me

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator permit Mr. CLAYTON. If he is anxious to make more remarks, I am willing to hear him when I have done.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not wish to interrupt the Senator; but I understand him to ask me, and look for an answer.

Mr. CLAYTON. Let him be quiet. He meant to say that one is a European and the other an American passage. That is all he had to say. And as the distinction is without a difference, I do not desire to hear him. Knowing all he was about to say, I thought I could say it quite as well myself. [Laughter.]

Sir, his are not the principles of the American Senate. His are not the principles of the fortytwo men who, on the 22d of May, 1850, ratified the treaty. The Senator does not merely arraign me: he arraigns all those constitutional advisers of the President of the United States.

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

fortified it and protected it, so as to compel other fiations to respect it-he would turn round and give to everybody else in the world the right to go through it at our expense! Is not that a magnificent conception? When my neighbors propose to make shall dare to spend a dollar on it. I will have the a highway, I say: "No, you shall not. No man exclusive right of way! I will make the highway: but after I have gone to the expense of making it, and while I have the sole burden of keeping up all the repairs, if any of you desire to travel upon it, on the same terms with myself, you are perfectly welcome! But take care! Dare not attempt to repair it, or use any means to protect or preserve it from destruction-I must have the exclusive honor of that." A mere restatement of such a proposition seems to me to make it absolutely unnecessary to comment upon it.

The Senator denied again that I had a right to use the great character of Jackson, with his own party, in favor of the treaty. I stated the fact that Livingston, the Secretary of State under Jackson, had proclaimed, on the 20th of July, 1831, the hostility of this Government to anything like an exclusive privilege through that canal. The letter of Mr. Livingston to Mr. Jeffers, of that date, is decisive of the sentiments of President Jackson, on the ground that an exclusive privilege in any one nation would be a violation of the leading engagement in our own treaty and every other treaty of commerce with any local Government in Central America which should grant such an exclusive privilege. He instructed Mr. Jeffers to present that conclusive objection to any grant of exclusive privilege to the Dutch capitalists who, under the patronage of the King of the Netherlands, had applied for and obtained a grant to cut the canal at Nicaragua. It was, as I stated before, ascertained that there was no exclusive privilege granted to or asked for by the King of the Netherlands. I said, therefore, I had the authority, in favor of the doctrine of the treaty, of the Dutch Government, and its great chief himself—a man on whom I have no time to pronounce a eulogy, but who has been eulogized by men who were quite as capable of conferring distinction, by anything they might say, as even the Senator from Illinois himself. At the distance of nearly a quarter of a century ago, when desiring to open the great avenue to the Pacific, he did not dream of such a thing as the exclusive privilege. His contract, which I have before me, provided for opening the canal which he projected, to all the nations of the earth on the same terms; and, in fact, there is not a principle established by the Senate in its resolution of 1835, by the House of Representatives in its resolution of 1839, and by the concurrent action of Presidents Jackson, Polk, and Taylor, that is not in accordance with the principle established by the capitalists who were patronized by the Dutch Government. Foreigners have not adopted the narrow and contracted policy which so commended itself to the member from Illinois, of procuring an exclusive right over a canal which no one State could possibly maintain and protect in the face of the great commercial nations of the earth.

But the Senator said—and I must call the attention of the Senate back to the fact that when we had obtained the exclusive right, he would not keep it not he! He was too liberal, too generous, too fair towards other nations of the earth to keep any such thing! As soon as he obtained his exclusive right, and made his canal, and had the monopoly of navigating it; as soon as he had

not acted upon. It was never rejected. No vote was taken upon it. It was overlooked in the mass of business, or for some other cause it was entirely neglected; and yet I am censured, forsooth, by him, one of the very men who neglected a public duty, in regard to it, because that treaty did not pass! I hear from others that he opposed it, because he preferred the Hise treaty, and that he assisted in defeating it! The Senator means that I defeated the right of way, because I did not send the Hise treaty here-a treaty which, I say again, no Senator could have voted for, if it had come here.

Sir, the right of way was secured by American capitalists, aided by all the efforts the Minister sent by President Taylor to Central America could make. The Senator ought to have known it was granted to American citizens at the very moment he charged me with the loss of it. He has repeatedly said we had obtained it by a grant to English and American capitalists. At the same time, if he had read the public documents sent to Congress on a subject about which he has talked more than any other living man, he would have known that statement was incorrect, and that the grant was made on the application of American capitalists to themselves. The President did all he had a right to do to encourage and protect it.

If these capitalists construct a ship canal, England will protect it, the United States will protect it, and every other civilized nation we apply to will protect it when accomplished; because no nation can be or ought to be entitled to use it, except upon the terms of agreeing to protect it. England agrees, by the treaty, to assist us, not only in protecting this ship canal, but any railroad or ship canal that can be made through the whole isthmus. We have no interest, that I am aware of, to prefer the route by way of Nicaragua to that by Tehuantepec. If we could obtain a canal route nearer our country than either Nicaragua or Panama, we ought to prefer it. Undoubtedly, if we could obtain the Tehuantepec route, we ought to prefer that; but if we cannot obtain a passage at a point nearer to us than the southern part of the Isthmus of Darien, it is of the deepest interest to this country to have it at that point. Pains were taken, as the Senator will know by looking into the correspondence, to ascertain which was the most practicable route; and from all the information before me, including that obtained from Lord Palmerston himself, as well as from my own countrymen, the route believed to be the most easily practicable was through Nicaragua. Whether it is the best route, I am not at all interested to affirm or deny; for if a ship canal can be obtained anywhere through that isthmus, the treaty I signed protects it, and insures to my countrymen the

SENATE.

right of passage through it; and we have no longer any cause for such jealousy as was entertained by President Jackson and Mr. Livingston, the Secre tary of State, in 1831. No matter who may construct this or any other canal, in any part of the whole isthmus between North and South America, we have the right to navigate it on the terms of the most favored nation, by virtue of the very treaty which the Senator so violently denounces, for his own personal and party purposes.

