32D CONG.....2D SESS.

considering that they declare the intention of the Government to vindicate its honor and protect the rights of its citizens, and considering, too, that it is perhaps better not to commit ourselves too far on the subject when a new Administration is coming in, but to leave the matter open to it, and considering, further, the distracted situation of Mexico at this time, I am willing to vote for them as they are. But, under different circumstances, if the Administration now in power was to continue long, and I thought there was any uncertainty about our future course, I should wish to make them stronger.

I stated, in the commencement of my remarks, that I would not discuss the definitive title, or the importance of this road to the interests of the United States. I shall not do so to any extent; but there are some considerations which I wish to offer to the Senate with regard to the importance of the road. The advantages of it can scarcely be overrated, or too much considered. It is important to us and to the world, in two points of view. It is not simply desirable as a means of communication between one part of this country and another. As such, it would be very valuable and desirable; but it has a broader and more important sphere of influence than that. It is to be a means of communication for the world. Admit, then, for the sake of the argument, that we are to have a railroad within our own territory,-I have no objection to that, as I shall presently show, it will not interfere at all with this road. I shall show that this will be a route not only for the United States, but for the whole world. There are other possessions and interests besides ours upon the Pacific, and there is other commerce to be accommodated, and there is other business to be done there besides that of our own.

It is, then, of great importance to the world to have this route opened so as to have the most practicable, and easy, and speedy communication between the two oceans at a point near the middle of the continent. Independent of any advantage to our commerce, it is a matter of great importance to the whole world. The route is at a point near the center of the American continent, where the

other can be easily taken to every important commercial port. It will be the great thoroughfare of the word. I shall not enter into a comparison of this route with the Panama route, or the Nicaraguan route, or any other. I believe this is decidedly better than any other route. Long ago, as many as three years ago, an application was made to the Government of the United States to favor the Panama route. I then offered very fully my opinion, and demonstrated, as I thought, very satisfactorily, that this was a more proper route than the Panama, and nothing has been shown since that time to prove that my opinion was not well founded. It has a better climate, is nearer to our possessions, and is easier reached from all our Pacific ports; and, as was alleged by the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] it is important to us because it leads directly to the great Mediterranean of America, in which, as he very properly observed, no nation has a right to plant a single gun except Mexico and the United States. It is, then, of immense advantage to us. This great inland sea is of great importance, and will continue to be more and more important as we become advanced in civilization. Sir, look at the map, and see the advantage we possess. I have it laid down here in a line. Take the Cape of Florida, Cuba, and Yucatan, and you will find this is not only an internal sea within three days' sail from any part of it to the mouth of the Mississippi river, which is in itself a Mediterranean, but we have this immense sea so nearly shut up by islands already, by the Cape of Florida, Cuba, and Yucatan, that a few vessels stationed in favorable positions would make the whole as much an island sea as it could possibly be.

Tehuantepec Graut-Mr. Seward.

established in another direction, it will be much more difficult to change it than to guide it now. Independently of all private or local advantages, this is a great national question, and is of national importance. It has been discussed for years. It is not one of those ephemeral schemes which produce an excitement for a day, and then are passed over forever. Before we made our treaty with Mexico, its importance was perceived. Before we had our possessions upon the Pacific, its importance was well judged of by our Government. Measures have been taken to protect our rights there, and nothing should now induce us to abate our claim, or prevent our exercising our rights. Certainly the inducement is greater now to insist upon them. And I will ask, Mr. President, if there is not something taking place in that country which will make it still more important to our interests that we do this? Are we not likely to have struggles and difficulties in regard to Central America? Are we not to have a contest in regard to the subject of colonization on that coast, contrary to treaty stipulations, as I think? I shall not go into the discussion of that subject now; it is not necessary to do so. But there is a pending question; there is a question relating to all that part of the Isthmus through which the other route passes. Difficulties and disputes may arise, and I wish to keep this route. I do not know that there is any attempt at colonization, or the estab-| lishment of positions in the Gulf of Mexico proper; but I wish to avoid any question which may arise hereafter. But if we temporize, if we forbear, and permit ourselves to be insulted, how do you know but that to-morrow, or the next month, or a week after you adjourn, you may see a proclamation of the British Government, announcing that they have established a British colony upon the Gulf of Mexico, or upon the other side of the continent, and near Tehuantepec? I do not see why they should not do it, if we do not vindicate our rights, and say that this position is important, not for ourselves alone but for the whole world, and it shall be kept in such a condition that it cannot be converted to any hostile purposes. Without going into the argument as I might upon this point,

the advantage of this route in the particulars to which I have referred.

SENATE.

that for long distances, and for heavy productions and merchandise, a water communication will compete with them. In the great line of communication, then, where the heavy commerce of the world is carried on, I take it for granted-and I think history will show I am right-that when by one route we have a railroad communication of some two thousand miles, and by another water communication, a large portion of the heavy commerce will be transported by the latter. I take it for granted that provisions, flour, tobacco, pork, and other heavy articles, would never, at this day, if you had a railroad established from New York to San Francisco, be sent over it. We find that on shorter routes they are sent by water communication in preference to the railroad, and we know how distance increases the difficulty.

In regard to this route interfering with the proposed Pacific railroad, I would further remark, that it is a very general observation, when a railroad is proposed to be constructed in the United States, that we think it is doubtful whether the business of the country is sufficient to justify it. But let it go into operation, and in a little while we find the business of the country increases, and another is established, running in a similar direction, and perhaps another, and all are employed. The establishment of a railroad gives an impulse to the trade which is carried on over it. Be not afraid, then, that if you establish this Tehuantepec route, you will have no use for the Pacific railroad. Believe me when I tell you, that, with California going on so rapidly as she is, and the trade with the East and the islands of the Pacific increasing, when this new route for the commerce of the world is fully in operation, you will not only find use for it, but for your railroad to the Pacific, and other routes which may be established.

