32D CONG.....2D SESS.

its use and exercise.

Equivocal terms in treaties are easily understood where the stipulations are between a strong Power on the one hand, and a feeble one upon the other. The stronger enforces its own construction, and the weaker has no alternative but reluctant acquiescence. In this case neither party may be willing to recognize the potential right of the other to prescribe and enforce a construction of the equivocal terms which shall enable it to appropriate to itself all the advantages in question. It would seem that our own Government have not ventured to insist upon a rigid enforcement of the provisions of the treaty in relation to the British protectorate over the Mosquito coast, in the sense in which it was explained and understood when submitted to the Senate for ratification. Has the British protectorate disappeared from Central America? I am not referring to the matters in controversy between certain Senators who supported the treaty and Mr. Clayton, in respect to the Balize settlement. I allude to the Mosquito coast, which, by name and in terms, is expressly made subject to the provisions of the treaty. Has the British protectorate disappeared from that part of Central America? Have the British authorities retired from the port of San Juan, and thereby recognized the right of American citizens and vessels to arrive and depart free of hindrance and molestation? Is it not well known that the protectorate is continued and maintained with increased vigor and boldness? Is not the British consul at San Juan now actively engaged in disposing of the soil, conveying town lots and lands, and exercising the highest functions of sovereignty under, the pretext of protecting the rights of the Mosquito King? These things are being done openly and without disguise, and are well known to the world. Can any Senator inform me whether this Government has taken the slightest notice of these transactions? Has our Government entered its protest against these infractions of the treaty, or demanded a specific compliance with our understanding of its terms? How long are we to wait for Great Britain to abandon her occupancy and withdraw her machinery of Government? Nearly three years have elapsed since we were boastingly told that by the provisions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, Great Britain was expelled from Central America. Shall we wait patiently until our silence shall be construed into acquiescence in her right to remain and maintain her possession?

But there was another insuperable objection to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, which increases, enlarges, and extends the force of all the obnoxious provisions I have pointed out. I allude to the article in which it is provided that--

"The Governments of the United States and Great Britain, having not only desired to accomplish a particular object, BUT ALSO TO ESTABLISH A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, THEY HEREBY AGREE TO EXTEND THEIR PROTECTION, BY TREATY STIPULATIONS, TO ANY OTHER PRACTICABLE COMMUNICATIONS, whether by canal or railway, across the Isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of TEHUANTEPEC OR PANAMA.",

The "particular object "which the parties had in view, being thus accomplished-the Hise treaty defeated, the exclusive privilege to the United States surrendered and abandoned, and the European partnership established-yet they were not satisfied. They were not content to "accomplish a particular object," but desired to "ESTABLISH A GENERAL PRINCIPLE!" That which, by the terms of the treaty, was particular and local to the five States of Central America, is, in this article, extended to Mexico on the north, and to New Gra-|| nada on the south, and declared to be a general principle, by which any and all other practicable routes of communication across the Isthmus between North and South America, are to be governed and protected by the allied Powers. New and additional treaty stipulations are to be entered into for this purpose, and the network which had been prepared and spread over all Central America, is to be extended far enough into Mexico and New Granada to cover all the lines of communication, whether by railway or canal, and especially to include Tehuantepec and Panama. When it is remembered that the treaty in terms establishes an alliance between the United States and Great Britain, and engages to invite all other Powers, with

which either is on terms of friendly intercourse, to become parties to its provisions, it will be seen that this article seeks to make the principles of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty the law of nations in respect to American affairs. The general principle is established; the right of European Powers to intervene in the affairs of American States is recognized; the propriety of the exercise of that right is acknowledged; and the extent to which the allied Powers shall carry their protection, and the limits within which they shall confine their operations, are subject to treaty stipulations in the fu

ture.

