The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1852-05-19
THE TEHUANTEPEC TREATY.

published BY us on Monday, is true, says 'ha' 'he
Cabinet has already had The matter unoei 60"
sidera,ion-that the insuperable ooJecuon ia'S-
ed by Mexico 10 the execution oil Inc ua''y
grant, arises from the immense quan'''s VI '''''
which il CONVEYS, amounting TO ten leagues on
.ocb SIDE of the route-that the experience oil
M.,;co in the case of Texas, renders her
ayerse to the policy of settling any more OF her
territory. as this would be, by Amefcans-and
,b., This consideration operated to produce the
unanimous rejection of the treaty offered for
,hs ratification of tae Mexican Congress. The
Herald then says:
We have been furnished with Mexican do
,umen, entitled Statement of the Rights and
Inst Reasons, on the part of the Government
of the United Mexican States, for not recognis
ing either the subsistence of the privilege
granted 10 D. Jose Garay, for the opening OF a
line of communication between the Atlantic
and Pacific Seas, through the lsthmus of Ie-
huantepec, or the legality OF the cession which
he made Of said privilege TO citizens OF the
United States of North America, published by
authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mexico, 1882" This document consists Of
legal argument of forty pages. against the va
lidity of the Garay treaty. The leading points
of this argument are: That the contract be-
tween Santa Anna and Garay was not fulfilled
on the part of the latter, who failed to COM
mence the work in the stipulated time, after
which the grant became nuliity. 2. That the
acts of the provisional government of Santa
Anna, OF 1912, under which the grant was
made to Garay, were subject 10 the approval of
the first Constitutional Congress that might
succeed, and that without such approval the
grant was void. 3. That the provisional 60
vernment of Salas, which renewed the Garay
grant, and extended the time for the commence
ment Of the work, had no authority in the pre-
misses. A. That the transfer by Garay of his
charter to the English house of Manning. Nc
Intosh & Company, was Invlolatlon OF the COM
Tact; and that the subsequent transfer of the
grant to the American house of Hafgous &
Company, and their transfer again to the New
Orleans Company, were equally illegal, and
were clearly intended as device for coercing
the Mexican Government in the matter, under
the fear, first, of the power Of Great Britain.
and secondly, of the well attested power OF
the United States.
To these several positions it is sufficient to
answer, that the grant to Garay was recognised
by all the governments of Mexico, revolutiona.
ny and regular, down to the end Of the American
war-lhat they acknowledge, aslo, the transfer
TO Manning & McIntosh-and that the Mexican
Commissioners, who formed the treaty of eau.
dalupe Hidalgo, rejected the offer Of $l5,000,-
900 made by Mr.. Trist for the right of way
across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, declaring
that Mexico cannot treat on this subject, be-
cause she made, several years ago, grant to
one of her citizens, who has transferred his
rights, by authorization of the Mexican 60
vernment, TO English subjects, of whose rights
Mexico cannot dispose These are the very
words Of the Commissioners. They could not
have used palmer or more decided language.
Upon this solemn acknowledgement Of the rights
of Manning and Mcintosh, Mr.. Hargous pur-
chased it of them, and associated company
of citizens of New Orleans with him. In or.
der to make assurance doubly sure,' and 10
remove all possible grounds of future Difficult.
ty, Mr. Letcher concluded treaty with the
President and Cabinet Of Mexico. 1t did no
prove satisfactory to the company, who sent i
back to Mexico, whence after the required de
tentions, it was returned to the United States
Ii was ratified by the Senate here, and unani
mously rejected by the Mexican Congress.
beyond all question, as clear as it possible fol
title to be. The Herald, lis true, says that the
Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs meets the
strong point Of the case, by saying that the tx.
cuse for not selling to MIR. Trst, was mere
bubble. This does not alter the aspect of the
affair in the least, nor can it now be pleaded by
the party making it, in bar of claim thus &C
knowledged, in an instrument so solemn as
treaty Of peace between two belligerant ma
tions. Such a treaty is not the proper place 70
ajoke, nor can jokes cracked there be taken 70
any thing less than earnest. We subloin tb
closing comments of the Herald:
In any event. it has now become evident tina
Mexico will run the hazard of war rather thai
ratity the rejected treaty What is TO be done
Who are to indemnify the New Orleans compan,
Tor their expenditures and calculations in this en-
terprlsef We apprehend there need be very littl,
difficulty III the matter. Mexico, emitting the pri
vllege OF colonization, declares her readiness t
oede TO the United States the Tehuantepec RICH
OF way. She can hardly be held to the accounta
bllty OF responsible government We must TAX
her as we lind her, and do the best that can be dom
under the circumstances War would be an impoli
TIC expedient tredress Our true policy is to lain
tam Mexico, as long she can maintain herself
within herself, intact The slavery cues tion admon
1shes us against any turtle Mexican annexations
which war would inevitably lead Such, we be.
aeve' Is Mr.; Websters opinion. We do not, there
1ore apprehend war, while We do suppose the Ga
ray grant practically defunct. The right of way
may be secured, together with the settlement OF
the question OF our Indian aggressions along our
Mexican frontiers. The sacrifice of thu Garay
grant WIZ cause some serious losses to the parties
coneernedi put as the cabinet, We suppose are not
implicated to any serious extent we cannot ina
gine the necessity for war If necessary new
batch OF Mexican claims will make all straight,
What says Mr.. Websteri
We, too, are opposed to any more territory
tfrom Mexico. We hope the question to which
the former accession gave rise, may never recur
in our day. Butwhat is TO become of the com.
panyf They will suffer heavy loss, by the
sacrifice Of the Garay grant. Who is to in
demnify them7 That is the question. The
United States are surely bound TO protect the
acknowledged rights of their citizens, against
the acts Of foreign governments. Will it, upon