I think, then, these resolutions ought to pass. They certainly are as mild as any gentleman can wish. I hope there will be no suggestion from any quarter to abate anything from them, because I think that could not be done without injury to our interests. We have taken the position now that it is our duty to interpose in this matter to protect the rights of our citizens. We have said to the whole world that this is an important route, that vast interests are involved in it; and we have even suggested, in our discussions among ourselves, that it is important to our national defenses. If, after all this, we abate anything from them, I think the consequences will be injurious. Hence it is that I have urged that these resolutions should be taken up and passed at this session. I do not expect any rash or precipitate action of the Government. I do not expect that by the passage of the resolutions anything harsh or injurious will be done to Mexico; but I wish her to understand that we will vindicate our rights in this matter. I wish her to know that we distinctly understand our relations to her, and will protect the rights of our citizens. I do not pretend to say what particular measures ought to be adopted. I am perfectly willing to leave that to the Administration which is coming in; but I do think, before this Congress, in which this question originated, closes, it is proper that the Senate of the United States should proclaim to Mexico and to the world that they will sustain the President in the course which he takes, and will never submit that these insults, this offensive disregard of the rights of our citizens, shall go unpunished or be acquiesced in.

But again: I cannot see any reason in the world -and I hope such an idea will not be taken up by anybody-why the pressing of the Tehuantepec route should be considered hostile to the Pacific railroad. I certainly have no such feelings. I do not think they are entertained by any one. I feel, and perhaps my constituents feel, as great an interest in that road as anybody else; because, in all probability, an important branch of it will pass through my State. I will, therefore, go as far as any member for that road, and will devote my exertions to carry that bill through as speedily as possible. But still I cannot be insensible to the fact that there are great difficulties in the way. It is best that we should not shut our eyes to these difficulties. I would be willing to do as much as any man to surmount them, but it is so stupendous a work that it will take years to complete it. If you put the work in motion, and commence operations upon it, and if they go on most prosperously and have no drawback whatever, I suppose no member now here will say that a railroad car will run from the banks of the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean in California in less than ten years. It would be a very favorable anticipation to suppose such a thing. Now, ten years in the national affairs of the United States, particularly when you consider what has been done in the last four or five years, is a period of time which SPEECH OF HON. W. H. SEWARD, may be productive of results of almost an age.

Shall we submit, then, to the inconveniences of the long voyages, the sickness, and troubles, and exposure incident to them, that would be necessary before we could have the Pacific railroad completed? I think not. I think even when that work is completed it will not dispense with the Tehuantepec route. It will still be a great thor

THE TEHUANTEPEC GRANT.

OF NEW YORK,

IN THE SENATE, February 8, 1853,

On the Resolutions reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, in regard to the Tehuantepec Grant.

Mr. SEWARD said: Mr. President, history will elucidate this subject, if we can adjust the lens so as to concentrate its rays. The great occupation passengers also. I know-I am as conscious as of the nations of western Europe, from the beany man-of the advantages of railroads. I am ginning of the fifteenth century to near the close conscious of the great advantages which they have of the eighteenth century, was colonization and the in expedition, and in the carrying of light freight; establishment of empire on the American contibut I am also conscious-and I think I am right-nent. The year 1775 witnessed the opening of the

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

first act in the great drama of the decolonization of this continent, the end of which is not yet. By the treaties of 1783, to which not only the revolting and belligerent colonies of Great Britain and Great Britain herself were parties, but also France and Spain, Great Britain, who was the most able to keep her American possessions, resigned thirteen of her principal colonies on this continent, not so much because of her weakness, as because of their own already maturing strength, and the aid which they derived from the intervention of France.

Leaving out of view some sparse and unimportant settlements of Russia, the North American continent was now divided between Great Britain, which retained all the regions that laid between the St. Lawrence and the lakes and the north pole; the United States, which reached southwardly to the borders of Louisiana and Florida, and indefinitely|| westward towards the Pacific; and Spain which retained the remainder, consisting of the provinces or colonies of the Floridas, Louisiana, and New Spain, now called Mexico. The United States were then governed by fixed, domestic, constitutional, representative systems and habits of government. They had long been in the enjoyment of them, although not of political independence; and the government they thus enjoyed, rested upon the foundations of popular education, freedom of the press, toleration of conscience, and above all upon the sacredness of personal rights, secured by common law and statutory safeguards borrowed from England, of the rights of trial by jury, and habeas

corpus.

On the other hand, the Spanish provinces had been governed from the first by a foreign despotic Power. The subjects of those provinces were ignorant of any system or principle of representative legislation, or of freedom of the press, or of toleration of religion, or of guarantees of personal liberty. The United States had no elements of wealth except a soil of varied fertility, the more common and useful minerals, and access on one side to the sea. The Spanish provinces, on the other hand, had a more prolific soil in a climate of surpassing healthfulness and beauty, with rich mines of the precious metals which Providence has so sparingly distributed, and access to two oceans. The United States were practically a homogeneous people, consisting of homogeneous States. The Spanish provinces had a population, three fourths of which were native Indians, one eighth Creoles, and only the remaining one eighth Europeans.

The experiment of independence and self-gov ernment in the United States was completely successful; and with it came immediately a rapid progress in national wealth and prosperity, attended by an increase in the advance of population unknown in the experience of mankind; a tide formed of natural increase and perpetually swelled by European immigration. On the other hand, the provinces of Spain remained nearly stationary. They caught from the United States the passion for liberty, without, however, obtaining the elements by which it could be preserved. They proposed to secure for themselves the institutions of civil liberty; but they borrowed the form only, while the spirit which gave it life refused to attend it.

These were the relations, and these the conditions of the United States and of Spanish North America at the commencement of this century. This century has thus far exhibited two political processes, continually going on upon this continent. The first, that of general decolonization; and the second, that of a decay of Spanish American power, and the aggrandizement of the United States of America. Spain ceded Louisiana to France in 1800, and in 1803 France conveyed it to the United States. Apprehensions were felt at that early day in New Spain that the United States might advance so as to encroach upon that territory; and those apprehensions were fearfully confirmed when the United States, having first taken possession of portions of the provinces of Florida, obtained, in 1819, a relinquishment of them by Spain. Texas was for a time uninhabited, and seemed to promise that it would remain a barrier for New Spain, or Mexico, against the United States. Becoming rapidly peopled, nevertheless, Texas asserted its independence, and then the hopes of Mexico for its own security and safety rested upon the chance

Tehuantepec Grant-Mr. Seward.

that Texas might remain an independent Power, or put itself under the sovereignty of some European State, which would prevent its annexation to the United States. But these expectations signally failed; and in 1845, Texas came into the United States with possessions, then understood by most of us, to reach only to the river Nueces. The war with Mexico which grew chiefly out of that annexation, and out of the attending border question, resulted, as we all know, in the direct dismemberment of Mexico, and the annexation to the United States of what remained to Mexico of the State of Texas, together with the States of New Mexico and Upper California, by which the United States advanced to the bank of the Rio Grande, and across the continent to the shores of the Pacific ocean.

