DE BOW'S REVIEW, A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURES, INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT, STATISTICS, VOL. XIV. ETC., ETC. ESTABLISHED JANUARY 1, 1846. JANUARY, 1853. ART. 1.-TEHUANTEPEC AND ITS TITLE. As the great problem of a direct transit to the South Sea approaches solution, it has encountered political obstacles more formidable perhaps than the natural barriers which have so long impeded its completion. The Whitney scheme, indorsed by more than twenty states, seems to have been superseded by a new design, founded upon somewhat the same basis. The St. Louis and Pacific Rail-road protests against the partiality of Congress, in bestowing upon Atlantic interests that patronage which should be rather applied to interior enterprises. The Southwestern Rail-road to California, projected to unite an important system at El Paso, has found embarrassment in the right of "agreement" reserved by Mexico, and in the physical obstacles interposed by the initial point proposed by the boundary commis sion. The Nicaragua transit route has been impeded by the intrigues of its enemies and the dissensions of its friends. The Tehuantepec enterprise, having encountered foreign and domestic opposition of the most formidable character, has received the sanction of its own government, and an appreciation at the hands of the American people, which will secure its successful prosecution. There ought plainly to be no rivalry amongst the Isthmian and Continental crossings referred to-they will all be temporarily or permanently necessary. They are so distant from each other that the commercial intercourse between distant regions cannot be condemned to employ any one of them to the exclusion of the rest. The foreign and interior commerce will be sufficient to furnish employment for them all. Instead of one arrogant monopoly, fat No. I. tened by exactions upon the world, there must be various ways of communication affording facilities adequate to any degree of intercourse, and a salutary competition promoting the common prosperity. To effect the construction of these principal connections with the Pacific, will require the co-operation of every influence, social, moral and political. Some of them are stupendous structures and must encounter great physical difficulties. They will require time, labor, and money. But by harmonious perseverance they can all be executed. They should be favored by the government in every legitimate manner; for their completion will assure to the United States an easy supremacy in the great contest for the control of the Pacific trade, and a perpetual union between the Atlantic and Pacific states. To the South the construction of some of these works will be of the highest political and commercial consequence. The Tehuantepec and Gila routes will turn through the southern states the precious commodities of Pacific commerce that now go around their coast. They will place them in comparative juxtaposition with the common territory, and insure a participation in the influences that govern it. The position of the Tehuantepec enterprise having been placed by the recent action of the government beyond the pale of negotiation, and an alternative of the most serious character having been presented to the consideration of Mexico, it becomes important to review the historical progress of a measure of such importance, and to place the American public in possession of the points involved in controversy. It is proposed to consider the following propositions: 1. The character and value of the Garay grant. This 2. That Mexico has unjustly confiscat- The Government of Mexico, having ed the rights of American citizens. signed the Tehuantepec Treaty, publish3. That the United States ought to enforce ed this Statement as an appeal addressed the specific execution of the Garay grant. to the foreign diplomatic circle. For this purpose a short recital of pre- occasioned an indignant remonstrance liminary events will become necessary. from the American Minister, as "an act The government of Mexico, on the 1st unprecedented in the annals of diploof March, 1842, made a grant of the right macy." The Statement was then re-pubof way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec lished in New-York, and circulated to Don Jose de Garay. It also granted throughout the United States. certain public lands and personal franchises to colonists of nations in amity with Mexico. This grant was by various deeds of assignment transferred to John Schneider & Co., and Manning & McKintosh, subjects of Great Britain. It was during the year 1849 conveyed by absolute deeds to Peter A. Hargous, of New-York. It was subsequently conveyed by Peter A. Hargous to an association, the members of which resided principally in NewOrleans. In 1851, the governments of Mexico and the United States signed a convention upon the subject of a right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. This convention having been submitted, according to its terms, to the holder of the Garay grant, P. A. Hargous, received his assent and the signature of both governments in February, 1851. In May, 1851, the Congress of Mexico declared the title of Garay void, for want of authority in the administration of Salas, which, by decree of 5th November, 1846, granted its extension. In April, 1852, the Convention was submitted to the Congress of