32d Cong..... 3D SESS.

it is to be credited, but which he thinks ought to be discredited, because it was made by an Englishman. I produced it for the very purpose of showing how Englishmen understood the subject, when they sought from Mexico and not from Guatemala the confirmation of their claims on British Honduras, under the treaty of 1786, and obtained the ratification of them by the treaty with Mexico in December, 1826. The map does conclusively prove this, as it was made from "the original survey in the archives of Guatemala" herself. But I ask again, why is it that all English authorities are to be wholly disregarded, and all the mere pretensions of Guatemala are to be viewed with perfect confidence? He says we are bound to receive her assertions, because she claims it. I deny that she claims it; and if she did, does not Great Britain also claim it under a grant from Mexico? and has she not been in the undisputed possession of it ever since Guatemala had existence as a State? The honorable Senator may well express doubts of the conclusion arrived at in his report, since he has had time to look into the many other authorities to which I referred him, and to which he has made not the slightest exception.

It is true, as the Senator states, that Mr. Webster did, in a letter to Mr. Murphy, of the 6th of August, 1841, speak of the Irishman, John Galindo, as "Colonel Galindo, a distinguished officer in the Central American army," and of his mission to England as being "accredited by the Government of Central America." But it is also true that Mr. Murphy, writing from Guatemala on the 20th January, 1842, informed Mr. Webster of the imposition which caused his mistake. The Irishman, John Galindo, now called in the report "Don Galindo,"" the Minister," was, as I said, an impostor; and the letter of Mr. Murphy proves that there was a gross misrepresentation of his official character, even in the letter of Alvarez himself. Who could rely on such testimony, even if it had stated that Balize was in Guatemala? Sir, I submit that there is no shadow of evidence left to sustain the position that Balize is or ever was in the State of Guatemala, and knowing that I have fully refuted the report, I leave it.

As to my letter to Mr. Bulwer, which is a counter-declaration to prevent a misconstruction of his letter of the 4th of July, 1850, the chairman was perfectly right in his report that it did not consent to any alteration of the treaty, or to the possible inference that the eminent domain was in Great Britain at the Balize. The letter also expressly states that the dependencies of Balize are the small islands known to be dependencies of British Honduras;" it declares also, without contradiction, that the treaty does embrace" all the Central American Republics, with all their just limits and proper dependencies." With these facts before him, any man may decide the honorable chairman's appeal from the Senate to the Secretary of State.

Special Session-Clayton Bulwer Treaty.

your own organ, to inform me of your viewsthe letter of Mr. King himself. It is conclusive of the fact that the Senator, and all others who voted for or against the treaty, perfectly understood at the time that the territory of British Honduras was not included in the treaty! All understood it then; but a few have said they did not understand it so, and a few others try to prove it is not where their own official organ declared to me they perfectly understood it to be when the treaty was ratified by them. They try to convict their own organ, appointed by them to communicate with me, of a misstatement, or to convict themselves of ignorance. The late Senator from North Carolina, (Mr. Mangum,) who, with Mr. Webster, was on the Committee on Foreign Relations at the time, stated that every member of that committee understood the treaty precisely as their chairman understood it.

My object in offering the second resolution was to give the new Administration a fair opportunity of examining and deciding for itself the question (without any previous committal of this body) whether the little islands of Roatan, Bonaca, Utilla, Barbarat, Helena, and Morat, are or are not within the limits of the State of Honduras. If they are, and the reports of English occupation of them be true, then the treaty has been violated. So, too, if the newspaper reports of the occupation of Truxillo and Limas, in Central America, be true, that would be matter for immediate attention on the part of this Government. I will, as I have already said, go as far as he that dare go furthest in vindication of the national honor and the integrity of the treaty. We are bound on our part faithfully to observe this and all other treaties, and to see that other nations observe them when we are interested in them. I do not desire any hasty action on the subject; and whether the Secretary of State shall keep the subject under consideration until the next session of Congress, or report immediately, I wish to leave entirely to his own discretion. Let the Executive have full time to collect information and decide for itself. Let nothing be decided in a hurry.

The member from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] says again, that Great Britain still remains in possession of Central America. He says she has not relinquished "an inch " of it. This only proves that he has not read the official papers before us, and has made a reckless assertion, without proof. The Secretary of State, in his letter before us of the 16th of February last, says that "the British 'Government does not expect to make complete 'provision against the danger to the Mosquito Indians." "They consider it, however, their duty 'to do what is required by honor and humanity in 'behalf of the Mosquito nation; declaring at the 'same time, that they intend to adhere strictly to 'the treaty of Washington of the 19th April, 1850, ' and not to assume any sovereignty, direct or in'direct, in Central America." The British have no right to exert any force, I repeat again, with a The Senator from Virginia undertook to state view to the support of the pretended protectorate the facts in regard to the declaration of Sir Henry of the Mosquito king. If they do attempt it, that L. Bulwer, and my counter-declaration of the 4th must inevitably involve us in a controversy which of July, 1850. In doing this he has omitted some never can terminate honorably for us without their of the facts. He omitted, I observe, to state that utter abandonment of any such claim. I do not Congress was officially informed by me, almost pretend that either they or we cannot interfere immediately after the exchange of ratifications, with a Central American State which robs or plunthat British Honduras was not included in the ders the subjects of their country, or the citizens treaty of 1850. He has omitted to state that the of the other. Were any of these States to impublic were also apprised of the fact at the very prison our citizens, or rob them of their property, moment of the first publication of the treaty, and it is our duty to protect them, and after all efforts that no complaint was ever made of the exclusion of honorable diplomacy are exhausted, to compel of British Honduras from the treaty by any man a full indemnity for the wrong. It may be postill the 6th of January last, more than two years sible that Great Britain may have endeavored to after every one knew it or had reason to know it. enforce such an indemnity for her subjects for Above all, he omitted to state-what was pub-torts of Honduras to them. The treaty does not licly known here and elsewhere-that at the very protect any of these Central American States from moment of the exchange of ratifications I was ofpunishment for outrages committed by their auficially informed by Mr. King, the chairman of thority to either English subjects or American your Committee on Foreign Relations, that the citizens. Those States are only on the same footSenate, at the time of voting on the treaty, "per- ing under the treaty with all other independent fectly understood that British Honduras was not nations. It is possible that assaults or threats included in the treaty." If they did-and they may have been lately made against Honduras on dare not deny the statement of their own official account of injuries to British subjects residing organ, the chairman of that committee-why is it there. The omission to pay damages due them that so elaborate and persevering an effort is was the reason assigned for the seizure of Tigre made to inculcate the absurd notion that British Island in 1850, which was on the Pacific side of Honduras was included in the treaty? I have the State of Honduras. Neither the law of rehere before me the letter of your own chairman- prisals for torts, nor the right of any Government

||

SENATE.