We have thus seen the action of one great American idea upon Mexico; that was the idea of national aggrandizement. But at the same time, another great American idea was operating indirectly for the embarrassment of Mexico, and that was the idea of civil liberty, guarantied by institutions of federal republican government. The United States from the first, or from an early day, determined that there should be no European colonial power remaining on this continent which they could prevent or remove, and, therefore, they fostered a spirit of revolt in Mexico; and when Mexico,,in her revolution, or after her revolution of 1821, arrived at the point where she must definitely choose her form of government, the United States recommended to her, with success, the principles of federal republicanism, which were adopted. The short-lived Empire of Iturbide was abolished; and in 1824, Mexico adopted a Constitution, which, in its most important characteristics, is identical with our own. During the twenty-nine years which have since elapsed, Mexico has had no repose. She has been rent often and in every part by the struggle between the North American principle of federalism, and its antagonist, the European principle of centralism. The people will bear no government but a federal one. Some wise men in Mexico have continually maintained that no other government than a central one can be upheld there. The army has decided the contests as bribery or caprice has swayed its chiefs. The history of Mexico since 1824 is only a history of the contest between these organic principles. The central principle has partially prevailed, for periods amounting in the aggregate to eleven years; while the federal republican principle, and the constitution of 1824, has prevailed during the remaining nineteen years. The war between the United States and Mexico ended, as you remember, with the treaty of peace, commonly called the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

I invite now the attention of the Senate to two provisions contained in that treaty. In the fifth article is the following provision:

"The boundary line established by this article shall be re

ligiously respected by each of the two Republics; and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own Constitution."

The twenty-first is in the following words, to

wit:

"If unhappily any disagreement should hereafter arise between the Governments of the two Republics, whether with respect to the interpretation of any stipulation in this treaty, or with respect to any other particular concerning the political or commercial relations of the two nations, the said Governments, in the name of those nations, do promise to each other that they will endeavor, in the most sin

cere and earnest manner, to settle the differences so arising, and to preserve the state of peace and friendship in which the two countries are now placing themselves; using, for this end, mutual representations and pacific negotiations. And if, by these means, they should not be enabled to come to an agreement, a resort shall not, on this account, be had to reprisals, aggression, or hostility of any kind, by the one

Republic against the other, until the Government of that which deems itself aggrieved shall have maturely considered, in the spirit of peace and good neighborship, whether it would not be better that such difference should be settled by the arbitration of commissioners appointed on each side, or by that of a friendly nation. And should such course be proposed by either party, it shall be acceded to by the other, unless deemed by it altogether incompatible with the nature of the difference, or the circumstances of the case."

In 1842, before the war between the United States and Mexico occurred, General Santa Anna, a brave, talented, and energetic soldier, who has, during his long and active political career, sometimes given a compelled assent to the federal prin

SENATE.

ciple, but who seems, nevertheless, to have been all the time a centralist at heart, had attained the provisional executive power. During his administration, Don José Garay, a citizen of Mexico, and a favorite of the Dictator-for all Dictators have their favorites, and I am sorry to say that Santa Anna is not the most pure of that class of magistrates— Don José Garay, and other members of his family, obtained from Santa Anna, besides the monopoly of opening the passage across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, four other monopolies-one, the exclusive right to navigate with steam the Rio Grande; a second, the exclusive right to navigate the river Panuco; a third, the exclusive right so to navigate the river Muscala or Zacatula; a fourth, the exclusive right of connecting Vera Cruz by railway with the city of Mexico; connected with a fifth, an averia or assessment upon the customs of the port of Vera Cruz. I am informed that the products of that averia have exceeded $1,000,000. With that vast sum of money a railroad has been made from Vera Cruz towards the capital of Mexico to the length of thirteen miles and no more, within a period of ten years.

It was on the 1st of March, 1842, that Don José Garay approached the Dictator with a precious offering of the incense of flattery. He reminded Santa Anna that he had caused the Mexican people to look to his administration as one of a new and gigantic advancement in the career of national aggrandizement. He suggested to him that the great project with which the world had been engaged for near three centuries, of opening an interoceanic communication across the continent, was yet to be undertaken, and declaring that the mind was bewildered with the difficulty of embracing in one comprehensive view the astonishing consequences that must follow so great an achievement, he concluded that a great revolution would take place in the commercial, and even in the political affairs of all nations when it should be effected; and that the epoch which should see it effected would be more memorable than that of the discovery of the continent, and the name of him under whose auspices it should be consummated, would be at least as glorious as that of Columbus. And then Don José Garay proposed, of course, that he should be authorized to undertake this grand work. The execution of the work was committed by Santa Anna to his favorite, with vast concessions of land and privileges, by a contract made under the decree of the date which I have mentioned. It is claimed by the Committee on Foreign Relations that that contract, after having passed through the hands of intermediate British assignees, has come now to be vested in the hands of American citizens, and that it is still in force; while the Mexican Government refuses to allow it to be executed by them. The assignees have appealed to this Government to put forth its power to enforce upon the Mexican Government the duty of carrying it into effect. The committee, in this view of the case, have submitted the resolutions which have been read.

My first remark upon these resolutions is, that the responsibility of adopting them is a very great one. They are somewhat vague in their language. But inasmuch as they pronounce that there shall be an end to pacific negotiations, except upon a condition which it is not expected Mexico will assent to, a review of existing relations in the event of her expected refusal, and finally that such measures shall be adopted as the dignity of the country and the interests of our citizens shall require, they look towards, although they do not distinctly point at, some measure of hostility, of reprisal, or of war. It seems to me that the Senate is not now in a proper condition to assume that responsibility. One third of this body will go out in less than thirty days from this time, and their places will be filled by those who are not now here. A resolution adopted when the Senate is changing, may convey advice which will not remain the opinion of the Senate through the next Congress. Again: the President of the United States is a coordinate power with the Senate in the conduct of foreign relations. He has the responsibility divided with us; and we are not now in a condition to have the benefit of his advice, and to give to the country the benefit of his share of the responsibility which is to be assumed; for the present President will go out in less than thirty days, and

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

within that time a new one will come in, whose opinions are quite unknown.

