The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-03-03

the decree OF the same Government OF the 4tn
of October, l843 that is the decree permitting
engineers to 20 on and make survey. Inc
fifth reason is the decree of the same Govern
ment Of the 2Sth of December l843; that If
the one which extended the grant to l845. The
sixth reason is the Mexican decree OF Novem
Der 5, 1916 that is the decree of Salas, which
expired in 1913; and how Mr.. Webster could
find evidence in the fact that decree which
expired in ls4S acknowledged the existence o.
the grant after lS48, is also matter that
cannot comprehend. The seventh reason IL
the note of the Mexican Commissioners to Mr
Trist, of September 9th, lS47. have already
commented upon that, and | have shown that
that note had nothing to do with the Garay
grant, properly 70 called, but related to colo
nization. Mr.. Webster's eighth reason 10 GER
tainly curious one and it is "the note OF
Mr. Clifford to Mr.. Lacunza, of the goth OF
June 1892 Mr.. Clifford wrote to Mr.. La
cunza, inquiring of him if the grant had been
annued Mr. Lacunza answered that 1t had
not been annulled, but that it was liable to be
annuled, for the reason that its conditions had
not been complied with. How Mr.. Webster
could find in that inquiry of Mr.. Clifford any
evidence that the Mexican Government ac-
knowledged the existence of the grant subse-
auent TO l848, confess cannot conceive.
The ninth reason of Mr. Webster is the let
ter of Messrs Manning & Macintosh to Mr.
Lacunza of the 25th July, lS49. That was the
letter in which Manning & Macintosh inform
the Government of Mexico that they had be-
come the assgnees of the Garay grant, and
that Government refused to recognise them as
SUCH and in that fact Mr.. Webster finds evil
dence that Mexico had assented to it. Man.
ming & Macintosh told the Government Of
Mexico that they were the assignees of Garay
Mexico said, we cannot recognise you as such
vet that is cited as a reason to prove that Mex
leo did recognise them.
The tenth reason is the letter of Mr.. La
cunza to Mr. Letcher of the 5th April, 1850
communicating copy of an order of the same
date, issued by the Mexican Government to
the Governor of the State of Oaxaca direct
ing him to receive with hospitality the Ameri
ca. engineers who had been appointed to sur.
vey the Tehuantepec route. Mr.. Webster here
evidently treats it as if American engineers
had been appointed by the Government, and
in the fact that they were Hospitality received
by Mexico he finds evidence that Mexico ac-
knowledged the grant
The eleventh and last reason of Mr.. Web
ster is the same as that suggested by the Com
mittee on Foreign Relations, the articles of the
treaty which had not been accepted but on
the other hand had been rejected by Mexico.
In these eleven reasons, and in the three or
four assigned by the Committee on Foreign
Relations, are to be found the reasons which
render it incompatible with the dignity of this
Government any longer to negotiate with
Mexico on this subject. Now what has been
the course of Mexico? What has she done
Has Mexico refused to treat with the Govern
ment of the United States? Has Mexico like
China, shut herself up within her own borders,
and said there shall be no egress or ingress, or
passing across her territory? Far from it.
Mexico, from first to last has not only been
willing, but has been anxious to open this COM
munication Read the letters. ! shall not
weary the Senate by going over them. But
any one who will read the letters Of Mr..
Letcher to the Mexican Government and the
answers, will find that Mexico was earnestly
and anxously desirous to have this communi-
cation opened but this Garay grant she
would not confirm Mexico says she will not
give up the sovereignty of her soil to a mere
private corporation. Mr.. Letcher wrote home
and told the Government that he had been in
formed by the Mexican Minister, "once re-
move this Garay grant, and there will be no
difficulty at all in making treaty" This is
very important point, and therefore will
read from Mr.. Letchers letter In the letter
from him to Mr. Webster, dated l4th Deem
bea 1851, relating conversation which he
had with General Arista, the President Of
Mexico, he says that Arista told him
That Mexico was poor and oppressed, but, so far
he had it in his power to guard and protect her
honor he determined she should not only be free
from lust reproach but should stand upon eeva ted
grounds before tho world in every particular in ref
erence to a matter Of so much Importance; that al
though she had been, and was Mt this moment, badly
treated by many of my countrymen, still, from mo
tives of sound policy. she was disposed and such
his sincere wish to concede to the United States
in preference to any other Power, all the privileges
which might be necessary to accomplish the greatest
enterprise of the age but that in the event of such
concession, no allusion must be made to the Garay
grant.
Leave out that grant-say nothing about it, ant
/ am ready said he, to enter into q treaty with
you, which think will be satisfactory to both coun
trios' "
How was this Garay grant looked upon in
Mexico? Let me show you how it was looked
upon there. Mr.. Letcher, in his letter to Mr.
Webster of the Goth October, 1851, says
a
end of the country to the other, against the Garay
grant upon which you know the treaty is prodica
ted"
In the same letter he says:
1t is opposed by the clergy by the press, by both
Houses OF Congress by every political party by every
faction and by every fragment of n faction in the
whole country
Here, then, was a grant odious to Mexico
al 70 L
the Congress of Mexico the holders of which
were notified, from the first assignment which
was made, that Mexico would never recognise
them. And yet, the great interest of the age
this communication between the two oceans, il
to be suspended the progress of society, the
great interests OF commerce and of social inter
course, and all the interests of humanity, which
are 50 intimately connected with the openins
of this transit between the two oceans, are sus
pended and blocked, by what the Mexican
Minister of Foreign Relations has well termed
mere frgid mercantile speculation.
And, sir, to such q degree had this Cara.
grant magnifed itself in the estimation Of tn
Administration, that when treaty came to b.
formed for the opening of this way between
the two oceans, it was made by this Govern
ment condition of the treaty, that the actua
holder OF that GRAM shouiu gFo his cohsene
it before it should be submitted to the Senate
And Mr. Peter A. Hargous comes forward an,
notifies Mr. Webster that he, Peter A. Hargous
is the man who stands, like the angel with tn
flaming sword at the gate of Paradise, an,
that no treaty of peace shall come before tn
American Senate until he gives his consent Il
it. Yes, sir, it was tripartite convention. w
were not willing to enter into tripartite con
yention with France and England in referenc,
to Cuba but we were willing to enter into
treaty, one party of which was the United
+ States of America, another the Republic o
Mexico, and the third, Peter A. Hargous Mr.
Hargous says that Mr.. Webster submitted tn,
treaty to him. and he made various suggestions
Of modification to it. Now, ask, is not that q
most Illuminating position for this country t.
stand in But there is another fact that
have upon the very best authority, which, in