[No. 47.] [Extract.] Mr. Webster to Mr. Letcher. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 4, 1850. SIR: Your despatch (No. 33) of the 22d of October last has been received. It is to be regretted that the draft of a treaty relative to the Tehuantepec communication which was transmitted to you with the instruction of the 24th of August last should not have been entirely acceptable to the Mexican government. Inasmuch, however, as you represent that they entertained decided and insurmountable objections to the fourth and eleventh articles of that draft, it has been deemed expedient to confer with the holders of the grants with a view to instruct you to sign the treaty without insisting upon those articles. The result has been an acquiescence by them in this course of proceeding. If, therefore, you should not be able to obtain more favorable terms you may embody in the treaty the fourth and eleventh articles as they originally stood in the instrument signed by you on the 2 of June last. You will, in general, endeavor to secure a treaty as favorable as practicable for the interests of the United States and of the holders of the grants. It is desirable, if possible, that the instrument should be received here in season for consideration by the Senate of the United States at its present session. Your proceedings will be governed accordingly. ROBERT P. LETCHER, Esq., &c., &c., &c. [No. 43.] Mr. Letcher to Mr. Webster. UNITED STATES LEGATION, SIR: I had the honor to receive by Mr. Barlow your despatch, No. 47, of the 4th of December last, on the 27th of the same month. From the moment of its arrival I have exerted myself in every possible manner to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the Tehuantepec treaty. But I regret to say the prospect of a favorable result is by no means encouraging. The whole affair has taken a most unfortunate turn, and is surrounded by very many embarrassing circunstances. Mr. Lacunza is no longer in the ministry, and therefore feels very little interest upon the subject. Up to the 6th instant he gave me every assurance that the treaty should be made precisely in conformity with all the modifications proposed by you, with the exception of the amendment to the preamble and to the fourth and eleventh articles. Whereupon I immediately submitted a draft according to our mutual understanding. This draft it appears, after a delay of several days, was placed in the hands of Mr. Pedraza, the negotiator on the other side, by Mr. Lacunza. The day afterward, Mr. Pedraza, very much to my surprise, informed me that he had never been consulted by Mr. Lacunza in reference to the mat ter, and that he could not and would not agree to the modifications; and that what Mr. Lacunza had done was one thing, and what he was willing to do was quite another thing. In answer to my remarks that this was a gross violation of good faith, and that my government would not submit to such an outrage, he replied that he was not to blame, and proposed to resign his commissiom immediately. Mr. Lacunza defends himself by saying that all his acts and agreements were honestly intended, and that it is a mere piece of obstinancy on the part of Mr. Pedraza to withhold his signature. The truth is Mr. Lacunza is displeased in not being placed at the head of the cabinet. I have understood he has been heard to say, "let General Arista take upon himself the responsibility of making the treaty." The opposition to the treaty is violent from almost every quarter. The clergy manifest the most deadly hostility to it, upon the assumption that the object is to introduce military forces from the United States to overturn the Catholic religion and to cede away more territory. The interests connected with the route from Vera Cruz to Acapulco throw every possible obstacle in the way. The foreign influence is also opposed to it, as well as most of the leading newspapers in the country. A "pronuncamiento" recently made at Guanaxuato, in setting forth the causes for desiring to overthrow General Arista declared, as I understand, that his intention was to cede a portion of the country to the United States under the pretext of making a railroad. Fortunately, however, the insurrection has been suppressel by the government, about half dozen of the leaders having been shot, and many others will be shot. I have not seen General Arista within the last six days, owing to his continued engagements connected with his inauguration. I received a message from him not to be uneasy, that the treaty should be concluded. But when is the question. Not in time, I am quite confident, to be presented to the United States Senate for ratification before the adjournment of Congress. In fact I have very serious doubts whether it can ever be made. I have this inoment understood that the minister of foreign relations, in cabinet council yesterday, declared his hostility to the measure in the most decided terms. The President threatened to dismiss him. The minister is under the influence of Pedraza, and will secretly oppose the treaty in every way: Pedraza is at heart opposed to any treaty, and has been from the beginning. My purpose is to endeavor to prevail upon the President to appoint another negotiater in place of Pedraza. But this will occasion great delay. Every exertion on my part shall be employed to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion. I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, Secretary of State. Since the date of his last despatch, No. 43, the people of Mexico have become no more favorably inclined to the Tehuantepec route than they were before, and if the treaty were submitted to the Senate it would undoubtedly be lost. To precipitate its delivery if possible, the Senate has appointed a committee to report on it, and which is already engaged in its discussion. I know not why, but there prevails an opinion that if it should be passed in the United States, it would not be rejected here. General Arista gives no present encouragement, and says its reception must be the work of time. It is urged that a population would be coming in under this treaty that will not regard the laws of Mexico, and by numbers, and the extent of country it will occupy, will permanently sever the territory of the republic, dividing one large portion of the nation from another. Afraid of encroachment, and opposed to what it considers an improvident concession of land, the public regards the grant as forfeited for non-user. This question is now before the supreme tribunal of the country. * * * Mr. Webster to Mr. Hargous. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 18, 1851. SIR: I have to inform you that a convention between the United States and the Mexican republic, relative to a transit-way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepee, was signed in the city of Mexico on the 25th ultimo. As its twelfth article requires that the holder of the grant conferred by the Mexican government, pursuant to its decree of the 1st of March, 1842, shall file his assent to the convention in the office of the Mexican minister at Washington, before the instrument shall be submitted to the Senate of the United States, you are requested to call at this department for the purpose of examining the convention. I am, sir, very respectfully, ycur obedient servant, To P. A. HARGOUS, Esq., Washington. DANIEL WEBSTER. Mr. Hargous to Mr. Webster. WASHINGTON, February 20, 1851. SIR: I have examined the convention between the United States and Mexico, upon the subject of the Tehuantepec communication, signed at the city of Mexico the 25th of last month, and though I would have preferred a phraseology somewhat different in some of the articles, I hereby accept it, pursuant to the requirement of the twelfth article, and beg you to communicate a copy of this acceptance to Mr. De la Rosa, the Mexican Minister here. I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, P. A. HARGOUS. Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, Secretary of State. Mr. Webster to Mr. De la Rosa. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 21, 1851. SIR: Pursuant to the request contained in the letter of yesterday, addressed to this department by Mr. P. A. Hargous, accepting the convention between the United States and the Mexican republic, signed in the city of Mexico on the 25th of last month, I have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the letter, and will thank you to acknowledge the receipt of this communication. I avail myself of the occasion, sir, to offer you renewed assurances of my very distinguished consideration. To Senor Don LUIS DE LA ROSA, &c., &c. DANIEL WEBSTER. [Translation.] Mr. De la Rosa to Mr. Webster. MEXICAN LEGATION, Washington, February 25, 1851. SIR: I have received your note of the 21st instant, accompanying a communication of Mr. P. A. Hargous, in which that gentleman says that he is satisfied with the terms of a convention between the United States and the republic of Mexico, which was signed on the 25th of last January. I am not in possession of any instructions or orders from my government, to interfere with the business relating to the convention alluded to by Mr. Hargous, nor am I aware that my government has recognized any right on the part of the aforesaid Mr. Hargous to interpose in the matter of the treaty between Mexico and the United States, relative to an inter-oceanic communication through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. For this reason it is my duty to abstain from mixing myself up with this subject, and not to recognize any right on the part of Mr. Hargous to interfere in the matter. I merely answer your note, therefore, out of pure politeness; nor shall I even communicate this occurrence to my government, unless you should be pleased to give me some explanations relative to this business. I avail myself of this occasion to tender you the assurances of my distinguished consideration. Mr. DANIEL WEBSTER, &c., &c., &c. LUIS DE LA ROSA. [No. 49.] [Extract.] Mr. Smith to Mr. Webster. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: On the night of the 28th a New Orleans paper reached here of the 13th ultimo, containing the information, received by telegraph from Washington, that the Tehuantepec Convention had been rejected by the Senate. In no way or shape, it is believed, could the Convention have been ratified by the Congress of Mexico, and its failure to be approved in the United States has greatly relieved the administration; for the grant is condemned as improvident by all parties, and the belief that the President approved of the Convention, secured for it a united and hearty opposition. There was not a member of the Cabinet who favored it. All use a common argument: "The experiment with Texas should be enough; and to give our neighbors a foothold in Tehuantepec will certainly end in the seizure of one half of the remaining territory of the republic." A few days before this arrival a committee of the Senate reported against the validity of the power exercised by Salas, who granted the "proroga" of the 6th of November, 1846, and recommended it to be declared null. The fact that the twelfth article had been complied with, and that the Convention had been sent to the Senate, had not been made known to the Congress here; nor was it intended to be communicated until the success of the Convention before the Senate of the United States had made it indispensable. I have been thus minute in this statement to show that any attempt at present to renew negotiations here on the subject of Tehuantepec are likely to be unsuccessful, and any indication of such purpose, I believe would embarrass the government, two of the most prominent members of which have this day said to me separately, that Mexico wants nothing so much as peace and repose. Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, Secretary of State, &c., &c. [No. 52.] [Extract.] Mr. Smith to Mr. Webster. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: Some newspapers arrived here on the 12th instant, from New York, containing information that the Tehuantepec Convention had been ratified by the Senate of the United States. To day the resolution, submitted with the report, declaring the decree of the 5th of November, 1846, null, on the ground that the provisional goverument had not the power to issue it, passed, by a vote of thirty-four to |