The Senator says, that by adopting the treaty I have recognized the right of Great Britain or any European nation to interfere in the affairs of this continent. This Government has, to a much greater extent, recognized their right to claim an equlity of commercial privileges, from its very origin, by every commercial treaty which it has ever made. You have made your commercial treaties with all the European Powers. In each of them you have agreed to a certain extent that they have the right to interfere in your affairs, and they have conceded the right, on your part, to interfere in their affairs. Does the Senator mean to condemn every commercial treaty which we have ever made? Does he think that he can make an appeal successfully to the vulgar passions, in order to make this treaty odious, and thereby to make the men in the Senate of the United States who voted for it odious? We never made a treaty of any kind with a European Power which does not acknowledge to as great an extent, or greater, the right of European interference in the affairs of this continent. He has voted for treaties which_regulate all our tonnage and import duties, and all our commercial intercourse with them. We have made treaties with them to control our own boundaries, and legislative arrangements to control our most important political and commercial interests.

The Senator has rung the changes on the word "partnership," from day to day, until one who did not know him would suppose that we had entered into some great joint-stock mercantile establishment with England. You might as well say that all men living near a navigable river, or a turnpike road, or a railroad, had entered into a partnership, as to say that the nations of the earth about to travel this highway on the same terms had entered into a "partnership.' Every man in the District of Columbia has entered into partnership about Pennsylvania Avenue of the same kind. We all travel it on the same terms. If anybody should attempt to destroy it, we are all equally interested to protect it, and we would protect it.

The reference made by the Senator to the instructions to our chargé d'affaires in Central America, to prove that he was directed to oppose the treaty of Mr. Hise, is evidence of a degree of recklessness or folly of which I should regret to accuse any Senator. Instructions plainly referring to a contract are construed by him to refer to a treaty. I endeavored to correct him at the time he referred to the instructions, but in vain; and on he went to his own manifest destiny. The very passage he quoted distinctly proves him to have entirely misrepresented the instructions. He has confounded the "charter or grant of the right of way," made to "the proprietors of the canal," with a treaty to protect it. His remarks on this subject, compared with the quotation which he has made from the instructions, will convict him without any exposure from me. I will quote the whole passage he has cited from my instructions, with a view to show the injustice of his remarks. The instructions say:

"See that it [the contract or grant] is not assignable to others," [meaning to others than the capitalists-the American citizens who obtained it;]" that no exclusive privileges are granted to any nation that will not agree to the same treaty stipulations with Nicaragua; that the tolls to be demanded by the OWNERS are not unreasonable or oppressive; that no power be reserved to THE PROPRIETORS OF THE CANAL OR THEIR SUCCESSORS to extort at any time hereafter, or unjustly to obstruct or embarrass, the RIGHT OF PASSAGE. THIS will require all your vigilance and skill. If THEY do not agree to GRANT us passage on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua.

"If a CHARTER or GRANT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view."

The Senator's ignorance of this plain language is unaccountable. He had confounded the grant

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

of the right of way or charter to the company of Americans who asked for it, with the treaty between Nicaragua and this Government.

I interrupted him, and explained it to him; and the more clearly it was made to appear that he was wrong, the more strongly he seemed to adhere to his error. He knew well enough that the word 66 us "referred to our countrymen. The instructions say: "If they [the company] do not agree to grant us [Americans] passage on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection," &c. He knew well enough what this meant; yet he put to me the question: "Was he [1] one of the company, and therefore authorized to use the word

us,' when speaking of the rights and privileges to be acquired of a foreign nation through his agency as Secretary of State?" He surely did not mean, by putting such a question to me, to insinuate that I was one of the company of "capitalists, proprietors, and speculators who might become the owners of the charter.' If he did, I will not charge him here with falsehood, but, with all possible politeness, I will prove him to be guilty of it.

Mr. President, I do not at all object to any statement of the fact that I utterly disapproved of the Hise treaty. I only complained of his misrepresentations in regard to it. His statement that the clause guarantying the independence of Nicaragua was not one of the reasons which induced me to withhold the Hise treaty from the Senate, is palpably incorrect. To sustain himself in his assertion, he refers to my letter to Mr. Lawrence, of the 20th October, 1849. The very passage he has cited shows that "if our effort to place, by our own arrangement with the British Government, our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation should prove abortive, (that is, upon the foundation of equal privileges in the treaty,) then the President will not hesitate to 'submit this or some other treaty" (that is, the treaty of Hise or the treaty of Squier; the one for exclusive privileges, or the other for equal privileges to all nations)" which may be concluded by the present chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, to the Senate of the United States for their advice." It was a threat, if you please, that if the British Government continued to occupy Central America as they had done, and should refuse to yield us the right of passage through the isthmus on equal terms with them, then we would submit, when we could obtain no justice from Great Britain, some treaty to the Senate which would grant us the right of way on the most favorable terms, without regard to the interests of Great Britain. We should have been perfectly justified in endeavoring to exclude her, if we saw evidently that she intended to exclude us; and we desired her fairly to understand that. The very quotation from the instructions to Mr. Lawrence which he has made, proves that he himself well knew that my reference to the Hise treaty was nothing more than a threat, that if we could not obtain equal privileges with Great Britain with her own consent, we would have them in dispite of her. With a view to expose his misstatements on this subject, 1 quote from the dispatch to Mr. Lawrence-the very passage on which he pretends to rely:

