The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-08-13
United StateS-in this way converting private un
-rtaking into an affair between nation aud ia

United StateS--in this way converting private I'm
| d rtaking into an affair between nation aud ia
ton. II may be that THE idea would hav Q be en- en-.
tcrtained on account of the treaty which, from the
tpartieuiar circ unsta nces in which Nicaragua was
placed, was eoncluded in April. 1850. between the
! United States and England relative to the way
| of inter oceanic communication, intended to be
opened betwce the river St. Johns and The lakes
OF Nicaragua or Mauagua. The truib is, that the
| hrst indications were formally made on the part
of the Government Of the Unit, States, as appears
among other documents from the last note which
Mr.. Letcher addressed 10 the Mexican governme mt
on the I'd Of April, 1852, and which has been pub
iished in the New York Hraid. Avniiing our
selves OF it only for this point, will quote the
| following:
" The undersigned wac therefore instructed by
his government TO form the Mexican gov. rnu,en,
OF the desire Of the holders Of the grant COM.
mence their work BY thorough survey Of the
lsthmus as full confidence reposed in that
which had been made by the elg inecrs employed
in 1912; and further, to ksovertures tor trea-
| " Of joint protection of the work."
The second assertion Is also entirely incorrect.
After the notifications which tho treaty met with
in its second epoch, the government Of Mexico.
knowing the Inconvenience and difficulties which
1t presented when even thus amended, and fore
seeing that, if it sent to Congress, il would
be undoubtedly rejected, entered into neguti.
alton with Mr.. Letcher, In order that the modfica.
tions might be made; for which purpose use was
made OF the delay which the latter had requested
for the ratification of the treaty In the differences
which took place with that intent new project of
agreement, presented as substitute for the pend
lag treaty BY the Minister Of Foreign Affairs of
Mexico, was used as basis; all Of which appear by
the note viii :h the Mexican Minister wrote to the
Secretary Of State on the 3lst May last, also pub.
!ished in the New York Herald. in which the fol
lowing appears:
From the fret conferences, as we'll "a In several
official notes, the Mexican government gave Mr.
Le'cher to understand frankly and truthfully that
It was necessary to have the treaty modified, by
wording it SO asto do away with every ditfculty;
free it from the impedinen's under which il
labored, and avoid the remarks which were being
made against II; predicting from that time that
II TINS waa not done the treaty would be re.
jected''
Further on, 10 speaking of the hope which had
been conceived Of carrying this business to a ia.
vorable termination, he says:
"Because Mr.. Letcher, who knew positively the
truth about every thing-who was acquainted with
the state Of public opinion-who foresaw what
would become Of the treaty by sending Il to- Con.
gress for it's revision in the shape in which it has
been conceived-solicltcd an extension of the term
agreed upon for it's ratification; stating that he did
30 in order that, the treaty being modified all
the difficulties which were in the way might dis,
appear and the matter DO definitely settled in snch
requred for tctich purpose conferences had a,readv
been held rtlattre to project that had been presenfra
by ne Minister Of Relo'O"s' as 'ubssituis for the
This view is aiso confirmed in the statement
made by Mr.. Letcber, in his aforesaid note of the
I'd April last, and finally by the mod fca tons
themselves, ana tne new PROJECT OF agreement, to
which publicity has been given in tho New York
paper in which has been inserted a portion OF the
correspondence and documents reitt!ve to this
business. In view of this how can il be affirmed
that the Mexican government did not propose any
amendment or modi6 cation in the treaty! Why.
were not amendments those which were proposed
during the negotiation? viii il be said that the
treaty was rejected without any other having been
proposed? Has that which the Minister Of For
eign Affairs offered to Mr.. Letcher, and upon
which were based the conferences which took
place, and for 60 long period occupied the at
tention OF the two ministers, any other denom-
natonl
Congress rejected the treaty submitted to it's ex
animation, because to II alone belongs by the con-
stituion Of Mexico, the right to approve or reject
treaties, but not to negotiate. The deputies pro.
pose laws DEGREES, but they do not take the in
tiative in treaties; the direction Of diplomatic ne.
gotiatons and the concluding Of trcati 3 is COM
mtted to the Executive power.
These points being made clear, it is necessary to
continue the examination Of the others. becausa
any obscurity or misunderstn nd:ng, as we have
shown, might lead to sn erroneous opinion; and il
is we'll that, in examining this business the simple
truth should appear, without any shadow 40 o.
scure or hide il, VERIDICUS
TO BE CoNrINuEp.1