to interfere for the protection of its citizens or subjects against oppression and outrage, have been abolished by the treaty of 1850. We should be as prompt to demand reparation for wrongs done to an American citizen by Honduras as by any other State or country, without in any way violating the treaty. We know that in the case of the island (Tigre) I have mentioned, the occupation was disavowed promptly. Let us wait patiently, and learn how the facts really are, before we proclaim the perfidy of any nation. But, without blustering, let us be firm in executing the observance of the whole treaty when our intervention is really necessary to enforce it.

Having done with the honorable Senator from Virginia, I will now pay my respects again to the member from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS.] He addressed a speech to his partisans in the galleries on all the topics used to excite and inflame the populace. When defeated on one point, he shifted. to another. From glorifying Hise's treaty, (as he has done for two years,) he shrunk back, when its folly was exposed, to a mere assertion that he only preferred it because it gave us the exclusive right of way. What has become of his Monroe doctrine, which was the chief objection he made to the treaty? He has abandoned it-fled from it, and has not a word to say in its defense? What answer has he made to the glaring evidence of the gross unconstitutionality of the Hise treaty creating a corporation to dig a canal more than a thousand miles from the utmost limits of the United States? Not a word! He is equally silent now on every other topic connected with the treaty, upon which he harangued the populace for the last two years, except the single matter of the exclusive privilege. On that point he is yet sure he is right, and it is my duty to expose him.

I will begin by simply reading the names of the Senators who voted for the treaty of 1850, providing against any exclusive privilege in any one nation, and extending the privilege of passage to all nations. The vote stood:

"YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Berrien, Butler, CASS, Chase, Clarke, CLAY, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dawson, Dayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Felch, Foote, Green, HALE, HOUSTON, HUNTER, Jones, KING, Mangum, MASON, Miller, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pratt, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soulé, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales, and WEBSTER-42.

"NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Borland, Bright, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Turney, Walker, Whitcomb, and Yulee-10.”

I have the official list which was sent to the President of the United States at the time of the vote upon the treaty, certified in proper form by the Secretary of the Senate, showing that there were forty-two yeas in favor of it, and only ten nays against it, and it does not appear upon the face of that paper that the Senator from Illinois did vote on either side.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I may as well here make an explanation of the point that the Senator is raising, which he could have learned from the Secretary's table, if he had chosen, without any difficulty. The Senator knows as well as any living man that I was opposed to the treaty. The Senator recollects well an interview which took place between him and the Vice President of the United States and myself, at the Vice President's seeking, in which we discussed every provision in the treaty. That Senator well knows that I arraigned every article of the treaty in that interview long before the vote was taken. That Senator well knows that then I insisted upon the Hise treaty, and he well knows all my objections on the subject, and that we had an interview of three hours, the result of which, I apprehend, left a little irritation, in consequence of which I suffered in my position on the committees in the Senate. Hence my opposition to the treaty was not equivocal. By an accident in taking the names my vote was omitted. At the next Executive session after it was observed, I called the attention of the Senate to the fact that the record was wrong. The whole Senate recognized the fact and corrected it. The Senator ought to present the record as corrected, and not the record which was made under a mistake.

Mr. CLAYTON. I present the record as it was sent to the President of the United States, and that record never was corrected.

Mr. DOUGLAS. That may be, but it had been stated in debate that I had voted; and if he had

32D CONG....3D SESS.

looked at the records of the Senate he would have found upon the corrected record that the error had been corrected.

Mr. CLAYTON. I know nothing of the fact of the Senator having corrected the vote some time after it was taken. I know not when the Executive session was held. I am bound to take the Senator's own statement, but I beg to differ with him in regard to the recollection in which he is so confident in reference to the discussion before Colonel King. We will settle that, however, when we can see him.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Very well.

Mr. CLAYTON. My recollection is different from the Senator's, but at the same time I will

state

Mr. DOUGLAS. Will not the Senator from Delaware concede to me that I did object to the treaty in toto?

Mr. CLAYTON. I will state what I understood to be the position of the Senator. I understood him distinctly to object to the treaty because it deprived us of the power of annexing Central America.

Mr. DOUGLAS. That was one of my objections.

Mr. CLAYTON. But I do not recollect anything at all of the gentleman's extending

Mr. DOUGLAS. Did not Colonel King hold out a strong argument to show me that I was wrong in preferring an exclusive privilege, and was it not said that England and Europe would never consent that a great commercial Power should have the exclusive privilege; and did I not tell him that I never would ask their consent, because it was an American question?

Mr. CLAYTON. If the Senator will have patience, I will state what recollection I have of the interview; and I am very confident of the correctness of my recollections. I do recollect very well putting the question to the Senator: How shall we exclude the British from Central America? That was the question which I presented. How shall we get them out? Shall we propose the Monroe doctrine? Shall we endeavor to enforce it? Will Congress sustain any such attempt? I think the Senator will agree with me that he assured me that he did not doubt that Congress

would not.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Not at all. I only answered for my vote.

The PRESIDENT. The honorable Senator from Illinois is out of order.

Mr. DOUGLAS. If the honorable Senator asks me if I did not so state, certainly I should be permitted, in a matter involving my own reputation for truth, to respond to the question.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair objects to the Senator answering the questions of the Senator from Delaware in this manner: it is utterly opposed to the usages of the Senate.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Very well.