It would be discourteous to the incoming Chief Magistrate, under such circumstances, to conclude ourselves by an action like this. This discourtesy by itself would be a matter of small moment; but in all national transactions, discourtesy between coördinate branches of the Government is liable to result in permanent differences of opinion, in controversies; and by such controversies in this case, we should embarrass the incoming Administration. It is quite apparent that the probability of adopting any right and effective measure would be diminished by a disagreement between the President and the Senate. These objections would seem to me to be conclusive for the postponement of these questions, unless those who press their consideration now can guarantee that the course which hey recommend will receive the approbation of the incoming President. If they are able to give is such a guarantee, and will produce the evidence of it, this objection will be removed.

But, Mr. President, if it be the pleasure of the Senate to proceed in the consideration of these questions, then I have to examine their merits as briefly as I can. In the first place, I ask the Senate to take notice that all these resolutions assume -but I admit not without a fair show of argument -first, that the American assignees of Don José Garay have a complete, perfect, and absolute title to the right to open a communication across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; and secondly, that Mexico unreasonably and unjustly refuses to permit them to do so according to the terms of the grant which they exhibit.

My first answer to these assumptions is, that the contract under which this title is claimed, and upon which it is founded, expired by its own limitation eighteen months after the grant was made. The Senate will please take notice that this grant was made by General Santa Anna on the first day of March, 1842; that the surveys were to be made by Garay within eighteen months; and that the work was to be actually commenced within twenty-eight months, which would expire on the first day of September, 1844. So the period of limitation has arrived and passed, it being admitted on all hands that that limitation was the condition of the grant. The contract then is void, unless it has been shown by the Committee on Foreign Relations that it has been since renewed or extended. The committee say it has been extended; and they produce a decree of General Santa Anna of the 28th December, 1843, by which it was extended to the first of July, 1845. Well, the extension is at an end, for that day also has passed. So the contract has then ceased, unless it has been still further extended. The committee say that it has been further extended by a decree of Salas, the Provisional President of Mexico, dated fifth November, 1846, by which the time for commencing the work was prolonged to the fifth November, 1848, within which time the committee say the title vested in the American assignees, and the work was actually commenced. Now, it will be seen, in the first place, that the commencement of the work before' the fifth of November, 1848, was indispensable to the continuance of the contract, even on the assumption of the committee. The committee say that the work was begun within that time. I have not been able to find proof that it was begun in the papers which have been sent to us by the President. Indeed I think it quite clear, from all the papers submitted to us, that even the preliminary surveys which were to be made within a period of eighteen months from the date of the grant, were never actually made; but however this may be, on the 22d of May, 1851, near three years after the decree of Salas prolonging the contract, the Constitutional Congress of Mexico enacted a decree in these words:

"The decree of November 5, 1846, [the decree of extension by Salas,] is declared null and void, because the pow ers with which the Provisional Government of that period was invested were insufficient to authorize it. Accordingly the Government will see that this declaration is rendered in every respect effective in regard to the privilege granted to Don José de Garay."

Here, then, is a grant made on the 1st day of March, 1842, by the Provisional President of Mexico, and here is a law of the Congress of : Mexico, passed on the 22d of May, 1851, abroga

Tehuantepec Grant—Mr. Seward.

ting the grant. The grant, then, has been abrogated and is void, unless the contrary can be shown. The Committee on Foreign Relations have undertaken to show the contrary; and they took three positions. First, that the Congress of Mexico had no power to repeal the decree of Salas. Second, that Salas was the Government de facto of Mexico, and that his acts, as such, bound that nation, especially when an interest had become vested in a foreigner. The third is, that Mexico has, since the decree of Salas, recognized the existence and the validity of the grant, notwithstanding the Congressional decree of repeal. I shall briefly notice these replies in their order. The first position of the committee is, that the Congress of Mexico had no power to repeal the decree of Salas. By the Constitution of Mexico, the Federal Constitution of 1824, if in force at the time, not only had Congress power to repeal the grant, but no power but Congress had authority to make any such grant. I refer the Senate to the fifth section of the Constitution of Mexico, which Constitution is here:

"SEC. 5., art. 47. Every resolution of Congress shall have the character of a law or decree."

"Art. 49. The laws and decrees shall be for supporting the National independence; the union of the States, and peace and order; to maintain the independence of the States; to secure an equal proportionment in the assessment of taxes.

"Art. 50. The exclusive powers of Congress shall be the following:"

"Part 2d. To augment the general prosperity, by decree ing the opening of roads and canals, and their improvement, without preventing the States from opening or im proying their own; establishing posts and mails; and securing for a limited time to inventors, improvers, or those who introduce any branch of industry, exclusive rights to their respective inventions, improvements, or introductions."

SENATE.

President, extending this contract for two years; and we have, in the first place, the Constitution of Mexico declaring it void. Here is one ground upon which the Constitutional Congress, on the 22d of May, 1851, abrogated the decree of Salas.

It is now necessary to go back in the history, to bring into review another ground. Santa Anna, in 1842, was President under the bases of Tacubaya, and the conventions of Estanzuela. By the sixth basis of Tacubaya, all the decrees to be made by the President were directed to be submitted to the first Congress, (a central Constitutional Congress,) that they might be approved or rescinded. The grant to Garay was made of course subject to that basis. So also was the other extension which was made previously to the one granted by Salas, in his decree of the 5th of November, 1846. Santa Anna neyer submitted the decree of March 1st, 1842, (by which the original grant was made,) to Congress, and so that grant was held for that reason to be void by the Congress, which abrogated it on the 22d of May, 1851.

It will be said that Santa Anna had abrogated that sixth basis of Tacubaya. The facts are, that on the 3d of October, 1843, Santa Anna issued a decree to the effect that the responsibility of the acts of the Provisional Executive to Congress, created by the bases of Tacubaya, and the conventions of Estanzuela, was merely a responsi bility of opinion, that none of his acts could be annulledand that the contracts entered into by the Provi, sional Executive were inviolate.

num of the Constitution of 1824, under conventions called the conventions of Estanzuela, and certain bases, called the bases of Tacubaya, modified and adopted by those conventions, had in 1842 given to his favorite a grant, which, for want of compliance by the grantee with its conditions, had expired and was void.

