Daily American telegraph., 1852-01-08
B6- For the Georgetown letter and other mat
ters of interest, see third page.


Bds- For the Georgetown letter and other mat
tiers Of interest see third page.
Messrs. Webster, Bayly and Green, and
the Mexican Indemnity.
We exposed yesterday the Misrepresentation
of Messrs Webster and Bayly, and the deception
they have attempted to practise upon Congress
and the country, in regard to the propositions for
the payment of the Mexican indemnity, with
which the name of Duff Green has become con-
nected They have endeavored to create the inn
preston that those propositions contemplated the
payment of three millions and half of dollars
by him to Mexico; and that inasmuch as he is not
worth, nor supposed able to give security for, 50
large sum, those propositions ought not to be
entertained. Now, those propositions were not
made by Mr.. Green, in his own behalf, but by
the Mexican Minister, Mr. De la Rosa, in behalf
of the Mexican government. 1t was not pro-
posed that Mr.. Green should be employed to pay
one single dollar for the United States to Mexico.
The proposition was simply that the United States
government should, as an act of courtesy and
friendship, aid Mexico to anticipate the payment
of the indemnity, by substituting for the impaired
credit of Mexico the better credit of the United
States. 1t was proposed to effect this by the
United States government accepting the drafts
Of the Mexican government for the amount Of
the indemnity due to the latter under the treaty
of Guadalupe. The object was, to protect both
governments from the combinations formed by
British bankers to speculate upon and plumber
the treasury of both governments; and the ar
rangement, if carried out, would have saved
to the United States treasury about $6l2, 200,
and much larger sum to Mexico.
Weproceed to examine the arguments advanced
by Messrs. Webster and Bayly for refusing this
very advantageous arrangement, which was earn
estly desired by the Mexican government, and
had been agreed to by the late administration,
which nvited the Mexican government to forward
the drafts, under assurances that an application
would be made to Congress for authority to ac-
cept or pay them.
After quoting the article of the treaty which
provides that the indemnity shall be paid in an
nual instalments, in the city of Mexico, and in
the gold and silver coin of Mexico, Mr.. Webster,
in letter addressed to Mr. Bayly, chairman of
the Committee of Ways and Means, on the 10Th
of February, 1851, argues as follows:
"This being treaty stipulation, no branch
of this government can alter the obligations
which it imposes upon the United States, or en-
large the rights to which it restricts the Mexican
government This can be done only by another
treaty, duly negotiated and ratified. The article
referred to confers no right upon the Mexican
government to draw drafts upon the treasury of
the United States; and imposes no 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 no way prohibits or restricts the ia
vors and benefits which they may think proper
to eoncede, one to the other, or for their mutual
advantage. II, regardless of all considerations Of
courtesy, good faith, and good neighborhood, the
United States government thinks proper to play
Shylock with Mexico or rather to "stand on
their bond" for the benefit of these rich bank
ers-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
indemnity 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 obligations Of good faith land the correlatve
rights exist Independently of treaties; and the
invitation and assurances given to Mexico by the
late administration impose an obligation on this
government, and confer on her corresponding
right, sacred 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
ioithom The consent Of Merico. But with her con-
sent they may be altered or even dispensed with
altogether. Her right over this Indebtedness is
absolute. She can, without new treaty, relin-
quish it. and dispense with payment altogether;
and, by mutual consent the time, place, and
manner Of payment can be altered at pleas
ure, without new treaty. There is an OBJ
vious distinction between permanent and con-
tiuuing 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, act
ing by their proper and competent branches.
Such is the case in this instance; and though the
treaty confers ON Mexico no right TO demand, and
imposes on the United States no obligation to
make, the payment in the manner proposed by
the late administration, and accepted and desired
by Mexico, 1t nowhere prohibits or forbids the
two governments from making such an arrange
ment by the joint action Of their respective ex-