Mr. CLAYTON. I certainly do not intend to impeach the honorable Senator's veracity, but I tell him that we have different recollections of the conversation. I did not understand him to conclude the conversation with the declaration on his part that he intended to oppose the treaty. I did suppose that the arguments addressed to him had some influence on his mind, and I so informed some of my friends at the time; and I was surprised that he did not vote on the treaty, or, as he says, that he did vote, and vote against it. Mr. DOUGLAS. I never said that I would not sustain him in the assertion of the Monroe doctrine-never uttered such a word-never entertained such a thought. I could not speak for Congress, but my own opinions and determinations were known and proclaimed to be in favor of preventing any more European colonization on this continent. I must be permitted to inform the Senator from Delaware that I am not mistaken about the conversation held with Colonel King and myself. He cannot have forgotten-he must remember, that I opposed the treaty then in all its parts and provisions, for the same reason that I have since given for my vote against it-that I opposed it because it surrendered the exclusive privilege which we might enjoy by the Hise treaty; because it abrogated the Monroe doctrine; because-because--because it proposed an alliance with England and the other European Powers

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

in respect to the American continent; because it gave a pledge that in all time to come we would never annex any portion of Central America; because its objects and provisions were at war with all those principles which had governed all my actions in relation to the affairs of this continent. I am not mistaken upon this matterI have too many reasons to remember it. It caused my withdrawal from the Committee on Foreign Relations under circumstances not agreeable to my feelings and pride. I was in favor of the Monroe declaration, but could not say what Congress would do.

Mr. CLAYTON. Very well, then. So far he agrees with me; and as Colonel King is not present I will take his own recollection. He, a Senator, a constitutional adviser of the President, told me, then Secretary of State, that if I endeavored to exclude England from Central America, by asserting the Monroe doctrine, he would not sustain me in that. I knew that too. Then why did the Senator hold me up to censure before the country, on the 14th of February last, for not asserting and carrying out the Monroe doctrine? The Senator, in reply to the remarks I made in relation to the eminent men who voted for the

treaty, and the other eminent men who voted for the Panama treaty, charged me with seeking to screen myself behind the names of those distinguished gentlemen. Forty-two Senators voted for the treaty he attacks. Twenty-nine more sustained the same principle by their votes on the Panama treaty-making seventy-one Senators. The Senator from Illinois did not utter a word against it when it passed. Three weeks afterwards he had his name recorded against it. He was a candidate for the Presidency we all know. By taking ground against the treaty, he placed himself in direct antagonism with all the other candidates for the Presidency of both parties. By making the treaty unpopular he killed off Cass, and Clay, and Webster, and Houston, and both the distinguished Senators from Virginia, and all

SENATE.

privileges or facilities are given in the amount of toll, tonnage, or other duties or charges, to the vessels or merchandise of any foreign Power, greater than those which the vessels or merchandise of the United States would enjoy, by the terms of the act, in passing through the canal or in the ports at its termination, you will immediately signify to the Government that the United States consider themselves, by the terms of the treaty, as entitled to the same advantages."

The treaty here referred to was the treaty with Central America of the 5th of December, 1825, which secured to us the privileges" of the most favored nation"-the same commercial privileges which Central America and we ourselves ceded to every nation with which either of the two Republics ever made a commercial treaty. Had Central America or " Guatemala" granted to the King of the Netherlands an exclusive privilege, such as the Senator from Illinois demands for us, we see that Mr. Livingston and President Jackson would have viewed it as a breach of her commercial treaty with us and her commercial treaty with every other civilized State. It turned out that all their apprehensions were groundless. The patriotic and philanthropic King of the Netherlands had asked for no exclusive privilege. He differed from the wise Senator from Illinois. The grant the use of the canal to all nations on the same to the Dutch capitalists was liberal, and offered terms. I have a copy of it before me. The Senator evidently knew nothing about it when he referred to it. The monarch of the Netherlands was not a man of an illiberal, contracted, narrow, mean, and little mind. He, however, and President Jackson, and Livingston, and Polk, and Buchanan, and all the Senate of 1835, and all the House of Representatives of 1839, and twentynine Senators in 1847, and forty-two Senators in 1850, and President Taylor and all his advisers, were behind the times-did not understand the growth of this giant Republic like the Senator from Illinois-and I may not take shelter behind their authority! Johnson and Meredith, two of the Cabinet ministers of President Taylor, among the first jurists and constitutional lawyers in this country, are not of any estimation when brought in competition with him!

The Senator from Illinois complained that the treaty was a European partnership. This word "partnership" composed a large part of his address. He seemed to think that if he could only get the idea fixed in the American mind that we had gone into partnership with England, that would make the treaty odious. So he exerts himself to rouse the ancient prejudice against England. He says she does not love us, and we do not love her. An American statesman, when speaking or acting Will he tell us what foreign nation he does love? in a public capacity, has no right to love any country but his own. She furnishes an object large enough for all his affections. The great Father of his Country, in his Farewell Address, warns us of the folly and danger of either loving or hating any foreign nation. As to Englishmen, when we declared independence, we announced that we held them as we hold men of all other nations, "enemies in war-in peace friends." The policy pursue here by the Senator has shown him to be rather a lover than a hater of England and her people. There is just as much propriety in saying that all the men who travel on the highway are partners, as that the contracting parties to this convention are such. He would view every com

