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

at he and his assignees, whether natives or forners, should be protected in the right. Hear = pledge:

That in the name of the Supreme Government, under most solemn protests, he declares and promises that all every one of the concessions mentioned in the precon ted decree shall be honorably fulfilled, now and at all es, pledging the honor and public faith of the nation to intain the projector, Don José de Garay, as well as any vate individual or company succeeding or representing , either natives or foreigners, in the undisturbed enjoynt of all the concessions granted, holding the national adnistration responsible for any acts of its own or its agents, sich, from want of proper fulfillment of the covenant its, injure the interests of the proprietors; all of course bject to the existence of the inserted decree."

The term of eighteen months was given him, which to complete the preliminary surveys. us, by, the original grant, the time for commenng the work was to expire in July, 1844. But nta Anna, in December, 1843, in consequence of e representations of Garay that it was impossie to complete the surveys in that time, extended e time to the first of July, 1845. Early in Jan■ry, 1845, Santa Anna was deposed; and in 1845, ring the summer, (Herrera then being President the Republic of Mexico,) Mr. Garay applied the Mexican Congress for a further extension the time of two years. His memorial was taken to consideration and referred to a committee. hat committee made a favorable report. The reort and resolutions recommending the extension the grant for two years were unanimously lopted by the Chamber of Deputies, and sent to e Senate. In December, 1845, and before it ould be acted upon, or rather while it was in the et of being passed, with the same unanimity with which it had passed through the other House, he Congress was broken up and the members ispersed by another of those revolutions which re so frequent in that country. Mr. Garay, on mat account, failed in obtaining an extension of e time. Paredes succeeded, and in 1846, he was in his turn deposed, no Congress having met n the mean time. As evidence of the high estimate in which this great work was viewed, not nly by Santa Anna, but by all parties in Mexico, here refer to the report spoken of, and will read

n extract:

"The committee would require the most eloquent pen o portray (if it were possible) the utility and the immense dvantages which will redound from the realization of this nterprise to all countries, and especially to that upon whose oil it is made.

"Indeed it is true that we are placed between two oceans, und that it would be as easy for the country to establish its commercial depôt for the trade with Europe and Africa ipon the eastern coast, and that with Oceanica and Asia upon the western shores of the Republic; but can we, in our infancy, and in perpetual state of revolution, expect hat our country should become the emporium of the commerce of the world? By no means-for we cannot even compete with the meanest monarchies of Europe, nor with he dilapidated empires of the East.

"Being in this situation, nothing suits our condition beter than the opening of the contemplated communication. Our country, through it, can then become the center of wealth and prosperity, particularly when we reflect upon the richness of our mines, which are sources of envy even among the remote nations of the East. Perhaps, after all, we are destined to be the first nation of the globe. Flattering vision! God grant that it may prove prophetic!"

By another revolution Salas was made Provisional President, in accordance with what was called "the Plan of the Citadel;" and as soon as he was clothed with power, his attention was called to this application of Garay for an extension of the time. He took it up and examined it, and by a decree made on the 5th of September, 1846, he granted to Garay the extension which had been recommended by the Congressional committee and which had passed unanimously the lower House of the Congress of Mexico. In 1847 Garay assigned this contract to an English house, the firm of Manning & Mackintosh, who subsequently transferred it to citizens of the United States, and is now the property of a company located in New Orleans, who have since attempted to carry out the design of making the road, by sending a company of men there to make further surveys of the route, with a view of commencing the work. This company was driven off by the Mexican authorities, and the grant was declared void by the Mexican Government in 1851. I asserted yesterday, and I assert again, and I can make good the assertion by documents and proofs before me, that no objection was ever made to this grant, either on account of the time having expired within which the

Tehuantepec Grant-Mr. Brooke.

work was to be completed, or on account of the want of power in those who made it or extended it, until the grant passed out of the hands of the English company into the hands of American citizens. Nor, sir, was it until the year 1851, as is shown by a note of the Mexican Minister in this city to Mr. Webster, that any objection was ever made to this grant for want of power in those who made it. On the contrary, in 1849, in the note to which I have referred, the whole objection that was made, after she found the grant had passed into the hands of American citizens, was that it had expired by its own limitation. Here is an extract from Mr. De la Rosa's letter to Mr. Webster, of July 3d, 1851:

"Under date of April 8, 1849, Don José Garay was informed by this legation that the Minister of Relations of the Mexican Republic had determined, by order of his Excellency the President, that, inasmuch as the period for which the privilege had been extended for opening an oceanic communication through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, had expired without any efforts having been made by said Garay to comply with the terms stipulated therein, all grants which had been made by the law of May 1, 1842, had, therefore, ceased to exist, and that the Republic had resumed all its rights in regard to that matter."