Mexico, and rejected. In July, 1852, the President of the United States, in obedience to a resolution of the Senate, communicated to Congress the documents of title, and the accompanying correspondence; and on the 30th of August, the Committee of Foreign Relations reported in favor of the validity of the Garay grant. The most authentic exposition of the Mexican argument will be found in a document entitled, "A Statement of the rights and just reasons, on the part of the Government of the United Mexican States, for not recognizing either the subsistence of the privilege granted Don Jose de Garay for the opening of a line of communication between the Atlantic and Pacific seas, across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or the legality of the cessions which he made of said privilege to citizens of the United States of North America." It displays neither the dignity nor justice of a state paper; an ex-parte apology for a pre-determinate conclusion, it appeals to prejudice rather than reason. It assumes for Mexico absolute integrity. It imputes to those who resist her purposes systematic fraud. It avows the most abject weakness, and implores the aid of others, yet contends that those who have expended money in developing the confiscated property, deserve no mercy for their misfortunes, and no indemnity for their loss. To fulfil the universal philanthropy of its professions, Mexico offers all mankind crossing the isthmus to the highest bidder; and to mark her detestation of "speculators" and "mercenary traders," seizes without compensation the property of others, and applies its results to replenish her exhausted coffers. If we add, that the Statement professes an exclusive knowledge of facts, with a peculiar purity of purpose, it requires but the signature of Ambrose De Lamela to make it a homily every way worthy that accomplished divine. Before replying to the positions maintained in this document, it is proper to state that the American holders of the grant have never admitted that the validity of their title depended upon the legality of any specific administration of the Government of Mexico. They have never permitted themselves to be enticed or driven from the impregnable ground taken by Mr. Webster: That their title having been granted by a de facto government, as citizens of a foreign country they were not responsible for the consistency of that government with the principles upon which it had been ostensibly founded. In support of this position, they cited the policy of the American Government, announced in the celebrated letter of Mr. Jefferson to Governeur Morris, quoted Mr. Buchanan's instructions to Mr. Trist, to treat even with "a dictator who had subverted the constitution of 1824, and acquired supreme power, whose ratification Tehuantepec and its Title. of the treaty, without the previous approbation of the general Congress, would be sufficient." They argued that they were purchasers without notice of the title alleged to be defective, and that the example of their government was sufficient for their protection. The reply to the arguments of the Mexican Government is not therefore admitted to be material to the validity of American title, but is intended to show that the confiscation of the property, by the Mexican Government, is unjustifiable upon any grounds whatsoever. It will, we think, result from the consideration of the whole controversy: 1. That the grant to Garay is valid and binding upon Mexico. 2. That it has been legally acquired by American citizens. 3. That the confiscation of the grant by Mexico was mercenary and unjust. 4. That private right, and the interest of the American people, require the specific enforcement of the grant. The first proposition advanced by the Mexican argument is That the charter of 1st of March, 1842, was granted by the provisional government, under the Bases of Tacubaya, subject to the right of Congress to revise it. To maintain this proposition, the argument represents that the administration of the Mexican Government, which intervened between the grant of the charter and its repeal, in May, 1851, was continuous and legal. To our reading, no period of Mexican history is more marked with misrule and anarchy. There was scarcely a stablenever, according to republican doctrine, a constitutional government. A civil war broke out in the year 1841. Valencia, Minon, Bassadre, Paredes, Lombardini, headed the insurgents. General Valencia, with 1200 men, and nearly all the heavy artillery, bombs, and munitions of war, held the castle of Mexico. President Bustamente defended the palace with a body of troops, whilst Arista and other partisan officers sustained the Government in the provinces. Paredes marched on Mexico from Guadalajara, and Santa Anna advanced from Vera Cruz as a mediator between the belligerents. The American Minister, Mr. Ellis, represents, in his dispatches, that these factionaries fought in the streets of Mexico, 3 until the destruction of life and property compelled the citizens to interpose. This was effected by the convention of Estanzuela, and soon after the Bases of Tacubaya was adopted by the officers. The truce between the combatants thus terminated in a treaty. On the 7th October, 1841, General Santa Anna appointed a representative council, composed of two members from each department. On the 10th October, 1841, he took the oath of office under