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

whose authority he makes the charge.
MIR. HALE I will state the authority, and
have more than one authority for it, | will
give the Senator the name Of Mr.. Buckingham
Smith who was Secretary of Legation to Mex
leo will give him the authority of Mr.. La
Vega, the present Secretary of Legation of
| Mexico near this Government.
Mr.. MASON Then the Senator will allow
us to know what the charge is. Do | under
stand him to say that the American Minister
! lived at the house of this Mr.. Hargous, who is
now the representative of this claim!
Mr.. HALE. One of the Hargouses.
Mr.. MASON. want direct answer-yea
or nay.
Mr.. HALE. suppose it is both. The firm
is Hsrgous & Brother believe.
MIR. SEWARD. Peter A. Hargous lives in
New York and his brother lives in Mexico.
| Mr.. HALE. | am told that one of them lives
in New York, and the other in Mexico 1t is
one of the brothers. / understand they are
associated.
Mr.. MASON | understand, then, the Sem
ator does not make the charge that the Ameri-
can Minister lived at the house of the repre-
sentative of this claim?
Mr.. HALE. say that the American Min
lister lived at the house of one or other of them.
Peter A. Hargous OF his brother, or both.
said would do Mr.. Letcher the justice to say
that did not believe he began the practice,
but that it was matter which was in exist
ence before his time. Whether it was Peter
or his brother do not know, and that is no
matter 1t was one of them. | say that for
the American Minister to be the guest, and to
be residing in the house Of one of the members,
or the brother of member, of this firm, at the
time he was urging the claim of these Hsr-
gouses, and when the claim of Hargous pre-
vented the ratification of a treaty between the
two Governments, is a fact that ought to be
known Whether it confers honor or disgrace,
| will not trouble myself to say.
Mexico not only made these professions by
President Arista, that they were willing to exc
cute treaty for the opening of this way if the
Garay grant was not insisted upon, but the
Minister of Mexico, Mr.. Ramirez gave evidence
of the sincerity with which he entertained
| these sentiments by the fact that he trans
mitted to this Government for its acceptance
and ratification, a treaty in which this right of
way was fully secured, and secured as neu-
| trail pass for all friendly nations The Govern
ment of the United States did not accept and
did not send to the Senate that treaty for the
sole reason as Mr.. Letcher, months after
wards, as the published correspondence shows,
informed the Mexican Minister, that it did not
take care of the Garay grant. That was the
whole of it. That was the reason assigned by
| Mr.. Letcher, in the correspondence which has
been submitted to the Senate and published,
why this treaty was rejected. 1t was because
the Garay grant stood in the way. Here two
great nations Mexico and the Government of
the United States-ay sir, here two hemi-
spheres had to stand apart, and refrain from
all the conveniences of commercial intercourse
which might be opened to them by this inter-
oceanic communication, because the private in
terests of a specializing company were thrown
in the way The nations had to stand back,
commerce to stand STILL progress to cease, and
humanity not to 60 forward, because this mer-
camille speculation was thrown in the way.
And now our Government is called upon to levy
war against the Repubco of Mexico, because she
will not do what she has told you she cannot
and will not do-what is repugnant, not only
to the opinions of her Government and her tri-
bunals, but is hateful and odous to every sec
ton of her people.
will not trouble the Senate with reading
the statement which have before me, giving
an analysis of the different changes which have
| taken place in the affairs of the Government of
| Mexico, so far as this grant is concerned My
object is simply to state the general views
which take, and which believe are firm and
rrefutable, according to the documents which
| arc submitted to us. But there are one OF two
| other matters to which wish to address my
self for few moments.
The honorable Senator from Virginia Mr.
| MASON, in the speech which he made upon the
subject, said that however all this may be,
| though the argument may all be against him,
he considered It an rrefutable proposition, that
under what is, | suppose, the old commOn-law
right of way, we have a right of way across
| Tehuantepec whether Mexico consents or not.
| Now, according to the common law rights of
wav are of three kinds, or more accurately
speaking, of two kinds There is a right of
way by grant, and by prescription, which pre-
supposes grant, and there is right of way
of necessity and right of way OF necessity
is measured by the necessity and when the ne
cessity ceases, the right ceases. That is the
law If you, Mr.. President, sell me piece of
land surrounded on all four sides 10y your land,
10 that | have no way to get to the highway
except over your land, have right to go over
it. That is a way of necessity. If you sell me
piece of land surrounded on three sides by
the land of strangers and on the fourth side
by yours, have right of way of necessity
over your land, because you sold it to me- But
this right of necessity does not extend to rights
of convenience; for if buy piece of land Of
YOU and can get to the highway over your
land by going half a mile, and cannot get to
it by my own land but by going around ten
miles, that does not give me right of way
| over your land, because it is twenty times more
convenient. The right of way must be one Of
absolute necessity. If buy piece of land Of
you, it may be vastly more convenient to 60
| over your land than over my own, but if own
land by which I can get to the highway have
no right of way Of necessity over your land
and cannot take il, no matter how convenient
it may be.
Let us apply that principle in this case We
bought California of Mexico, and it is contend
ed by the Senator from Virginia that we have
a right of way through Mexico to get to it.
Have we not the highway? What is the ocean
What is the sea The highway of nations. We
have then a right of way over the highway,
and that supersedes the right of way of neces-
sity, which we ight otherwise have. Besides
that we have got right of way over our own
land We own all the land from here in
straight line to California, and for that reason
we have no right of way of necessity. If these
two reasons are not sufficient, can give you a
third We have by contract another right Of
way over Panama. Here are three separate
rights of way that we have; and the idea that
we have right of way of necessity, is, with
all Difference to the honorable Senator, absurd
would not say it if thought he had examin-
ed it; but inasmuch as | know that he cannot
have examined it, must say, that the position
is absurd The common law is, "a right Of
way may arise from necessity in several re-
spects n-but will not read it. was about
TO read from Kents Commentaries but the
same doctrine which have stated to you is
there laid down, and it is not necessary to
read it,
This is the doctrine of the common law
Nothing more favorable TO the Senator's view
| "a Lid lnmr, LIZ Nnttal II, 6 Tho NV nf M