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

Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly.

Mr. MALLORY. If what has fallen from the honorable Senator from Michigan be, in the parliamentary acceptation of the term, one word, I have but half a word to say. I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the honorable Senator from Alabama. That pleasure was only alloyed by finding that he had totally misapprehended the remarks which I had the honor of delivering here a few days ago; and I will take the liberty of saying, that if he had read them carefully, he would have found but very little difference indeed between the position which he has assumed for himself to-day, and that which I did, on that occasion, endeavor to mark out for myself. I said then, that I deplored the discussion of this question on this floor, because it could not be of any possible benefit, and might be of very great disservice. I took no part in it whatever. I advocated no measure tending to the acquisition of Cuba. I expressed no opinion on that subject, but I simply advocated a certain commercial measure which tended to connect us more closely with that island as a Spanish, and not as an American colony. So much I have thought it necessary to say to correct the misap prehension of the honorable Senator from Alabama.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I now renew the motion to postpone the further consideration of these joint resolutions until Monday next, at one o'clock.

Mr. HALE. I have not a word to say upon the motion of the Senator from Illinois. I am rather in favor of it. But the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] who has addressed the Senate upon this occasion, and myself, have had the misfortune to differ in the relative direction which

the annunciation of our sentiments should take, he looking south and I north; and he has undertaken to back up his opinions this morning by reading a letter from Paris, which I think is calculated to give him an undue advantage over me in this controversy, [laughter,] and I know that what he says would have vastly more influence with the Senate and the country than what I say, even without any letter from Paris to back him up. Inasmuch as the Senator has taken occasion to read that letter, I wish to say that I, too, have had some letters. [Laughter.]

Mr. CASS. Read them.

Mr. HALE. They are not from Paris, but from some distance off; and there are a good many of them in which their writers take occasion to speak of the humble efforts that I have made, and which, if placed alongside of that Paris letter, would throw it entirely into the shade as much as Sancho Panza told Don Quixotte that a fight with the lions would throw into the shade any battle he had ever fought before. Why," said he, every other battle you ever engaged in, compared to this, is as mere cheese cakes and custards." [Laughter.] I have got a great many of these letters, but I have felt altogether too diffident to bring them before the Senate. But since this example has been set

66

Mr. CLARKE. Where are your letters? Mr. HALE, (holding up a very large bundle.) Here they are. But as I have explained myself, I will sit down. [Laughter.]

The motion to postpone was agreed to.

THE TEHUANTEPEC GRANT.

SPEECH OF HON. JOHN P. HALE, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

IN THE SENATE, February 15, 1853, On the Resolutions reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, in regard to the Tehuantepec Grant.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations, in regard to the Tehuantepec grant, the question being on the amendment submitted by Mr. SEWARD:

"To strike out all after the word 'Resolved,' and insert:

"That the United States cannot suspend diplomatic negotiations with Mexico without tendering to that Power, or waiting a reasonable time to receive from it, an offer of ar bitration, according to the terms of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo."

Mr. HALE said: Mr. President, I believe that

it was about the time of the last war with England, when a gallant and deceased officer of the American Navy, at a public dinner, gave this toast: "Our country, may she always be right; but right or wrong, may she ever be victorious." 1 have no fault to find with the sentiment, but modern progress has abbreviated it somewhat, and in the common parlance of the day, the moral is expressed briefly, "Our country, right or wrong,' contracting a part of the wish and toast, "may she always be right." Sir, I desire always to be on the side of my country. I desire that she may be always right; but whether she is right or wrong, I am always with her and for her. I believe it is the first duty of patriotism, when we find the country wrong, to endeavor to set her right; and when we find that she is going in a direction which is likely to place her in a wrong position, she is entitled to our best efforts to put her in a different direction.

I know further, sir, that there is another axiom in the politics of modern days which is, that when the country is in a war, no matter whether that war is just or unjust, no matter whether we had good and sufficient cause for it or not, it is the duty of patriotism to sustain the war, and sustain the Administration in a vigorous and efficient prosecution of it. I shall not combat that sentiment at present, but I will claim for it this qualification: That it is not the duty of patriotism-when an individual sees the country about to take a position which will lead to a war, when if the war ensue it must inevitably be unjust-to hasten the country into such a position; but, on the other hand, it is the dictate of patriotism and of duty to endeavor to arrest a series of measures which are calculated to place the country in such an unfortunate position. I believe, sir, that the course adopted, or recommended by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, to be pursued in relation to Mexico, has just exactly that tendency, and is calculated to produce exactly that result. If these resolutions mean anything-and they certainly do, because they do not come from a source where mere idle gasconade is used-they mean that diplomatic relations with Mexico are to be suspended, that this country is to assume a position of hostility looking to war, unless Mexico reverses its whole policy, unless it decrees and confirms that which the people and the Government of Mexico have pronounced to be null and void-I mean the Garay grant.

That is the position which the committee take, as I understand their resolution. They say that they are fully prepared to sustain the Executive Department in the position" which it has assumed towards Mexico; and they conclude by recommending to the Senate the adoption of the resolutions which are now before us, and which are familiar to every member of the body, in which they say: "It is not compatible with the dignity of this Government to prosecute the subject further by negotiation." We are to fold our arms in offended dignity, and wait for Mexico to come to us; and if Mexico does not come to us, we stand committed to our citizens" to protect them in their rights abroad as well as at home;" and if Mexico fails within a reasonable time to reconsider her position respecting the Garay grant, "then it will have become the duty of this Government to re'view all existing relations with that Republic, and to adopt such measures as will preserve the honor of the country and the rights of its citi

'zens.

Sir, I claim to have given some attention to this subject; and I heard the speech that was made by the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, [Mr. MASON,] with a good deal of pain, because I thought it was placing the Senate, and if the country followed the Senate, it was placing the country, in a very false position. The reason for that opinion I now propose to give to the Senate as briefly as I may. The materials upon which this opinion is founded, are spread over a good many pages, and cover a large portion of our diplomatic history, and of the affairs of Mexico for several years past, and of the history of Mexico for several years preceding that.

