Daily American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1852, 1852-01-24
rhs Mexiean Indemnity.

t The Mexican Indemnity.
v So much has been said on this subject that we
are not surprised to find that members Of Con-
gress, who, from their relation to Mr.. Webster,
may well be supposed to have been impressed
with his views, do not understand the facts or
the real question at issue. aHG
Thus Mr.. Davis, of Massachusetts, who came
upon the floor with well-arranged notes, prepared
to defend Mr.. Webster, represented the Messrs.
Green as interested parties, and that by their
contract the Mexican government were to have
paid them more than was paid to the Earrings s.
Co., and argued that the arrangement made by
Mr.. Webster was better for Mexico than the
arrangement proposed by Mr.. Marks. Now, the
letter addressed to Mr.. Webster by the bankers
through whom he made the payment admits that
they divided profit of 81 per cent. on the whole
amount Of the last instalment, and that % per
cent. Of that was made by exorbitant charges on
the funds advanced; whereas Mr.. Marks, by his
contract, was to receive but 81 per cent COM
mission on the amount paid over to the domestic
creditors Of Mexico, which was to be paid by
those creditors, and not by the government Of
Mexico. Upon SO much as might be required
by the government for its own use, Mr. Marks
was to receive not one cent, in the shape of COM
mission or otherwise.
If Mr.. Davis had read the memorial of Mcssrs.
Green with a view to ascertain the arguments
and facts for their Defence instead of reading
as the friend and partisan Of Mr.. Webster, he
would have noted these facts. g \ ,4,
L. 4 IL, A. L
made bat thirty thousand dollars, when the pro-
fits of the Messrs. Green would have been
$175, 000- If he had read their memorial as
their friend, apologist, and advocate, he would
have seen that this $175, 900 was the percentage
on the whole sum of both instruments, if they
had received a commission upon the whole
amount; whereas it was expressly understood
that for such sums as were not paid over to the
creditors of the Mexican government they were
to receive no commission whatever. And had he
been their friend, partisan, and advocate, he
would have seen that the case, as stated by him,
was very different from the case made by the me-
mortal from which he deduced his facts. at
Again, he said that the profits of the bankers
was but one per cent, whereas they admit
profit of three and one-thrd per cent. and he
oyerlooks the fact that the material issue present
ed by the memorial was that, by placing the sum
due to Mexico under the control Of those bank
ers Mr.. Webster enabled them to speculate on
the necessities of Mexico, which those bankers
admit by alleging that their profits over and
above their profit on the exchange was for in
terest on money advanced to Mexico.
Now, we ask the honorable gentleman whether,
if he had been the friend of the Messrs. Green,
instead Of being the partisan and advocate of Mr..
Webster, he would have overlooked these facts /;
and whether he would have said that Mr.. Web
.ster's contractors made thirty thousand dollars
upon payment which would have given to the
Messrs, Green $4,000? And we ask him
further, IL he had been their friend instead of
being the partisan and advocate of Mr. Webster
would he have justified Mr.. Webster in placing
the money Of the United States in the hands of
foreign bankers, to enable them to speculate on
the necessities of Mexico? And we ask him
further, if he had been the friend of the Messrs
Green, instead of being the partisan and advo-
cate of Mr. Webster, would he have represented
them to be deeply interested in the measure be-
fore the committee, when their interest in the
arrangement made by Mr.. Marks had ceased !;
or would have overlooked the fact that the agents
selected by Mr.. Webster to make the payment
say that they had ceased to consider themselves
to be so, because no funds had been appro-
priatedf II, as they allege, they used their own
funds in making the former payment, why could
they not use their own funds to pay the last in
stslmentl Does not the fact that they refuse to
make advances to Mexico on the instalment to
become due in May next prove that the cx-
change which they sold to obtain the funds to
pay the instalment due in May last was drawn
upon the funds appropriated by Congress for
that purpose
And, again, if Mr.. Davis had been the friend
Of the Messrs. Green, instead of being the parti-
san and advocate of Mr.. Webster, would he have
overlooked the fact that Mr.. Webster urged that
Congress. could not authorize the payment of the
money In New York, because the treaty requires
that the money shall be paid IN Mcrieo, in gold
and silver, and on given day and that yet Mr..
Webster's agents admit that they received one
million Of dollars in March for advances made by
them In January, being nearly five months before
the money became dueY And, what is more per-
tinent, would he have overlooked the fact that
the Mexican government refused to receipt for
the money as y payment ON account of the in
demnity TO become due, but expressly stated that
~ was sum advanced and to be repaid when the
money! become due should be paid by the
United States; that it was a sum loaned by
Fcrstali 20 Mexico, to be repaid, not out of the
linden indemnity, but when the indemnity should be
paid that It was a loan out Of Forstalps pri-
yate funds and not q payment h,, .lo Ir,,;4oa