Within the time of the first extension, Mr. Garay employed an engineer by the name of Moro, who made a survey of the premises, according to the requirements of the contract. He communicated that fact to the President of the Republic, and by a letter which is here from the Minister of State, by order of the President, to the Governor of Oaxaca, Mr. Garay was directed to be placed in full possession of the land granted by the original contract.

In reference to the two years embraced in the last extension, we place ourselves on this principle, that in consequence of the war with the United States-a war which has been declared by Congress to have been the act of Mexico-Mr. Garay and his assignees were exempted from complying with the contract, so far as the further prosecution of the work was concerned, during that period. But, sir, it is not necessary to refer even to that well-known principle of law, that the act of the grantor will excuse the non-performance by the grantee of the conditions of the grant; because in 1847, we have proof before us that Mr. Garay again went upon the route to survey it. In 1848 he again went on with the survey commenced in 1847. So that from the beginning to the end of the whole transaction, there is nothing that appears on its face, or in any of the papers, which can affect the contract with nullity in the slightest degree. I shall refer more particularly to this proof, when I come to examine the statements made by the Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD,] and to do what he failed to do," adjust the lens of history so as to concentrate its rays upon this subject.'

SENATE.

termined to exclude the delegates from New Mexico, Yucatan, and California, leaving thus an unconstitutional Congress to cede away two of the departments of the Republic. This principle was expressly recognized, and the contingency contemplated by Mr. Buchanan, in his instructions of April 15, 1847, to Mr. Trist, an extract from which I will here read:

"So rapidly does revolution follow revolution in Mexico, that it would be difficult to conjecture what form of gorernment you may find in existence over that ill-fated country on your arrival at the headquarters of the army. The constitution of 1824 may then have been abolished, and a dictatorship be again existing in its stead. You will not hesitate, however, to conclude a treaty with whatever Government you shall find there upon your arrival; provided it presents a reasonable prospect of being able to maintain itself. Should a dictator be established, who has subverted the constitution of 1824, and acquired the supreme power, his ratification of the treaty will be sufficient without the previous approbation of the general Congress. Were this Government to refuse to conclude a treaty of peace until the Mexican Government shall assume any permanent constitutional form, the war might yet continue for many years to come."

Yes, sir, and he might have added, "forever;" and we may say, that if a grant of a right of way, or anything else, is to depend upon a permanent form of Government, or on any Government which had a permanent constitutional form, none such could ever be made. I said, with reference to the powers of Santa Anna when he made this grant originally, and when he extended it in 1843, and in reference to the powers of Salas when he extended it in 1846, that they were absolute, and that those two individuals were exercising de facto dictatorial and absolute power in Mexico, and that there was no constitution to control them. What are the facts? The first republican constitution in Mexico was adopted in 1824, a constitution modeled after our own, and imitating it very closely. This constitution, so far from continuing in being for a period of nineteen years, as asserted by the Senator from New York, continued in existence only about ten years, certainly not more than twelve. In 1834, it was abolished by what was called the Plan of Toluca. And, to use the language of a reliable historian, it was not only abolished, but actually and physically "blotted from the statute-books of Mexico. In consequence of this Plan of Toluca, the constitution of 1836 was adopted, which destroyed the State governments entirely, and made the States military provinces with military governors, responsible to the central Government at the city of Mexico. This form of government lasted only till 1841, or about five years. Then, in consequence of one of those outbreaks which are so common in that unhappy country, a convention of officers assembled at a place called Estanzuela, whose deliberations resulted in what was called the Bases de Tacubaya, the seventh article of which conferred the most While Santa dictatorial powers on the President. Anna was thus possessed of supreme power, he issued this grant to Don José Garay.