SENATE

any aggression upon Mexico. I do not desir at this time, to annex any portion of her territor to this Union; nor am I prepared to say that the time will ever come, in my day, when I would willing to sanction such a proposition. But wi can say, that, amid the general wreck and moralization in Mexico, a state of things may arise in which a just regard for our own right safety, and for the sake of humanity and civi tion, may render it imperative for us to do a which was done in the case of Texas, and there'r change the boundary between the two Republ without the free consent of the General Gove When the American continent shall have passed ment of Mexico, lawfully given in conformity wi under the protectorate of the allied Powers, and her Constitution? Recent events in Sonora, Caher future made dependent upon treaty stipula- huahua, and Tamaulipas do not establish the va tions for carrying into effect the objects of the al-dom and propriety of that line of policy wi liance, Europe will no longer have cause for seri-ties our hands in advance, and deprives the Gor ous apprehensions at the rapid growth, expansion, and development of our Federal Union. She will then console herself, that limits have been set and barriers erected beyond which the territories of this Republic can never extend, nor its principles prevail. In confirmation of this view, she will find additional cause for congratulation when she || looks into the treaty of peace with Mexico, and there sees the sacred honor of this Republic irrevocably pledged that we will never, in all coming time, annex any more Mexican territory in the mode in which Texas was acquired. The fifth article contains the following extraordinary provision:

"The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two Republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own Constitution.”

ernment of the right, in the future, of doing whe ever duty and honor may require, when the nece sity for action may arrive.

Mr. President, one of the resolutions under on sideration makes a declaration in relation to the Island of Cuba which requires a passing not It is in the following words:

"That while the United States disclaim any designs wy the Island of Cuba, inconsistent with the laws of nationa with their duties to Spain, they consider it due to thems importance of the subject, to make known, in this seg manner, that they should view all efforts on the partoft other Power to procure possession, whether pracvakje forcibly, of that island, which as a naval or military p tion, must, under circumstances easy to be foreseen, is come dangerous to their southern coast, to the Gulf of B ico, and to the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly an directed against them, to be resisted by all the means ja te power."

That we would resist any attempt to tra the Island of Cuba to any European Power, with or without the consent of Spain, there a trust, no question in the mind of any America

our own country. That the United States de meditate any designs upon the island inconsiste with the laws of nations, and with their duuer Spain, has been demonstrated to the world in manner that forbids the necessity for a dischar of unworthy and perfidious purposes on our par The resolutions convey, beneath this disclaime the implication that our character is subject suspicion upon that point. Shall we let the sumption go abroad that a disclaimer of a dishonesty and perfidy and infamy has be necessary upon our part? Sir, is there any in the history of our relations with foreign naties, or in respect to Cuba, that should subject country to such injurious imputations? Whe has our Government failed to perform its wh duty as a neutral Power in respect to Cuba Tr only complaint has been, that in its great anner to preserve in good faith its neutral relations. I has permitted treaty stipulations with Spain pe viding for the protection of our citizens w wantonly and flagrantly violated. No susp that this Government has been wanting in every and fidelity in the enforcement of our laws been entertained in any quarter. It was the ef cessive energy and severity with which the de was performed that has provoked the disapprote tion of some portion of the American people.

One would naturally suppose, that for all the ordinary purposes of a treaty of peace, the first clause of the paragraph would have been entirely suffi-and the fact is as well known to Europe asta cient. It declares that "the boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two Republics." Why depart from the usual course of proceeding in such cases, and add, that "no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, LAWFULLY given by the GENERAL Government of each, in conformity with its own CONSTITUTION?" What is the meaning of this peculiar phraseology? The history of Texas furnishes the key by which the hidden meaning can be unlocked. The Sabine was once the boundary between the Republics of the United States and Mexico. By the revolt of Texas, and the establishment of her independence, and the acknowledgment thereof by the great Powers of the world, and her annexation to the United States, the boundary between the two Republics was "changed" from the Sabine to the Rio Grande, without "the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own Constitution." Mexico regarded that change a just cause of war, and accordingly invaded Texas with a view to the recovery of the lost territory. A protracted war ensued, in which thousands of lives were lost, and millions of money expended, when peace is concluded upon the express conditions that the treaty should contain an open and frank avowal that the United States has been wrong in the causes of the war, by the pledge of her honor never to repeat the act which led to hostilities.

