The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-24
The GADspEN TREArY-THD TEHUANrEPgC

templated yesterday to call up the Gadsden
treaty appropriation OF ten millions, and to |
push it through at single sitting of the House,
we may take it for granted that noses have
been counted, and that the men are there to do
the work. Still, the question recurs, eui bono?
What is the necessity for this thing why this
hurry to make this immense haul of ten millions
of dollars, at single dash for the benefit of
Santa Anna, and the Spectators and stock
jObbers concerned?
The treaty may thus be summed up
Art. l-Cedes the United States strip OF
desert country, good for nothing beyond the
spoils to be hereafter appropriated in running
new boundary.
Art 2-Releases us from the duty of exter-
minating the Apaches, and gives US the discre-
ton of permitting them to murder our own
people along the whole route.
Art Selves to Santa Anna, for these and
the other following inestimable concessions, the
sum of ten millions of dollars cash in hand.
Art 4-Gives US the privilege of navigating
the Gulf of California Not worth mentioning.
Art. Selves us the privilege of transport
inc our transit mails across the isthmus Of Te-
huantepec, secures the Sloo Company in their
| work, and gives our people certain privileges
which we have the right to ask for them gra-
tuitously as passengers.
The other articles are but notifications
or reafirmations Of the treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo, of no material Importance. The
cream of this treaty is, no doubt, the
eighth article. We ratify the contract Of San
ia Anna with Sloo Il Company, which con-
tract, we presume, was palpable violation of
the Tehuantepec grant to Garay of 1912, and
which Garay treaty the Mexican government
in 1S4S presented as the unanswerable obstacle
to any negotiations with the United States on
the subject. Subsequently the administration
of Mr.. Fillmore, under the guidance of Mr..
Webster as Secretary of State, was in favor Of
enforcing the observance of the Garay con-
tract, purchased by citizens Of the United
States, as question of peace or war with
Mexico. Resolutions were actually introduced
by the present democratic chairman OF the
Committee on Foreign Relations in the
United States Senate, tantamount to casus
JelN, against the bad faith of Mexico upon this
Garay contract.
What has become of all this? Has there
been a satisfactory arrangement made between
the American holders Of the Garay grant and
the Mexican Sloo Company? If SO, what are
the terms of the bargain, and how far are the
ten millions involved in it? Are Messrs. Ben
jamin Il Co., of New Orleans, Hargous Co.,
of Mexico, and the English firm, in the same
| city, of Macintosh & Co., by this supercedeas
upon their claims as the rightful holders Of
the Tehuantepec route, to get anything, and If
so, how much, and what are the specifications?
Has question of good faith between two gov
ernments been settled in the negotiation of
this tleaty by board of spectators con-
trolling the demands of Santa Anna and
the concessions of General Gadsden? These
are questions to which, in behalf Of the public
treasury, public justice, and the American peo-
pie, we have the right to demand an answer
| from the House of Representatives.
Treaties with foreign powers, from what we
hold to be sound political reasons, are made as
secretly as possible; but all appropriations from
the Treasury, in the fulflment of treaty stipu-
latons, are public transactions; and all the
Z Gts con nected with such appropriations may
ADhtfully be demanded by the House. should
be demanded, and should be laid, fairly and
honestly, before the country. The public were
given to understand sometime ago that the cor
respondence connected with this Gadsden trea-
ty, disclosed such an amount of corruption in
it's connection that the Senate would probably
reject it in disgust. They did reject it, but
subsequently reeonsidered it, and cut it down
to ten millions and adopted it. Now, what was
all this corruption about and who were the par
ties concerned in it !? Why does the American
Senate retain the injunction of secresy upon
its long and doubtful discussions of this treaty?
The occasion for the lock and key has passed
away. Why not, therefore, bring those pro-
ceedings to the light? 1t is the duty of the
House to demand all the facts, all the papers,
all the correspondence, and all the witnesses
essential to full understanding of this treaty.
If the thing is honest, what is there to fear p
if dishonest let it be exposed. Any attempt
to smuggle this treaty appropriation of ten
millions through in the dark, is suspicious, and
smacks of servile fear, or amercenary collision
with unscrNpalous spoilsmen. The treaty must
be dissected, or it viii go to the account of the
Galphins and the Gardeners.
POSITION OF AUSTRIA AND PRUSSIA AS Re-
GARps THE GERMANIC CoNrEDER ATIoN-The