It is true that Santa Anna, according to the Bases de Tacubaya, as President, was bound to submit his acts to the next Constitutional Congress after the revolution, and he was bound also to call together a convention for the purpose of forming a constitution. Accordingly, in 1842, he did call together a convention of citizens, but before they had completed their deliberations, while they were in the act of forming a constitution, he drove them out of doors at the point of the bayonet; and the next year he caused to be established, by a junta of his own creation, what was called the Bases Organicas; which, according to another historian, were even more tyrannical and absolute in their form, than were the Bases de Tacubaya.

and made a law by Salas, and which only failed to pass the Senate in consequence of the revolution which overthrew Herrera and put Paredes in his place. Salas succeeded by another revolution in the summer of 1846, and came into power under what was called the Plan of the Citadel. It is true that Salas, in this Plan of the Citadel which

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

constitution of 1824. It seems that this defunct constitution of 1824, which was most effectually put to death in 1836, was made use of by one usurper for the purpose of displacing another. In reference to it, we might exclaim with Macbeth, in view of Banquo's ghost:

"The times have been,

That, when the brains were out, the man would die,
And there an end; but now they rise again,
With twenty mortal murders on their crowns,
And push us from our stools."

So it seems that this constitution of 1824, dead and buried as it had been, was on all occasions resuscitated from the tomb for the purpose of being used by one usurper to push another from his stool, and it is now sought to be used for another and a different purpose, and that is to invalidate a solemn contract of a Government fully as legitimate as any they have ever had.

Tehuantepec Grant-Mr. Brocke.

requesting him to put him (Mr. Garay) in possession of the lands, because he (Garay) had complied with his contract in making the surveys; at least to an extent sufficient to enable him to commence the work:

OFFICE OF FOReign Affairs. SIR: I subjoin a copy of the communications addressed this day to their Excellencies, the Governors of the Departments of Oaxaca and Vera Cruz:

"MOST EXCELLENT SIR: On the first of May of last 'year, the Provisional President published a decree grant'ing to Don José de Garay an exclusive privilege to open a communication between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, in the Isthinus of Tehuantepec; ceding to him, by article the fifth, the possession of the untenanted lands that lay 'within ten leagues on each side of the projected road, and promising, by article seventh, to render him every assistance in carrying on both the survey and the works. The survey is so far advanced as to allow the commencement

of the works and other operations, without which a project ' of such magnitude would be thrown into jeopardy, greatly 'to the detriment of the Republic. His Excellency, the Provisional President, having present these considerations, and others which spring from the same decree, and wish'ing to render effectual the solemn promises made, has been pleased to direct me to inform your Excellency of the above, that your Excellency may give the necessary orders for the fulfillment of the fifth article of the decree, by which 'Don José de Garay is to be put in possession of the unten'anted lands that lie within ten leagues of both sides of the 'line of road, requesting, at the same time, that your Ex

cellency will do all in your power, not only to render 'effective the grant of lands as far as your Department is 'concerned, but also to give the assistance and protection 'promised by the Supreme Government to Don José de Garay, so as to remove every obstacle likely to prevent or retard the execution of the plan.

But, sir, even during the brief space that this constitution of 1824 purports to have been in operation, the President violated it by acts of the most tyrannical character, which acts were recognized by subsequent Congresses, and by the Government of the State. The first decree that ever was passed abolishing slavery in the Republic, was made by the act of the President alone, during the existence of that constitution, five years after it had gone into operation. Slavery was abolished by a decree of Guerrero in 1829, by the fiat of his own will. Guerrero himself obtained power by the subversion of the constitution, although he professed to acknowledge it. Pedraza, who had been elected in 1829, was deposed by the Congress a short time after he was elected, and the rival candidate, Guerrero, who had been defeated, was placed in his stead. And yet we are told that all the acts of the Mexican Government must conform to the constitution of 1824, or they are invalid. It is a remarkable fact, that Guadalupe Victoria, the first President elected under the constitution of 1824, is the only one that has served out the constitutional term of four years. In less than thirty years there have been over thirty in-private property, as well as to mark out the limits of the cumbents of the office; and so rapidly do they rise and fall, that should the Government continue much longer, the future historian will scarcely be able to preserve even a catalogue of their names: they will stretch out, like Banquo's line of kings, "to the crack of doom."

