The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-02-24

Ii Will be seen that even this decree recOg-
nises the bases of Tacubaya because it treats
Of the responsibility of the Executive, which
was established by the bases of Tacubaya. Then
this decree of Santa Anna was not subverslon
Of the Central Constitution, and sixth basis oil
| Tacubaya but only palpable peryersion OF
them, for the purpose Of increasing his own ad-
| ministrative power. Did that stand Was that
| left the law OF MexicOi No On the first day
of April. lSI5, the first Central Constitutional
| Congress OF Mexico was in session and this de-
cree of Santa Anna. abSolying the Executive from
| responsibility to Congress, came under review
and they on that day adopted an act revising
and abrogating this decree OF Santa Anna, and
declared that his responsibility was direct one,
! that no act If the Executive was valid unless
| it was submitted 70 Congress, and that no act
was valid that was submitted 10 them and re-
cated, OF not approved by them. SO, then, the
| Central Constitution was in force on the first
| Of April, lS45, and the Executive power was
| limited to the making of contracts. subject to
| approval by Congress- and the original grant
| 20 Garav was. by virtue Of he bases of Tacu-
baya aud this Constitution, rendered VOID hy
| reason that it was not submitted to Congress
and approved by them.
am navarro that this examination has led us
| through n tempestuOus season, IN which civil
| government was often Ovrrborne In that unhap
| py fraternal Republic But have shown that
| during the time OF the extension OF thus grant
| Ivy Salas. the legislative power WAS in force,
| aud that in that respect the Constitution was
| in absolute effect ask the Senate now to
| consider two propositions. First that every
citizen and every foreigner knew, or ought to
| have known. of the limitations of this grant.
when taking an assignment of II, and that no
| knew he took it at whatever hazards attached
| to it by virtue of the Constitution and the re-
served power of Congress and the second, that
| the constitutional Government OF tho United
| States, and especially the Senate OF the United
| States, is bound to make, and will make, every
fair and Just and liberal intendment in favor
Of the wounded Constitution OF people who
have struggled with 80 much fidelity and 80
much energy, through seasons OF anarchy at
home and of aggression by IL foreign Power,
to preserve Il Constitution modelled and copied
after our own It is not here that expect to
see intendments prevail in favor of dictators
and usurpers, even in Mexico.
The honorable and distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Relations Mr.
MAsoNI has already furnished his replies to
this argument First, he says that the Consti-
tuition of 1924 contained provision that the
Congress should have no power to pass an eI
post fdctO law, and that Congress should have
no power to pass law impairing the obliga-
lions of contracts rejoin A law of Congress
refusing consent, which it was stipulated that
Congress might give or withhold, is not an CT
post fdcto law A contract which by its terms
il not valid if Congress shall disapprove is not
impaired by the decree of Congress refusing to
approve it Secondly, the chairman replies
thar Saas, nevertheless, was the Government
de flcto of Mexico and that his acts bound the
Republic of Mexico, especially where foreigners
had obtained an interest. rejOin, with great
respect that Salas was not an absolute Presi-
dent nor even President at all but he was
de fac,o the head of the Government subject to
the Constitution OF 1924 He obtained power,
confess, irregularly; but he exercised it under
the Constitution aud was thus a limited and
constitutional Executive.
But the Committee on Foreign Relations make
still further reply, which is, that the Mexican
Government has, since the 9Th of November
1916, the date of Salass decree recognised the |
existence of this grant and the validity of its
assignment tO the American claimants. | shall
examine with great Difference the evidence
which they give of this recognition. The com
nittec rest their assumption, first upon the fact
hat in 1916 and l847, the .ass gnment of the
grant to Manning & Macintosh was duly no
.fed to the Government of Mexico, and on
heir complaint President Herrera issued orders
o the Governors Of OaXaca and Vera Cruz 10
prevent the cutting OF mahogany on the grant
ID lands by any others than those acting under
heir authority. | rejon: The notice given by
Manning 4 macintosh to the Government Of
Mexico, and relied upon by the Committee on
Foreign Relations, is not produced. 1t is not
here. No assignment has been produced, ex-
cept that made On the Goth Of July, lS47,
which was an assignment by Garay to the
British proprictors, Manning n Macintosh,
and SNYDER & Co.. and which notice was given
to the Mexican Government after the decree Of
Salas, and was an assignment expressly limited
to the lands ceded by the grant of Santa Anna,
and it excluded the privilege of opening the
I1thmus of Tehuantepec rejoin, secondly
The assignment was made under the conditions
annexed to the grant of Salas and the assign
ees took the benefit of the acceptance of the
notice, with an express acknowledgement that
the right to open the lSthmus of Tehuantepec
remained in Garay and had not been at all
coded to the assignees; and consequently, who
ever held it after that period held it subject to
the cond ton prescribed in the decree of Sa-
Ias--that foreigners taking the benefit of the
assignment should be dcnatonalized
But what was the effect of these orders of
Herrera, the President OF Mexico to the Gov
ernors of Oaxaca and Vera CRUZ They were
orders to prevent deprcdations and trospasses
ON those lands by anybody except those who
claimed to have obtained them under the grant
ceding the lands to Garay but it appears that
the Government of Mexico ut that time under.
stood that those claimants did not claim the
right to open the Isthmus and only asked pro-
lection for the enjoyment of their lands That
protection and enjoyment of their lands has
never been denied by Mexico. But even if this
were not conclusive, there is another point IL
the President of Mexico could not make such
n grant, lac had no power to make an adms-
sion, the effect of which would be to establish
the grant Ii the President of the United States
should admit that half the State Of Maine, or
any part of it, belonged TO Great Britain, that
admission would not affect the boundary line
Of Maine in the least.
The committee rest their assumption SEQ
ondly, upon the fact that
' la 1877, whilst the treaty Of peace WAS under nsgot
at N. Mr. Irs the Commissioner the part Of the TUT
It'd Statrs by instruction from bis Government sd
ars money consideration 10 Mexico TOR n right OF siy
across the lshnus Of Tehuantpec and was answered,
that Mexro ruud not treat this subject because she
hni - er Notrs bcos mas grant Ia one OF her own
citizens who d transferred his right by authorization III
the Mexican Governmrnt TO Bngish sutJeos of whose
rights MtNicocoul not dispose
On this point the Mexican Government ex-
plains that the grant to which their Commits
sioner alluded in making this reply was the
grant of Garay, and the assignment to Man
ming Macintosh, & Snyder, Of which the
Mexican Government then had notice which
assignment, IA | have before shown, was an
assignment of the lands conceded nth The right,
and not of the right to open the Isthmus of re.
huantcpcc; which Aforementioned right, accord
ing to the notice which had been served upon
them, expressly remained in Garay. This Is n
sufficient answer, until the committee can show
that the Mexican Government knew that some
other assignment had before that time been