"If, however, the British Government shall reject these overtures on our part, and shall refuse to cooperate with us in the generous and philanthropic scheme of rendering the interoceanic communication, by the way of the port and river San Juan, free to all nations upon the same terms, we shall deem ourselves justified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and despite her opposition or hostility. With a view to this alternative, we have a treaty

with the State of Nicaragua, a copy of which has been sent to you, and the stipulations of which you should unreservedly impart to Lord Palmerston. You will inform him, however, that this treaty was concluded without a power or instruction from this Government; that the President had no knowledge of its existence, or of the intention to form it, until it was presented to him by Mr Hise, our late chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, about the first of September last; and that, consequently, we are not bound to ratify it, and will take no step for that purpose, if we can, by arrangement with the British Government, place our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation." But if our effort for this end should be abortive, the President will not hesitate to • submit this or some other treaty which may be concluded by the present chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, to the Senate of the United States, for their advice and consent, with a view to its ratification; and, if that enlightened body should approve it, he also will give it his hearty sanction, and will exert all his constitutional power to execute its provisions in good faith-a determination in which he may confidently count upon the good will of the people of the United States."

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

It is impossible to reason with one who says he does not understand the object for which this passage in the dispatch was written.

But he has quoted another passage from the same dispatch. I could not wish to expose him more effectually than by quoting it myself. It is as follows:

"You may suggest, for instance, that the United States and Great Britain should enter into a treaty guarantying the independence of Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica, which treaty may also guaranty to British subjects the privileges acquired in those States by the treaties between Great Britain and Spain, provided that the limits of those States on the east be acknowledged to be the Caribbean sea."

SENATE.

friend from Massachusetts. I approved of all the policy of President Fillmore in regard to Cuba, while my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT,] was at the head of the Department of State.

President Taylor, at an early period of his administration, was informed of the substance of Mr. Forsyth's letter, which has been since published, instructing our Minister at Madrid to say to the Spanish Government that we would defend the title of Spain to Cuba, with all the naval and military power of the United States. I thought it impolitic, as it led, of course, to a similar communication to Spain from Great Britain and France. After citing this, he gravely asks me, "What The French and English Governments, being aphas become of my objection to the guarantee of prised by Spain of our guarantee against them, of the independence of Nicaragua?" His question course, I thought, would give her a similar guarscarcely deserves an answer. Great Britain was antee against us. The assurance of the United in possession of the country, in virtue of the pro- States, Great Britain, and France, thus made to tectorate, and we were not; and the proposition Spain, virtually guarantying Cuba to Spain, was made to her was, that she should not only aban-equal in efficacy to any tripartite treaty that could don it, but also guaranty the independence of the have been concluded. By the President's direcCentral American States adjoining the proposed tion, I did not continue the assurance on our part. canal. The Senator is incapable of perceiving the I allude to this as illustrating the identical policy difference between a treaty of the United States adopted by my honorable friend from Massachuand Nicaragua, guarantying the independence of setts in his letter to the Comte de Sartiges. Our Nicaragua, and a treaty of the United States and Minister at Madrid was instructed, on the 2d of Great Britain jointly, on the one part, and Nic- August, 1849, that the President could not comaragua on the other, for the same purpose. If prehend or appreciate the motives or expediency Great Britain had joined us in such a treaty, we of openly declaring to Spain that the whole power should have readily reached our whole object. She of the United States would be employed to prevent refused to accede to this proposition; and it was the occupation, in whole or in part, of Cuba from palpably a suggestion to ascertain her views. The passing into other hands, because he had reason separate guarantee of independence by us alone, to believe that this declaration of Mr. Forsyth, on was indeed an objection to the Hise treaty, and it our part, had led to counter declarations to Spain was one among many other objections which made of a similar character by other interested Powers; the whole insurmountable. Our separate guaranthat whilst this Government was resolutely detee was a guarantee against Great Britain, the termined that the Island of Cuba should never be party in possession. A joint guarantee with her ceded by Spain to any other Power than the Uniwas liable to no such exception, and could not ted States, it did not desire, in future, to enter into possibly entangle us. any guarantees with Spain on that subject; that, without guarantees, we should be ready, when the time came, to act; that the news of the cession of Cuba to any foreign Power would, in the United States, be the instant signal for war; and that no foreign Power would attempt to take it that did not expect a hostile collision with us as an inevitable consequence.

The Senator is guilty of so many other misstatements, that it is a difficult matter to correct them all. He says that I voted for the Mexican treaty of peace-the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo-according to his recollection. His recollection is in this respect, as in many others, entirely at fault. The record shows that I did not vote upon the treaty.