the others who had ever been named for the Presidency. He fired into the whole flock of his rivalsshot dead, as he thought, all who could stand in his way. How persevering he has been in attacking the treaty since we all know. We know how many stump speeches he has made in opposition to it. It has been his theme by day and by night: his grand point which entitles him to preference over all others is just here. He is for annulling the treaty, and all the rest for it. He must kill the treaty, or it will kill him. He shows the country how weak Mr. Buchanan was, in endeavoring to make just such a treaty in regard to Panama. Taylor was alive and well when the Senator commenced his opposition. He now tells me I may not take shelter behind the great names of his rivals. Why not? Henry Clay was, in his day and generation, a man supposed by many to have some sagacity-almost equal to his. Daniel Webster, too, had some reputation. Buchanan and Cass have both been esteemed for their sagacity. Polk had some character too. These, and fifty more on the list opposed to his opinion, were accounted men whose decision was worthy of regard. The unanimous opinion of the Senate, on the 3d of March, 1835, against him, ought to be considered as worth something. The unanimous opinion of the House of Representatives, on the 2d of March, 1839, also fully sustaining the prin-mercial treaty with England as a partnership, and ciple of the treaty, one would think was worth something. The opinion of President Jackson ought to be held worth something, to any man who seeks the good will of the Democracy. But the Senator doubts about the opinion of President Jackson. I will fix him on that point. He shall not escape. Edward Livingston, while Secretary of State, acting under the direction of President Jackson, on the 20th July, 1831, addressed a letter to Mr. Jeffers, in Central America, inquiring what was the character of the cession made on the application of the King of the Netherlands by the decree of Guatemala of December, 1830, relative to a canal through that country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. President Jackson apprehended it might be a grant of exclusive privileges, at least so far as related to toll and tonnage duties. Mr. Livingston, by his direction, wrote to Mr. Jeffers:

"Should you find, on inspeeting the act, that particular

therefore objectionable.

The Senator endeavored to present the questions did that, he knew well that he spoke in the presbetween us as party issues. When the Senator ence of an overwhelming majority of his own party men, not only here on the floor of the Senate, but above, and all around us. I made no such issue. I desired to make none. I made some remarks, to which he chose to advert, that Mr Polk and

my distinguished predecessor in the office of Secretary of State had made no response whatever to the implorations of the government of Central America, asking us to intercede against the encroachments and aggressions of Great Britain. I had to state that, as a part of the facts to explain the history of the Monroe declaration; but I thought that I endeavored, in the course of the remarks which I made to the Senate, to show that Mr. Polk was right, according to the principle upon which I supposed he acted, which was, that as

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

the Monroe declaration which he recommended to Congress had never been confirmed by either branch of Congress, he therefore refused to act upon it. I thought he was right in not regarding his own declaration as the principle upon which the Government should be administered, until it had received the sanction of the Congress of the United States. I thought I had exonerated him from the imputations which I have often heard made against him. If the gentleman wishes to press me into a discussion of a party character, I know no good reason why I should avoid it with him; but I desire not to mingle up at all in the debate, upon this question with regard to the true history of a treaty, anything of a party char

acter.

Sir, I do not come here for the avowed purpose of opposing the President of the United States. I mean to make no factious opposition to his administration. I mean to support him so far as I can conscientiously, and oppose him only when I am bound in conscience to oppose, if unfortunately his administration should require opposition. I stand pledged to no party and no set of men to make opposition to him merely because he has been elected as a Democrat to the Presidency of the United States; and it will give me great pleasure, through the whole course of his administration, to sustain him here on the floor of the Senate, if I can.

All the objections of the Senator dwindle down at last, as I have said, to a single point-that the treaty ought to have been a treaty for the exclusive right of way across the isthmus; that the error of the treaty of 1850 is, that while it obtains protection from all nations, it makes a navigable highway for all nations on the same terms; and we see that if he had negotiated the treaty, he would have obtained an exclusive right; and he stood up here in defense of the treaty of Mr. Hise, which would have secured to this Government (if it had been ratified by Nicaragua and the United States) an exclusive right. What sort of an exclusive right is it that he demands? He thinks that the Government of the United States should have obtained the grant-the right to make a canal, and an exclusive right to navigate it; that forts should be built at both ends to protect it; and of course that we should protect it by every other means necessary. When the Government shall have made it, and when the Government shall have established the forts, the canal, he says, will be open to everybody on the same terms; and thus he seeks the exclusive grant of a right of way! What does he want with it? Why does he prefer it to the plan adopted, of opening the canal to all nations on the same terms? The Senator says he would hold it as a rod-yes, a rod, to compel other nations to keep the peace! He would have no more settling of islands on the coast of Central America! If any Government attempted it, he would shut his canal to them! He would also compel all foreign nations to treat us with all respect and regard, by means of the tremendous rod which he would hold in his hands. Let us look a little into the justice of this thing, as regards our own country.

It has been supposed that the construction of this great work will cost fifty or a hundred millions of dollars. I suppose we could not build a proper fortification at each end under less than a million of dollars for each fort. We would be compelled to maintain a garrison there; and, in the event of a war, to maintain a large navy, such a one as could resist the naval Powers of the earth. If we were to go to war with France, or England, or any other great naval Power, that, of course, would be one of the first points of attack. How convenient would it be for us to defend it at a distance of two thousand miles, and send troops to the different forts, and ships to protect our vessels that pass through the canal! We build it, and everybody is to have the benefit of the canal on the same terms, in time of peace! In war we alone are to defend it! The interest on a hundred millions would be six millions a year. The expenses of protecting and taking care of the canal and keeping it in good order, would probably, when added to the interest, make an annual outlay from the Treasury of the United States, in that distant country, of not less than ten millions of dollars. Now, why should we make such an ex

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

penditure? Because we want a rod-a rod! Sir, I think it would prove to be a rod to inflict injuries upon ourselves. We want nothing but the right of way there. We proposed that no nation should go through that canal, unless she agreed to protect it. In case they agreed to protect it, we should want no forts, no garrisons, and no naval force to guard what none could attack. But, on the other hand, if we were to adopt the plan of the Senator, we should have to keep a standing army in that country to protect it, in the event of a war between us and foreign nations. What would be thought of a man who should purchase a farm, and then, after he had gone to the expense of putting it in order, invite everybody to come and till it, but should direct them to take care that they should pay no part of the expense of keeping up the repairs, nor any part of the taxes upon the land? I do not know that this or any other illustration can make his proposition seem more preposterous than it does on its own mere

statement.