In 1846, the Government established by Paredes, and administered by Bravo, was in power. A revolutionary movement, distinguished as the Revolution of the Citadel, deposed Bravo and recalled Santa Anna, then in exile, and ad interim advanced Salas, a brigadier general, to the Supreme Executive power. He came into that office on the fourth of August, 1846, and limited his own powers by the terms of the plan of the Citadel, and proclaimed the reestablishment of the Constitution of 1824. Here is the decree of Salas, which I have translated and copied from the book of the decrees of the Mexican Republic, which lies before me: "Ministry of Foreign Relations of Government and Police. "His Excellency the Señor General in Chief in the exercise of the supreme Executive power, has directed to me the following decree:

"José Mariano de Salas, General of Brigade and Chief of the Liberating Republican Army, in the exercise of the Supreme Executive power, to all whom these presents may come: Know ye, that in consideration of the state in which the Republic is now found, he has been moved to decree the following:

"Art. 1. Until the new Constitution is published, that of 1824 shall govern in all that is not in conflict with the execution of the plan proclaimed in the citadel of this capital on the 4th of the present month, and that the present state of affairs of the Republic will permit."

Thus Salas was in power, acknowledging the Constitution of 1824, and self-bound to support it, when, on the 5th of November, 1846, he made a decree, extending an already expired grant, which was equivalent to making the grant itself, which grant was in direct conflict with the Constitution. He exercised no absolute power, but a qualified dictatorial power, which was limited by the Constitution and by the bases of what was called the Act of the Citadel.

We have, then, the decree of Salas, Provisional

that his responsibility was a direct one; that no act of the Executive was valid unless it was submitted to Congress; and that no act was valid that was submitted to them and rejected, or not approved by them. So, then, the central Constitution was in force on the first of April, 1845, and the Executive power was limited to the making of contracts, subject to approval by Congress; and the original grant to Garay was, by virtue of the bases of Tacubaya and this Constitution, rendered void, by reason that it was not submitted to Congress and approved by them.

I am aware that this examination has led us through a tempestuous season, in which civil government was often overborne in that unhappy fraternal Republic. But I have shown, that during the time of the extension of this grant by Salas, the legislative power was in force, and that in that respect the Constitution was in absolute effect. I 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 it, and that he knew he took it at whatever hazards attached to it by virtue of the Constitution and the reserved power of Congress; and the second, that the constitutional Government of the 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 a people, who have struggled with so much fidelity, and so much energy, through seasons of anarchy at home and of aggression by a foreign Power, to preserve a Constitution modeled and copied after our own. It is not here that I 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. MASON] has already furnished his replies to this argument. First, he says that the Constitution of 1824 contained a provision that the Congress should have no power to pass an ex post facto law, and

=

32D CONG....2D Sess.

that Congress should have no power to pass a law impairing the obligations of contracts. I rejoin: A law of Congress refusing consent, which it was stipulated that Congress might give or refuse, is not an ex post facto law. A contract which by its terms is not valid if Congress shall disapprove, is not impaired by the decree of Congress refusing to approve it. Secondly, the chairman replies that Salas, nevertheless, was the Government de facto of Mexico, and that his acts bound the Republic of Mexico, especially where foreigners had obtained an interest. I rejoin, with great respect, that Salas was not an absolute President, nor even a President at all; but he was de facto the head of the Government, subject to the Constitution of 1824. He obtained power, I confess, irregularly; but he exercised it under the Constitution, and was thus a limited and constitutional Executive.

But the Committee on Foreign Relations make a still further reply, which is, that the Mexican Government has, since the 6th of November, 1846, the date of Salas's decree, recognized the existence of this grant, and the validity of its assignment to the American claimants. I shall examine with great deference the evidence which they give of this recognition. The committee rest their assumption, first, upon the fact that in 1846 and 1847, the assignment of the grant to Manning & Mackintosh was duly notified to the Government of Mexico, and on their complaint President Herrera issued orders to the governors of Oaxaca and Vera Cruz to prevent the cutting of mahogany on the granted lands by any others than those acting under their authority. I rejoin: The notice given by Manning & Mackintosh to the Government of Mexico, and relied upon by the Committee on Foreign Relations, is not produced. It is not here. No assignment has been produced except that made on the 26th of July, 1847, which was an assignment by Garay to the British proprietors, Manning & Mackintosh, 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 Isthmus of Tehuantepec. I rejoin, secondly: The assignment was made under the conditions annexed to the grant of Salas; and the assignees took the benefit of the acceptance of the notice with an express acknowledgment that the right to open the Isthmus of Tehuantepec remained in Garay, and had not been at all ceded to the assignees; and consequently, whoever held it after that period held it subject to the condition prescribed in the decree of Salas-that foreigners taking the benefit of the assignment, should be denationalized.

But what was the effect of these orders of Herrera, the President of Mexico, to the Governors of Oaxaca and Vera Cruz? They were orders to prevent depredations and trespasses 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 at that time understood that those claimants did not claim the right to open the Isthmus, and only asked protection 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. If the President of Mexico could not make such a grant, he had no power to make an admission, the effect of which would be to establish the grant. If 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, secondly, upon the fact that

"In 1847, whilst the treaty of peace was under negotiation, Mr. Trist, the Commissioner on the part of the United Stales, by instruction from his Government, proposed a large money consideration to Mexico for a right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and was answered 'that Mexico could not treat on this subject, because she had, several years before, made a grant to one of her own citizens, who had transferred his right, by authorization of 'the Mexican Government, to English subjects, of whose 'rights Mexico could not dispose.""