His statement that the Hise treaty was evidence of the fact that Nicaragua was willing and anxious to grant to the United States forever the exclusive right and control over a ship canal between the two oceans, is contradicted by the letter of Carcache, the Nicaraguan minister, who declares she rejected it after it had been signed by Señor Selva, the commissioner on her part. The treaty was evidence of extreme folly, and of little else beside.

The Senator recurs again to his objection that the convention will not permit us to annex Central America, and points with triumph to a passage in the letter of my distinguished friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT,] to the Comte de Sartiges, in which he expresses a doubt whether the Constitution would permit us, by the tripartite treaty proposed by France and England, to declare that we would never purchase Cuba. The Senator from Illinois held this up as a conclusive authority to prove that the treaty of the 19th April, 1850, was unconstitutional. He did not venture to argue this position. The treaty of 1850 was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Daniel Webster, of Massain reporting the treaty and in voting for it: did he chusetts, was at the time a member, who joined not understand the Constitution? Without referring to all the other distinguished jurists who voted for it, or to the numerous treaties in which this Government has defined the limits of its own territory as perpetual, including the Ashburton treaty, and the treaty of Ghent, and the treaty with Mexico, and I know not how many others, I say to the Senator from Illinois, that I acknowledge a wide distinction between the purchase of Cuba and the annexation of Central America. Cuba was not in the possession of Great Britain, under the name of a protectorate or otherwise. A large part of Central America was. We had no canal to make in Cuba. She presented no obstacle to us in our passage to California and Oregon. Central America did. Sir, I do most cordially concur in all the encomiums upon the letter of my

This discontinuance, or revocation, of Mr. Forsyth's declaration, which had bound this Government for so many years, was not exactly a refusal to agree to such a tripartite convention, as was very properly rejected by my honorable friend from Massachusetts, but it was the first instance in which this Government gave unmistakable evidence of its policy not to agree to any such con

vention.

Sir, the Senator said that I had abolished the Monroe doctrine. If I have really done that, I have done more than I ever thought I was capable of doing. If I have done that, I have abolished a fruitful source of controversy between my own country and other nations. But how and in what sense have I abolished the Monroe doctrine? One of the principles on which I acted, in the formation of the treaty, was the exclusion of a European nation from further interference on a part of this continent. Was that exclusion an abolition of the Monroe doctrine? Will he tell me of any instance in the history of this country, in which any other Administration has carried out the Monroe doctrine in the same way, or in any other way? Can he find any other instance in which there has been the slightest approximation to it.

As to the Indian protectorate in Nicaragua, I have only to say of it as I said before, “ Stat nominis umbra❞—it stands, the shadow of a name!

The Senator is fond of talking violently about driving European nations from this continent. When he discourses in such magnificent terms as he employed a few years ago, about "fifty-four forty or fight," he does no harm among his own countrymen. We all know exactly what it means. But when these speeches reach the other side of the Atlantic, they have a different effect. induce foreigners to believe that we are a quarrelsome, violent, and aggressive race, denying to all other men equal rights with ourselves; and they are well calculated to make us odious among other nations. We once held among them a high character for probity and honor; but if it shall come to be understood among them that we are bent

They

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

upon seizing every country to which we may take a fancy, we shall be looked upon as pirates and enemies of the human race. Then it will be found that, instead of maintaining the highest position upon earth, we have descended to the lowest, and the sun of our glory will set forever. I am, and profess to be, an American in heart-every inch an American; as determined to assert and enforce respect for American rights, and the duty of protecting American interests at home and abroad, as any man; but I am also resolved to assert and maintain American faith and honor. Let us proclaim it among all the nations of the earth that there does not exist under the sun a people more proud of observing and maintaining their treaties and all their contracts than the people of the United States. Let us discountenance this system now practiced by the Senator from Illinois and others among us, of denouncing Europeans, and of inculcating it as a duty to hate the men of any other nation. I cannot express my sentiments on the subject in more appropriate terms, than by asking the Secretary to read a passage from the Farewell Address of the Father of his Country. Let us refresh and strengthen ourselves, at the close of this turbulent debate, by a resort to that fountain whose bright waters have never failed to invigorate us.

The Clerk read it, as follows:

"Nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is, in some degree, a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts, through passion, what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes, perhaps, the liberty of nations, has been the victim. "So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, be trays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, illwill, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom EQUAL PRIVILEGES are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."

Mr. President, I have done. The first resolution which I offered, calling for information, has been passed, and the other may sleep upon the table, if I can be assured that the information sought by it can be had, as it ought to be, without it. I am quite indifferent to its fate. My chief object was to defend my own position, and that object has been accomplished.*

The further consideration of the subject was then postponed until to-morrow.

ADMISSION TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.

Mr. FISH submitted the following resolution for consideration:

Resolved, That the 48th rule of the Senate be amended by inserting after the word "Treasury," the words "Secretary of the Interior," and also by adding the following to the rule:

No person except members and officers of the Senate shall be admitted at either of the side doors of the Senate Chamber, and all persons claiming admission on the floor, excepting members and the Clerk of the House of Representatives for the time being, the heads of the several Departments, the Private Secretary of the President, the

* CORRECTION.-An error occurred in the publication of Mr. CLAYTON's speech of the 15th instant. Nineteen lines at the foot of the first column of page 268 of the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, beginning-"Mr. DOUGLAS. I never said that I would not," &c., were inserted by mistake. Also, two paragraphs at the top of the second column of the same page.

chaplains of Congress, the judges of the United States, foreign ministers and their secretaries, and officers who by unme shall have received the thanks of Congress, or medals by a vote of Congress, shall, each time before being admitted upon the floor, enter their names, together with the official position in right of which they claim admission, in a book to be provided and kept at the main entrance to the Senate Chamber; and no person except members of the Senate shall be allowed within the bar of the Senate, or to occupy the seat of any Senator.