Wherever you turn your eye, whether to your own record, to the statute-books, to the history of this country or of Mexico, or to the diplomatic history of the world, this humiliating and degrading acknowledgment stares you in the face, as a monument of your own creation, to the dishonor of our common country. Well do I remember the determined and protracted efforts of the minority to expunge this odious clause from the treaty before its ratification, and how, on the 4th of March, 1848, we were voted down by forty-two to eleven. The stain which that clause fastened upon the history of our country was not the only objection which I urged to its retention in the treaty. It violated a great principle of public policy in relation to this continent. It pledges the faith of this Republic, that our successors shall not do that which duty to the interests and honor of the country, in the progress of events, may compel them to do. I do not meditate, or look with favor upon

Sir, what right has Great Britain to call up the United States, as she did in a late application to enter into a negotiation to guaranty Cube Spain? Such a step might have been neces on the part of England in order to satisfy Sp that she has abandoned the policy which for ter turies has marked her colonial history with p der and rapine. Why does not England ârst re store to Spain the Island of Jamaica, by the se and possession of which she is enabled to offe look Cuba, while it gives her the command of entrance of the proposed Nicaragua canal? does she not restore to oid Spain Gibraltar, w from proximity and geographical position rally belongs to her, and is essential to her safety Why does she not restore the colonial possess which she has stretched all over the world, co manding every important military and naval sti tion, both upon land and water? Why does not restore them to their original owners, fro whom she obtained them by fraud and violen Why does she not do these things before she c upon us to enter into stipulations that we will not rob Spain of the Island of Cuba?

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

The whole system of European colonization rests upon seizure, violence, and fraud. European Powers hold nearly all their colonies by the one or the other of these tenures. They can show no other evidence, no other muniment of title. What is there in the history of the United States that requires us to make any such disclaimer? We have never acquired one inch of territory, except by honest purchase, and full payment of the consideration. We have never seized any Spanish or other European colony. We have never invaded the rights of other nations. We do not hold in our hand the results of rapine, violence, war, and fraud, for centuries, and then prate about honesty, and propose to honest people to enter into guarantees that they will not rob their neighbors.

Fortunately the history of our country subjects her to no such imputation, and relieves us from the necessity of making disclaimers which carry with them the implication of an equivocal reputation. England, France, and the other European Powers are at liberty to judge for themselves whether any such necessity exists in their case. I have not much faith in these gratuitous protestations of honesty and disinterestedness. They are generally made for the purpose of concealing a dark design while preparations are maturing for its execution! I recollect that pending the Clayton and Bulwer treaty before the Senate, a rumor was set afloat that England meditated the extension of her dominion or protection over Costa Rica, or some other portion of Central America. Sir Henry Bulwer deemed the time opportune and the rumor a sufficientexcuse for addressing to our Department of State an official letter, disclaiming, in the name and by the authority of the British Government, any such design, and saying:

"I am also desired to add, that it would be contrary to the fixed and settled policy of Great Britain to entangle herself by any engagement to protect distant States over whose policy and conduct it would be impossible for the British Government to exercise any effective control. Such a protectorate would confer no possible advantage on Great Britain, and might become the source of many embarrassments to her."

Mr. Clayton was so much delighted with this frank disclaimer, that he promptly replied:

"I take pleasure in expressing the satisfaction with which this Government has received this friendly assurance froin that of her Britannic Majesty, and more especially as it cannot fail to strengthen the bonds of amity now existing

between our respective countries."

General Taylor deemed the matter of sufficient importance to communicate the evidence of this "friendly assurance" to the Senate in a special message. Well, the treaty was ratified, and in less than three years Great Britain seizes the Bay Islands and erects them into a colony, in the face of this friendly assurance," and in direct violation of the provisions of the treaty!

66

||

to denounce and stigmatize a certain class of politicians, by attributing to them unworthy and disreputable purposes, under the cognomen of "Young America." It is their amiable custom, I believe, when they come to individualize,to point to me as the one most worthy to bear the appellation. I have never either assumed or disclaimed it. 1 have never before alluded to it, and should not on the present occasion, had it not been introduced into the discussions of the Senate in such a manner as to leave the impression that I evaded it if I failed to notice it. I am aware that the Senator, who the other day directed so large a portion of his speech against the supposed doctrines of "YOUNG AMERICA," had no reference to myself in that part of his speech, and that the only allusion he made to me was kind and complimentary. So far as I am concerned, and those who harmonize with me in sentiment and action, the votes to which I have referred, and the reasons I have given in support of them, constitute the only profession of faith I deem it necessary to make on this subject. I am willing to compare votes and acts, principles and professions, with any Senator who chooses to assail me. I yield to none in strict observance of the laws of nations and treaty stipulations. I may not have been willing blindly or recklessly to pledge the faith of the Republic for all time, on points where, in the nature of things, it was not reasonable to suppose that the pledge could be preserved. I may have deemed it wise and prudent to hold the control of our own action, and leave our successors free, according to their own sense of duty under the circumstances which may then exist.

