Daily American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1852, 1852-01-13


bring to your notice the great change which the
views Of that government have undergone since
our foreign relations have been under the control
of Mr. Webster, we deem il. our duty to do SO.
We refer your Excellency to the general orders
issued in August or September, 1850, by General
ludes to the treaty of Guadalupe as binding the
United States to keep the savages from making
incursions into the Mexican territory. He then
says that the United States are engaged in driv-
ing the Indians out of that territory, which form
erly belonged to Mexico and that the elected
and, after getting foothold, under pretence OF
amicable Intentions will vent their ferocity upon
the defenceless inhabitants. On this account, no
Indians are on any account to be permitted to
cross the frontier. In another document Arista
quotes the words Of the treaty, and calls on the
President to bring it to the notice of the United
States, in order that our government may comply
with its obligations" (See "National Intelli-
gencer," October 26, 1862
From this it appears that in September, 1850,
States as faithful allies, bound by treaty to pre-
vent the incursions of the savages, and relied on
the good faith of the United States for the fulfil
ment of that treaty stipulation that it feared
the treachery of the savages, and therefore
would on no account permit any Indians to
stated in the newspapers that the celebrated
warrior '.Wild Cat has not only been permitted
to cross the frontiers but that he and his band of
Indians and runaway negroes have been accepted
as auriliaries and formed part Of the Mexican
troops in the late connections on the Rio Grande.
If this be true, land we have no reason to doubt
it, does it not show very great change in the
views of that government since Mr.. Webster $
accession to office? Does it not shew that
whereas that government then considered the
United States as friends and allies, on whom it
might rely, it now thinks that more reliance can
be placed in the honor and good faith of the
treacherous savage? We believe that this change
has been produced by the manner in which
our foreign relations with that government
have been conducted for the last eighteen
months, and especially by the bad faith
of Mr.. Webster in refusing to accept the
drafts which his predecessor had invited Mexico
to send on. We may regard Mexico as an enemy
from whom we have nothing to fear. For that
very reason, it becomes US to treat her with more
magnanimity and kindness. But if, through the
of Wild Cat, whose activity and
abilities so long bafed best generals in Florida
who pants to renew the war, and still thirsts for
vengeance on his former foes, Mexico should
come to an understanding with the savages, there
are many States of this Union exposed to their
attacks, which may have cause to regret that
and put in jeopardy and all will bitterly COM
plain that this should have been done to % favor
the usurers who wish to speculate on both gov
ernments."
There is another view of this subject The
Barings & Co. are British bankers. Their in
terests centre in London, and not in the United
States Aided by the British government, they
and other British bankers have possessed them
selves of the control of the finances and com
merce of Mexico, which control they use to di
vert the wealth and bullion of Mexico from thu
United States to London, that they may
thereby make the finances and credit of the
United States tributary to them and subject tc
their control Why then should we sustain them
at so great cost to ourselves and at the expense
of the interests and goodwill of Mexico?
The chairman of the Committee of Ways and
Means thinks we should sustain the Earrings,
because they are our bankers abroad. But do
they sustain us? Are they not also the bank
ers of the despots of Europe? Will they sustain
us except when it is their interest to do so, and
they can make profit. by it? Have they not
combined, will they not again combine, with other
bankers to defame us and cry down our credit Z?
Are they not large holders of European bonds,
bearing only three or four per cent interest per
annum? And are they not the agents for the
receipt and reinvcstment of the interest on n
much larger amount of those bonds? Are they
not laboring to cry down and keep down Amer
lean credit, lest the funds now invested
in European bonds, bringing to 4 per cent,
should be withdrawn from their control, and
transferred from London to New York, to be in
vested in American bonds, bearing an interest of
q to per cent? Why, then, should we sustain
the Barings s. Co? Is it that by such contracts
as that given by Mr. Webster, they may be
enabled, with the money of the people of the
United States, to corrupt their servants and
representatives? Your Excellency knows that
the great objection to the Bank of the United
States was that its great capital of $4,000, 900
might be used as an engine of corruption, to con-
troll the action of the government and elegisation
of the country. And do not the London bankers
as agents for the receipt and reinvestment of the
interest on European bonds, annually control
sums much larger than the whole capital of the
late Bank of the United States? The operations
- H. nh &c tba ITn;ted STATES were moreover