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. COOPER in the chair.) The Secretary of the Board to examine the claims of Lieutenant Colonel Frémont, has addressed a letter to the President of the Senate requesting permission to withdraw a report submitted on the 29th December last, with the view of correcting certain errors. Will the Senate grant the leave asked for?

Mr. WELLER. Let that lie over until I can have an opportunity of seeing what that report is. It accordingly went over.

On motion by Mr. COOPER, it was Ordered, That Daniel Nippes have leave to withdraw certain papers from the files of the Senate.

On motion by Mr. ADAMS, it was Ordered, That leave be given to withdraw the papers on the claim of Clemens, Bryant & Co., from the files of the Senate.

On motion by Mr. JAMES, it was Ordered, That Margaret Barnett have leave to withdraw her papers from the files of the Senate.

THURSDAY, March 17, 1853.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. The PRESIDENT presented a communication from the Department of the Interior, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st instant, transmitting a report from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

SELECT COMMITTEES.

On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was

Ordered, That the vacancies in the Select Committee on Frauds, &c., occasioned by the expiration of the terms of Mr. UNDERWOOD and Mr. BROOKE, be filled by the Chair.

And Mr. MORTON, and Mr. THOMPSON of Kentucky, were appointed.

On motion by Mr. WELLER, it was

Ordered, That the vacancy in the Select Committee on the Mexican Boundary, occasioned by the expiration of the term of Mr. CLARKE, be filled by the President. And Mr. FISH was appointed.

COAL FOR THE JAPAN EXPEDITION. Mr. BUTLER. I ask unanimous consent to make an explanation connected with some remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. COOPER,] the other day, reflecting on a constituent of mine, who is one of the officers of this Government. Unanimous consent was given.

Mr. BUTLER. The Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. COOPER,] the other day, in introducing certain resolutions, which I hold in my hand, made the following remark:

"He meant to cast no reproach on the late Secretary of the Navy or his predecessor; they were both highminded and honorable men, men of character and integrity; but nevertheless these contracts have been made by the bureaus possibly without their knowledge. He desired to have this information; and he hoped the resolution would now be passed."

The resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby, required to communicate to the Senate the contract entered into with Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall for supplying the Japan squadron with coal, the price per ton which the said coal will cost delivered in the Chinese seas, the amount of commissions and insurance, respectively, together with the rate of exchange which the Government will be required to pay for such of the coal as may be purchased in England.

That the Secretary be also required to inform the Senate whether offers were made by other parties than Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall, to supply the above-named squadron with coal, by delivering the same at such places as might be designated in the Chinese seas, the prices per ton at which these parties proposed to deliver it, stating partic

SENATE.

ularly the rates at which anthracite, American bituminous and English bituminous were respectively offered; and whether, after these offers had been made, a contract at higher prices was not entered into with Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall for English coal.

"That the Secretary be further required to inform the Senate whether, previous to the time of contracting for the supply of the said squadron with coal, the Government had not regularly-authorized agents employed for the express purpose of purchasing and inspecting all coal necessary for the supply of the Navy, and what commission the said agents received by way of compensation for their services. That he be required further to inform the Senate whether Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall were not appointed agents to purehase and inspect the whole or a greater part of the coal necessary for the supply of the Japan squadron; whether the commissions allowed them are not double the amount of those allowed and paid to the regular purchasing and inspecting agents; whether the said commissions are not counted on the gross price of coal-namely, on the price with freight, exchange, and insurance added. That lie be required also to inform the Senate what quantity of coal it is estimated will be required for the supply of the said squadron annually, and what kind principally will be used; what amount of demurrage has been paid, and for what quantity of coal, for what length of time, and to whom; also, what rate of demurrage is to be paid hereafter."

Whilst the remark exempts the Secretaries of the Navy from censure and blame, it leaves but one inference, that it may be applicable only to the head of the Naval Bureau, my friend and constituent Commodore Shubrick, than whom no one in the public service could be less liable to such a

censure.

In fact there was no contract entered into by the Navy Department, either by the Secretary himself or the head of the bureau, with Howland & Aspinwall, for coal, in the proper acceptation of the term contract. The Navy Department, by express law, and in change of an old regulation, is authorized to purchase coal for the use of the Navy. The mode of making such purchases is left to the judgment of the Secretary, under his official responsibility. In carrying out the provisions of this law, the late Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Graham, appointed Howland & Aspinwall as agents to supply the Japan squadron with coal. To enable them to do so with certainty and precision, that is, as to quantity and place, they are subject to the requisition and orders of the head of the bureau. For their services as agents, thus appointed, they receive a stipulated commission, previously agreed upon between themselves and the Secretary of the Navy. The only function to be performed by the head of the bureau is strictly ministerial, that is, to make a requisition on the agents, and to pay their bills when duly presented and authenticated.

