Daily American telegraph., 1852-01-13

your predecessor and which, besides comforting
great benefits on Mexico, would have saved to
the United States treasury over half million OF
dollars Why has he labored so hard-why has
he even resorted to the expedient of transmitting
through you to the Senate report suppressing
information called for by the Senate and making
statements inconsistent with truth, in order to
mislead Congress, and thereby procure its appro-
val of the contract given by him to the Barings &
Co. "a contract which members Of the House,
of all parties, asserted that he had no authority
to make, and which even Mr.. Bayly did not VEN
ture to defend, except on the ground that it was
conditional contract, dependent on the action
Of Congress Was it that he sits at the right
hand of your counc-table more as the advocate
and attorney of these great British bankers than
as the American Secretary of State We cannot
prove that they have paid him any retaining fee
for this service; and we therefore make no such
charge.
But has it not become notorious that Mr..
Webster is surrounded by certain followers and
fatterers who use his great talents and lofty
position, and the information acquired through
him, to speculate at the expense of the pub
lie treasury and general interests Of the
country? It is not notorious that these men,
chiefly, if not solely, because of their peculiar
| relations to Mr. Webster, are employed, and paid
large fees, to carry through claims against, and
money operations with, the government? And
what matters it whether the consideration for
such contract as this, which costs the treasury
of the United States over half million of dol
lars, and inficts still greater loss on Mexico,
passes to Mr. Webster direct, or to those on
whom he depends for support and political pre-
ferment? In either case, the unmeasured zeal
which, by his extraordinary report, and still
more extraordinary conduct, he has manifested
in the service of the Earrings s. Co., in this
matter, proves that there exists between those
bankers and Mr.. Webster relation which ought
not to exist between them and the Secretary Of
State and fastens on him suspicious to which
the Cabinet officer to whom the foreign rela-
tions Of this country are intrusted ought not to
be subject.
Having thus laid before your Excellency full
statement of this case, we proceed to examine
the arguments which have been urged against
the mode Of payment suggested by us, approved
by your predecessor, and earnestly desired by the
Mexican government.
Those which first deserve attention are con-
tanned in letter addressed by Mr.. Webster on
the 10Th February, 1851, to the Hon. Thomas H.
Bayly, chairman of the Committee of Ways and
Means.
After quoting the article of the treaty, Mr..
Webster says:
"This being treaty stipulation, no branch of
this government can alter the obligations which
it imposes upon the United States, or enlarge the
rights to which it restricts the Mexican govern
ment. This can be done only by another treaty,
duly negotiated and ratified. The article referred
to confers no right upon the Mexican govern
ment to draw drafts upon the Treasury of the
| United States and imposes obligation on that
| department either to accept or to pay them"
| The simple answer to this sophistry is, that
while the treaty defines and restricts the rights
which either nation may under it demand of the
other it in way prohibits or restricts the favors
and benefits which they may think proper to
concede one to the other, or for their mutual adj
vantage. If, regardless of all considerations of
courtesy, good faith, and good neighborhood, the
United States government think proper to play
Shylock with Mexico, or rather to stand on their
bond" for the benefit Of these rich bankers, the
Shylocks of nations then, indeed, there is no
treaty obligation to the contrary contained in the
article quoted, though we contend that the spirit
and tenor of the whole treaty forbids us thus to
demand "he pound Of flesh" Mexico cannot
under the treaty, claim q right to draw drafts
on the United States for the amount of the in
demnity; nor can she demand their acceptance or
payment by virtue Of any obligation imposed on
the United States by the treaty. But that is not
the question presented by this case. There are
other rights and other obligations besides those
which are conferred or imposed by treaty. The OBJ
legations of good faith land the correlatiye rights)
exist Independently of treaties and the invitation
and assurances given to Mexico by the late admin
istration impose obligation on this govern
ment, and confer on her corresponding right,
as sacred as if it had been created by treaty. 1t
is true that no branch of this government can
alter the obligations imposed ON the United
States witom the consent Of Merico. But with
her consent they may be altered, or even dis
pensed with altogether Her right over this in
debtedness is absolute. She can, without new
treaty, relinquish it, and dispense with payment
altogether and, by mutual consent, the time,
place, and manner Of payment can be altered at
pleasure, without new treaty. There is an
obvious distinction between permanent and
continuing obligations, which can be altered
by treaty only, and those obligations which, in
their nature, are temporary and special, and may
therefore be altered or dispensed with at any time
by mutual consent of the two governments, acting
by their proper and competent branches. Such
is the in this instances and though the treaty