunza answered that it had not been annulled, but that it was liable to be annulled, for the reason that its conditions had not been complied with. How Mr. Webster could find in that inquiry of Mr. Clifford any evidence that the Mexican Government ac knowledged the existence of the -grant subse quent to 1848, 1 confess I cannot conceive. The ninth reason of- Mr. Webster is the let ter of Messrs. Manning & Mackintosh to Mr Lacunza, of the 25th July. 1849. That was the letter in which Manning & Mackintosh inform the Government of Mexico that they had be come the assignees of the Garay grant, and that Government refused to recognise them as such, and in that fact Mr. Webster finds evi dence that Mexico had assented to it. Man ning & Mackintosh told the Government of Mexico that they were, the assignees of Gafay. Mexico said, we cannot recognise you as such; yet that is cited as a reason to prove that Mex- 100 did recognise them. The tenth reason is the letter of Mr. La cunza to Mr. Letcher, of the 5th April, 1850, communicating a copy of an order of the same date, issued by the Mexican Government to the Governor of the State of Oaxaea, direct ing him to receive with hospitality the Ameri ca, engineers who had been appointed to sur vey the Tehuantepec route. Mr. Webster here evidently treats it as if American engineers had been appointed by the Government, and in the fact that they were hospitably received by Mexico, he finds evidence that Mexico ac^ knowledged the grant. ' The eleventh and last reason of Mr. Web ster is the same as that suggested by the Com mittee on Foreign Relations, the articles of the treaty which had not been accepted, but on the other hand had been rejected by Mexico. In these eleven reasons, and in the three or four assigned by the Committee on Foreign Relations, are to be found the reasons which render it incompatible with the dignity of this Government any longer to negotiate with Mexico on this subject. Now, what has been the course of Mexico ? What has she done ? Has Mexico refused to treat with the Govern-i ment of the United States ? Has Mexico, like China, shut herself up within her own borders, and said there shall be no egress or ingress, oi passing across her territory ? Far from it. Mexico, from first to last, has not only been willing, but has been anxious to open this com-' munication. Read the letters. T shall not weary the Senate by going over them. But any one who will read the letters of Mr. Letcher to the Mexican Government, and the answers, will find that Mexico was earnestly and anxiously desirous to have this communi cation opened ; but this Garay grant she would not confirm. Mexico says she will not give up the sovereignty of her soil to a mere private corporation. Mr. Letcher wrote home and told the Government that he had been in formed by the Mexican Minister, " once re move this Garay grant, and there will be no difficulty at all in making a treaty." This is a very important point, and therefore I will read from Mr. Letcher's letter. In the letter from him to Mr. Webster, dated 14th Decem- bea, 1851, relating a conversation which he had with General Arista, the President of Mexico, he says that Arista told him.— " That Mexico was poor and oppressed, but, so far as he had it 'in his power to guard and protect her honor, ho was deicrmined she should not only be free f. om just reproach, but should stand upon elevated grounds before tho world, in every particular, in ref erence to a matter of so much importance j that al though she had been, and was at this moment, badly treated by many of my countrymen, still, from mo- 12 tives of sound policy, she was disposed, and such was his own sincere wish, to concedo to tho United States, in preference to any other Power, all tho privileges which might be necessary to accomplish the greatest enterprise of the age ; but that, in the event of such concession, no allusion must be made to tho Garay grant. " ' Leave out that grant — say nothing about it, and I am ready.' said he, ' to enter into a treaty with you, which I think Will be satisfactory to both coun tries.' " How was this Garay grant looked upon in Mexico ? Let me show you how it was looked upon there. Mr. Letcher, in his letter to Mr. Webster of the 29th October, 1851, says: "It appears there is a fixed prejudice, from ono ,end of the country to the other, against tho Garay grant, upon which you kn6w tho treaty is predica ted." ' In the same letter he says : " It is opposed by the clergy, by tho press, by both Houses of Congress, by every political party, by every faction, and by every, fragment of a faction, in the whole country." Here, then, was a grant odious to Mexico ; odious to every, class in Mexico; annulled by the Congress of Mexico ; the holders of which were notified, from the first assignment which was made, that Mexico would never recognise them. And yet, the great interest of the age, this communication between the two oceans, is to be suspended ; the progress of society, the great interests of commerce and of social inter course, and all the interests of humanity, which are so intimately connected with the opening of this transit between the two oceans, are sus pended and blocked, by what the Mexican Minister of Foreign Relations has well termed a mere frigid mercantile speculation. And, sir, to such a degree had this Garay grant magnified itself in the estimation of