The position which is assumed by the President, by the Secretary of State, and by all the officers of the Administration, who have had any. thing to do with this matter-by our foreign

SENATE.

ministers, and by our committees, is this: That the citizens of the United States, relying in good faith upon the offers and inducements which have been holden out by Mexico, have invested their" funds and incurred large expenses in this undertaking; and that now they are debarred and prevented from going on to perfect what they have undertaken and to realize the benefits of the investments which they have made, by the bad faith of Mexico. You find this idea spread over the whole correspondence. You find it in the letter of Mr. Fillmore to President Arista; for in that letter he says, (I quote the extracts given by the committee in their report:)

"In addition to the motives I have urged for the speedy adjustment of this matter, I beg leave most earnestly to call the attention of your Excellency to the probable difficulties that may grow up between the two nations, should Mexico break her plighted faith in the grant to Garay. Qur citizens, relying upon her good faith, have become interested in that grant; they have advanced large sums of money for the purpose of carrying out its objects; they have surveyed a route for a railroad, and demonstrated the practicability of constructing it; and it is not possible that they should now be deprived of the privileges guarantied by that grant, and sustain the beavy losses that must ensue, without appealing to their own Government for the enforcement of their rights. My anxious desire is to avoid the too probable consequences that must result from such an appeal. We cannot, if we would, be indifferent to it. It is a duty which every Government owes to its own citizens, to protect their rights at home and abroad; and the consequences growing out of the disagreement of the proprietors of the Garay grant and the Government of Mexico are such as no true friend of this country or of Mexico can look upon with indifference."

What does that language mean? War. It can mean nothing else. Then the President of the United States, in a formal letter to President Arista, denounces war by this Republic upon the Republic of Mexico, unless the latter confirms the Garay grant; and it is assumed that citizens of the United States, relying upon the plighted faith of Mexico, have invested their means in the enterprise secured by the Garay grant, and that by the bad faith of Mexico they are debarred from enjoying the privileges of that grant. The same thing is said by Mr. Webster in his letter to Mr. Letcher, dated August 24, 1850. Here is his language: "The present holders are the assignees of those British subjects. Hence the validity of their title is conceived to have derived a peculiar sanction, which the honor of this Government demands should be maintained unimpaired." "If Mexico should reject our overtures

*

alone, according to our own sense of right and duty, and as for this purpose, we will extend our protection to them future events may require."

Mr. Webster there threatens, that if the Government of Mexico does not confirm this grant, the Government of the United States will go upon her territory and enforce its own ideas of the protection which is due to its citizens, without the consent of Mexico, and against its will. But Mr. Webster, in that letter, was not content altogether to act the part of the warrior. He manifested, at the close of it, what I think would be called, in the southern country, a little of the Yankee, for he says to Mr. Letcher:

"Perhaps if, upon a suitable occasion, you were to hint, in connection with this subject, that the money due to Mexico for the extension of the limits of our territory pursuant to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, has not yet been paid in full, and that contingencies might happen which would warrant this Government in withholding it, an impression might be produced favorable to the result of your negotiation."

That is threatening them with war in the first place, and if that threat is not enough, he tells them we will not pay what we have bound ourselves by solemn treaty to pay.

ster, in a letter to the Mexican Minister, Mr. De Again, on the 30th of April, 1851, Mr. Webla Rosa, says:

"The undersigned has the especial instruction of the President of the United States to call the serious attention, both of Mr. De la Rosa and his Government, to the serious embarrassments which may result if this treaty should be rejected, and those citizens of the United States who have with so much laudable zeal, entered upon the enterprise, and incurred such heavy expenses in its prosecution, should now be turned back on an appeal to their own Government, as well for the disappointment of just expectations as for indemnity for actual losses.

Rosa, that having seen the treaty of the 25th of January "In conclusion, the undersigned has to say to Mr. De la negotiated, assented to, and approved by highly respectable and eminent citizens of Mexico, honorably known in other countries as well as in their own, and all this under the sanction of a distinguished citizen just placed by the voice of his countrymen at the head of the Government, the President of the United States cannot persuade himself that

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

such a calamity as its rejection by Mexico now impends over both countries."

The meaning of that language cannot be mistaken, and the idea which Mr. Webster meant to convey cannot be misunderstood.

Again, in writing to Mr. Letcher, under date of December 22, 1851, Mr. Webster says:

"It is well known that, relying upon the grant from the Mexican Government and upon the protection of the American Government, American citizens have proceeded to the expenditure of large sums of money towards the accomplishment of the great purpose which is the object of the treaty."

Tehuantepec Grant-Mr. Hale.

Now, I ask, with what face the President of the United States, or the Secretary of State, or the Minister of the United States in Mexico, can come before the Senate and before the world, and repeat over and over again, in every form in which they have put it, that American citizens were induced to go into this matter by the plighted faith of Mexico, which faith Mexico has broken? I have made the proposition that such is not the case, and I intend to prove it; and I hope the Senate will attend to it, for I look upon this as a question of great moment. I look upon it as a

"Mexico shall have a full view of the dangerous precipice over which she is standing. She shall know that it is the positive determination of the Government of the United States to protect, at all hazards, her citizens who have made large investments in the enterprise, relying upon the good faith of the public acts of Mexico."

I will not weary the Senate by repeating declarations of this sort which are to be found in the published correspondence between the Government of Mexico and our Government and their various officers on this subject. It has been assumed by Government throughout the whole matter as an incontrovertible fact, that to the citizens of the United States were held out the tempting inducements of Mexico to enter into this matter with their capital, and that now Mexico is breaking faith with them, and that our Government is bound, by every consideration which can address itself to a Government able and willing to maintain its own citizens, to protect the rights thus trampled upon by Mexico."