On this point the Mexican Government explains, that the grant to which their Commis

Tehuantepec Grant-Mr. Seward.

sioner alluded in making this reply was the grant of Garay, and the assignment to Manning, Mackintosh & Snyder, of which the Mexican Government then had notice; which assignment, as I have before shown, was an assignment of the lands conceded with the right, and not of the right to open the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which lastmentioned right, according to the notice which had been served upon them, expressly remained in Garay. This is a sufficient answer until the committee can show that the Mexican Government knew that some other assignment had before that time been made conveying the privilege, and that notice of that assignment had been received by the Mexican Government. But suppose the Mexican Commissioner did make a statement which was unintentionally, or even intentionally erroneous in point of fact, would that statement divest Mexico of her right? The law of estoppel which prevails between individuals in conducting their own affairs has never been, and never can be, applied to the intercourse between nations who are passive, and whose communications with each other are always carried on by agents possessing such measure of capacity and of virtue as they may happen to obtain.

The committee rest their assumption, thirdly, upon the facts as stated by them, that

"After the assignment of the grant to the present American holders, the Minister of the United States in Mexico was instructed by his Government to apprise that of Mexico of the desire of this company to commence their work by a thorough survey of the Isthmus; and the Minister was further instructed to make overtures for a treaty securing to the enterprise the joint protection of the two Governments. The Mexican Government, as we learn from the

correspondence of Mr. Letcher with the Mexican Minister of Foreign Relations, made not the slightest opposition in 'forwarding passports, and issued orders to the departments 'of Oaxaca and Vera Cruz, not only to avoid interposing any obstacles in their way, but, on the contrary, to afford 'them aid and hospitality. The engineers,' Mr. Letcher adds, were accordingly sent, the ports thrown open for 'their supplies, and more than $100,000 have been expended in surveys, opening roads, &c., besides a large sum of money in furnishing materials,""&c.

Will the Senate look into these papers? They will find that although we have the letter of John M. Clayton, Secretary of State, of the date of February 20th, 1850, to Mr. Letcher, our Minister in Mexico, informing him that Mr. Hargous had notified the Department that he was the representative of the claim in this country, and had employed engineers whom he wished to send to Mexico for the purpose of making surveys, and requesting Mr. Clayton to give such instructions, yet we have not the letter written by Mr. Letcher to the Mexican Government asking for the passports and instructions; and so we have no evidence whatever of what communication was made, and upon what communication by Mr. Letcher to the Mexican Government it was that the passports and the orders to the Governors of Oaxaca and Vera Cruz were given. Without this knowledge, unless the passports which were obtained, and the orders which were issued, recognized the validity of the grant, the transaction implied no recognition of a right. I will not trespass upon the Senate by reading these Spanish passports. They are like all other passports, mere printed circular letters of protection, given by a Mexican consul at New Orleans to foreig ers traveling into Mexico. They are such as any American citizen, whether engineer, or any other belonging to New Orleans of to New York, obtains from his own Government whenever he sees fit to go abroad.

Here is the letter of the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs to Mr. Letcher, which accompanied a copy of the orders issued to the Governors:

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MEXICO, April 5, 1850. ESTEEMED SIR: I have the honor to inclose to you a copy of the order of this day, directed to his Excellency the Governor of Oaxaca, for the object which it expresses; another copy of the same will be sent to the commandant general of the said State.

I hasten to give information of the same; repeating myself your attentive servant, who kisses your band, J. M. LACUNZA.

His Excellency R. P. LETCHER, &c., &c.
And here are the orders themselves:

Mr. Lacunza to the Governor of Oaxaca. MEXICO, April 5, 1850. MOST EXCELLENT SIR: Several American engineers having been appointed for the purpose of examining the possibility of opening the communication between the two seas, by way of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; and desirous as is his Excellency the President, during their travels in your

SENATE.

State, that they should meet with no embarrassments, but on the contrary, be treated with all hospitality, he has been pleased to direct that his wishes should be communicated to you, as I now have the honor to do, officially; repeating, at the same time, the assurances of my esteeni. God and liberty! LACUNZA. His Excellency the GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF OAXACA. There is nothing in the letter, nor in the orders, which recognizes the validity of the Garay grant, or of any title of any assignees under it. It is utterly preposterous to ground upon this act of courtesy and hospitality by the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, a recognition of the validity of the grant to Garay, or the assignments to those who claim under him.

The committee rest their assumption, fourthly, upon the facts stated by them, as follows: sented to enter into negotiations for the proposed treaty; and a convention for the joint protection of the work thus to be executed by American citizens, as assignees of the Garay grant, was concluded at Mexico, in June, 1850, and sent to the United States. To this convention certain modifications being suggested by the Secretary of State, at Washington, it was returned to our Minister in Mexico, and the whole terminated by a new convention, signed at Mexico, on the 25th of January, 1851, with the approval o

"This is not all: the Government of Mexico at once as

President Herrera. This last convention was ratified by the Senate of the United States, and returned to Mexico, and finally rejected by the Mexican Congress, in April, 1852."

The committee do not mean to be understoodit would be discourtesy to them, it would be unfair to suppose they meant to be understood-that the facts that the President of Mexico signed one treaty, which was sent to the United States and rejected by them, and then signed another and sent it to the United States, and it was accepted by them and returned to Mexico and rejected by the Mexican Congress, which had power to reject it, constituted a recognition of any fact recited in either of those incomplete treaties. That would be to draw the recognition of the validity of a claim from an attempt to negotiate a settlement of it. All pretense that Mexico has in any way compromised herself by this negotiation will disappear from the case when I shall show the history of them. The first treaty was made during the time of that good, just, and true old man, Zachary Taylor, and in the time of the administration of the State Department by that distinguished and accomplished diplomatist and just negotiator, John M. Clayton. Here is the first article of the first draft of the treaty which was sent to Mexico:

"ARTICLE 1. Individuals upon whom the Mexican Government may have bestowed or may bestow the privilege of constructing a road, railroad, or canal across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and those employed by them, shall be protected in their rights of person and property from the inception to the completion of the work."

Not only is there no recognition of the American assignees of the Garay grant, and no recognition of that grant itself in this article, but there is a careful exclusion of any such statement.

Here is the fifth article of that treaty of Mr. Clayton's:

"ART. 5. In any difference which may arise between the undertakers, either the present or the future, of the work, which may involve the loss of the right to the privi lege, the complaining party shall draw up a statement of its pretensions and motives, and a similar statement shall be drawn up by the other party, and both statements shall be submitted to two arbiters who hold no diplomatic appointment or commission, and who reside in the Mexican territory. One of these arbiters shall be appointed by the holders of the privilege and the other by the Government of Mexico; and these two, in case of disagreement, shall appoint a third, with the qualifications above required, and from the decision of these arbiters there shall be no appeal or recourse whatsoever. Of all other questions which may arise the Mexican tribunals shall take cognizance."