the Bases of Tacubaya. During the year 1842, an extraordinary Congress assembled. "In December, 1842," says the historian, "after the assembly had made two efforts to form a constitution, suitable to the country and to the cabinet, President Santa Anna, in spite of his professed submission to the national will, suddenly and unauthorizedly dissolved Congress. "The event, (the dispersion of Congress,) says the American minister, was celebrated by a grand military procession through the streets of Mexico. It marched by my door, and I cannot express my feelings when I saw the ignorant and debased soldiery, headed by their officers, who, as to the true principles of a government calculated to secure the liberties of the people, were little better informed. Thus celebrating the triumph of brute force over the will of the people fairly expressed."* Santa Anna was then "clothed with a power without limit, and was sustained by a powerful army." A dispute subsequently arose about the extent of his Government, (as he understood it,) Santa the acts of the Provisional Government Anna was invested in effect with abso- by President Herrera must have included lute power. This provisional government it; and if the "first constitutional Conwas to last until a new constitution was gress" did not rescind the charter, no formed, and the government should be other Congress can. organized under it. * The American minister then regarded Santa Anna as a dictator in possession of supreme power. But, according to another historian, as soon as the constitutional Congress had been dispersed, "nothing then remained save to allow the Dictator himself to frame the organic law, and for this purpose he appointed a junta of notables, who proclaimed on the 13th June, 1843, an instrument which never took the name of a constitution, but bore the mongrel title of 'Bases of the Political Organization of the Mexican Republic.?" But the Bases Organicas was the law of the land from the date of its adoption, June, 1843. It contained the following provision: "No retrospective law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be passed." The charter to Garay was a contract of the most solemn character between the government and grantee. Not only was Mexico prohibited from passing any retrospective law, impairing her obligations by the terms of her own written constitution, but according to the law Thus terminated the Bases of Tacubaya of nations, "he who has made a promise -a truce between military aspirants. to any one has conferred on him a right Owing its authority to the "army of operations" of Santa Anna, it was naturally violated and perverted. Santa Anna held the charter of his own powers, and designated the extent of his own authority. The substitution, then, of a "bases of organization," prepared by a junta appointed by Santa Anna, was the consummation of a revolution. The Bases of Tacubaya, except so far as Santa Anna chose to derive supreme authority from it, was thus abrogated. At the close of the year 1844, a new revolution overturned the government of Santa Anna, and on the 14th January, 1845, he finally fell. This Congress of 1845 then contradicted Santa Anna's version of his own powers, and declared that all his acts were subject to their revision. The dictator had been supreme. He had fallen from power, and his enemies reversed his decisions. Here was anarchy, usurpation and revolt, in formal succession. The "Statement" subsequently says, that a decree of the 28th December, 1843, extending for one year the charter of Garay, required the confirmation of Congress, and adds "so that if the Congress or government, in the exercise of their powers, had disproved it, Garay would have lost all his rights, as would have been also equally the case if the Congress had disapproved the concession (the charter) itself." If the charter of Garay was subject to the revision of the first constitutional Congress that assembled after the Bases of Tacubaya, then the communication of all * Mayer. to require the thing promised-consequently, not to keep a perfect promise is to violate the rights of another, and is as manifest an injustice as to despoil a man of his property." Yet to show that the right of retrospection, claimed by the Congress of 1845, could not have enured to the Congress of 1851, we pursue our review of the history of that period. "On the 30th of December, 1845, President Herrera, who anxiously desired to avoid bloodshed, resigned the executive chair to Paredes. Paredes overthrew the government, and acquired supreme power."* Here again the government changed its character by revolution. Here was another chasm between the Bases of Tacubaya and the Congress of 1851. During the government of Paredes, the period within which Garay was required to prosecute the construction of the way of communication expired. He applied to Congress for an extension of his term. The Chamber of Deputies passed a bill, which was pending upon the favorable report of a committee in the senate, when another revolution drove Paredes from power, dispersed the Congress, and established Salas the supreme dictator of the republic. Salas having convened Congress by proclamation, the constitution of 1824 was, with certain amendments, adopted. He then resigned. The Congress of 1851, owing its authority to the amended constitution of 1824, claims, under the Bases of Tacubaya, a * Mayer. |