If that is the true state of the case, if such are the facts, I grant there would be some reason in the language that we have assumed, and there would be some reason for the course indicated by the Committee on Foreign Relations, provided we had not already a subsisting treaty with Mexico by which we have bound ourselves, by the most solemn obligations that can bind nations, that if a difficulty should arise, war shall not be the remedy we will seek, but that we will first seek a peaceable and friendly arbitration. I say if we had not such a treaty as that binding upon us to-day, there might be some propriety in the belligerent attitude which has been assumed by the Administration toward Mexico; that is, if what they assume as correct were really facts.

I deny the proposition entirely. I lay down this position, and I will prove it by the authentic and published documents, that so far was the Government of Mexico from ever inviting the citizens of the United States into this affair, and so far were the citizens of the United States from going into it upon any such invitations, that it was a grant made by Mexico to her own citizens, a grant which had been annulled by the Congress of Mexico, and the Government of Mexico had refused to acknowledge Manning & Mackintosh as the assignees of the grant or as having any right in the contract; and that Government had not only refused to acknowledge the assignment to Manning & Mackintosh, but it had notified those parties that the Government would not consent to the transfer, and it had further notified its Minister residing at the city of Washington to inform Garay, the original holder of the grant, that the Mexican Government would not consent to any assignment, before any American citizen was interested in it to the amount of a single dollar. Here, then, is the plighted faith of Mexico! She had annulled the grant; she had refused to acknowledge the assignment to the English company; she notified the English house that she would not consent to the assignment, and resumed the grant, because it had been forfeited by a neglect to comply with its conditions; that the Minister of Foreign Relations instructed the Mexican Minister near this Government to notify Garay, the original holder of the grant, that the Government refused to consent to the transfer, and further, that it resumed all the rights which he had ever had. This was done on the 14th or 15th of January, 1849; and the very first notice that Mexico had that there was anybody except her own citizens interested in it was not given till the 5th of February, 1849, by Manning & Mackintosh; and that Government was not notified that anybody in the United States had any interest in it until six months after that time.

NEW SERIES.-No. 11.

the consideration and action of the Senate, to place the country in a very false position.

Sir, if Mexico were a strong Government, if it were a Government like England, or like Russia, I should not have the least concern on earth about these resolutions, but I should take them as some of those harmless ebullitions, some of those stupendous jokes in the shape of solemn resolutions which Old Fogeyism and Young America throw before the Senate in the race which they have to run to get ahead of each other; but that is not the case here. Mexico is weak, feeble, and distracted. She has no defense to make, except what is to be found in the justice of her cause, and in the magnanimity with which a powerful nation should always treat a weaker one."

I will now proceed to prove what I have said, and I will prove it by reference to the documents. I will endeavor to be brief. I will endeavor not to fatigue the Senate by going over a great body of extracts, but I will state the points as briefly as possible.

The foundation of this grant was a decree made by Santa Anna to Garay on the 1st of March, 1842, and it extended to twenty-eight months. Whether that grant was valid or not-whether Santa Anna had any power to make any such grant is a matter of some consequence, in some aspects of this case. Gentlemen are in the habit of speaking of these several chiefs of Mexico as dictators. I believe the fact is, that no one of those officers ever claimed to be dictator. In the revolutions to which Mexico has unfortunately been subjected, and the changes which have come sometimes almost as frequently as the varying seasons of the year, they have uniformly, so far as my examination has extended, bound themselves by written plans or constitutions. At the time Santa Anna made this decree, he was acting not under the old constitution of 1824, which had been subverted by the central constitution of 1836, and again subverted in 1841 by what is called the bases of Tacubaya and the convention of Estanzuela. It was under these that Santa Anna was then acting.

Santa Anna, in the decree, states his authority thus:

"It is by virtue of the powers and faculties vested in me by the seventh article of the convention signed at Tacubaya, and sworn to by the representatives and the deputies of the departments, that I have determined to issue the following decree."

Then it was by the bases of Tacubaya that he claimed to have authority to issue that decree. But be it remembered-and I ask the attention of the Senate to the fact that these same bases of Tacubaya, by which Santa Anna claimed to have the right to confer this grant upon Garay, also contained the provision that all his acts, while acting under these bases, should be submitted to the first Garay, when he took this grant from Santa Anna, constitutional Congress that was assembled. And knew that he took it subject to the contingency that it was liable to be laid before the first consti

tutional Congress for its approbation or rejection. Santa Anna was acting under the bases of Tacubaya and the convention of Estanzuela. The seventh article of the bases of Tacubaya is in these words:

"The powers of the Provisional Executive Government shall be everything necessary for the organization of every branch of the public administration."

The second article of the convention of Estanzuela is as follows:

"The acts of the Government of his Excellency General Don Anastasio Bustamente, and those of the govern ment that succeed him in the mean time, from the 1st of August of the present year 1841, of whatever class they may be, shall be submitted to the approbation of the first constitutional Congress; and likewise shall be remitted to the same Congress the acts of the Executive Provisional,

SENATE.

in conformity with the bases which the army of his Excellency General Santa Anna has adopted."

The time fixed by the decree of Santa Anna for Garay to go on and complete his work, expired on the 1st of July, 1844. At that time the bases of Tacubaya and the convention of Estanzuela had been superseded by what were called, think, the Bases Organicas, and during that time Carnilizo, President ad interim, extended the grant to Garay for another year, carrying it to July, 1845. The Bases Organicas, under which Carnilizo extended the original grant, was subject to exactly the same conditions as the bases of Tacubaya, which required that all the acts done by the provisional chief then in power, should be subjected to the action of the first constitutional Congress.