But an important objection to the obtaining of such a grant as that, from a foreign Government to the United States, for the construction of a canal by the United States is, that it is unconstitutional, utterly and absolutely unconstitutional. I said, before the Senator addressed the Senate, that I did not know that there was a man on this floor who would contend that this Government had the power, under the Constitution of the United States, to construct a canal in Nicaragua, a railroad in China, or to build turnpikes in England, or any country out of the limits of the United States, or to charter a corporation to do such things. I said I supposed heretofore, that the Senator from Illinois belonged to the strict-construction school, which denied even the power to make internal improvements in our own limits. But he goes for such a treaty as Mr. Hise's, and says that he does not like special pleading. Does the Senator mean that a constitutional objection is mere special pleading? Sir, I never wish any better special plea against any treaty than the Constitution of my country. The gentleman cannot show, by any possible ingenuity, that Mr. Hise's plan of building a canal in Nicaragua is or can be made in any way constitutional. Who ever heard before that a power could be conferred by a treaty that was not conferred upon this Government under the Constitution itself? We are, says he, to build a canal to unite us with our possessions on the Pacific, and Mr. Hise's treaty provides that the Government of the United States may build it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is the Senator really serious in putting it, that I insisted that the Government should go to work and make the canal in Central America, or that I intimated any such thing, or that I said a word from which such a conclusion could be drawn?

Mr. CLAYTON. The Senator repeatedly avowed himself, in all his speeches, in favor of Mr. Hise's treaty. He dare not deny it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I said that an exclusive privilege was tendered, and a partnership privilege was tendered. We had a right to take the one or to take the other. The Secretary chose to take the partnership in prefery of State exclusive privilege. In reply to the objection, that it was unconstitutional to make a canal by this Government in Central America, I told him, when he would demonstrate the power of the United States and England to make a canal jointly, I would demonstrate the power of our Government to do it separately; or when he would demonstrate the power of the United States and Great Britain to protect a British and American company jointly, I would demonstrate to him, by his own argument, our power to protect a separate American company. I never dreamed, nor is there anything in my speech to show that I believed that this Government ever was to go to work to make the canal there. What I did mean was, that an exclusive privilege was tendered to an American company, under the protection of the American Government; and the same right which would authorize us to protect, in connection with England, a British company, would authorize this Government to protect an American company. The question was not how the canal should be made, but whether its protection, and hence its control, was to be exclusively under this Government, or whether it

SENATE.

was to be under the control and protection of England in conjunction with this country. I do not raise a question as to how the canal shall be made, whether by a company or not; but I say, if we are to enter into a guarantee, let it be a guarantee of Americans and not of British; let it be a guarantee on our own account, and not in partnership with England. That was my position.

Mr. CLAYTON. He has shifted again. But he cannot escape by it. I will meet all the issues he has made, and all the new ones he can invent. The speech he made on the 14th of February will convict him (if now read) of having preferred the very treaty made by Mr. Hise without any of his present qualifications. I have exposed it, and he has become ashamed of it. He now qualifies his position, so that he is only in favor of so much of Mr. Hise's treaty as secured to us the exclusive right. That he is for. Let us see now how soon he will change from that. If he is for the exclusive right ceded in the treaty of Mr. Hise, he is of course for the consideration on which that right was ceded. As an honest man, he would not take the grant and then refuse to pay for it. Then he is for an entangling alliance, against which he has said so much.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Not at all.

Mr. CLAYTON. Why, sir, the consideration for which the right was to be ceded, as I have shown from the treaty itself, was an engagement on our part to guarantee the title of Nicaragua, and to fight her battles, and "put down all the wars and bloodshed arising therefrom." Unless he entangled us in that way, he could not obtain from Nicaragua the exclusive right. He cannot take the grant without the consideration for it. As to the question, how the treaty for an exclusive priv. ilege should have been drawn, or how the Hise treaty, securing such a privilege, could have been amended, he has evaded it. He cannot draw the amendments which would have made a measure so objectionable reconcilable with the Constitution and the treaty with Central America or Nicaragua, and he has not ventured to propose them. Yet he interrupted the Senator from South Carolina, and said he only supported the treaty so amended as to secure the exclusive privilege.

The Senator from Illinois said that treaties could not fetter or confine the limbs of this giant Republic." I do not know precisely the extent to which he meant to be understood; but the language and the manner in which the Senator applied it, seemed to me to go to this extent: that we had a country exempt from the obligations of treaties, and that our limbs cannot be circumscribed by treaties. We were to disregard obligations of that description, being, like a "young giant, ,"rising in power beyond anything that had been known in the history of the world before. The Senator made the same remark in reference to the treaty with Mexico. There is a clause in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to which the Senator made great objection at the time of its ratification, in effect, that without the consent of the governments of both countries, the line established by that treaty as the boundary between them, should be the ultima thule-the utmost limit of our terri

tory. Yes, sir, we plighted our faith and honor in that treaty, confirmed as it was by more than two thirds of the American Senate, that beyond that limit we would never go. Yet the Senator from Illinois says that the day is coming when we shall be compelled to violate the treaty-that treaties cannot fetter our limbs or restrict our limits. Sir, I regretted to hear it, because of the influence of that Senator in his party, as one of their standing candidates for the Presidency. I should have regretted to have heard it from any Senator. We form the body that is to ratify all the treaties of the United States. We are the constitutional advisers of the President. We are a part of the treaty-making power.

Mr. DOUGLAS. If it gives the Senator any regret that I stated that, I will explain to him what I did state, and thereby, I imagine, relieve him from all his regret. What I said was, that the steady, regular growth and expansion of this country would in all probability go ahead in the future as it has done in the past; that you might make as many treaties as you please, and still they would not check our growth, and because they could not, it was use

32D CONG.....3D Sess.

less to make treaties which must of necessity be violated; hence I argued against the making of treaties pledging our faith not to do that which inevitably would be done in the future. It was an argument in favor of the fidelity and observance of treaty stipulations, and that we should not, therefore, be so profuse in our pledges in cases where we could not fulfill them.

Mr. CLAYTON. An argument in favor of fidelity and observance of treaty stipulations, indeed! The idea is, that we are incapable, from the nature of our institutions or our character as a people, of maintaining and observing treaties. Mr. DOUGLAS. No, sir.

