THE MEXICAN TREATY
Position and Claims of Juarez-Reasons for the Ratification of the McLane Treaty.
To the Editor of the New York Times:
Your correspondent "C.T.C.," under the caption of the "McLane Mexican Treaty," enters a "protest against the Convention and its terms," and assumes to speak "in behalf of the commercial interests of this great metropolis."
The general style and tone of the article is such as to give the impression of its being written in other interests than those named, but, whether this be so or not, it is well to correct a few errors and misstatements, if this may be done by a few words as I think it can.
Your correspondent starts his arguments by assuming a false position very quietly, as if it were of little consequence, but which I think to be material in discussing the circumstances of the treaty. I refer to the assumption expressed in these words: "From the first day that BONITA JUAREZ succeeded to the Zuloaga Government, and assumed the name of Liberal Party," &c.
It is proper to state that JUAREZ was duly created Vice-President at the same time that COMONFORT was elected President. (His office was Chief-Justice, but the Chief-Justice in Mexico is ex-officio Vice President.) When COMONFORT left Mexico, JUAREZ, by constitutional rule, became President, and so continues to this day, no election under the Constitutional having been held since. ZULOAGA was, therefore, President by reason of a revolution, if he were ever President, and the same may be said of MIRAMON-JUAREZ being, in fact, indisputably President by constitutional succession.
That JUAREZ is not established in the City of Mexico, and has not possession of the archives, is true: but this is al that can be argued against the claim of his party, that he is the ruling power of Mexico.
His party governs seven-eighths of the Mexican territory, and nearly two-thirds of its population. All the machinery of the State Government of every State in Mexico, excepting three central States, is in the hands of the Constitutional Government, and all the ports on both oceans are in the same hands.
For these very reasons our Minister, some months since, and before any treaty, recognized the Constitutional Government as the Government de facto of Mexico; and the representative of that Government was duly received in Washington as Minister from Mexico. In other words, our Minister first investigated and then recognized the ruling Government, after which any treaty made by that Government with the United States is binding on Mexico forever.
Your correspondent says that the other party represents "the capital, intelligence and property of the country." So far as regards the City of Mexico and the country immediately under its influence, this may be true, at least as regards the "capital and property." The intelligence we may judge of ourselves, by reference to the policy recommended for the future of Mexico by the respective parties. That of the Constitutional Party is fully up to the spirit of the age, while that of the adverse party is unquestionably illiberal and retrograde. Even as regards the "capital and property," it is more proper to refer this to the fact that the illiberal party represents the Church Party, and is in possession of the central city where capital accumulates than to any general approval of its doctrines by the holders of property.
It is a fact not to be ignored, that the Church Party is the party of caste and represents the Spanish race, in antagonism to the more general character of the Constitutional Party, which, under the Constitution, recognizes no differences-the President himself, JUAREZ, being an Indian. In fact, five-sixths of the whole population of Mexico are Indian, and these have always had full political rights in the Republic. The treaty gives us the right to transport at all times troops and munitions of war between our Atlantic and Pacific States, as well as to our fleets, through the territory of Mexico-a most valuable, in fact vital privilege to us, considering the geographical relation of the extreme parts of our widely-extended country. The commercial privileges can hardly be estimated from their vastness, when it is remembered that we hold them forever.
The right of way forever, without dispute, for our citizens through the country by three separate routes, may well be considered as alone of sufficient consequence to pay many times over for the amount to be given.
The introduction of freedom of religion, and of civil privileges to our citizens, is an invaluable boon.
The argument used by your correspondent, that the treaty favors New-Orleans at the expense of New-York, would be contemptible even if it were true, which it is not. If we are to have large commercial relations with Mexico, following the treaty, be sure the merchants of New-York will have their full share, and I question whether any one of our merchants is at all thankful for your correspondent's officious assumptions.