Santa Anna,—when the progress of revolution was such that he saw a constitutional Congress was about to be assembled, by which the validity of his grants would be inquired into, and the grants confirmed or rejected,-understanding perfectly the nature of the grant, and the nature of the authority set upon it, took a very sagacious way to get over it, or around it; and he issued his own decree that the responsibility established by the bases of Tacubaya, requiring his acts to be submitted to a constitutional Congress, was a mere expression of opinion, and was not binding; that the framers of the bases of Tacubaya had simply said they thought his acts ought to be submitted, but did not mean to require that they

should be.

But a Congress did assemble, and on the 1st of April, 1845, they took up the subject of these decrees, and one of the very first acts which they did was to declare that all the doings of the Provisional Government, except so far as they fell within the very letter of the authority which was conferred upon them for the extraordinary emergency out of which they had been created, were annulled, and under that act these grants were annulled.

But whether that decree of the Congress was sufficient or not, suppose that Santa Anna had the power and authority to make the grant-suppose that Carnilizo had authority to extend it, and suppose the first constitutional Congress of 1845 had not power to annul it, what then is the condition of things? Why the time expired in July, 1845, and not one step had then been made towards doing anything under the grant.

What next do you find? Garay then petitioned, not the President, not the Chief of the nation, but he petitioned the Government for an extension of his grant; and the Council refused to act upon it, and they submitted the question to the Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber of Deputies granted the request, and it was sent to the Senate. In the Senate the subject was referred to a committee, the committee reported favorably, but no action was had upon the matter by the Senate; and thus the grant was not extended by any act of the Government. But at that time General Salas was Provisional Chief in Mexico. It must be borne in mind that General Salas, on the 22d of August, 1846, he then being in supreme power, published a decree restoring the constitution of 1824. That constitution was then restored over the whole of Mexico; the military governors went out, and constitutional governors were elected in their places, and the machinery of the constitution of 1824 was put in full operation all over Mexico. Under that constitution the President of Mexico had no more right to make such a grant, than had the President of the United States. Yet General

Salas, on the 5th of November, 1846, nearly three

months after the restoration of the federal consti

tution of 1824, which has been in operation from that day to the present, General Salas took the very law which had passed the Chamber of Deputies, and had been suspended in the Senate, and made a decree extending the grant to Garay for two years. Immediately upon this grant of Garay being extended by the decree of Salas, Garay applied to the Government for a confirmation, or, as it is styled in the papers of that country, credentials. The Government took the matter into consideration and confirmed the grant, with two essential modifications; one was, that all contracts that were to be made relative to the matter should be submitted to the Government for consideration

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

Tehuantepec Grant-Mr. Hale.

Mexican Government had any notice that anybody else except a Mexican citizen was coming in to take this contract, they notified Manning & Mackintosh that they would not consent to the transfer, and they further notified them that the Government resumed to themselves all the concessions which had been made in the Garay grant,

and approval; and the second was, that all the colonists who went on to work upon the proposed railway, or other interoceanic communication, should renounce their nationality, and give up their alien privileges. Upon these terms, and these conditions being incorporated into the decree, or into the credentials, Garay took the grant. The grant to Garay was of a twofold character-for the reason that the time limited in the grant and I beg the Senate to bear this in mind, because if they do, they will avoid some of the very errors into which the Administration has fallen. One of these grants was for colonizing the country, and the other was for making, an interoceanic communication; and both were separate and distinct. On the 7th of January; 1847, Garay assigned to Manning & Mackintosh-what? What the Committee on Foreign Relations suppose by their report, what Mr. Webster says in his letter, was a contract for making a way over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. But it is no such thing. On the 7th of January, 1847, Garay assigned to Manning & Mackintosh that part of the grant which related to colonization, and he expressly said:

"That by this transfer on the part of the covenanter, D. José Garay, it is not to be understood that he confers upon Messrs. Manning & Mackintosh, and Schneider & Company, any right whatever to carry on navigation from one sea to the other; but he declares that he transfers to the gentlemen aforesaid the right of navigating said Coatzacoalcos river for all such purposes as may be suitable and useful to the business connected with the transfer of the lands in ques tion, without any detriment accruing in virtue of such act to the privileges vested in the aforesaid Garay."

That Garay reserved to himself in the most formal manner possible. He retained all the privileges relating to the construction of a railroad, or other transit, across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and he sold to Manning & Mackintosh the simple right of colonizing the country. Manning & Mackintosh, as they were perfectly aware that they were bound to do by the conditions that had been inserted into the contract that was drawn up upon the decree of Salas, submitted this transfer to the Government for approval. Did the Government approve of it? No, sir; but they rejected it until something else was inserted, and I want to read the note which was inserted in the deed:

"The most excellent President has made himself acquainted with the contents of the clause of this document, and in view of the antecedents which have been borne in mind, he has been pleased to approve of said contract, but with the additions which have been deemed wise and just, in order to fill up the vacuums alluded to in the deed itself vacuums which might become the source of all sorts of discussions, that are to be avoided. It has been noticed that no mention has been made in the contract of the renunciation of nationality, provided for by the thirteenth article of the law of November 5, 1846. 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 circumstances may happen, and whatever measures these may require, neither the settlers aforesaid, nor the proprietors may not, in any case not 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 admitted. Nor is it stated whether the transferees have to give an account to the Supreme Government of the contracts they may enter into for the introduction of families, nor is there any mention made of the record ordered to be kept, in pursuance of the fourteenth article of the aforesaid law of November the 5th. All these obligations are of a relative character, and as they have been contracted by you, they must be binding upon the

transferees."

This note, containing this explicit direction to the proprietors that settlers must renounce their nationality, and submit themselves entirely to such justice as Mexico would give them, to be fully and explicitly understood, was inserted in the contract itself, and signed by Manning & Mackintosh. They took the assignment of that part of the Garay grant with the full knowledge that they divested themselves of all protection that the Government would be bound to extend to them under other circumstances if they had not thus divested themselves.