The Senator from New York-for the purpose of throwing some discredit upon this grant, in all probability, for I can attribute his assertion to no other motive-set out with the declaration that Garay was the grantee of four other rights by the Mexican Government; thereby intending, no doubt, to make him appear in the character of a grasping and avaricious speculator; and he goes on to enumerate them. It is not a matter of much moment, and I merely refer to it to state that the whole argument of the Senator from New York is based upon assertions equally as groundless as this. I here assert that Garay was the grantee of no other right than the right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and that he never set up any claim to any other right. Now, it is a rule of morals, alsus in uno, fulsus in omnibus. I claim that this single fact has discredited the whole argument of the Senator, because it shows that the source from which he obtained his information, and upon which his assertions and arguments are founded, is not worthy of credit.

His next assertion is, that there is no proof that this work was commenced during the first extension, and also no proof that it was commenced, and the preliminary surveys completed between 1846 and 1848. Now, sir, if the Senator had examined his own documents, the Mexican documents, to which he seems to have had full access, he would have found a most full and complete acknowledgment by the Mexican Government, not only of the commencement, but of the completion of the preliminary surveys in 1843. I believe I referred to this fact once before, but I will repeat it. Mr. Garay, in the month of February, 1843, communicated to the President of Mexico, the fact that he had completed the preliminary surveys, according to his contract, and asked that he should then be put in possession of the lands which had been ceded to him by the decree; and here is the letter of the President, by his Minister, to Garay, inclosing him a letter to the Governor of Oaxaca,

"It is essential that the Commissioners and other agents employed in the opening of this road, which must extend 'from the bar of the Coatzacoalcos on the north, to that of 'St. Francisco on the south, should be protected against 'everything that may prevent the performance of their du 'ties, and in case any claims to ownership of lands should 'be put forth by private individuals, your Excellency will 'regulate your proceeding according to the obligation which 'the fourth article of the decree imposes upon Don José de 'Garay. Full liberty must also be allowed him to give a 'different course to the river Coatzacoalcos and its tribu'taries, or any other rivers, lakes, or creeks, to clear their 'borders, and use the timber when not required to be felled 'on private ground.

"To know how far it will be necessary to make use of 'grant of territory awarded to Don José de Garay in the 'above-mentioned decree, that gentleman is authorized to 'appoint land surveyors, who will be subject to no control but that of the officer whom your Excellency may be 'pleased to appoint, and intrust with instructions agreeably to this order, and the attendance of the adjoining land'owners, whose measurement will fix and determine his right of claim to possession. In case any proprietor of 'land refuses to give up his property in conformity with this decree, a valuation will immediately be set on foot, and according to it the land purchased for the undertaking. "The greatness of this enterprise merits every effort to promote its realization; and it is with this object that I ' have the honor to transmit this communication from his "Excellency, the Provisional President, availing myself of 'the opportunity to assure your Excellency of any deep re'spect and consideration." God and liberty! Señor DON JOSE DE GARAY.

MEXICO, February 9, 1843.

BOCANEGRA,

And, sir, if the Senator had paid a little more attention to another document-for the whole of

his argument, and the whole of his assumptions seem to have been founded upon documents which were furnished him from Mexico-if he had paid attention to the pamphlet issued by Señor Ramirez, the Minister of Foreign Relations, he would have found that even the prosecution of the work, so far as making a wagon road was concerned, was admitted as late as 1848. It is true, sir, he objects to this kind of work. He says, the grant was not made for the purpose of having a wagon road across the Isthmus. He complains of that, not reflecting that in such a country as that a wagon road is a necessary preliminary or prerequisite to a railroad, and that a railroad cannot be built unless a wagon road is first made for the purpose of carrying the materials. Garay, or his assignees, were not required to finish the road in that time. All they were required to do was to commence its prosecution.

Let us return a moment to the power of Salas, in reference to his connection with the constitution of 1824, as cited by the Senator from New York. He cites the constitution of 1824, by which he shows, or attempts to show, that any action in regard to works of that sort, is confided to Congress; and then he quotes from the Plan of the Citadel, or decree of Salas, in which Salas admits that he intends to carry on the Government, as nearly as possible, according to the constitution of 1824. Article first of this plan or decree of

SENATE.

