The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-11-08

be abors to deceive by creating impression that the
works referred TO by the Gss Poeo Of Acayucan were
the works the railroad and canal. when, in fact the
communication referred only the survey of the tempo
Isy wagon road and locations under the colonization
contract Of Manning Mcintosh. (Ses Mex Sem Rep
page 47)
We may admire al the bold ingenuity of this attempt
but the recklessnsss Of the concluding assertions Of
"Americus" is positively shocking, He says;
Hence appears that the grant TO Gaay has never
been legally forfeited This has been repeatedly aektoo
edged BY ~ Asriesa governmsni Itself"
The ability with which +" Americas" has misstated the
shows that he is well informed on the subject and
cannot, therefore. plead ignorance as an excuse Tor
making the above statement in the face OF the notorious
fact that on the Sth of March, lsd9, the Mexican gov
eminent officially announced that Garays grant had been
forfeited By reference 10 the Mexican Senate report, il
will be seen that the work the railroad not having
been commenced within the two years allowed by the de-
croe Of the 5th November, 1916 Messrs Manning
Mcintosh the 18Th January lsio presented them
selves for the first time TO the Mexican government as
assgnees Of Garays grant for the railroad 1t is proba
BILE that Garay, conscious that the time allowed him had
expired, sought 10 strengthen himself against an antic
pated forfeure by bringing in the influence Of the British
consul (McKntosh,) whose interests TO trays own
language. could not be tramped upon like those oil
Mexico" However this may be. il is certain that the
Mexican government at refused to recognise the
grant valid and subsstng and referred the claim OF
Manning Il McKintosh TO Don Manuel Gomez Pedraza,
for his opinion thereon On the 3Ist January ls49 M
Pedraza gave. his opinion, that the government al
liberty 10 declare thai the exclusive pripiege had ceased
and that right reainsd in Garoy, Cor his assgnees by
reason Of his noncompliance Nth the obligations ANNEXED to
his grant," Adopting this opinion OF Sr Pedraza, the
Mexican government, the 9Th Of March. lsa0, as
promptly as due examination Of the subject permitted,
refused 10 recognise Manning & McKintosh as the as
sgnecs OF Gafay, and also gave them notice that his
privilege had been forfeited. On the day the Mex
-
similar notice to Garay, who was then in the United
States This long prior to the sale assignment
to the New Orleans Company That declaration Of for
fixture has been retraced by the Mexican govern
ment; although that government did, il tue, consent
the urgent request OF the United States government
negotiate for the rnoal and confirmation Of the grant by
treaty.
Now, / ask, what confidence can the American people
place in the statements arguments of "Americus"
when in the face OF these facts, he ventures to make
the assertion above quoted he cannot make ont his
case BETTER be should treat the matter the admnstra
ton has done declare that "it is open debata
bic point" and that Mexico must and shall submit.
Don Manuel Pedraza having. on the !3lst January,
lsl9 given his opinion that the grant had been forfeited
and advised the government to declare in a subse-
auent communication advised that the decree of the
Executive that effect should be authorized by pro-
ceedDg OF the Supreme Court OF JUSTICE in the nature
OF writ OF quo Warrano According TO this suggestion,
by the Executive 10 the Supreme Court for its action
thereon.
On this point "Amercus" says have not been able
to ASCERTAIN how after the question OF the validity OF the
giant to Garay had been submitted TO the Supreme Court
OF Mexico, the Congress Of that republic could enter
tain it,"
"Americus processes to rely chiefly upon and there
fore TO have read the Mexican Senate report If So he
might have ascertaned from that document the grounds
on which the Mexican Congress have acted; and
ture TO that, when fairly stated, they will be ap
proved of and sustained by the candid and honest portion
(Which take be the grsa, mase) OF the American peo
pie Had candor been convenient for his purposes,
instead of protesting to be unable understand the
subject he would have informed his readers that il pre-
sens two points
ist A question OF forfeiture for compliance with
tae conditions OF the contract;
al question to the validity OF the lsgsa,iss
which the contract originated
The solution OF the FIRST question properly belongs TO
the judiciary and therefore referred to the Supreme
Court But il must be remembered that the decree OF
I'd March, 1912, legislative act oil the provisional
government established by the Bases OF Tacubaya and
that al legislative acts OF that provisional government
were expressly made subject to the revision OF the Con-
s,iluonal Congress- which had power 10 approve. mod
~ or annuI the al its discretion. is true that
Santa Anna the I'd October, 1s43, when his author
i,y derived from that provisional and temporary plan oil
government was about to expire, issued decree rePu
dating and abrogatng 20 much Of the Bases Of Tacu-
baya (by which his authority crcaed) rendered
his iSisssps subject the revision OF the Congress
then about assemble. On its meeting. however, the
Congress very properly declared this decree null and
void, and asserted s authority 10 revise all the legislative
acts OF the provisional government
To satisfy the people Of the United States that the
Mexican Congress right in asserting lis authority 10
revise, modify. annu the legislative acts OF the Pro-
vsiona President (Santa Anna) need only suppose tho
be their We have lately beard much about
Saving the Unon," and OF impending civil war | may
be psrdoned, therefore, for supposing such Sup
pose that such calamity should befall that, to pre-
bloodshed, compact should be entered into
between the parties that that compact should provide
for The establishment, OF a temporary provisional gov
eminent, until Constitutional Congress could be con-
vened, and the country settle down into its normal
condition OF peace and quiet; that nwhile the pro-
visional government should be invested with legisla
tive - we'll executive functions with an express pro-
vision, however, by the very Of the compact tina,
oil IL kEislsvs should be subject the revision oil
Congress Now. suppose that Mr. Flmoe-or, a. Mr..
Webster refuses to treat this open or debatabe
poat with Mexico, let suppose that heas the head
Of shis provisional government should the OF the
meeting OF Congress-, issue his decree regulating and
aosoeanng 40 mach OF the compact subjected his
Legislative sef' TO the revision OF Congress Would the
C0agees Of the United States hesitate TO declare this de-
cree nall and vo'd or 10 take cognzance Of revise and
annul his isgislafips Gets Would the peopje NJ The
United States sustain their representatives in rcs.no
such usurpaiion OF the one man" power, Or would
they require permit the question OF the validity Of such