Commodore Shubrick, the head of the bureau, confining himself strictly in the sphere of his official agency, has done nothing more nor less than carry out the stipulated arrangements of the Secretary of the Navy. He could have no inducement to do anything else; and I will answer for it, sir, that if anything had depended on his discretion, it would have been performed with good judgment and honorable purpose. I have no doubt that the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania had no intention of saying anything to wound the feelings or touch the honor of my honorable friend and constituent.

Mr. COOPER. The Senator from South Carolina certainly did me no more than justice, when he said that I intended to cast no reflection upon Commodore Shubrick. I did not intend to convey the idea that Commodore Shubrick had acted dishonestly, or perhaps even improperly. I believe I stated at the time that the contracts were made by the Bureau of Construction and Supply, and it is probable that if I had reflected a moment, I would have known that Commodore Shubrick was at the head of that bureau. But there is one suggestion in that letter that I think had better have been left out.

Mr. BUTLER. It is not a letter. It is my own memorandum from his conversation.

Mr. COOPER. He states that there is no contract entered into. There is no contract, perhaps, made with the persons who furnish the coal, but they are appointed agents, and ex officio their duty is to furnish coal, and they become in law con tractors with the Government. Now, sir, let me say further, that instead of paying a commission of five per cent., which the regularly-authorized agents of the Government are entitled to receive, these men receive ten per cent. In addition to that, by the bills, as they will be seen in the return

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

made to the resolution by the present Secretary of the Navy, they have bargained at ten and a half per cent., by way of exchange; and instead of purchasing American coal at the price at which it was offered to them, which by the tests made by the engineers in chief, and by the officers in command of steamers, is greatly preferable to English coal, they have bought English coal at a higher price. Now, I certainly did not intend to reflect on the Senator's constituent. 1 never would do injustice to any man, high or low; but when I see the Government funds squandered, and American interests neglected, in order that some parties may be benefited, I must take notice of it. I do not refer to the bureaus, by any means. I think it was really, from what I have heard and seen, through the agency of other persons; but that is the state of the case, and the community, the great constituency which we all represent, will judge whether I was right in what I said or not.

Mr. BUTLER. All I have to say in rejoinder is, that Commodore Shubrick had a limited ad ministrative agency, and of course none of the blame or censure could fall upon him. It was a stipulation, I suppose, entered into by the Navy Department itself, perhaps, as the Senator says, under some influences; but I do not believe that Commodore Shubrick can be charged as having intentionally either perpetrated a wrong on the Government, or done anything to the prejudice of American interests.

Mr. PEARCE. The remarks which have been made might seem to throw some censure upon the late Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Graham, and I think it due to him that I should state my recollection of a conversation which I had with him last summer in relation to the supply of coal for the Japan expedition. Though I do not profess to recollect all the points with accuracy, I can state, with a little certainty, a few things which will go to excuse that gentleman from any reproach which may be cast upon him.

think

I understand that Commmodore Perry came here to see the Secretary of the Navy, and urge upon him the importance of securing the supply of coal from persons of such undoubted respectability as that there could be no possibility of a failure to deliver the coal at the proper place and time. It was thought to be all-important to the success of the expedition, and that it might be entirely prostrated, or at least paralyzed if the coal was not put in such a condition as to be obtained when wanted. He was therefore induced to make the arrangement which he did make, and undoubtedly the statement of Commodore Shubrick is correct, with Howland & Aspinwall. I believe their competency was undoubted. Their ability to comply with the contract, at the precise time necessary for the delivery of coal, was unquestioned. But in addition to that, the Secretary then informed me, and I do not think that I am mistaken, that after examining the whole subject, the conclusion was arrived at that the operation would be quite as economical as that in the place of which it was substituted. Thus much I have thought proper to state, and I will say no more, because I understand there is a full report on the subject by the present Secretary of the Navy.

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions offered by Mr. CLAYTON, on the 7th

instant.

Mr. EVERETT. When the Senator from Delaware took his seat yesterday, I was desirous of catching the eye of the President, with the view of obtaining the floor to make a few remarks upon the subject which has been under discussion; and I should have been glad to have done so at that time. I did not succeed; and now by the courtesy of the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, who moved to postpone the subject, I have the opportunity of addressing you at this time. I am not desirous by any means of entering into the debate which has occupied the Senate during the past week. I presume it is hardly the expectation of the Senate that that debate should extend beyond those gentlemen who have been necessarily drawn into it. Being however, sir, under the impression that if the debate should close here altogether, it would leave a somewhat painful and unsatisfactory impression

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

upon the public mind in reference to the state of things in Central America, so far as we are concerned; and having had the honor, not long ago, in another capacity, to submit a communication to the President, which was transmitted to Congress, in reference to this subject, I am desirous, and think it would be perhaps in some degree for the public interest, that some further explanation should be made in reference to the state of things in Central America at this time, so far as we are connected with it.