Thus the matter remained until September, 1848. It is said that then-and the deed appears to be so-in September, 1848, there was a transfer made to Manning & Mackintosh of the remaining part of the contract, and that was the part which related to making an interoceanic communication between the two seas. Early in January, 1849, Manning & Mackintosh notified the Mexican Government that this contract had been assigned to them in September, 1848. What did that Government do? The very first moment that the

for the performance of the work had expired. They not only did that, but they instructed the Minister of Mexico resident in the United States to serve upon Garay, who was then residing in New York, a like notice, which I ask the Secretary to do me the favor to read. The Secretary accordingly read it, as follows:

MEXICAN LEGATION TO THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Mexican Republic, in his note of the 8th of the last March, commands me, by order of his Excellency the President, to notify you that the time of the extension of the privilege for opening a way of intercourse, of interoceanic communication through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec having expired, all the concessions made to you by the decree of March, 1842, have ceased, and the Republic has reassumed all her rights upon this matter. God and Liberty! LUIS DE LA ROSA. To Señor DON JOSE GARAY, New York. BALTIMORE, April 8, 1849.

Mr. HALE. That Garay received that notice in season is substantiated by the fact, that on the 12th of April he answered it. Now, it must be remembered that up to this time there had not been the least intimation to Mexico that anybody except Garay had any interest in the contract for making the interoceanic communication. They had been notified of the transfer of the colonization grant, and probably good reasons were suggested why they should favor that assignment, because they wanted foreigners to come in and settle. But up to this moment they had never received any intimation that anybody but Garay was interested in the other grant; and when they did hear it, they notified Manning & Mackintosh that they did not recognize them as transferees of Garay, inasmuch as the two years granted by the decree of 1846 had expired, and the privilege of the claim had likewise become extinct.

In view of all these facts, I wish the Senate to look at the position of the President of the United States, of the late Secretary of State, and of our Minister to Mexico. The complaint has gone out to the world that, induced by the tempting offers of Mexico, American citizens have gone on and invested their money, their means, in this grant, relying upon the good faith of Mexico; and that Mexico having refused to keep her faith, this Government is called upon to go even to the extreme resort of war, to vindicate the outraged rights of those American citizens who have been thus trampled upon by Mexico. Why, sir, this was a Mexican grant to a Mexican citizen, to be performed on Mexican soil, and the time and time again for which the extension had been sought and granted, had expired, and nothing had been done. Then it was sold to Manning & Mackintosh, to induce the English Government to come in and see if they could not be affected. It was transferred to English subjects in order to try to get England to bully Mexico into what her sense of justice would not dictate to her. I do not know, and I have not the facts that I can state to the Senate sufficient to warrant me in saying, that. an application was made to the British authorities to induce them take up this claim of Manning & Mackintosh. I have not such evidence as will authorize me to lay it before the Senate, but I have as much as satisfies my own mind that their interposition was asked, and that the British officials refused to touch it with their fingers.

What then? Six months after this-six months after the contract had expired, and had been annulled, we find-what? After the Government of Mexico had notified Garay, had notified Manning & Mackintosh, and everybody, that the grant had expired by its own limitation and by a neglect to comply with its conditions; after an attempt had been made to enlist the powerful support of the British Government in behalf of the claim assigned to Manning & Mackintosh, British subjects, and it stood in their hands, Mackintosh sending, day after day, notes to the Mexican Government, and his own Government not appearing to back him up; what then do we find? Why,

SENATE.

on the 15th of July, 1849, six months after this, Mr. Mackintosh informed the Government of Mexico that he was going to inform his partners, residing out of the Republic, of what had taken place in regard to his enterprise, the headquarters of which, by common consent of all parties interested, had been definitively established in the United States; the company being represented by Señor Don Pedro Amada Hargous, who for the future would deal with the Government of the Republic, since he, Mackintosh, had ceased to represent the interests of said company. That is the first time, the 15th of July, 1849, that Mr. Hargous's name appears in this matter. The grant had before that time expired by its own limitation in 1848. It had been annulled by the Mexican Congress, and resumed by the Mexican Government. Mackintosh, the English assignee, had been notified of this; Garay had been notified of it; the thing was as dead as death could make it. Then, in order to revive it, if possible, it was assigned to citizens of the United States, and the Government of the United States was called upon to go in and vindicate the rights of its citizens, who had been induced, upon the tempting offers of Mexico, to invest their capital in the enterprise.

What were those offers? Why, sir, the Mexican Government said to every citizen of the United States, "Before you can be interested in this contract, or before you can go on to this line as a settler, you must renounce your nationality— you must give up the idea of appealing to your own Government-you must come here upon Mexican soil, and take a Mexican contract, and be content with Mexican laws, and such a judgment and adjudication of your rights as Mexican tribunals can give you." These were the tempting offers that were held out. That was the plighted faith of Mexico upon which the citizens of the United States went there, and invested their means in this contract.

Now, I know very well that there is an attempt made by the Committee on Foreign Relations and by the Secretary of State, to show that, notwithstanding the grant had expired by its own limitation; notwithstanding the objections to the authority of Santa Anna, and of Carnilizo, and of Salas, to make the decrees; notwithstanding that the two years prescribed by Salas in his decree of November 6, 1846, had also expired, there are yet reasons enough by which it can be made to appear that Mexico has acknowledged the grant subsequently. I will first take the reasons given by the Committee on Foreign Relations. The committee say:

"The committee will now proceed to show that the Mexican Government has, subsequently to this decree of November, 1846, recognized, in the most unequivocal manner, the binding validity of this grant, and admitted its obligation to abide by it.

"In 1846-47 the assignment of the grant to Manning & Mackintosh was duly notified to the Government of Mexico, ánd, on their complaint, President Herrera issued orders to the Governors of Oaxaca and Vera Cruz to prevent the cutting of mahogany, on the lands granted, by any other than the English company."