Now, sir, a few words with regard to the Island of Cuba. If any man desires my opinions upon that question, he can learn them very easily. They have been proclaimed frequently for the last nine years, and still remain unchanged. I have often said, and now repeat, that so long as the Island of Cuba is content to remain loyal to the Crown of Spain, be it so. I have no desire, no wish to disturb that relation. I have always said, and now repeat, that whenever the people of the Island of Cuba shall show themselves worthy of freedom by asserting and maintaining their independence, and establishing republican institutions, my heart, my sympathies, my prayers are with them for the accomplishment of the object. I have often said, and now repeat, that when that independence shall have been established, if it shall be necessary to their interest or safety to apply as Texas did for annexation, I shall be ready to do by them as we did by Texas, and receive them into the Union. I have said, and now repeat, that whenever Spain shall come to the conclusion that she cannot much longer maintain her dominion over the island, and that it is better for her to transfer it to us upon fair and reasonable terms, I am one of those who would be ready to accept the transfer. I have said, and now repeat, that whenever Spain shall refuse to make such transfer to us, and shall make it to England, or any other European Power, I would be among those who would be in favor of taking possession of the Island, and resisting such transfer at all hazards.

I confess I have not formed a very high appreciation of the value of these disclaimers of all intention of committing crimes against our neighbors. I do not think I should deem my house any more secure in the night in consequence of the thief having pledged his honor not to steal my property! If I am surrounded by honest men there is no necessity for the "friendly assurance," and if by rogues, it would not relieve my apprehensions or afford much security to my Thus far I have often gone; thus far I now go. rights. I am unwilling, therefore, to make any These are my individual opinions, not of much disclaimer as to our purposes upon Cuba, or to consequence, I admit, but any one who desires to give any pledge in respect to existing rights upon know them, is welcome to them. But it is one this continent. The nations of Europe have no thing for me to entertain these individual sentiright to call upon us for a disclaimer of the one, ments, and it is another and very different thing or for a pledge to protect the other. It is true, to pledge forever and unalterably the policy of British newspapers are in the habit of calumnia- this Government in a particular channel, in defiting the people of the United States, as a set of ance of any change in the circumstances that may marauders upon the territorial rights of our neigh-hereafter take place. I do not deem it necessary bors. It is also true, that for party purposes, to affirm by a resolution, in the name of the Resome portion of the press of this country is in the public, every opinion that I may entertain, and habit of attributing such sentiments to some of be willing to act upon as the representative of a our public men; but it is not true, so far as I local constituency. I am not, therefore, prepared know, that any one man in either House of Conthat it is wise policy to make any declaragress does entertain, or has ever entertained or tion upon the subject of the Island of Cuba. Ciravowed a sentiment that justifies such an impu- cumstances not within our control, and originating tation. I am unwilling, therefore, to countenance in causes beyond our reach, may precipitate a the vile slander, by voting for a resolution which state of things that would change our action, and by implication contains so base an insinuation. reverse our whole line of policy. Cuba, in the exPerhaps I may as well speak plainly. I feel that isting position of affairs, does not present a practhere may be a lurking insinuation in these two tical issue. All that we may say or do is merely clauses, having a little bearing towards an indi- speculative, and dependent upon contingencies vidual of about my proportions. It is the voca- that may never happen. So it is, in a great meastion of some partisan presses and personal organs, ure, with the discussion that has occupied so much

to say

SENATE.