Mr. CLAYTON, (laughing.) We must grow, says the Senator. Our "manifest destiny," he means, is to extend our limits.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The idea is, that some men are incapable of comprehending the growth of this nation. A few years ago, it was supposed that we could never extend beyond the Alleghanies. There were those who thought that

Mr. CLAYTON. I have heard all that a dozen times.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Then the Mississippi, then the Pacific was the boundary. I said that the same laws which have carried us forward must inevitably carry us further in the process of time, and that that growth will go on; and consequently it is unwise to make a treaty stipulation pledging ourselves not to do that which our interest may require us to do.

Mr. CLAYTON. I have given the Senator so many opportunities for explaining himself to me, as he terms it, that now I must be permitted to explain him to himself. It was but the other day he told me we must annul the Central American treaty; such was his declaration, too, on the 14th February last, in my absence. There is no escape for him from that position. There is no provision in this treaty for notice to annul it, as he knows, and yet he reiterated his demand for its immediate annulment. One of his wise reasons for annulling it was, that the British had not observed it. With the same wisdom, a man who held a bond, whilst his debtor refused to pay, would burn it or not enforce it. Driven from this position, he endeavors to shift it to what we have just heard that it is unwise, because the treaty must be annulled. Has he made his position any better? What is it that he still adheres to? He insists upon it, that by some irresistible influence we are driven on in our course to such a degree of greatness that we shall be compelled to violate the treaties which we may make with foreign nations in regard to boundaries. We ought, he said, to nullify the treaty of 1850 at once. He now says that some men cannot comprehend the growth of this giant Republic. I do not know that there is any man of ordinary intelligence who does not comprehend it. There is no difficulty in understanding it. We have grown to such an extent already that we have a country greater than Rome possessed in her palmiest days. We cover a contiguous territory greater, perhaps, than.ever was enjoyed by any civilized nation on earth. And yet we are told that we are not capable of binding ourselves even by treaty stipulations to observe our plighted faith, and fulfill our solemn engagement of honor. Iremonstrate against the declaration of such a principle, or rather of such a want of all principle. It is nothing more nor less than this: let there be as many explanations on the part of the Senator from Illinois as he may choose to make that weareincapable of controlling our impulses and passions when our interests may lead us to violate our engagements. "Treaties cannot fetter us," says he. Sir, the plighted faith of every man of honor binds him at all times, no matter what his interest may be, and the plighted faith of nations equally binds them; and the last place from which a contrary principle should be promulgated, is the Senate of the United States. Here, I repeat, we sit as the constitutional advisers of the President of the United States; and if foreign nations come to understand that the position is taken by members holding a prominent party position here, that treaties cannot be any restraint upon us, what foreign nation will ever make another treaty with us? If there be a country on earth that owes more than any other to treaties, it is ours. We owe our national existence to the old French treaties of 1778.

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

Sir, within the limits of that great State which you in part represent on this floor, [Mr. COOPER in the chair,] Washington, in the darkest period of the Revolution, at Valley Forge, wintered with his suffering soldiers, when the intelligence reached them that France had entered into an alliance with us, and had guarantied our independence. The glorious news ran through all the ranks of the American army, and the great "Father of his Country" stood up and waved his hat, and shouted for joy, in concert with his troops! Our destiny from that moment became fixed. Every American saw that we were free, whatever doubt he might have entertained about it before. We owe, I repeat, our national independence to treaties. And now, when we are becoming strong, shall we forget it? Shall not an American statesman adhere to treaties with as much fidelity as an Englishman, or a Frenchman, or one of any other nation? Shall he not rejoice that his country does stand by her honor? I trust that no idea of our growing importance, or of the necessity of our enlargement, will ever sink into the heart of any other American Senator, to induce him to abandon that principle without which our country would become a byword and a hissing among the nations.

If we must gain more territory, let us gain it honorably. The Senator from Illinois boasts that he opposed the treaty with Mexico. I recollect it very well, and I recollect the reason he gave for voting against it. It was the very reason which he assigned in the debate here for desiring to annul the treaty of 1850. He opposed that clause in the Mexican treaty which fixed the limits beyond which we could not go, and he cannot explain away his position, or shift it any longer. He then said the time would come when Mexico would become indispensable to our progress and our happiness. I would recall to the recollection of gentlemen who were present on the 9th day of February, 1847, the speech made by Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, on this very subject. In thrilling tones he gave utterance to views which seemed to carry conviction to the hearts of nine tenths of those who heard him, and told us that Mexico was to us FORBIDDEN FRUIT. Whenever the day shall come that, in defiance of treaty limits or otherwise, we set about the business of annexing nine or ten millions of Mexicans to the United States, the days of our Republic will be numbered. The Mexican people are educated in the belief that no greater curse can befall a nation than that of slavery, and are said to be bound by treaty to abolish it. Could we permit them to take a part in the election of our Representatives and Senators in Congress? Could we admit them to assist in governing us? Sir, without any reference to that dangerous question to which I have barely alluded, there are many other questions which they would have a powerful influence, and an interest in deciding against us. I am opposed utterly to annexing them; and I do not hesitate to express that opposition now and at all times. The true policy of this Government is, to build up Mexico as a republic, to sustain and cheer her by kind offices, and to teach her, by our example, the science of self-government. If we could annex other countries as England does, or as Rome did when she was triumphing over the world, the whole subject might receive another consideration. Whenever we annex, we make citizens of the people whom we unite to us. We do not enslave them. Other countries may make slaves of those whom they subdue, and never permit them to take any part in the government of their conquerors. If we annex Mexico, we are compelled, in obedience to the principles of our own Declaration of Independence, to receive her people as citizens. Yes! Aztecs, Creoles, Half-breeds, Quadroons, Samboes, and I know not what else "ring-streaked and speckled"-all will come in, and, instead of our governing them, they, by their votes, will govern us. Why do we want them or their territory? Are we cramped? Are we crowded? Have we more population than is necessary to fill the land which we already own? There is not a more sparsely populated country on earth which is inhabited by civilized men. We have hundreds of millions of acres of land upon which the foot of a white man never trod. When, in the lapse of time, all this shall be covered, then, if we find men

SENATE.

of our own race and class, capable of sustaining our institutions and of self-government, in any contiguous territory which can be acquired without the violation of any principle of justice or humanity, I am not one that would stay the honorable progress of my country.

