Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1852-01-29

without precedent, and contrary to precedent.
do not know whether correctly understood the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs Mr.
Bayes but understood him to state that one Install
ment OF the Mexican indemnity was negotiated with
the brokers aud bankers, by the late Secretary of
State, MIR. Cayton.1 see that gentleman now in
this Hall, and desire to ask him whether under
stood him correctly?
Nc. Bayey. Tie gentleman is mistaken. On the
contrary, stated that that inslalment was negotiated
by MIR. Letcher, Minister in Mexico.
Mr.. Allen. / now understand the gentleman TO
say that the Secretary Of State had nothing to do
with it. am aware that he had not; but will
tell this committee what he did. He negotiated with
the Mercaa MlaiStg in relation to the terms Of pay
ment; but when that negotiation came to AN end,
and arrangements we've to be made with the brokers,
MIR. Clayton at once gave up all connection with the
business. He would have nothing TO do with it.
He had too much regard for sense Of proprety to
Interfere in matter delicate, and in reference
TO which there was so much room for misapprehen-
sion, TO say the least. He would not interfere with
the duties which properly belonged another Off
Ger. Now, sir, whoever will inquire INTO the course
of proceeding in this behalf adopted by the present
Secretary OF Stale whoever will examine that
course thoroughly and critically, and siit il to the
bottom, will lind that when he came into office, he
did instantly and eagerly what the former Secretary
OF State had refused TO do. lie assumed upon him
self the negotiation for the payment Of the install
ments OF the Mexican indemnity at once-almost
immediately. 1t was hut few DAYS from the time
he commenced his official course, that he instituted
a negotiation with the bankers and brokers, for the
payment of large sum of money, for which, per-
haps, at some future day, Congress might make an
appropriation Now, ask, what authority the
Secretary OF State had for thisl | ask why he dis
regards the precedents in the case?-why he
sumed the duty of another officer? To learn what
that duty is, nave but to look at the bill before
us. What are Its provisions? 1t simply makes an
the Treasury in liquidatns the debt due 10 Mexico.
Now, sir, there is no legislator in the countryLere
is no man who has had anything to do with the
affairs of his commonwealth, or even with the
affairs OF his own county or township, who is not
competent TO decide this question-Nho does not
know that when there is nothing to be done but To
pay certain sum Of money out Of the Treasury, it
becomes the duty Of the Treasurer to make that pay
meut, and not the duty OF any other officer
1t is doubtless the duty OF the Secretary Of State
to negotiate treaties with foreign ministers. But
when the negotiation is conclnded and nothing re
mains but to appropriate sum OF money out OF the
Treasury, hold, and believe it has always been
held in the history Of this Government, that the du-
ties of the Secretary Of State have been discharged,
and that the payment Of the money is duty belong
ing to another officer.
But must hasten onward | took occasion last
year, in the of the discussion upon this bill
though il suddenly upon me--in the discharge
present Secretary of State, unnecessary and improper
interference in transaction which did not devolve
upon his office, and for which there is no evidence
that he is peculiarly qualified to undertake. The
Secretary of the Treasury but not the Secretary of
State, is selected for his skill in financial affairs.
further urged upon this House, that the relations
which the present Secretary of State sustans the
capitalists and bankers, such as to render it
highly improper and unfit that he should take upon
himself, unnecessarily, to discharge the duties he
assumed. Now what these relations? 1t had
just come to my knowledge, and it seemed to
proper matter for the knowledge Of the House-that
when the Secretary Of State took upon himself the
Office which he now holds, he entered into nego-
tiation quite rema kabe to say the least, as the
negotialation which appears he made With the
Earrings and their associates 1t was negotiation
with men Of character, class, and description, siml.
lar TO that of MIR. Ward of Boston, and Rowland s.
Aspinwall, of New York; a negotiation, by which,
inducement for Mr.. Webster to take the office
Now, do not say that Mr.. Ward was a party in this
negoliatian, either directly indirectly, nor do
say that he was in any way a contributor to that
fund Neither do say that he was not directly or
indirectly contributor. / know the names of ,me
of them. When the collector passed through certain
streets in the city of Boston, calling upon the neighe
bors oil that gentleman aud his associates in Tx
condition with himself for their respective contribu
tons, do not Know what mark he NAV have found
upon the door-poss Of that gentleman, which induced
MN TO pass ms house without calling upon him aso
Tor his contribution. Nor do | know that when the
collection taken up in the civ Of New York.
among those famiarly known as the upper tendon
there, that Messrs. Rowland & AspinwaIl were
contributors also; but | am satisfied OF this fact and
offered at the time TO prove this House, by evil
denee then within the reach of my voice, that the
associates of these men among the contributors
to this fund.
Now, it is for this House to say, and for the coun-
try TO say, whether these facts should be made
known, or should Mark the time toten the con-
tract entered into Nth the Barings and their associ-
ates Mark the time, also when The contract was en-
tered into for the raising of the sum of $780, 900 10
support Mr. Webslee in the office of Secretary of
State, by the same description Of men to whom they
belong, II not by themselves also. " hen was this
contract made with the Earrings! On the 3Ist day of
August. 1850, Mr.. Green writes to Mr. Webster in
forming him that such AN arrangement had been
made by him with the Government Of Mexico, and
that he was authorized TO negoote for the payment
OF this money. Two days after, the Secretary Of
State replied that he had already made " definite
arrangement fen weeks ago, with Barings, Broth
ers & CO., Rowland & Aspinwa, and Corcoran s.
Riggs" for payment of this money. You will bear
in mind that this letter from Green 10 Webster. was
written upon the 3lst day of August, aud the reply
upon the I'd OF September. Ii you will turn to that
reply, found in the Telegraph, laid upon our tables,
you will lind the Secretary says 'defnite arrange
ment' was completed some weeks before that period
Well, the Secretary had not then been in Office six
weeks. He took the Office on the 22d Of July, and
10 the proposition Of Mr. Green, made on the 3ls of
August, he replies that " a few weeks ago" def
mite arrangement had been made. When was the
other definite arrangement made? At the time the
Secretary took his Office Just before he accepted
the Office, the agreement made az 10 the snin TO
be raised. and capitalists went on and raised the
money. Now, il the contract was made with BAR
ings and their associates, some weeks hefore this
proposition of Mr.. Green to Mr.. Webster, does il
not follow irresistiby that the contract as going on
with Mr. Ward and Rowland & Aspinwall, al the
vgy time when the negotiation was going on for rails