Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-05-20
THE GARAY GRANT.

THE GARAY GRANT.
The Tehuantepec treaty ratified by the Sen
ate of the United States has been, with only two
dissenting voices, rejected by the Mexican Con-
sress. Mr.. Letcher, minister to Mexico,
thereupon intimated to President Arsta, that if
his Government shall persistin the refusal to rat
fly the Treaty, that the U. S. Government, might
consider it affording just ground of war;
Arista then, it is said, addressed to Mr.. Fillmore
a letter deprecating resort to this harsh means,
and setting forth the that operated to pro-
duce the rejection of the Treaty. Mr.. Webster,
it is stated, entertains strong views in relation to
the Justice of the claims on the part Of certain OF
our citizens, to secure which the object of the
proposed Treaty. But he has the subject still
under consideration, and nothing of a definite
character has yet been furnished to the public.
The Mexican Government, it appears, in $40
entered into a contract with Garay, in virtue of
which Garay was empowered to construct rail
road or open canal, across the Isthmus of Te-
huantepec. grant of ten leagues in width of
land on each side of the proposed work, was in
cluded in the contract. The Agreement, which
is the foundation Of the rejected Treaty. is now re-
pudiated by the Mexican authorizes: /. Because
the contract between Garay and Santa Anna
was forfeited by the former, by failing to COM
mence the work within the stipulated time. 2.
That the acts of the Provisional Government of
Santa Anna of 1912. under which the grant was
made to Garay, subject to the approval of the
first constitutional Congress that might succeed
and that without such approval the grant was void
3. That the Government of Salas, which renewed
tho Garay grant, and extended the time for the
commencement of the work, had no authority in
the premises. 4. That the transfer by Garay of
his charter, to the English house of Manning,
Mcintosh IL Co., was in violation of the contract;
end that the subsequent transfer of the grant to
the American House of Hargous & Co., and their
transfer again to the New Orleans company, were
equally illegal. These are the leading points of
the justification ef Mexico, as we find them stated
in one of the New ork papers. The case in
support of the vitality aud present obligation of the
compact is stated as follows by MIR. Benjamin,
Chairman of the New Orleans company:
1t apears thai the original griut OF Santa Anna
to Garay, OF the Iehuantepec right of way, inclu-
ding grant OF ten leagues in width of land on
each side of the railroad or canal along the whole
route, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, one hun
dred and seventy-five miles, more or less is legal
and valid The contract, it appears, was duly recog-
nized by all the regular and revolutionary govern
ments of Mexico, from 1912 down to the close of
the war with the United States, in l847 embracing
even the recognition of the transfer of the grant
to Manning, Mcintosh & Company In proof of
this the fact is cited that Mr. Trst, under his in
structions in negotiating the treaty of peace, of
Tered the government of Mexico the sum of fif-
teen millions of dollars for the right of way in IA
vor OF the United States, across the Isthmus of
Tehauntepec; and that the Mexican commission
ers empowered to treat, replied in these exact
words-''that Mexico could not treat on this sub
Ject, because she had several years before made a
grant to one OF her own citizens, who had trans
feIred his rights, by the authorization of the Mex-
can government, to English subjects, of whose
rights Mexico could not dispose" Mr.. BENJAMIN
says that upon this solemn acknowledgment of
the validity OF Garays grant, and the legality of it's
transfer to the British company, Mr.. P. A. Har-
gous purchased it of that company, and subse-
quently associated with him company of New
Orleans citizens. To make all sure, the New
Orleans COM, any determined upon a recognition
of their rights and privileges under this purchase
of the Garay grant by a treaty between Mexico and
the United States. treaty was agreed upon,
and concluded between Mr.. Letcher and the
Mexican President and cabinet: but it was not
satisfactory to the company. 1t was then sent
back to Mexico, modified, and returned; and on
being approved by Mr.. Hargous, in behalf of the
company, it was ratified by the Senate of the
United States, and back for the ratification of
Mexico. And this is the treaty lately rejected
unanimously, with perhaps one exception, by both
houses of the Mexican Congress.
This we believe, is a sufficiently full develop
ment of the case to enable our readers to form
some conclusion upon the validity of the claim on
the part of certain of our people to the benefits of
the Garay compact. 1t will be observed in thi.
statement of the 6y the reader that the reply
of the Mexican Commissioners to Mr. Trist,s
proposition, is relied upon in an important degree
to establish the obligatory form of the con-
tract. 1t occurs to our mind that probably too
much weight is attached to it in the foregoing
statement. Anything that might have been said
or done by those Commissioners not directly en-
braced by the powers conferred on them by their
government. could not be held to bind Mexico
They were not authorized, from any thing that an
pears, to act in respect to the Tehuantepec route
at ALL Whatever they might have said or done
in respect to it, the commissioners were agents
acting without the scope of their authority. It
appears to US exceedingly strange that in order to
strengthen the obligations of a bargain between
Mexico and Garay, resort should be had to
conversation between the Mexican Commission
ers and the Commissioner of the United States
when they were engaged in arranging the terms
of an agreement entirely distinct from the one in
question.
We believe in ordinary cases that principal is
only bound by the admissions OF bis agent ex-
pressly delegated to act for him in the particular
case concerning which the admission is made
Beyond that the agent is Invested of any authority
whatever to bind his principal by admissions
Why therefore, such stress should be laid upon the
response of the Mexican Commissioners to Mr..