In doing this, which is really the principal, and I may say almost the only object which I have in view in claiming the attention of the Senate for a short time, I shall wish to make some reference to the proposition of the 30th of April last, which it was the object of the Senator from Delaware to get before the Senate. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Senate has made a special order for this day, for the election of certain officers of the Senate, it would be an accommodation to me, and I think also to the Senate, if the Senate would consent, by general acquiescence, to pass the resolutions of the Senator from Delaware. I understand it was his expectation in moving them, that the second resolution would require considerable time to meet it; that the answer would not come before the next session. It is a call for general information in reference to the affairs of Central America. But with reference to the first resolution, which calls for an answer with regard to the proposition of the 30th of April, it can be answered in half an hour, if it is the pleasure of the President. The papers can be sent in to the Senate to-morrow or the next day, and they can be referred to without inconvenience or impropriety, and it would be an accommodation to me that that should be the case before I proceed to address the Senate as I shall wish to do on the subject. I have consulted the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in reference to this matter, and he approves of the course which I suggest. I therefore respectfully ask that the resolutions of the Senator from Delaware be passed for the object that I have stated. The proposition of the 30th of April should be communicated to the Senate, and when we get that, the discussion of the subject can be resumed, if such is the pleasure of the Senate.

Mr. MASON. The honorable Senator from Massachusetts did me the honor to confer with me this morning on the expediency of passing the first resolution offered by the Senator from Delaware, in order to bring before the Senate the information to which the Senator from Massachusetts refers, and very properly refers, as pertinent to the subject under debate. It refers to the message of the President of the United States of the 18th of February last, communicating the correspondence of the British Minister in reference to the affairs of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. That letter has been referred to in the Senate in a general way; but the information is not before us, and cannot be brought before us without the adoption of this resolution. I submit, therefore, cheerfully to the request of the Senator, that the Senate should pass the first resolution. The second resolution, before it is passed, I think should be altered so as very much to enlarge the scope of it.

The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Virginia asks for a division of the question. The question will be on the adoption of the first resolution.

The first resolution, which is as follows, was adopted:

"Resolved, That the President be respectfully requested, if compatible, in his opinion, with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the propositions mentioned in the letter of the Secretary of State accompanying the Executive message to the Senate of the 18th February last, as having been agreed upon by the Department of State, the British Minister, and the State of Costa Rica, on the 30th of April, 1852, having for their object the settlement of the territorial controversies between the States and Governments bordering on the river San Juan."

Mr. EVERETT. I now move a further postponement of the consideration of this subject until Monday next.

Mr. BADGER. I would suggest to the Chair whether, as these two resolutions were offered as one subject, the postponement of one would not carry the whole subject with it-the first resolution as well as the second?

Several SENATORS. Oh, no; we cannot do that. Mr. MASON. I submit the suggestion that the consideration of the subject be postponed until Saturday.

Mr. EVERETT. I have no objection.

Mr. MASON. I make that motion to test the sense of the Senate.

Mr. SHIELDS. It will be utterly impossible to do that. There is business ofthe Senate which requires that we should sit longer than until next Monday. I do not think it will be possible to adjourn at that time.

Mr. MASON. To test the sense of the Senate, I move to postpone the resolution until Saturday.

Mr. BADGER. I move to amend the motion by inserting Monday instead of Saturday. Mr. BADGER's motion was agreed to.

PAY AND MILEAGE OF DAVID L. YULEE.

The Senate then took up for consideration the resolution submitted by Mr. MORTON on the 7th instant, to allow per diem and mileage to David L. Yulee during the time he contested the seat of Mr. MALLORY.

"Resolved, That there be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate to the Hon. David L. Yulee, a sum equal to the amount of mileage and per diem compensation of a Senator, from the commencement of the first session of the Thirty second Congress to the 27th of August, 1852, the day on which the Senate decided that the Hon. Stephen R. Mallory, whose seat in the Senate was claimed by him, was duly elected a member of the Senate from the State of Florida."

Mr. MORTON. All I can say in advocacy of the resolution is this: I only ask for my former colleague that justice or liberality which has heretofore been given to persons in similar cases. It is the custom of this and the other House to pay the persons who contest a seat the per diem and mileage for the proper time.

Mr. BRIGHT. I do not know that I wish to be considered in the attitude of opposing the resolution; but as I was chairman of the committee that had charge of the contested-election case, I think it is my duty to remind the Senate that the committee unanimously reported against the right of Mr. Yulee to a seat here, and the Senate as unanimously confirmed that report. Now, if it is the pleasure of the Senate to pay the mileage and per diem under such circumstances, I shall not object; but I desire the Senate before they vote, to know that the committee were unanimous in reporting against the right of Mr. Yulee, and the Senate, without a dissenting voice, on the call of the yeas and nays, confirmed the report.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I desire to say, and the Senate will recollect, that I wished a postponement of this question, that I might have an opportunity of examining it, and making a speech upon it. The examination I had given the subject convinced me, so far as it had gone, that there was great plausibility in the claim of Mr. Yulee, and I was inclined to think at that time-and I believe no man can doubt-that he believed he was entitled to a seat, and prosecuted his claim to it in good faith. No one that knows him can doubt that he believed that. And when a Senator prosecutes a claim in good faith, I have yet to learn that the Senate have ever declined to make such compensation as is asked by this resolution. If I recollect right, we have within this year paid a gentleman who did not claim a seat, or assert his right to it. It is true there were members of the Senate who thought him entitled to a seat, although he did not claim it. He set up no claim whatever. I believe there has not been a case in the history of the Government, where there has been a contest, in which the party who lost his seat has not been paid. Certainly we have not refused to pay where there has been no imputation that the contest was not made in good faith.

