The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-10-26

The privileges 10 gentlemen OF New Orleans tsprobable
mat at the instance OF the latter General Taylor directed
Mr Leteher to be instructed TO propose treaty 10 the
Mexican government upon the subject treaty was con
eluded accordingly in June, $780, translation OF which
was published IN New Orleans soon afterwards This
treaty is still pending between the Two governments II
is probable that Major Barnard Of the United States en-
glnees, was sent TO the sthmus the request OF the
American holders OF the grant, for the purpose OF assist
lngn the survey OF the route have not been able 10
ascertain nor can understand how, after the question
OF The validity OF the grant to Garay had been submitted
TO the Supreme Court of Mexico the Congress OF that
republic could entertain il. They appear however, to
have had no scrupes the subject, and have repealed
The decree OF Saas for the alleged that he had no
authority TO enact It, This would not seem 10 be
very modest TO say the least when il is considered that
'he Nirxieah government, as II now exists. owes It's
origin to another OF his DEGREES The strangeness of the
conclusion OF that body will be the apparent when
Is also considered that the very Congress which took
upon itself the forfeiture OF the charter granted by Saas
TO Garay refused to approve OF law of the State of
Sonora because II interered with decree respecting
colonization which Saas had issued while he was al
the head OF the government This alone is sufficient
answer 10 the reason alleged for the repeal of the decree
OF Salas, and shows that the osensibe could not have
been the real cause.
Some say-but we do not believe itthat persons inter-
esed IN other routes have found to approach and
influence parties having control in Mexico hoping that
the aay grant could be forfeited, It's execution de-
ayed the public would meanwhile be compelled togo to
and from the Pacific by different from that of Te
huanepec 1t Is said, however that another English
company, and even another American company are ready
to execute The work the forfeiture OF the Garay
grant shall be confirmed and they can obtain another
charter from the Mexican gov eminent This, however
may well be doubted There is no Gag erness among
capitalists OF any nation to invest money in such enter
prses in Mexico. The delay of Gaay to make the canal
or railroad caused by this dsrust and it will never
be removed until the Mexican government shall enter
INTO convention with the foreign government whose
citizens may undertake the work. authorizing that gov
eminent TO protect il from violence and unjust forfeit
ures ....-a .,..
Hence it appears that the grant 10 Garay has never
been legally forfeited This has been repeatedly &C.
nowledged by the Mexican government ITSELF and the
law declaring the forfeiture is reversal, by change of
policy and OF parties OF charter soennly and again
and again. recognised and sanctioned.
investigator expresses his opinions in regard 10 this
change OF policy with confidence which seems 10 i'm
ply more intimate acquaintance with Mexican counsels
than can pretend TO- Some individuals in New Orleans
claiming to belong to the Tehuan,epec Company may
have used Imprudent and Incorporate expressions The
Mexican government, it is to be hoped too wise and
too well disposed to allow itself to be disturbed thereby
AS to alleged grievance in regard to the indemnify that
has been or will be explained. We presume the writer
refers to the alleged transaction with Mr. Marks When
the correspondence in regard TO that published in full
we shall whether there any contract the part
OF Mr.. Clayton which his successor could have known
anything Of and his failure 10 recognise which to
mpar "Investigators' ink undue quantity of gallo
acid AMERICUS