the Administration, that when a treaty came to be formed for the opening of this way between the two oceans, it was made by this Govern ment a condition of the treaty, that the actual holder of that grant should give his consent to it before it should be submitted to the Senate. And Mr. Peter A. Hargous comes forward and notifies Mr. Webster that he, Peter A. Hargous, 'is the man who stands, like the angel with the flaming sword at the gate of Paradise, and that no treaty of peace shall come before the American Senate until he gives his consent to it. Yes, sir, it was a tripartite convention. We were not willing to enter into a tripartite con vention with France and England in reference to Cuba; but we were willing to enter into a treaty, one party of which was the United States of. America, another the Republic of Mexieo, and the third, Peter A. Hargous. Mr. Hargous says that Mr. Webster submitted the treaty to him. and he made various suggestions of modification to it. Now, I ask, is not that a most humiliating position for this counti-y to , stand in ? But there is another fact, that I have uppn the very best authority, which, in my humble judgment, is disgraceful to the American Government, and I will Btate it. When your Minister goes to Mexico— and I will do Mr. Letcher the justice to say that 1 am told he did not begin the practice — he is the guest, he is fed at the board and lodged in the bed, of this very Mr. Hargous, Mr. SEWARD. That is not true of the -present Minister. Mr. HALE. I do hot say anything of the present Minister ; but it is true, as I am in formed on authority which I cannot doubt, and abundance of which is now in this city, that when, for years back, a Minister is sent from this country, and arrives on the frontiers of Mexico, he is taken possession of by Mr. Har gous, fed at his board, lodged in his bed, and kept there, and considered, instead of being the representative of this Government, as a sort of attache to Mr. Hargous. Mr. MASON. I ask the Senator to state the authority on which he makes the declara tion that the American Minister in Mexico lodged at the house and lived at the board of this Mr. Hargous, who is now the holder of this grant ? Mr. HALE. I do not say which of the Har- gouses it is. for I understand there are two brothers of them in one firm. I do not say which of them it is. Mr. MASON. I am uninformed about the fact, but it is a very serious charge to be made in reference to a gentleman who represented this country abroad ; and I submit to the Sen ator that he state the name of the person upon who«e authority he makes the charge. Mr. HALE. I will state the authority, and I have more than one authority for it. I will give the Senator the name of Mr. Buckingham Smith, who was Secretary of Legation to Mex ico. I will give him the authority of Mr. La Vega, the present Secretary of Legation of Mexico near this Government. Mr. MASON. Then the Senator will allow us to know what the charge is. Do I under stand him to say that the American Minister lived at the house of this Mr. Hargous, who is now the representative of this claim? Mr. HALE. One of the Hargouses. Mr. MASON. I want a direct answer — yea or nay. Mr. HALE. I suppose it is both. The firm is Hargous & Brother. I believe. Mr. SEWARD. Peter A. Hargous lives in New York, and his brother lives in Mexico. Mr. HALE. I am told that one of them lives in New York, and the other in Mexico. It is one of the brothers. I understand they are associated. Mr. MASON. I understand, then, the Sen ator does not- make the charge that the Ameri can Minister lived at the house of the repre sentative of this claim ? Mr. HALE. I say that the American Mia- 13 later lived at the house of one or other of them, Peter A: Hargous or his brother, or both. I said I would do Mr. Letcher the justice to say that I did not believe he began the practice, but that it was a matter which was in exist ence before his time. Whether it was Peter or his brother I do not know, and that is no matter. It was one of them. I say that for the American Minister to be the guest, and to be residing in the house of one of the members, or the brother of a member, of this firm, at the time he was urging the claim of these Har- gouses, and when the claim of Hargous pre vented the ratification of a treaty between the two Governments, is a fact that ought to be known. Whether it confers honor or disgrace, I will not trouble myself to say. Mexico not only made these professions by President Arista, that they were willing to exe cute a treaty for the opening of this way if the Garay grant was not insisted upon, but the Minister of Mexico, Mr. Ramirez, gave evidence of the sincerity with which he entertained these sentiments, by the fact that he trans mitted to this Government, for its acceptance and ratification, a treaty in which this right of way was fully secured, and secured as a neu tral pass for all friendly nations. The Govern ment of the United States did not accept, and did not send to the Senate that treaty, for the sole reason, as Mr. Letcher, months after wards, as the published correspondence shows, informed the Mexican Minister, that it did not take care of the Garay grant. That was the whole of it. That was the reason assigned by Mr. Letcher, in the correspondence which has been submitted to the Senate and published, why this treaty was rejected. It was because the Garay