Salas, reads, according to the Senator's trazas tion, in the following manner:

Ministry of Foreign Relations of Government and Poir "His Excellency the Señor General-in-Chief in the ei ercise of the Supreme Executive power, has directed a the following decree:

"José Mariaño de Salas, General of Brigade and (x^"! of the Liberating Republican Army, in the exercise of te Supreme Executive power, to all whom these presents torr come: Know ye, that in consideration of the stare » which the Repubite is now found, he has been moved, decree the following:

"Art. 1. Until the new constitution is published, ti of 1824 shall govern in all that is not in conflict wit execution of the plan proclaimed in the citadel of the ital on the 4th of the present month, and that the prese state of affairs of the Republic will permit."

Now, bear in mind that at that time there w no Congress in session, and none in existente Then, according to this article, Salas could m conform in any respect, where legislative acry was required, to the constitution of 1824, for th simple reason that there was no Congress in et istence to which he could apply. Therefore. everything, this article left him to the guidance his own judgment, of his own will.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Yer quotes history again, in reference to the power Salas. The paragraph to which I wish to refer it is true, in the second edition of his speech, tỉ not appear; but, according to his speech as its made upon this floor, it is correctly reported in the paper which I have in my hand, and I have ang to refer to it because of the effect it may have on duced here. I state it also for the purpose of stre ing what reliance is to be placed upon the ments of the Senator in this connection; not that I would charge him with intentional error, but we showing that the Mexican sources of his infor ation are not to be relied upon. Hear what e says:

"We have, then, the decree of Salas, Provisional Pui dent, extending this contract for two years; we bare the Constitution of Mexico in the first place declaring at va and we have the Bases of Tacubaya declaring that wbarne decrees the Supreme Executive might make, shoulde submitted for approval to the first constitutional Corres of Mexico. Salas, after having obtained power in the nxner which I have described, after having extended si contract by a decree in the manner I bave related, e having issued a proclamation, as I have shown, rv 1. and restoring the constitution of 1824, resigned his powe and Santa Anna came into the Executive chair in his play Santa Anna found this decree made, and went out of a Executive office before the 1st of April, 1845; but yer without having undertaken to overthrow the construx of 1824; and it is that attempt of his on which I understa the Committee on Foreign Relations rely."

The decree by Salas was on November 6, 19. and yet the Senator from New York, according to his Mexican authorities, makes it prior, i point of time, to the going out of power of Sera Anna in April, 1845. Nor is his, or rather the mistake accidental. I thought at first that it m be a misprint; but on reading the next paragra I saw the reason for the mistake, because then may be reasons for mistakes as well as for the truth. Here it is:

"It will be seen that even this decree recogniz Bases of Tacubaya, because it treats of the responsinistre the Executive, which is established by the Bases of Tam baya. The constitution had already been reëstablishe() Salas. Then this decree of Santa Anna was not a subE sion of the constitution, but only a palpable perversion & it, for the purpose of increasing his own Executive pour Did that stand? Was that left the law of Mexico On the first day of April, 1845, the first constitutional Cogress of Mexico was in session; and this decree of Sata Anna, absolving the Executive from responsibility to C′′gress, came under review, and they on that day adoped n act revising and abrogating this decree of Santa Ana, declared that the responsibility was a directo e, that span of the Executive was valid unless it was submitted to Co gress, and that no act was valid that was submitted to them and rejected, or not approved by them. So, then, the s stitution was in force on the 1st of April, 1845, and the E ecutive power was limited to the making of contracts, sak ject to approval by Congress. Now, without claiming th this act of Congress, which I have just read, vitiated Sant Anna's grant to Garay, or even brought it before Congres I think I may assume that I have shown that it did operat to limit the power of Salas, who made the decree extend ing the time. If the decree of Salas extending this entr was subject to the revision of Congress, it is certain that s the constitutional conditions hanging about the Exerutve power entered into that contract, and followed it in the hands of its assignees."

The object of the mistake, or rather misstate ment, was to bring Salas under the operation of the Congress which had been dispersed twe're months before, and make it appear that his decret, extending the grant, is invalid, because it was not submitted to the Congress which went out of ex

32D CONG....2D SESS.

stence before the decree was made. I admit, as before stated, that the Senator has omitted it in he second edition of his speech. But, sir, that oes not excuse him for the careless inattention ith which he stands charged in reference to this hatter. I am free to state, however, that I am sposed to lay the blame at the door of his " tic" allies, rather than at his own, but I would dvise him to be a little more cautious for the ature, in giving credence to what proceeds from

hat source.

ex

Mark.