That is one reason, and the answer to that must have suggested itself to everybody who has listened to me. The assignment spoken of here, made in 1847 to Manning & Mackintosh, was not an assignment of the right to make a communication between the two oceans, but it was an assignment of the mere right to colonize the country. It related to colonization entirely. That was an object which the Mexican Government was anxious to have effected, to have the country settled, and therefore it confirmed that assignment. It is an abundant answer to that further to say that Manning & Mackintosh so understood it; Garay so understood it; and everybody so understood it; because in September, 1848, Garay executed another conveyance to them, by which he gave them, in addition to the right of colonization, the right of making this way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The committee go on to give their second

reason:

"In 1847, whilst the treaty of peace was under negotiation, Mr. Trist, the Commissioner on the part of the United States, by instruction from his Government, proposed a Jarge 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

32D CONG.....2D Sess.

the Mexican Government, to English subjects, of whose ' rights Mexico could not dispose.""

Whatever these negotiations may have meantwhether they meant to have a little diplomacy there whether they meant to represent the matter a little stronger than it was nothing is clearer than that they could not have had in their heads or hearts the idea that Garay had assigned to any English subjects the right of making this interoceanic communication, because the contract under which Manning & Mackintosh claimed that right was not executed until some eighteen months afterwards. That contract was executed in September, 1848, and these negotiations were going on in the early part of 1847. It is therefore perfectly plain that the negotiations could not have referred to a grant to make that way across the Isthmus, because it was not assigned to Manning & Mackintosh for more than a year afterwards. What, then, did the Commissioners mean? They meant the right of colonization, because that was the only contract which had been made. But the committee go on and give their third reason to show that Mexico acknowledged this grant, and that reason is in these words:

"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."",

As has been remarked, I think by the Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD,] who addressed the Senate upon this subject some days ago, it is a very curious fact, that while there are so many letters and so many short notes given, which passed between Mr. Letcher and the Mexican Government upon this subject, this very important letter, in which he communicates to them the fact, as would seem to be supposed by the Committee on Foreign Relations, that this company were desirous of sending on engineers to pursue the work, is not found in the correspondence. There is no account of it. Mr. Letcher made some sort of a communication, soliciting for some engineers, upon some terms, the right to go over there and make a survey. Did Mr. Letcher tell the Mexican Government when he made this application, that the engineers were the servants of this company, that the holders of the Garay grant were about to commence operations, and that he wished passports for them? You cannot tell. So far as Mr. Letcher's application is concerned, there is a perfect vacuum. We do not know what he said, but I think the Senate will be at no loss to gather what it was, from the answer made by the Mexican Minister, Mr. Lacunza,'to the Governor of Oaxaca, because in that he recites the application to him. The letter of Mr. Lacunza is in these words:

MEXICO, April 5, 1850. MOST EXCELLENT SIR: Several American engineers having been appointed for the purpose of examining the possibility of opening a 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 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 esteem. God and liberty! LACUNZA.

HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF STATE OF OAXACA.

I think the Senate will be at no loss to understand what sort of an application was made to Mr. Lacunza for these passports. It was a representation that engineers had been appointed by the American Government. What is the language? "Several American engineers have been appointed." For what purpose? For commencing work under the Garay grant? No; nothing of that sort, but for the purpose of examining 'the possibility of opening a communication between the two seas by way of the Isthmus of 'Tehuantepec." Such was the representation that was made to Mr. Lacunza, the Mexican Minister, upon which the passports were granted. Mexico was as desirous of ascertaining the possibility of that communication as the Government

Tehuantepec Grant-Mr. Hale.

of the United States; and finding that this Government had appointed its engineers to ascertain the practicability of this great work, which was to do so much for Mexico, for the United States, and for the world, they did what was becoming the offices of a friendly Government. They issued a request to the Governor of the State through which the engineers were to pass, that they might be hospitably received and treated while they were ascertaining the practicability of this communication.

SENATE.

commented upon that, and I have shown that that note had nothing to do with the Garay grant, properly so called, but related to colonization. Mr. Webster's eighth reason is certainly a curious one, and it is "the note of Mr. Clifford to Mr. Lacunza, of the 20th of June, 1849." Mr. Clifford wrote to Mr. Lacunza, inquiring of him if the grant had been annulled. Mr. Lacunza answered that it had not been annulled, but that it was liable to be annulled 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 acknowledged the existence of the grant subsequent to 1848, I confess I cannot conceive.

The ninth reason of Mr. Webster is the letter of Messrs. Manning & Mackintosh to Mr. Lacunza, of the 25th of July, 1849. That was the letter in which Manning & Mackintosh inform the Government of Mexico that they had become the assignees of the Garay grant, and that Government refused to recognize them as such, and in that fact Mr. Webster finds evidence that Mexico had assented to it. Manning & Mackintosh told the Government of Mexico that they were the assignees of Garay. Mexico said, We cannot recognize you as such; yet that is cited as a reason to prove that Mexico did recognize them.

These are all the reasons assigned by the Committee on Foreign Relations to show that Mexico has recognized this grant, except what is to be found in the treaty itself; that is, the treaty which was signed by the Mexican and the American Ministers, and transmitted to this Government, ratified by the American Senate, and rejected by the Mexican Congress. Now, I take it for granted that I need not argue before this enlightened body that nothing in such a treaty as that can by any possibility be binding upon Mexico. Who ever heard that a treaty reduced to writing, and signed and ratified by one Government, imposed any obligations upon a Government which rejected it? It is a new doctrine, and one which cannot be sustained. With all deference to this honorable committee, I think they must have been hard pushed for reasons when they undertook to find, in the fact that the Garay grant was acknowledged in a treaty which Mexico rejected, evidence that Mexico had admitted the grant. But even that bare apology of a reason does not exist, because there is nothing of that sort in the treaty; but there is a simple provision that the actual holder of the right, be he who he may, should be consulted. Thus I have disposed of the reasons why Mex-American engineers had been appointed by the ico has acknowledged this right, so far as the Committee on Foreign Relations are concerned. But Mr. Webster, in one of his letters, has more reasons than the committee, if they are not better. In a letter to Mr. De la Rosa, dated Washington, him, and.after this Government had been notified April 30, 1851, (after Mr. De la Rosa had notified

times innumerable that Mexico did not and would not recognize this grant,) Mr. Webster wrote told them that Mexico did recognize it. Mr. De back, evidently with a good deal of temper, and la Rosa wrote an earnest and respectful letter to Mr. Webster, telling him that his Government never could recognize the Garay grant, and Mr. Webster wrote back telling him that Mexico did Mr. Webster went on and gave recognize it. eleven reasons to show that Mexico acknowledged the grant.