of the time of the Senate in relation to the British settlement at the Balize. Although Great Britain has no other title than a mere permit to cut logwood, it is undeniable that she was in possession of the country before the United States become an independent Power, and has maintained the undisturbed possession ever since. Our Government has recognized it as a British colony in various ways, and it is so designated in our public documents. If the object be to provoke a difficulty with England, regardless of the merits of the quarrel, I am inclined to think that it can be accomplished as easily and readily by a notice to quit the Balize as to abandon Canada. But if the object be to establish and maintain a cherished principle of public policy in opposition to European colonization in America, the new British colony recently established at the islands in the bay of Honduras presents that distinct, naked issue, in a form which places us clearly in the right. Now is the time for action. Here is a practical issue presented which should not be evaded by vague generalities and equivocal resolves, which will be understood to mean one thing on this side of the Atlantic, and quite a different thing in Europe. Whatever action we take should be direct, unequivocal, and against the Bay Island colony by name. I am not certain as to the best mode of proceeding; but I am inclined to the opinion that the Executive should take the initiative, and make a courteous, but firm and manly protest against the infraction of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, as well as the violation of our known policy in relation to European colonization, by the creation of this new British colony, together with the distinct and unequivocal declaration, that in no event or contingency can the United States acquiesce in the continuance of the Bay Island colony. If Great Britain yields to the protest, and discontinues the colony, our rights and honor will be vindicated, and a sufficient notice will be given to the world of our determination to enforce the principle hereafter. If, on the contrary, Great Britain should insist in maintaining the colony in contempt of our protest, it would become the duty of the President to communicate the result to Congress, with the recommendation for the adoption of such measures as should be necessary to enable him to vindicate our violated rights. I am not particular, however, as to the form of the proceeding. My great desire is to meet the question fairly, and assume whatever responsibility the consequences may involve, and not beat a disgraceful retreat under shelter of terrible threats in the event the offense is repeated. If we act with becoming discretion and firmness, I have no apprehension that the enforcement of our rights will lead to hostilities; Great Britain will not be willing to engage in a contest of arms with us when she is so clearly in the wrong. She has given bond and security to keep the peace towards the United States, and she well knows that the condition of a forfeiture is the loss of her colonies, and her expulsion forever from the American continent. Firmness, and prompt unequivocal action on our part, is the only sure mode of preserving peace. Let the Bay Island colony be discontinued, and let us free ourselves from entangling alliances by the annulment of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and the United States will assume the position we are entitled to among the nations of the earth.

Mr. President, I will trespass on the kindness of the Senate no longer. I have deemed it due to myself and the occasion to make this exposition of my views. I have availed myself of the earliest opportunity afforded by the removal of the injunction of secrecy, to explain my reasons for opposing the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I have contented myself with vindicating my own course without assailing any one, or calling in question the conduct of others. I return my thanks to the Senate for the kindness and courtesy extended to me on this occasion.

Mr. CASS. Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] has indulged in some pretty hard criticisms upon the terms of my resolution, and I desire to show him and the Sen ate, as I trust I can in a few moments, that they are rather hypercriticisms, not at all warranted by the tenor of the resolution. The honorable Senator commences by saying that the terms of this resolution relinquish the past and the present, and

32D CONG....2D SESS.

refer only to the future, because they save "existing rights." Does the honorable Senator mean to violate existing rights?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have answered emphatically, no,

Mr. CASS. Then why not say it in the resolution? It saves "existing rights," not existing wrongs. It is in the very words of Mr. Polk, used more than twenty years after Mr. Monroe proclaimed the doctrine. Yet, Mr. Polk very properly in his message, saved existing rights, not existing wrongs. But he did not thereby mean to sanction any violation of this principle, which had previously occurred.

If, therefore, the British Government has established a colony in any part of the continent in direct contravention of this resolution and of the Monroe doctrine, it is an existing wrong and not an existing right, and it cannot shelter itself under any construction of this resolution. It secures to the British nothing more than their rights; and that is just what it purports to do.

And what such rights are, the American people must judge, upon that responsibility which they owe to the world and to history, when they come to make a practical application of the principle, and are required to decide whether a colonial establishment is a right to be tolerated, or a wrong to be redressed. And this duty is one which always devolves upon nations in their intercourse with other Powers of the earth.