The day, however, will never come when an American Senator will be justified in the declaration that we intend to disobey treaties. No, sir; we have been, and mean to remain, faithful to treaties. We have often been accused of having violated them; but the honor of our country is yet dear to us; and it is worth more to the true American than all the land that Mexico and Central America contain.

The Senator objects to the treaty of 1850, because, under its provisions, we cannot annex the Central American States. Were there no such treaty, he could not annex them till he had first overrun Mexico, and broken the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Nay, he must first annex the West India Islands, and British Honduras, too. After "swallowing Mexico," he must take in all the other intermediate countries; and as Great Britain owns many of the islands and dependencies to be devoured, he must include the British lion-a matter not quite so easy of digestion. What an intimation is it for us to make to the world, that we may some day annex these weak little sister Republics, thousands of miles away from us, with a population so different from ours, especially in laws, institutions, and usages! I would much rather other nations should know the fact that San Salvador, one of these very Central American States, once applied for admission into our Union, and that our Government not only declined to receive them, but treated the application as one not worthy of a moment's serious regard.

I heard with pleasure and admiration that passage in the inaugural address of the President which declared that his administration should leave no blot upon his country's record, and that no act within his constitutional control would be tolerated which could not challenge a ready justification before the tribunal of the civilized world. How great the difference between that and the sentiments of the Senator from Illinois ! Let the President adhere to these principles, and he will thereby disarm opposition: he will make of those who have heretofore been strong political opponents, some of the warmest friends he has in the world. I put this declaration in contrast with all these gigantic ideas [laughter] of breaking treaties, and going beyond the limits of the country in defiance of them. But if the President should, in opposition to all our hopes and belief, be induced to disregard the faith of treaties, he will hardly progress through half the period of his constitutional term before he will find the great heart of the American people, which is honest to the core, opposed to him, and the most sincere of his present friends will vindicate the justice of the sentence against him, while they sorrow for his fall.

Mr. MASON. I wish to make an explanation in answer to a remark of the Senator from Delaware. As a part of the evidence on which the Committee on Foreign Relations had based the opinion that the British settlements at Honduras Bay lay within the Republic of Guatemala, I adduced the official map of the State of Guatemala. The honorable Senator examined it, and I understood him to say that I had committed a "mistake" when I informed the Senate, and when the committee informed the Senate, that it was shown by that map that the British settlements at Balize were in Guatemala.

Mr. CLAYTON. Yes, the Senator is correct. Mr. MASON. I understood the honorable Senator to say, that the map of the State of Guatemala which I exhibited, did not show that the settlements at Balize were within the limits of Guatemala. I understood him to say, in language far from being acceptable, that I had committed a "mistake" when I informed the Senate that the map did show it.

Mr. CLAYTON. I wish to say again what I said before. The Senator sent me the map. I thanked him for it. I said I thought that the dotted lines upon the map indicated the boundaries of the State of Guatemala, and that if that were the case, then the dotted lines round the place called Balize

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

showed that the committee of the Senate had made a great mistake. Now, I do not know (as I then said) whether the Senator had observed those dotted lines, but I think they do clearly indica that there is a separate Territory, to which perhaps the attention of the Senator had not been directed, intended to be indicated by those dotted lines-that is, the Balize. I know very well he may put a different construction upon the map, but that is the construction which I put on it; and I think if he will examine it himself carefully, he will see that there was some purpose, some motive in the map-maker for making those dotted lines around the country called Balize or British Honduras.

Mr. MÁSON. Mr. President, it is no light matter to say that a Senator, when in the course of his official duty he endeavors to give information to the Senate, has committed a mistake; and I understood the Senator to say, and say distinctly, that in presenting this map, which I alleged did show that the settlements at Balize were in the Republic of Guatemala, I had committed a mistake. Now, sir, Senators have no right to commit mistakes. A Senator may commit a fault. It may be venial. There may be circumstances that will excuse it or justify it, or that will account for it or explain it; but a mistake in the course of official duty is no light matter, and I submit to the Senator, should not be lightly charged. I understand the honorable Senator to say now, that the dotted lines round that region of country indicated the British possessions. He supposed it had escaped my attention, and therefore I had committed a mistake. He stated to the Senate that the map showed that the possessions did lie in the Republic of Guatemala. Sir, I had examined the map with great care. It had been before me for two months. It is mentioned in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It is relied upon for what it is worth by the report of the committee to show where the possessions are, and I can inform the Senator that those dotted lines did not escape my attention. If he will look at them with the deliberation and care that the committee did, he will find those dotted lines indicate exactly the treaty limits of the settlements as prescribed in 1786.

Mr. CLAYTON. That is what I supposed. Mr. MASON. Very well; then if the map shows, as it does show, that that territory, no matter what the British title to it is, lies within the limits of Guatemala, the dotted lines must do no more than indicate what the territory is that lay there. Sir, they are as distinct upon this map as they could be exhibited on so small a surface. The limits of these settlements prescribed in the treaty of 1786 are these:

"The English line beginning from the sea shall take the center of the river Sibun or Jabon, and continue up the source of the said river. From thence it shall cross in a straight line the intermediate land until it intersects the river Wallys

If the Senator will look at these dotted lines he will find that they commence at the source of the river Sibun, and cross to the river Balize or Wallys:

"And by the center of the same river the line shall descend to the point where it will meet the line already settled and marked out by the commissaries of the two Crowns in 1783, which limits, following the continuation of said line, shall be observed as formally stipulated by the definitive treaty,"

The Senator will find that on this map of Guatemala, representing what Guatemala claims as its territory, the British possessions are within the territory of Guatemala, and that the dotted lines are only to indicate those provided by the treaty of 1786, as the lines of the British settlements. I understood the Senator to say yesterday that the map did not show what the committee, and what I claimed it did show, because of the dotted lines. Now, if the Senator understands me, I mean to say this: The map shows that the settlements are in the limits of the State of Guatemala; and the dotted lines indicate nothing more than the positions of the settlements in the State of Guatemala.