His first reason is the decree of the Mexican Government of the 1st March, 1842. Well, sir, first reason of the eleven must fall to the ground. as that expired in 1844, it seems to me that the The second is the contract made between the Mexican Minister of Foreign Relations and Don José de Garay. Under that decree the contract was limited to the time specified in the decree, and died with it; that is to say, in July, 1844, but was subsequently extended to 1845. The third reason given by Mr. Webster is the Mexican decree of the 9th of February, 1843. That was a decree giving the lands that were conveyed by the contract of the 7th of January, 1847, into the possession of Garay; and how the sagacious mind of Mr. Webster could have gathered from the fact that Mexico consented that the lands which were afterwards assigned to Manning & Mackintosh for colonization should be given up to Garay, was proof that they had recognized the existence of this grant, which expired in 1845, and afterwards in 1848, passes my comprehension.

The next reason given by Mr. Webster is the decree of the same Government, of the 4th of October, 1843; that is the decree permitting engineers to go on and make a survey. The fifth reason is the decree of the same Government, of the 28th of December, 1843; that is the one which extended the grant to 1845. The sixth reason is the Mexican decree of November 5th, 1846; that is the decree of Salas, which expired in 1848, and how Mr. Webster could find evidence in the fact that a decree which expired in 1848 acknowledged the existence of the grant after 1848, is also a matter that I cannot comprehend. The seventh reason is the note of the Mexican Commissioners to Mr.

Trist, of September 6th, 1847. I have already

The tenth reason is the letter of Mr. Lacunza to Mr. Letcher, of the 5th of April, 1850, communicating a copy of an order of the same date issued by the Mexican Government to the Governor of the State of Oaxaca, directing him to receive with hospitality the American engineers who had been appointed to survey the Tehuantepec route. Mr. Webster here evidently treats it as if

Government, and in the fact that they were hospitably received by Mexico, he finds evidence that Mexico acknowledged the grant.

The eleventh and last reason of Mr. Webster is the same as that suggested by the Committee 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 Government 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 communication. Read the letters. I shall not been willing, but has been anxious to open this 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 anxiously desirous to have this communication 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 informed by the Mexican Minister, "Once remove this Garay grant, and there will be no difficulty at all in making a treaty.' This is a very important point, and therefore I will read from Mr. Letcher's letter. In the letter from him to Mr. Webster, dated 14th December, 1851, relating a 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 as he had it in his power to guard and protect her honor, he was determined she should not only be free from just reproach, but should stand upon elevated grounds before the world, in every particular, in reference to a matter of so much importance; that although she had been, and was at this noment, badly treated by many of my countrymen, still, from motives of sound policy, she was disposed, and such was his own 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, and I am ready,' said he, to enter into a treaty with you which I think will be satisfactory to both countries."""

How was this Garay grant looked upon in Mexico? Let me show you how it was looked

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

upon there. Mr. Letcher, in his letter to Mr. Webster of the 29th October, 1851, says:

"It appears there is a fixed prejudice from one end of this country to the other against the Garay grant, upon which you know the treaty is predicated."

In the same letter, he says:

"It 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 a faction in the whole country."

Here, then, was a grant odious to Mexico; odious to every class in Mexico; annulled by the Congress of Mexico; the holders of which were notified from the first assignment which was made, that Mexico would never recognize them. And yet, the great interest of the age, this communication between the two oceans, is to be suspended; the progress of society, the great interests of commerce and of social intercourse, and all the interests of humanity, which are so intimately connected with the opening of this transit between the two oceans, are suspended and blocked by what the Mexican Minister of Foreign Relations has well termed a mere frigid mercantile speculation.

And, sir, to such a degree had this Garay grant magnified itself in the estimation of the Administration, that when a treaty came to be formed for the opening of this way between the two oceans, it was made by this Government a condition of the treaty, that the actual holder of that grant should give his consent to it before it should be submitted to the Senate. And Mr. Peter A. Hargous comes forward, and notifies Mr. Webster that he, Peter A. Hargous, is the man who stands, like the Angel with the flaming sword at the gate of Paradise, and that no treaty of peace shall come before the American Senate until he gives his consent to it. Yes, sir, it was a tripartite convention. We were not willing to enter into a tripartite convention with France and England in reference to Cuba; but we were willing to enter into a treaty, one party of which was the United States of Amerjea, another the Republic of Mexico, and the third, Peter A. Hargous. Mr. Hargous says that Mr. Webster submitted the treaty to him, and he made various suggestions of modification to it. Now, I ask, is not that a most humiliating position for this country to stand in? But there is another fact that I have upon the very best authority, which, in my humble judgment, is disgraceful to the American Government, and I will state it. When your Minister goes to Mexico, and I will do Mr. Letcher the justice to say that I am told he did not begin the practice, he is the guest, he is fed at the board and lodged in the bed of this very Mr. Hargous.

Mr. SEWARD. That is not true of the present Minister.

Mr. HALE. I do not say anything of the present Minister; but it is true, as I am informed on authority which I cannot doubt, and abundance of which is now in this city, that when, for years back, a Minister is sent from this country and arrives on the frontiers of Mexico, he is taken possession of by Mr. Hargous, fed at his board, lodged in his bed, and kept there, and considered, instead of being the representative of this Government, as a sort of attaché to Mr. Hargous.