Now, then, if Great Britain has taken possession of the Bay Islands, and established a colony there, which she had no right to establish, her existing rights there are not affected, for she has none. Her wrongs make no rights. The whole subject is fully open for redress. Mr. Monroe very properly, Mr. Polk very properly, and this resolution, with equal propriety, in order to prevent any charge of an unjust spirit of aggrandizement on our part, by the nations of Europe, have said, "We do not interfere with your existing rights, whatever they may be; of the extent of these we must judge when the occasion arises; but we disclaim any intention to interfere with your own colonies—to hold them, to settle them, to maintain them, just as you please-these are existing rights which we do not touch; but if you have done us wrong by establishing and holding colonies where you have no rights, then we intend to apply our American principle and dislodge you from positions unjustly taken."

I repeat Mr. Polk's language, that the existing rights of every European nation should be respected. Twenty-five years before his declaration the doctrine had been proclaimed by Mr. Monroe; but no man then contended, and Mr. Polk never dreamed, that this provision had a retrospective effect, and protected wrong running back through a period of a quarter of a century. The idea never entered his mind.

The Senator supposes, if I understand his construction, that such a resolution as this would wipe out all preceding acts. Why, sir, until you can convert a wrong into a right, it wipes out nothing at all. It leaves us just as free to pursue the course towards them which our honor and our interests demand, as though we passed no resolutions at all.

The principle is right, and I do not understand, though I must confess I do not clearly comprehend him, that the Senator from Illinois contests it. I mean the principle of maintaining that we, as a principal Power upon this continent, have a right to say that European influence shall not be extended here. I do not understand him to deny it at all. You lay down a principle, and when you come to apply it, you judge of existing rights; you judge of the condition of the colonies of the European Powers upon this continent; and, acting as becomes an upright nation, if they have colonies they have a fair right to hold, you ought not to interfere with them.

But if one of them has established the colony of Bay of Islands in the very face of our rights, and in the very face of existing treaties, that is not a claim which is saved by this resolution, but is an unjust pretension, which we are authorized to remove and correct. To be sure, as I have already said, in judging such cases we act upon our responsibility, and we ought so to act as to be absolved from the charge of aggression and injustice.

Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois says there is no use in laying down the principle, for it will be violated. Mr. Monroe thought it of some use, and actually laid it down. Mr. Polk thought it of use, and also laid it down. Mr. Jefferson, in a letter which I have already read to the Senate, announced his adhesion to the doctrine, and thought it very important it should be solemnly proclaimed by a public national act. Where has been our error in our course upon this grave subject? Precisely the one now sought to be remedied by this resolution. In 1823, when the doctrine was first promulged here, resolutions were introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Clay and Mr. Poinsett, affirming the doctrine, in order to give it an authoritative influence through the world. But it was not done. The matter slept. Mr. Polk sought the same object. An honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. ALLEN] also felt the necessity of Congressional action, and introduced a resolution similar to the present one. But all these efforts were in vain. The efficient prop to support the building was wanting. Mr. Jefferson says expressly, in a letter which I have before me, that inasmuch as the declaration might lead to war, it was proper that it should be laid before Congress for its sanction; but it was not done. The doctrine, as sound a one as any nation ever proclaimed, almost passed into oblivion. And now, in this new condition of the world, when God alone knows from day to day what convulsion is about to break out in Europe, and the effect it will have upon us, and upon the other American States, it is proposed to put the doctrine in an authoritative form; and what right has the honorable Senator to say that if this be done we shall suffer it to be violated?

The honorable Senator says the doctrine was violated in the case of Oregon. I say it was not, and I say that the honorable Senator is under a total misconception of the effect of the treaty relating to Oregon. By that treaty England extended her boundaries beyond what he and I thought she had a just claim to do. We believed she had no just title by four and a half degrees to the boundary she obtained; but the American Government said, your colony does come down to the fortyninth degree of north latitude. That being the case, there was no Monroe doctrine in the question. The fault was not in the application of the doctrine, but it was in allowing Great Britain to have a larger colony than she had a right to. But the moment we conceded that the line of the British possessions came down to the forty-ninth degree of north latitude, that moment we conceded that the Monroe doctrine had no application to it; for we thereby conceded that the country was a British colony, and of course her existing rights secured to Great Britain the just power to deal with such colony as she pleased. It was a question of colonial government, and not of Monroe doctrine. The Senator is therefore under a total misapprehension with regard to the matter; and if we had said that the British line came down to San Francisco, there would have been no question for the application of the Monroe doctrine, as that would have been estopped by the establishing of a boundary between us and her colony on the Pacific coast.