The next point made by the Senator from New ork, is taken literally and bodily from the Mexcan pamphlet to which I have alluded; and it is reference to the statement made by the commisoner who negotiated the treaty of peace with Mr. rist, that Mexico had not the power to grant to us his right of way, for the reason that some years rior she had made a grant which had come into e possession of English subjects, of whose rights he could not dispose. How does the Senator from New York attempt to get rid of that difficulty? How does he attempt to avoid that estoppel? He ttempts to avoid it as Señor Ramirez attempts to void it, by saying that that admission referred not the grant of the right of way, but to the grant of olonization, of which Mexico had notice. What s the language of the commissioner? Mr. Trist was authorized by Mr. Polk to offer 15,000,000 for the right of way-not for any olonization rights, but for the grant of the right f way, and the right of way alone. Mr. Trist ad furnished a draft of an article to that effect. What did the Mexican commissioner say? "In the eighth article of your Excellency's draft, the grant f a free passage across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the South Sea is sought in favor of the North American citiens. We have orally explained to you, that some years ince the Government of the Republic granted to a private ontractor a privilege with reference to this object, which as transferred, with the sanction of the Government, to English subjects, of whose rights México cannot dispose." To what object? Why most assuredly to the rant of the right of way across the Isthmus. Nothing but the grant of the right of way had been mentioned between them. Nothing else had become a subject of negotiation and conversation. t is in this way that the Senator from New York has attempted to avoid the force of an argument, he force of which he would not directly meet. Besides, the Senator says a nation cannot be esopped, that the law of estoppel does not apply to nations. What is the law of estoppel in a moral point of view? It is nothing more than the principle that no individual can be heard to falsify his own act; that when his acts or his admission has Deen interposed for his own benefit in opposition o another, this act and this admission must stand, should they in the future be drawn in question to affect the right of others. The muniments of title and the faith of treaties rest upon it. It is a principle universal in its application, whether to individuals, corporations, or nations. It is this principle which invests this question with all its national character. Here was an object dear to the American heart, and an object of the utmost importance to the integrity and preservation of the country. A proposition was made to Mexico to obtain the right, when we had power to demand it. Mexico was in the dust; the conqueror's foot was upon her neck. We had a right to demand it; but in that spirit of liberality which has always characterized the American people, we did not demand it as a gratuity, but we offered her the enormous sum of $15,000,000. How was this offer met? How was this generosity appreciated? Why, sir, by the interposition of this very grant as an obstacle in our way. And now, sir, we have a right to hold her to her first position, and take now that which we were prevented by that position from taking then.

Even if the original contract, and its subsequent extension, had been affected with nullity, this admission by Mexico has estopped her from asserting it, and we, as having come in possession of what was once an obstacle to our just demand, have the right, on every principle of equity, to be placed in the situation we would have been in but for this act of Mexico, which she cannot now be permitted to repudiate.

I will now call the attention of the Senate to another of the mistakes or misstatements of the Senator from New York, with which that Senator's

Tehuantepec Grant-Mr. Brooke.

speech abounds. In speaking with reference to this proof, which I have brought-the letter of the President of Mexico to the Governors of Oaxaca and Vera Cruz, ordering the lands to be put into the possession of Mr. Garay-how does he attempt to avoid the effect of it? I hesitate not to say, that it is done by a total misrepresentation of that letter. I will read the language of that Senator:

"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."

Now, sir, compare this with the contents of the letter as I have already read it, and is not the perversion apparent? Sir, comment is unnecessary. Is this that "adjustment of the lens of history' of which the Senator so vauntingly spoke? If so, I fear his obliquity of mental vision is hopeless of cure, and his progress in the study of optics must be speedily terminated.

There was another point made, both by the

Senator from New York and the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HALE,] and that was, that according to the decree of Salas, affirming or recognizing the transfer from Garay to Manning & Mackintosh, the holders of the grant or the assignees, necessarily denationalized themselves, and that the parties who should attempt to carry on this work must be deprived of the character of American citizens, and submit body and soul to the Government of Mexico. Now, sir, to prove that, he reads a part of what is sometimes called the approving decree of Salas, but what is nothing more than an indorsement on the part of the Government of the contract. I will read it:

"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, 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 admitted."