grant stood in the way. Here two great nations, Mexico and the Government of the United States — ay, sir, here two hemi spheres had to, stand apart, and refrain from all the conveniences of commercial. intercourse which might be opened to them by this inter oceanic communication, because the private in terests of a speculating company were thrown in the way. The nations had to stand back, commerce to stand still, progress to cease, and humanity not to go forward, because this mer cantile speculation was thrown in the way. And now our Government is called upon to levy war against the Republic of Mexico, because she will not do what she has told you she cannot and will not do — what is repugnant, not only to the opinions of her Government and her tri bunals, but is hateful and odious to every sec tion of her people. I will not trouble the Senate with reading the statement which I have before me, giving an analysis of the different changes which have taken place in the affairs of the Government of Mexico, so far as this grant is concerned. My object is simply to state the general views which I take, and which I believe are -firm and irrefutable, according to the documents which are submitted to us. But there are one or two other matters to which I wish to address my self for a few moments. The honorable Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Mason,J jn the speech which he made upon the subject, said, that however all this may be, though the argument may all be against him, he considered it an irrefutable proposition, that under what is, I suppose, the old common-law right of way, we have a right of way across Tehuantepec, whether Mexico consents or not, Now, according to the common law, rights of way are of three kinds, or, more accurately speaking, of two kinds. There is a, right of way by grant, and by prescription, which pre supposes a grant, and there is a right of way of necessity; and a right of way of necessity is measured by the necessity; and when the ne cessity ceases, the right ceases. That is the law. If you, Mr. President, sell me a piece of land surrounded on all four sides by your land, so that I have no way to get to the highway except over your land, I have a right to go over it. That is a way of necessity. If you sell me a piece of land surrounded on three sides by the land of strangers, and on the fourth side by yours, I have a right of way of necessity over your land, because you sold it to me. But this right of necessity does not extend to rights of convenience ; for if I buy a piece of land of you, and I can get to the highway over your land by going half a mile, and I cannot get to it by my own land but by going around ten miles, that does not give me a right of way over your land, because it is twenty times more convenient. The right of way must be one of absolute necessity. If I buy a piece of land of you, it may be vastly more convenient to go over your land than over my own, but if I own land by which I can get to the highway, I have no right of way of necessity over your land, and cannot take it, no matter how convenient it may be. Let us apply that principle in this case. We bought California of Mexico, and it is contend ed by the Senator from Virginia that we have a right of way through Mexico to get to it. Have we not the highway? What is the ocean 1 What is the sea ? The highway of nations. We have then a right of way over the highway, and that supersedes the right of way of neces sity, which we might otherwise have. Besides that, we have got a right of way over our own land. We own all the land from here in a straight line to California, and for that reason we have no right of way of necessity. If these two reasons are not sufficient, I can give you a third. We have by contract another right of way over Panama. Here are three separate rights of way that we have ; and the idea that we have a right of way of necessity, is, with all deference to the honorable Senator, absurd. I would not say it if I thought he had esamin- Nir* ed it ; but inasmuch as I know that he cannot have examined it, I must say, that the position is absurd. The common law is, " A right of way may arise from necessity in several re spects; " but I will not read it. I was about to read from Kent's Commentaries; but the same doctrine which I have stated to you is there laid down, and it is not necessary to read it. This is the doctrine of the common law. Nothing more favorable to the Senator's view is laid down by Vattel in " The Law of Na tions." But the right of way is the right to pass over the soil, not to subvert it; not to dig it up. not to make canals, not to make rail roads. But it is simply to pass over the soil in the easiest manner possible, doing the least possible injury. I trust the honorable Senator from Virginia, who is an able and astute, law yer, when he comes to examine this matter. will reconsider that opinion of his, and that he will not be prepared to go to war upon the doc trine of a right of way, of necessity, on our part, over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The honorable Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. Downs,] in his remarks on this subject, made a suggestion which I was very sorry to hear ; and that was, that we should go and take pos session of the Isthmus by force. Sir, I think we are going back to the ages of barbarism, when the law of force is to