But then came into power the successors of General Taylor and Mr. Clayton; and then also reappeared Mr. Peter A. Hargous, a merchant, claiming to be the representative of this grant; and then it began to appear that there was a speculation behind this great enterprise, more important to the Government of the United States, and more objectionable to the Government of Mexico, than the enterprise itself. Here is precious evidence of it: On the 26th day of August, 1850, Peter A. Hargous wrote a letter to the Secretary of State, in which, after reviewing the treaty of Mr. Clayton, which had then been remitted by Mexico duly signed by the Ministers of the two Governments, he said, (referring to Mr. Letcher:)

"I trust, therefore, that you will pardon me for suggesting that it might be advisable, that he should be officially informed of the movements above adverted to, and in

32D Cong.....2d Sess.

structed to lose no time which can be saved, in bringing his negotiation to a speedy and satisfactory close."

Mr. Webster complied with this request of Mr. Hargous, and made a new draft of a convention, carefully recognizing the Garay grant. Here is the first article of it:

"ART. 1. The person to whom the Government of Mexico may have granted, or may in future grant the privileges for constructing a road, railroad, or canal, across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, pursuant to the decrees of that Government of the 1st of March, 1842, 9th of February, 4th of October, and 29th of December, 1843, and 5th of November, 1846; all those employed in the works of construction, and all others who may reside on the territory within the limits defined by the grant according to the terms of the grant itself, shall be protected in their persons and property from the commencement of the work until its completion, and during the period for which the privileges are granted."

The decrees here recited are those which conveyed the grant to Garay. So Mr. Webster rejected the treaty drawn by Mr. Clayton, sent to Mexico and accepted there, which did not recognize the Garay grant, and sent back a treaty which did, in express words, recognize it, and he instructed Mr. Letcher to try to get this treaty adopted by Mexico. On the 22d of October, 1850, Mr. Letcher reported his ill-success in these words:

"I submitted to the notice of the Minister of Foreign Relations the several alterations you desired to make to the Tehuantepec treaty, expressing at the same time the confident hope that bis Excellency would find no difficulty in readily yielding his assent to each and all of them. In reply to this observation he remarked, his Government had been most severely and shamefully censured for agreeing to the treaty as it now stands; that he was sorry to say it was quite unpopular in his country; that he himself had been denounced as a vile traitor for the part he had taken in it; still he was resolutely determined, he said, fearless of all consequences, to do any and everything he could to carry out in good faith, a measure of so much importance to the two Republics."

"A further discussion of an hour ensued. He adhered most obstinately and fiercely to his objections. Whereupon I took the liberty to tell him, in very plain language, I was not at all satisfied with his opinions, or with his reasous; and therefore requested to be heard before the President and his Cabinet upon the points in dispute."

Sir, I should like to see what answer the minister of any Power on earth would receive who should come to the Secretary of State of this nation, and tell him that he was not at all satisfied with his reasons, and his opinions, and demand a hearing before the President and Cabinet! What is just and right for one Power, is just and right for another. If we exact justice or courtesy from the strong, we should concede it to the weak. Mr.

Letcher obtained his hearing before the President, as will be seen from his report in these words:

"To this he cheerfully agreed; and the next day at 11 o'clock was the time fixed upon for this meeting by the permission of the President. At the appointed moment, I found the President and his Cabinet all in attendance. They gave me a cordial reception, and the most attentive and respectful bearing imaginable, for an hour and a half; and upon taking leave, I was assured, in the kindest manner, I should have everything I desired that they could possibly give me."

"The chief arguments urged against the amendments in question appear to be these:

"1. That they infringe upon the sovereignty, the honor, the dignity, and national pride of Mexico.

"2. To adopt them would be at once to paralyze, to disgrace, and in short to overthrow the present administration.

3. That a treaty with such provisions would be rejected by the Mexican Congress (probably) without a single dissenting voice, and therefore would be of no use to the United States, whilst at the same time it would be the ruin of the party in power."

Mr. Letcher then appears to have tried what virtue there was in threats. Here they are:

"Since the final decision was had, the President and every member of his Cabinet, have manifested the deepest concern lest you should be displeased at the result, Gen eral Arista, who is the master-spirit of the Government, is exceedingly uneasy. Every day or two a message is sent by some of the meinbers of the Cabinet expressing regrets and hoping I am not dissatisfied. The only answer I have nade is, Mexico has committed a great error.

"It may also be proper to add, during the various discussions which took place in relation to the points in dispute, I availed myself of a suitable occasion to say, in the event Mexico refused to enter into a fair treaty for the protection of the enterprise, my Government, in justice to her own citizens, who had made large investments in the undertaking, was determined to take the affair into her own hands."

Now, let us hear the answer of this exotic and wind-shaken branch of the ancient and chivalrous family, which, on its native peninsula, once gave laws to both hemispheres. Here it is; and it will remain imperishable as the answer of an oppressed, but high-minded, and generous people:

"Your Government is strong; ours is weak. You have

Tehuantepec Grant-Mr. Seward.

*

the power to take the whole or any portion of our territory you may think fit; we have not the faculty to resist. We have done all we could do to satisfy your country, and to gratify you personally. We can do no more." "What is required of us we cannot grant. If Mr. Webster knew our exact condition, if he knew the precarious tenure by which we hold power, the violence and strength of the opposition, the refractory spirit of the States, and the peculiar prejudices of our people, surely he would not ex

act such terms."

But Mr. Webster did exact. Castilian pride gave way. Arista and his ministers succumbed, and the Tehuantepec treaty, with its odious recitals, was signed. And now for the result. Hear the report of the Minister, Mr. Letcher:

"LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,}

to one.

MEXICO, April 8, 1851.

"SIR: The Tehuantepec treaty, I regret to say, was rejected last night by the Chamber of Deputies, a bare quorum being present, in a few minutes after it was submitted by the Government for consideration, by a vote of seventy-one The result, so far from being a matter of surprise to me or to any one else in this country, was most confidently anticipated. The few Deputies who were favorably disposed towards the measure, knowing perfectly well that they would be instantly denounced as traitors to their country in case they voted for it, deemed it expedient to absent themselves from the Chamber when the vote was taken.