With respect to the Bay Islands, the other question to which the honorable Senator has referred, what have we given up there? Nothing. We never heard even a rumor of it till within a few weeks; and the moment I heard of it, I introduced a resolution into the Senate, with a view to ascertain from the Executive what were the true facts of the case. And the resolution now before us, instead of conceding anything in favor of this colony of the Bay Islands, was introduced before we had any answer from the Executive, or any knowledge but a vague report of the British Government. Subsequent events have come to enlighten us. Who, then, has a right to say that there has been any delay or neglect in this matter, or that these resolutions concede anything to Eng land? Have we said that the Monroe doctrine shall not apply, but that Great Britain has a right to hold this colony, in the very face of her own stipulation? No American citizen or legislator ought to say we have done anything by which we acquiesce in the conduct of Great Britain in reference to the colonization of the Bay Islands. I

SENATE.

trust the Executive Government-but upon tha without book, as I know nothing-have taken : proper course, and made the necessary investigs tions and remonstrance. At any rate, this brai of the Legislature, as a depository of much of powers of the American people, has but recentiv been made acquainted with the facts, and a ra lution on the subject has been reported by s Committee on Foreign Relations within the ar week. Therefore, I say that no man has a rig to assert that we have conceded any princitle c the Monroe doctrine in relation to the Bay Isara

not.

Then how is it with respect to the other tw cases mentioned by the Senator-the treaty wn Mexico, and the Clayton Bulwer treaty? Th Mexican treaty terminated a glorious war wit great many advantages to our country. It is se necessary to go over the circumstances of the form ation and ratification of the treaty. We gare much and conceded but little. The Clayton 2N Bulwer treaty was concluded twenty-five ven after the Monroe doctrine had been promulgat but not enforced. Attempts had more than my been made to procure the sanction of Congress this doctrine, in order to give it its proper eder But they had failed, and it is possible the ta same fate may for a while await the present er That doctrine had remained a dead letter me your national archives. Then there came a pre osition from England to agree that we shouÁ Y interfere in that part of the continent, if they wo It was the best thing we could do. could not get a Congressional sanction of the Meroe doctrine; and the honorable Senator at the day is not willing to join in giving it. I rest. what had we to do under those circumstance Why, it was manifestly our policy to agree no England to keep hands off. Therefore it wasz I voted for the ratification of the Clayton-B treaty. I agree that the subsequent condus d England has been perfectly unjustifiable, and the who voted against the treaty had good ground i their position, if they suspected her of bad fa as the subsequent facts have shown. But inse of that treaty being an abandonment of the M roe doctrine, its very object was to carry the doctrine into effect, by preventing the future: terference of an European power in the abs this continent. That this object has failed of tainment by the bad faith of England, and by pretension to circumscribe Central America, by its true boundaries, but by those assumed ir yourself, is no charge against those who voted in the treaty.

The honorable Senator objects that this re tion declares that in any ultimate contingency may arise, we will do what our interests and boar require. Now allow me to say to the honorati gentleman, that in the intercourse between t tions, where solemn declarations like these are there are two modes of proceeding; one is an tsolute declaration to the nations of the world, or. such of them as are interested in the matter, such a certain act is done injurious to the Fos protesting, it shall be followed by war. Ano is, by a declaration that such Power reserves itself the right to act under the circumstances 882: occasion may require. The latter is the deci tion of this resolution in regard to coloniz the former is the declaration of the one in rere to Cuba. By it we pledge ourselves to intervent by war if any other Power should attempt to gat possession of Cuba.

But with regard to colonization, we leave it t our successors to act as circumstances may quire. There is nothing more common in the history of national intercourse, nothing more com mon when grave exigencies arise, when everi seem to announce political convulsions, in con quence of unreasonable and unjust pretensies. seriously effecting the honor or interest of a tion, than for such nation publicly to proclaim is policy, and the course of action it intends to pur sue if the pretension is pushed to action. Arc would say to the honorable gentleman, as I sait ! before, that there is no Power in the world what will entirely disregard the declaration of the pea of the United States upon a point respecting their interests and honor. Nor is it merely throwe away words to declare what that course will be Such a declaration made in the name of the Amer can people by their authorized servants is not i