be substituted for the tribunal of reason and argument. We are too late in this age of the world to throw away the aids of diplomacy and reason and argu ment, to resort to the law of force ; and I trust we shall not do it. This argument of force has been threatened to Mexico again and again ; afid what has Mexico said to it ? I have not the extract by me, but I have it in my memory. Mexico, when force was threat ened her, answered, substantially, " Your Gov ernment is strong, ours is weak ; you can take what of our soil you please, but we cannot go further than we have gone." Sir, in that' very declaration Mexico is stronger than you are with your armies ; in that very declaration she has fortified herself in a position too impregnable to be assaulted by your artillery. Why, sir ? Because she has appealed to a feeling in the human heart, which we will not disregard and will never for get, and that is to our magnanimity — to our sense of justice — to the regard with wh'c'.i the strong should ever consider the weak. She has placed her argument before us; she has demon strated, to say the least, to her own satisfac tion, the integrity of her position and the jus tice of her cause ; and when you reply to this appeal that you are going to take forcible pos session of her territory, what is her answer ? " You are strong, we are weak — take what you will, we can go no further." Sir, this country will learn, in such a contest as that, that there are forces more formidable than armies, and one such force is the enlightened public opim ion of the civilized and Christian world. And that same public opinion which threw the aegw of its protection around the wanderer Kossuth in the Turkish realms, and saved him secure from the gigantic power of Russia, will shield and protect Mexico from any assaults which have been threatened upon her by this Admin istration. I know, sir, that I have taken what will be called an unpopular side of this question ; I have taken the Mexican Bide. I know that, ir the cant and papular phrase of the day, it will be said I am against my country. Sir, I am for my country. I desire that her fame mayj be preserved untarnished. I desire that justice may mark her progress. I desire no interests, no attainments for her, that are inconsistent with the highest regards that are due to the rights of our neighbors, and more particularly, and emphatically our weaker neighbors. Such, I believe to be the position of Mexico. She is strong in her weakness. She is strong in the; appeal which she makes to our magnanimity,1 to our justice. I stand here, then, to-day, sir, pleading, not for Mexico, but for my own coun try ; and I ask that you will not tarnish the fair fame of the Republic. I ask that you will not commit this wrong which you are threat ening to perpetrate upon a nation which may be said literally to be helpless at your feet, that you will not in that way tarnish the repu tation which yet has continued to be the pride and boast and the inheritance of all our people. No, sir: let the interests of the nation, of the age, of humanity, of commerce, of social inter course, of Christianity and civilization, be taken out of the broker's board. Sir, we want some body to come in as the Saviour of old went into the temple of Jerusalem, and drove the money changers out of the temple. We want to bring to the deliberation of this question those con siderations which pertinently and appropriate ly belong to it. When that is done, when this Government is content to advocate these great interests, and leave those who have made con tracts with the Mexican Government to the appropriate remedy under Mex'can laws, then, and not till then, shall we put ourselves right. I believe that it is our duty, as is suggested in one of the resolutions reported by the Com mittee on Foreign Relations, " to review our existing relations with Mexico ; " and it is our duty to discard entirely the Garay grant ; n is our duty to throw it aside. As was well sug gested the other day, we are changing the venue. The issue was properly triable in Mex ico. It has been tried there, and the grant has been condemned there. It was tried, abandon ed, and condemned, before any citizen of the United States had -anything to do with it. I protest, then, that we shall not be brought in as second-rate lawyers, to take up and advo^ cate a dishonored obligation, and have our ne- 15 gotiations reduced to that low standard. If we are going to be practicing attorneys for Mr. Hargous, to assert his claim, let him bring us a claim that is not dishonored upon its face. Sir, it is an insult to us when he comes and asks the United States to lend their diplomacy to enforce his claim, when he presents us a claim which is dishonored on its face, which has been defeated and has expired. We are not the first attorneys that have been applied to. The claim was first transferred to Great Britain, and she refused to touch it. Six months it remained in that situation, and- then, in July, 1849, an appeal was made to the American Government. This Government commenced its negotiations with the Mexican Government, as disclosed in the document which I have be fore me, continued and ended them with the Garay grant. Sir, I will not intimate, because I do not be lieve, and I have no opinion on the subject, that there were any undue influences brought to bear upon anybody, at any time, in reference,, to