It must be borne in mind that the original contract to Garay consists of two parts, and is in fact two grants. One is a grant of the right of colonization; the other is a grant of the right to make the road. They are separate and distinct, and throughout the whole of the transaction have been so regarded by Garay, by the Mexican Government, by Manning & Mackintosh, and by Hargous. Now, sir, I admit, and always have admitted, that in reference to this grant of colonization, notice of transfer, notice of assignment to the Government of Mexico was necessary and why? Because Mexico might not choose to take everybody into the bosom of the country. She might not choose to let the lands, thirty leagues, I believe, on each side of the road, be granted out to colonists about which she knew nothing. Hence, as I have remarked, I have always admitted, in reference to the colonization right, that Mexico had the right to approve of the transfer, and accordingly she did approve of it. But in reference to the grant of the right of way, the right to make the railroad, there is nothing in the contract that requires the approval of Mexico to the transfer; nor is there any necessity for it, because the same danger does not exist in reference to merely making the road, as exists in reference to the colonization right. And, sir, the grant from the very first contemplated an assignment of the right to make the road, because Mexico knew very well that there was not individual capital enough in her country to complete the undertaking. Hence the assignment to foreigners was contemplated from the very first by the terms of the grant. According to the extract which I have before me, Don José Garay, as well as any private individual or company to whom he assigned it, whether natives or foreigners, could make the road.

SENATE.

Mr. BELL. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him one moment? I think I understood the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HALE] to take the very distinction which the Senator now takes; but he contended that Garay had never transferred to Manning & Mackintosh any other privilege than that of colonization; that he had not transferred to Manning & Mackintosh, and therefore that Hargous and the other American citizens had no title whatever by assignment, to make the work.

Mr. BROOKE. There is no doubt that there was an assignment of the right of way, and the right of colonization also.

Mr. BELL. To Manning & Mackintosh?

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir. There is no doubt about that. The assignment of the right of way was subsequent to the date of the assignment of the right of colonization, as I will show presently. When Salas granted the extension, he wished to guard a little more strenuously the colonization privilege, and accordingly the 13th article of his decree is in the following words:

"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."

This approving decree, or indorsement, as I have called it, refers to this 13th article, and has no reference whatever to the transfer of the right of way, or the right to make the road; none whatever, because it uses the terms according to the "This renunciaspirit of the "aforesaid law." tion." What renunciation? Why, sir, the renunciation contemplated in the 13th article. It refers entirely to the colonization right.

But, to satisfy the honorable Senator from Tennessee, I will read a short extract from the assignment of the colonization right, by Garay to Manning & Mackintosh, notice of which was given to

the Mexican Government.

Mr. BELL. The right of way is the question. Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir. Then I will show the right of way. The extract is:

"ART. 9. As soon as the time shall arrive for treating of the way of communication between the two seas, Don José Garay and Messrs. Manning & Mackintosh, and John Schneider, will enter into stipulations for the formation of a company for the execution of said work of transit on the istbmus."

An assignment of the right of way was not given then, but it was in contemplation, and the Mexican Government had notice of it. That was in 1847. On the 28th September, 1848, Garay transferred to Manning & Mackintosh the whole right the right of way and all; and in October, 1848, Manning & Mackintosh made a transfer to Hargous. The Senator from Tennessee can find all the letters in the papers accompanying the message of the President of the United States on the subject.

Again, sir: the Senator from New York, as well as the Senator from New Hampshire, after admitting that there were two distinct rights, one for colonization, and another for a right of way, as I have just shown, confound them together again when they speak of the approving decree of Salas. In other words, they admit a distinction for certain purposes, and deny it for others. But that decree or that indorsement is very plain when we keep up the distinction throughout. It cannot be misunderstood. The Senator from New York contends that this route is not assignable at all; and he compares it to a contract made by the President of the United States with an architect, and says that an architect cannot assign his work or his contract. This is true, unless there is something in the law that authorized the appointments allowing it to be done. And that happens to be exactly the case in regard to this question. In the original grant from Santa Anna to Garay, the assignability of the grant is expressly recognized; and, as I before remarked, the contract would have been useless without it, because Mexico knew, as I have before stated, that no individual or company in that country would ever execute the work; no men or company could be found there with capital sufficient to carry on so gigantic an enterprise. She expected that other capitalists would embark in the undertaking; and, accordingly, the grant was so drafted as to provide for an assignment in the clearest manner.