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

that the reason OF the SENATE IOr btrihng out the
words quoted was, that our army was still in the
heart Of Mexico, and it was not deemed prudent
to place SO large an amount oslo, 5000 00) of
negotiable paper in the hands of the enemy until
the invading army had been withdrawn. The
reasons for declining then to confer this right by
treaty are not therefore now applicable to this
case, and furnish no justification of Mr.. Webster's
conduct. For when we can do SO with safety and
advantage, we may well concede as q courtesy,
to generous and necessitous friend, what we
thought it not prudent to acknowledge as a right,
which might have been used to our prejudice by
an humbled and irritated enemy. The treaty
nowhere forbids it, and the reasons against it
which then existed have passed away
The full scope of Mr.. Webster's written argu-
ments is here given in his own language We
hope that have answered them fully and satisfac
torily
Mr.. Webster is bold man. The incorrect
report which he ventured to transmit to the
Senate proves that he is a very bold man. Yet
he had too much regard for his own reputation
to put on paper, over his own signature, the
absurdities which he induced the chairman Of
the Committee of Ways aud Means to utter to
the House of Representatives. On page 6Sl,
Congressional Globe" I'd session, 3lst Congress,
we find it reported that Mr.. Bayly said
"In the first place, without new treaty,
we have no right to- concede to their terms.
This committee will recollect that at the last SEES
sion of Congress took the ground here although
did not elaborate it very largely that, without
o new treaty, we had no right to make the pay
ment in the mode that Mr.. Marks and his asso-
ciates desire. have received communication
from the Secretary Of State on that subject,
which desire to have read, and which in my
opinion is perfectly conclusive on this point"
Mr. Websters letter of the 10Th February,
1851, quoted above was then read
It thus appears that the chairman of the Com
mittee of Ways and Means asserted at one SEES
sion, and, after studying the matter over during
the recess, again repeated at the next session,
that, " without q new treaty, we have no right to
concede to their terms"
We quote his words as reported.
Now, it is apparent that Mr.. Webster, by that
influence which great minds exercise over
weaker intellects, had SO confused the ideas of
the chairman of the Committee of Ways and
Means that he could not understand the dis
tinction between the "right to demand and the
"right to concede."
You, Mr.. President, as well as Mr.. Webster
and better than Mr.. Bayly, understand the
difference between two things 30 widely oppo-
site; and we should not have thought it worth
while to refer to this point, but that it was
made by the chairman of the Committee of Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives, and
is entitled to some consideration on that account
Mr.. Bayly, as the chairman of the Committee
of Ways and Means also urged that, inasmuch
as the treaty provided for the payment of the
money on particular day, the United States
could not safely pay before the day, even at the
request of the Mexican government; and that
if we did So {" we might be subjected to the dan
ger of being called on to pay it again." To this
we cannot reply better than in the words of Mr.
Cartier, of the House, who answered it thus:
"The learned chairman of the Committee of
WAYS and Means has discovered, and the Secre-
tary of State has condescended to endorse the
opinion, that you cannot pay debt to a creditor
without you pay it, in todem uerbis as the treaty
provides that the consummation ofthe discharge
of debt is not in making the payment; and that
the receipt of the money is not the discharge of
sense of this committee, and to every member in
this Hall, whether the acquittal of the govern
ment of Mexico, through her financial agent, is
not an estoppet on that government in the claims
against this government"
To similar argument as to the place of pay
ment, advanced by Mr.. Dickinson in the Senate,
Mr.. SoulG replied:
aI only feel il necessary to say that, although
the treaty stpulates that the money shall be paid
in the city of Mexico have yet to learn that, if
the payee and the payer agree as to the place Of
payment, they are not at liberty to make it.wher-
ever they choose"
But it would be a waste of time to answer
all the absurdities spoken by Mr.. Bayly, at the
suggestion of Mr.. Webster. To illustrate the
sincerity with which he, as chairman of the
Committee of Ways and Means, treated the House
which had honored him with that exalted posi-
ton, and the confidence which his statements or
arguments merit, we need only refer to the fact
that he intimated to the House that, if the
United States were to transport the specie to
Mexico to pay this Indebtedness the Mexican
government might connive OF its robbery on
the road.
Being Intercepted by Mr.. Brown, of Missis-
sippi, he was reduced to the ptiable condition
Of retracting his words, by saying:
al suppose every one understood my remark to
be jocular."- Il" Congressional GLOBE" page 185,
LIST session, 31st Congress-.
1t was also urged that, in the transmission and
payment of such large sums, the government
should rely only on agents of unquestonable re-
sponsibility, and that We not possessing the wealth
and resources of the combined houses of Earrings
& Co., Rowland Aspinwall, and Corcoran g.
Riggs, were not as responsible as they. But