"Such was the intemperate and uncompromising hostility to the Garay grant, that no Mexican in or out of the Chamber, not even those who held a direct interest in it, dared to whisper a single word in its support. In fact, the Deputy who voted for the ratification declared his judgment was opposed to it in every particular, but fearing its rejec tion might occasion another war between the two countries, he felt compelled to vote for it.

"It is altogether impossible to make a treaty having the least connection with the Garay grant."

That is Mr. Letcher's report. And now I ask my honorable friend from Virginia where it is in these negotiations that he finds that Mexico recognized the validity of the Garay grant?

I have no hostility to the Garay grant, or to its assignees, or to their enterprise. I therefore shall hold my own mind in reserve to form a favorable judgment upon them in future, instead of endeavoring to bring other Senators to the conclusion that the grant is invalid, or that the assignment is unavailing; and I will now present the deductions I make from the case, which I have thus traced out by history and argument, in a negative form, to wit: First, that the Committee on Foreign Relations do not show that the American the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; and, secondly, that assignees have an existing title to the right to open they do not show that the validity of the grant has by the Mexican Congress. been recognized by Mexico since its abrogation

Here I might leave the question; but in that case I should leave undone what it is the duty of some Senator to do-exhaust the subject and present fully the grounds of the votes which must be given against the resolutions before the Senate.

You will perceive that hitherto I have assumed, in this argument, two things: first, that the grant to Garay was assignable; and secondly, that an assignment was made by Garay which has come to be vested in the hands of American citizens. Proceeding upon these assumptions, I ask you to take notice of another important point in the case. It is indisputable that whatever conditions Salas attached to his decree, entered into the assignments when made. Let me show you the conditions imposed by Salas:

ART. 13. It shall be an express condition in all contracts with colonists, that they shall renounce the privileges of their original domicil so long as they reside in the country, subjecting themselves to all the existing colonial regu lations which are not in conflict with the present law.

"ART. 14. The enterprise shall submit for the approval

of Government all contracts which it shall make for the introduction of families and laborers, and it shall keep a public and authentic register of all its transactions in respect to all matters of colonization."

I have translated these conditions from the record of the decree which is before me. Let me show what was the contemporaneous exposition of them given by Salas, and which accompanied the approval of the assignment. Here it is:

"According to the spirit of the aforesaid law, this renunciation must take place in the most positive and conclusive manner on the part of the settlers, so that, whatever cir||cumstances may happen, and whatever measures these may require, neither the settlers aforesaid nor the proprietors may not, in any case, nor for any cause, plead alien privileges, nor any other privileges except those which have been granted, or may be granted, to them by the laws of the country to which both their persons and their property must be subjected; and without this requisite they will not be ad

mitted."

Here are American citizens claiming the exten

SENATE.

sion of this grant by an assignment which was made upon the express and published condition of an absolute denationalization; and yet we are interposing in their behalf upon the ground of the very privileges of alienship, which they renounced to acquire the rights, and we are claiming rights for those who, if they have an assignment, are held by it to have renounced altogether their citizenship of the United States. We are required to make reprisals or war against Mexico for vioLet lating their rights under that very contract. us see how, in point of fact, the assignees stand in regard to this assignment. You will take notice that no assignment was ever publicly known, or communicated to the Mexican Government before the decree of Salas extending the grant; but after the decrees of Salas, Garay made known to the Mexican Government that before the decree he had made an assignment to Manning & McIntosh, and Snyder & Co. They have never produced that previous assignment to this day. It is not among the papers before us. Whether such a one was ever made, and whether it was fraudulent, whether it contained what they said of it, or not, there is no evidence; but the only evidence they have is a title by an assignment subsequent reciting that they had a transfer made before the decree. Here is the notice which Garay gave to the Mexican Government of the assignment which he had made to those parties:

"With these views, (those concerning colonization,) I succeeded in concluding a contract with the house of Messrs.

Manning & McIntosh and Snyder, & Co., independent of that for constructing a way of communication between the two seas, by which (contract) those gentlemen are to introduce settlers on the lands."

The fifth article in that very deed of assignment recited that Garay did not convey to them, but actually reserved to himself, the right to open the Isthmus, in these words:

"That by this transfer on the part of the covenanter, Don José Garay, it is not to be understood that he confers upon Messrs. Manning & McIntosh and upon Snyder & Co. any right whatever to carry ON NAVIGATION FROM ONE SEA TO THE OTHER;"

And then grants them the navigation of the little river on this side of the Isthmus, (Coatzacoalcos,) so far as may be necessary to the enjoyment of their lands; and then adds, as a further and superlative precaution, an additional reservation of non-interference with his privilege of interoceanic communication. On the 13th of Janutry, 1849, to wit: two months after the expiration of the two years of extension allowed by the decree of SALAS, Manning & McIntosh announced to the Mexican Government, "that Don José Garay had transferred to their house the privilege of constructing a way of communication between the two seas by the way of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.' On receiving this note, the Mexican Government a ted decidedly and promptly, reminding the assignees that that part of the grant was untransferable, and also that the whole grant was extinct; the last extension granted by Salas, like all the preceding ones, having expired without commencing the work.

It remains on this point only to say, that whatever title any American citizens may have, they have only the same title which Manning & McIntosh and Snyder & Co. had, with all its imperfections on its head.

I shall omit the question whether_the_original grant of Santa Anna to his favorite Don José Garay, of the privilege of opening the Isthmus, was assignable. The Mexican Government say that it was not; that Garay was intrusted to execute a great national work as a mere agent. If such a question as that should arise in the United States, ted States every day issues commissions to indiwhat should we say? The President of the Unividuals to perform certain duties. Congress every day pass laws authorizing individuals to build custom-houses, &c. I would like to know who there is in Congress, or out of it, that would admit that an administrative officer, or an architect upon a public building, has a contract which he can assign to a foreigner, and thereby convey to a foreign Power the right to tell us that we must execute the contract with its subjects.

Mr. DOWNS. I would ask the Senator to state, if this contract be not assignable, why it was that the Mexican Government declared to Mr. Trist that it was assignable, and that it had been assigned? Is not the Mexican Government as