The action of the Executive in this matter caused much comment in the public
press, and evoked a debate in Congress on the relative merits of American
and European enterprises, and on the political policy of granting to any
American company a concession to construct railroads in Mexico, and connect
the railroad systems of the two republics. Hon. Ramon Guzman, chairman of
the committee of industries, which reported the contract made by the
Executive with the so styled “Mexican company,” in advocating its adoption
in the chamber of Congress, maintained that it was contrary to the political
as well as commercial interests of Mexico to grant a concession for the
construction of railroads in this republic, to an American company,
asserting that it was much safer to intrust such construction to European
management and capital. He also insisted that it was dangerous to the
interests of Mexico to have the railroad system of the United States
extended into Mexican territory, as it would be used to facilitate another
invasion of this country, attributing to the United States the same spirit
of territorial aggrandizement and hostility which he alleged caused the war
of 1846–’47. This speech (although I am informed materially modified) has
been published in the official organ of the government, with favorable
editorial comments, and, in view of Mr. Guzman’s position in Congress and
his reputed confidential relations with the administration, his declarations
are considered as specially significant. I am gratified, however, to inform
you that these sentiments were not permitted to remain unanswered in the
chamber. Hon. Estanislao Cañedo, a distinguished deputy, and a gentleman of
intimate and personal acquaintance with American and European affairs, in an
able and eloquent speech repelled the unfriendly assumptions of Mr. Guzman,
and vindicated American skill and enterprise, as also the friendly spirit of
the Government and people of the United States. I inclose herewith an
extract from that portion of Mr. Cañedo’s speech which treats of the
political relations of the two republics.
[Inclosure.—Translation.]
Extract from a speech delivered by Hon. Estanislao
Cañedo, in the Mexican Congress, on the 10th
of January, 1874, on the railway
question.
As the opinions expressed upon our international policy by the chairman
of the committee are liable to receive an interpretation which would
obscure the real state of public opinion, I will venture to insist
further upon the character of our relations with the United States,
acting in this respect upon the line of conduct which I have observed in
previous Congresses, whenever reference has been made to this point of
the highest interest, for the frank and loyal harmony which ought to
exist between two sister republics, doubly united by the community of
political and commercial interests. To judge of the present relations
between Mexico and the United States by those of 1847, is to invoke an
analogy which can exist only in the minds of those who do not remember
the laborious transformation which has taken place in both nations
during the past thirty years.
At the date to which the orator has gone back, I would have been as
uncompromising as he now is, and would have made every possible effort
to remove my country from all contact with a nation whose government,
not content with caressing at home that social plague called slavery,
cherished the criminal design of extending it to our republic, and even
to the whole of America. At that time the pro-slavery element, called
democratic, was that which promoted conflicts with Mexico in order to
extend its sphere of action, and to bear sway in our northern states,
separated from the Mexican community by brute force. The object in view
was not, as many suppose, to obtain a sterile increase of territory, but
to incrust in the American federation new proslavery
[Page 725]
entities, which would incline the
political balance in favor of the interests of the South.
It is necessary to bear in mind that from that period Mexico found an
ally and a defender in the anti-slavery party in the American Senate.
When it was discussing that famous declaration, or rather that farce, in
which it was proclaimed that war existed by the act of Mexico, the
anti-slavery party unanimously denounced that subterfuge, and
hostilities were declared by virtue of an insignificant majority of two
votes, if I remember right, obtained by the democratic element.
I am far from pretending “that this conduct arose from an attachment
which does not exist in politics; but it undoubtedly sprung from a
certain community of social interests, which, in the course of time, was
destined to produce the complete and beneficial transformation which has
taken place in the neighboring country. In fact, the pro-slavery party,
conquered and forced to surrender at discretion, has lost its ancient
power, and is now subject to the policy imposed by its conqueror, the
republican party.