this grant; but I will say that I think there was force in the suggestion which Gen. Arista made to Mr. Fillmore, in his answer, when he told him that there was something a little mys terious about it. I do not know that I can do the subject bet ter justice than by reading to the Senate the following extract from the letter of President Arista to President Fillmore : - 2* "The ultimatum presehfed> by Mr.. letchcr is an act which has attracted much>atleation, and prepared the general mind for the injury which is intended to Mexico, denying her in practibo vvhat is conceded to her in theory, to wit : tho iggfot ¦freely to approve or reject the treaty, especially wHon-rh'is right has been exercised by your Excellency in this same business, when you disapproved of the treaty concluded on 22d, of June, 1850. But what is altogether incomprehen sible is this : that the New Orleans company being mostly interested in the matter, and the Government of Mexico being willing to adva&ec- the enterprise tjy all equitable and prudent means} in oruer to recon cile the interests of said company with) 'the least ] os- siblo sacrifice of its own, and i^jifaoiit'-, 'bringing t.y& friendly 'nations into conflict, all its'propositions have been rejected j and that said comp$py have pr.oferrei rather to plant themselves on the privilfflgVofGaray, which presents insuperable difficulties and Contingen cies of all kinds. On perceiving this tenacity of pur pose, so incomprehensible, in preferring the imprac ticable to that which was easy of achievement— a troublesome undertaking to one which was conveni ent — the conclusion is irresistible, that the object particularly aimed at was an occasion to bring the ";wo countries into conflict; and that, with this in tention, Mexico was required to do what it was known she could not and would not perform. Here, Mr. President, is a secret — a mystery which time will disclose, and which is entirely unknown to the heads of the two Republics,- for I have no doubt that your Excellency will feel as painfully affected as I am, in : seeing the preference which is given to a course be set with dangers, to one which presents no obstacles ; and that the trno interests of tho company are sacri ficed for a shadow, and even for a privilege so utter ly extinct as that of Garay, when Mexico tendors them another which nothing can take away from them. " In this unfortunate business, however, there is something more baneful than a mere mystory ; there are deceptions which have bcon carefully set afloat, with a viow to blind tho judgment and lead astray both tho people and the President of the United States. Tho first efforts were naturally directed to wards your Excellency, in order to convince you of the rights of Garay. and of the legality of his trans fer to the company which now claims those rights. To achieve this, they have not been scrupulous as to the moans to be usod — those resorted to being deceit and defamation : through the former thoy aimed to obtain the protection of the Government of the Uni ted States, and with the latter to deprive Mexico of the sympathy and good will of all men, by represent ing her as a perfidious nation, faithless to her word and to her pledges. These, Mr. President are the means that havo been nsed by those who, speculating upon the good faith of the Government and people of the United States, have sought to throw tho mantle of tho former over a commonplace and privato trans action. " The true history of this affair, traced from tho fountain head -and supported by authentic .docu ments, you will find in the accompanying report from tho Minister of Relations, the perusal of which I rec ommend to the enlightened wisdom and probity of your Excellency." In it yo.u will find everything — absolutely everything — for none of the facts have been left out, or even exaggerated. The truth op- pears in all its simplicity and nakedness — every pago bearing evidence that if there is any cause for com- plaini,. Mexico, who has been the victim of every kinll of outrage offensive to her character and derog atory of her rights, alone has the right to complain. ^£ .repeat that I recommend its perusal to tho impar tial consideration of the Pirst Magistrate of the na tion, whosod-uty it is to decido irrevocably concern ing the preservation of friendship with Mexico ; so that, by reaSing it without bias or prejudice, he may say^qaHStosing the last page, whether his convictions Unchanged. aft! both of us accountable to God and to tho ljQor the nso wo make of tho power intrusted to $hus, sir, in. I know, a very imperfect rrjajfner, I&id before the Senate the facts which I have Collated sin relation to this matter. I have spentjpSe time upon it. I have devoted some labor tcr'lfc^ because I have feit, and felt deeply, upon it. I have not laid the facts be fore you as succinctly and distinctly as I might, but I think I have laid before the Senate enough to satisfy any man who will look at the question with an unbiased judgment, that duty and honor and humanity and self-respect demand of us that we take this Garay grant and throw it out of this Chamber, so that we shall be left free from any such disturbing in fluences, and come to the consideration of those great questions which Bhould appropriately engage the deliberations of the American Sen ate, when we are investigating such weighty matters. 3 9002 08576 7425