Mr. CLAYTON. I have no doubt the Senator understands the matter as he explains it, but I am perfectly willing to submit the question to any set of intelligent men, whom he will select to look at the map, and I am willing to abide by their decision upon the very question which he has chosen to submit. I have taken my view of the matter, and he has taken his. Let others examine it, and

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

they will see whether the Balize settlements are included in the State of Guatamala.

SENATE.

my conduct at one time, and at other times different and contradictory reasons, I might be promptMr. DOUGLAS. I have something to say in ed to seek refuge under personalities from the exreply to the remarks of the Senator from Dela-posure that might be made. Sir, I pass that all ware. It is not my purpose to introduce any by. new points in the discussion.

Mr. SHIELDS. If my colleague will give way, I will move an adjournment. He can go on

to-morrow.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am willing to give way for that, and go on in the morning with what I have to say.

On motion the Senate adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, March 16, 1853. Prayer by the Rev. C. M. BUTLER.

Mr. ADAMS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution which lies upon your table, providing that the Senate will at this session proceed to the election of the Secretaand Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate. ry The motion was agreed to; and the resolution was taken up for consideration.

Mr. ADAMS. I desire to say that in offering that resolution I do not wish to be understood as giving any expression of opinion unfavorable to the incumbents of those offices. I believe the Senate has the right to elect its own officers at the commencement of each Congressional term, and I offer this resolution to assert that privilege, and not to intimate an opposition to our officers. In the resolution I omitted to insert the Doorkeeper, and therefore I move to amend the resolution by including that officer.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BADGER. I move to strike out the words

The Senator, as a last resort, attempted to get up unkind feelings between my political friends and myself in regard to this debate. He endeavored to show that my speech was an assault upon every Senator who took a different course. He went further, and charged that I, as a presidential candidate, was pursuing this course in order to destroy and break down rivals in my own party. Sir, these insidious and disreputable assaults do not disturb my equanimity. The object is to enlist, from prejudice and unworthy motives, a sympathy in the course of discussion which he has attempted to maintain. But I appeal to the Senate if I assailed any Senator upon this floor, either in regard to the Hise treaty or the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I appeal to the Senate if I mentioned the name of any Senator, or stated how any one man had voted. I did not disclose even how the vote stood. No citizen in America would have known the vote of any Senator on this floor from my speech, or from my participation in the recent discussion; and I have yet to learn that a vindication of my own course involves an assault upon those who chose to differ with me. I have not understood the speeches of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] and of the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] and of other Senators, who have spoken on this question in opposition to some of my views, as an attack on myself. It was their duty to vindicate their own course, and give the reasons which prompted them; and it was my right and my duty to give the reasons which induced and compelled me to pursue the course that

"this session," and to make it more definite, by I did. inserting to-morrow at one o'clock." Mr. ADAMS. I assent to that.

Mr. MASON. I have no objection to the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina; but I have an objection to going into an election of these officers at this time. The attendance in the Senate is small; many Senators have gone home, not expecting such action at this session.

Mr. ADAMS. If the Senator from Virginia will move to amend the resolution by striking out "to-morrow at one o'clock" and inserting "next session," we can have a test vote on that.

Mr. MASON. I shall make no motion. I am only giving my personal impression.

Mr. BADGER. I did not mean, by my suggestion, to intimate that I thought the resolution desirable. I have no objection to it; but I think if this business has to be done, it may as well be done now as at the next session. This is the commencement of the Congress; and if the resolution is to be adopted, I think it better to mention in the resolution the precise time of election, that Senators may have notice to attend.

Mr. ADAMS. I accept the suggestion of the Senator from North Carolina, and hope the resolution will be so modified. All I want is a test vote upon the question.

The resolution as modified was agreed to.

THE CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted on the 7th instant by the Senator from Delaware, in relation to the ClaytonBulwer treaty.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I had a right to expect that the Senator from Delaware, in his reply, would have ventured upon an argument against the positions which I had assumed in my former speech, and which he had assailed. It will be observed, upon a close examination, that he has evaded nearly every point in controversy between us, under the cover of free indulgence in coarse personalities. I do not complain of this. He had a right to choose his own course of discussion. Perhaps it was prudent in him to pursue the course which he adopted. I shall not follow his example, however. I may not have the same inducements that may have prompted him. If I had been driven from nearly every position I had assumed in debate-if nearly every material fact I had asserted had been negatived and disproved by official documents bearing my own signatures-if I had been convicted of giving one explanation of

I do not choose to occupy the time of the Senate in a matter that partakes so much of a personal character. But the Senator cannot avail himself of that argument in vindication of his course in suppressing the Hise treaty. He is not supported by that array of names which he has produced for that act. No one of the Senators ever did sustain him, so far as I know, in suppressing the Hise treaty. That treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Senate were never permitted to examine it. The treaty, to this day, has been withheld from the Senate. You will have to go elsewhere than to the files of this body to find that treaty. How can it be said that Senators have sustained him in his rejection of the Hise treaty, when he had deprived the Senate of an opportunity of showing whether they were for or against it? Sir, he cannot have the benefit of those names which he has quoted to shelter him upon that point.

Again, sir, he has quoted all the eminent names from General Jackson down to the present time, to support him in his refusal to accept of the exclusive control of the canal for his own country. Sir, he has no authority thus to quote them; he has no authority for saying that any one of those eminent statesmen were opposed to such a privilege as the Hise treaty showed that we could have acquired. It is true that when Central America granted a privilege to a company in the Netherlands to make this canal, the administration of General Jackson, under that state of facts, were content with asserting our right to an equal participation. It is also true that when a Frenchman had procured a charter for a railroad across the Isthmus of Panama, and thus it had gone into the hands of foreigners, the administration of President Polk were content to assert our claim to an equal right. But it is not true that either of them ever refused to accept an exclusive privilege for this country when voluntarily tendered to them.

I am not going to occupy the attention of the Senate with an array of names for or against this proposition. I quoted no names in my first argument. I addressed myself to the merits of the question, and chose to decide it by arguments upon its merits, and not by the authority of great names. I would rather see the Senator sustain his position now by arguments upon the merits of his own official action, and not by an appeal to the action of great men who lived at a different period, and whose acts were dependent upon entirely different circumstances.