While this radical change was being wrought in the social condition of
the United States, Mexico also was carrying forward her movement of
reform, and produced the constitution of 1857, which has endowed the
Mexican people with all the political conquests which constitute the
patrimony of the neighboring republic, and which are a source of such
just pride to the country of Washington. It is evident, therefore, that
there is no ground for considering the present epoch akin to that
recalled by the previous speaker. The contrast between them is immense,
and it is natural that the disappearance of the former causes of
antagonism between the two leading republics of America should have
modified the effects resulting therefrom.
This truth presents itself in all its force, on reviewing the last few
years, during which the neighboring republic solved its great social and
humanitarian problem, by the gigantic war which it waged for the
extinction of slavery. At the same time, by a rare coincidence, Mexico
solved the problem relating to her autonomy and independence, and to the
destiny of the republican principle on this continent; repulsing the
European invader, who pretended to impose upon her a shameful tutelage,
under cover of the monarchical system. At that time, as I had the honor
to remind this chamber in a recent debate, both nations joined hands
over the legions of slavery—over the bayonets of Napoleon III, and of
Maximilian of Austria. How is it possible that this political alliance,
formed in moments of trial and affliction, should disappear like smoke
after the victory is gained, and the future of both nations is
assured?
No, this supposition is purely gratuitous, and it is logical, it is
natural, that as a necessary consequence, the union springing from the
solidarity of interests should follow the union arising from identity of
principles. I hear it said that the splendid edifice which I have just
erected, will come to the ground in a moment on the day when the
republican party loses a presidential election in the United States, and
that our relations with that country will then return to the condition
they were in when the democratic party held sway at Washington. I think
that this opinion is unfounded. I do not deny the possibility of some
difficulty arising between two countries separated only by a river or by
an imaginary line; but what I affirm is, that the political and moral
triumphs obtained by the republican party, at the cost of so many tears
and so much blood, cannot be nullified by a few votes thrown into the
ballot-box. Slavery is dead, forever dead. Five millions of rational
beings, accustomed to breathe the air of liberty, will never again bend
their necks before the whip of the trader in human flesh. The cause
having ceased, the effect ceases. The spirit of conquest, kept alive by
the desire of extending the sphere of slavery, has received a mortal
wound.
Moreover, the great political and humanitarian principles which have been
set in motion by the triumph of the republican party, cannot disappear.
The arbitrament of friendly powers to prevent the effusion of blood, in
cases of international differences, initiated by President Grant, has
discovered a new horizon to all civilized nations.
The conduct of the American Congress in the Cuban question, and
particularly in regard to Santo Domingo, whose annexation was rejected
notwithstanding the manifest desire of that republic to link its destiny
to that of the United States, denotes a radical change in the policy of
our neighbors, a policy which honors them, and which could not be
replaced by the unjust and immoral greed of conquest without dealing a
mortal blow to their institutions and to their powerful Union.
It seems to me as difficult that an electoral surprise should
substantially modify the political and social conquests which have
resulted from the triumph of the republican party, or rather of the
great national party in the United States, as it would be for the
theocratic power to recover sway among us, or that our country be again
converted into an immense military camp.
I firmly believe that we ought not to sacrifice to groundless fears the
development of our commercial relations with the United States. This
inestimable benefit would be worth more than the best diplomatic treaty
with our neighbors, because the alliance, founded upon a community of
interests, is a thousand times better than one stipulated in virtue of
the abstract principles of international law. Money and credit have no
nationality. If American capital is presented to construct our
railroads, I fervently
[Page 726]
hope,
that no further question will he raised as to the prudence or patriotism
of accepting its co-operation. The sound principles of political and
commercial convenience, which I invoke at this moment, are fortunately
the same which animated the Sixth Congress in authorizing the Executive
to celebrate the Plumb contract, and which actuated our Chief Magistrate
in signing that contract with the representative of an American company.
If the theories advanced by the previous speaker had in their favor the
slightest justification, what terms of censure should we not employ in
stigmatizing the hasty and unpatriotic conduct of the supreme
legislative power of the Union and of the President of the republic in
the case in question.