Mr. MASON. I ask the Senator to state the authority on which he makes the declaration that the American Minister in Mexico lodged at the house and lived at the board of this Mr. Hargous, who is now the holder of this grant.

Mr. HALE. I do not say which of the Hargouses it is, for I understand there are two brothers of them in one firm. I do not say which of them it is.

Mr. MASON. I am uninformed about the fact, but it is a very serious charge to be made in reference to a gentleman who represented this country abroad; and I submit to the Senator that he state the name of the person upon whose authority he makes the charge.

Mr. HALE. I will state the authority, and I have more than one authority for it. I will give the Senator the name of Mr. Buckingham Smith, who was Secretary of Legation to Mexico. I 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 I understand

Tehuantepec Grant—Mr. Hale.

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. I want a direct answer-yea or

nay.

Mr. HALE. I suppose it is both. The firm is Hargous & Brother, I believe. Mr. SEWARD. Peter A. Hargous lives in New York, and his brother lives in Mexico. Mr. HALE. I am told that one of them lives in New York, and the other in Mexico. It is one of the brothers. I understand they are associated.

Mr. MASON. I understand, then, the Senator does not make the charge that the American Minister lived at the house of the representative of this claim?

Mr. HALE. I say that the American Minis ter lived at the house of one or other of them, Peter A. Hargous or his brother, or both. I said I would do Mr. Letcher the justice to say that I did not believe he began the practice, but that it was a matter which was in existence before his time. Whether it was Peter or his brother I do not know, and that is no matter. It was one of them. I 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 a member of this firm, at the time when he was urging the claim of these Hargouses, and when the claim of Hargous prevented the ratification of a treaty between the two Governments, is a fact that ought to be known. Whether it confers honor or disgrace I will not trouble myself to say.

Mexico not only made these professions of the President (Arista) that they were willing to execute a 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 transmitted to this Government for its acceptance and ratification, a treaty in which this right of way was fully secured, and secured as a neutral pass for all friendly nations. The Government of the United States did not accept, and did not send to the Senate that treaty, for the sole reason, as Mr. Letcher, months afterwards, 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. It 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 hemispheres had to stand apart and refrain from all the conveniences of commercial intercourse, which might be opened to them by this interoceanic communication, because the private interests of a speculating company were thrown in the way. The nations had to stand back, commerce to stand still, progress to cease, and humanity not to go forward, because this mercantile speculation was thrown in the

way.

And now our Government is called upon to levy war against the Republic 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 tribunals, but is hateful and odious to every section of her people.

I will not trouble the Senate with reading the statement which I 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 I take, and which I believe are firm and irrefutable, according to the documents which are submitted to us. But there are one or two other matters to which I wish to address myself for a few mo

ments.

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 considers it an irrefutable proposition, that under what is, I suppose, the old common-law right of way, we have a right of way across Tehuantepec, whether Mexico consents or not. Now, accord

SENATE.

ing to the common-law, rights of way are of three kinds, or, more accurately speaking, of two kinds. There is a right of way by grant, and by prescription, which presupposes a grant, and there is a right of way of necessity; and a right of way of necessity is measured by the necessity, and when the necessity ceases, the right ceases. That is the law. If you, Mr. President, sell me a piece of land surrounded on all four sides by your land, so that I have no way to get to the highway except over your land, I have a right to go over it. That is a way of necessity. If you sell me a piece of land surrounded on three sides by the land of strangers, and on the fourth side by yours, I have a 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 I buy a piece of land of you, and I can get to the highway over your land by going half a mile, and I cannot get to it by my own land but by going around ten miles, that does not give me a right of way over your land because it is twenty times more convenient. The right of way must be one of absolute necessity. If I buy a piece of land of you, it may be vastly more convenient to go over your land than over my own, but if I own land by which I can get to the highway, I have no right of way of necessity over your land, and cannot take it, no matter how convenient it may be.

Let us apply that principle in this case. We bought California of Mexico, and it is contended 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 necessity, which we might otherwise have. Besides that, we have got a right of way over our own land. We own all the land from here in a straight line to California, and for that reason we have no right of way of necessity. If these two reasons are not sufficient, I 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 a right of way of necessity, is, with all deference to the honorable Senator, absurd. I would not say it if I thought he had examined it; but inasmuch as I know that he cannot have examined it, I must say, that the position is absurd. The common-law is, "A right of way may arise from necessity in several respects;"- - but I will not read it. I was about to read from Kent's Commentaries; but the same doctrine which I have stated to you is there laid down, and it is not necessary to read it.

A SENATOR. That is the common-law doctrine, and does not apply as between nations.

Mr. HALE. The same doctrine, however, is laid down by Vattel in "the law of nations." But the right of way is the right to pass over the soil, not to subvert it, not to dig it up, not to make canals, not to make railroads; but it is simply to pass over the soil in the easiest manner possible, doing the least possible injury. I trust the honorable Senator from Virginia, who is an able and astute lawyer, when he comes to examine this matter, will reconsider that opinion of his, and that he will not be prepared to go to war upon the doctrine of a right of way of necessity, on our part, over the Isthmus of Tehuantepee.

The honorable Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. Downs,] in his remarks on this subject, made a suggestion which I was very sorry to hear, and that was, that we should go and take possession of the Isthmus by force. Sir, I think we are going back to the ages of barbarism when the law of force is to be substituted for the tribunal of reason and argument. We are too late in this age of the world to throw away the aids of diplomacy and reason and argument, to resort to the law of force; and I trust we shall not do it. This argument of force has been threatened to Mexico again and again; and what has Mexico said to it? I have not the extract by me, but I have it in my memory. Mexico, when force was threatened her, answered, substantially: "Your Government is strong, ours is weak; you can take what of our soil you please, but we cannot go further than we have gone."

Sir, in that very declaration Mexico is stronger than you are with your armies; in that very dec