Mr. MASON. I think it due to the occasion to say, as I was a member of the select committee

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

on the subject, that although that committee, as suggested by the honorable Senator from Indiana, was unanimous in the judgment to which they ultimately came, after a full examination of the subject, and although, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the committee, the purely legal question was against Mr. Yulee, yet there can be as little doubt that the gentleman honestly entertained the very opposite opinion to the committee; and it was evinced, by the degree of perseveranceindustrious perseverance-on his part to bring the subject to a favorable result. He pressed the case very strongly, and with an earnestness which showed the honesty of his intention, and his desire to have the question properly determined. He employed, and had before the committee, gentlemen of the bar very elevated in their position and of great distinction, and he must have incurred a serious expense. So that although the opinion of the committee was against him, as well as the opinion of the Senate, yet, in my judgment, the Senate should give him the compensation which this resolution proposes to give.

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Yulee represented a State that is a neighboring one to my own. I know him very well; and while my judgment from the beginning was decidedly against him, yet if it had been a question depending entirely upon commonlaw principles, he would have succeeded. And when I attended before the committee, and heard the arguments made by eminent counsel whom he employed, I know there were many friends who changed their opinion, who were of opinion that Mr. Yulee was right. I must say another thing, that so far as regards that discussion, many important principles were discussed, and I think settled-settled by the judgment of the Senate. Certainly, they were presented forcibly by arguments; and I am satisfied that Mr. Yulee's perseverance— his tenacity of purpose everybody knows-upon that occasion, evinced what the Senator from Illinois says, that he was conducting this protest against the honorable Senator who fills the seat, in good faith. In that view, I am reconciled to the resolution.

Mr. BADGER. As I was on the Select Committee, and concurred entirely in its report, and from the first examination of the case, and after the arguments, could find nothing on which to hang a doubt, I think it proper to add a word to what has been said by the Senator from Virginia. I think he is certainly correct. However clear may have been the judgment of the committee and the Senate, the gentleman who was claiming the seat was firmly convinced that he was entitled to it. And there is another consideration which weighs with me. He was asserting that claim, not with the view of procuring the seat for himself in this body, but to vindicate what he believed to be a constitutional principle and the right of the State of Florida; for he declared himself unequivocally, that that being his object and his sole object,

if the vote of the Senate should award the seat to him, he would not take it, but would refer the matter again to the judgment of the Legislature of Florida. It being a case, then, of a gentleman, who, however mistaken, was yet sincere, and who though prosecuting the contest with zeal and energy and at great trouble and expense, was not seeking anything for himself, either of honor or of profit, but a mere vindication of what he believed to be a legal, constitutional truth, and the right of his State, I think it is but fair and just to pay him the compensation. I hope, therefore, the resolution, will be agreed to.

Mr. BRIGHT. I did not mean to intimate by the remarks which I made when first up, that I doubted the sincerity of the contestant in the case referred to. I have no doubt that he believed he was honestly entitled to the place, and believed that at common-law he was entitled to the seat. He prosecuted it, as stated by the Senator from North Carolina, with the view as he said of settling a great principle; and if it be the pleasure of the Senate, under these circumstances, to award him the pay and mileage which belong to a sitting member of this body, I certainly raise no objection. I have my doubts, however, as to the propriety of such a result.

It is a very different case from the one referred to by the Senator from Illinois. I suppose he referred to the case of the honorable Senator from

Kentucky, (Mr. Meriwether,) who, I understand, has not taken the pay awarded to him under the order of the Senate, but clearly would be entitled to take it if he thought proper to do so. That, I say, was a very different case from this. There are many gentlemen in this body yet who think that he was entitled to the seat; that the limitation imposed by the Governor of the State of Kentucky in the pro tem. appointment given by him, was a limitation not within his power to make; that he had power to fill the vacancy for the full time and not for the time limited in the appointment. In this instance, however, but I am not going into the case; it has been settled-Senators understand why it was Mr. Yulee claimed the seat. He alleged that twenty-nine blank votes elected him. That was the point in a few words. With the honorable Senator from North Carolina, I never believed that he had the color of a claim, nor did I suppose at the time the case was disposed of, that he would assert his right to the compensation resulting from the prosecution of his claim; but if it is the pleasure of the Senate to give it to him, be it so.

SENATE.

the claim is an unfounded one, I can see no propriety in making the payment. If we do that, every man who thinks proper to do so, may come here and set up a claim, and although he may have the unanimous vote against him, he must have his mileage and per diem. He may stave off the decision the whole of the session, and go home and attend to his business and come back here at the end of a session of nine months, and obtain pay for the whole time. It may seem to some to be a matter of no consequence, but the principle involved is an important one, and we should properly decide it.

Mr. MORTON. It is perhaps due to myself and to my late colleague that I should here say a word. During the pendency of the contest before the Senate between my late and my present colleague, I studiously avoided participating in it in any form or shape. The acts and doings of my Legislature were passed in review before the Senate; but propriety on my part, I thought, required that I should not participate in the contest so long as it assumed no broader ground than the contest between the two gentlemen. In truth, the ques

Mr. ADAMS. When this resolution was first offered by the Senator from Florida, I opposed it, and I have seen no reason since to change my opinion. I then thought, and I still think, that if an individual thinks proper to contest the seat of a member elected by his State Legislature, he has a right to do so; but he should do it at his own hazard, unless the grounds for the contest are so plausible as to produce some division of opinion in the body. It is known that the Senate gave to Mr. Yulee a most patient investigation. They gave him a committee of this body-a learned and wise committee. That committee heard his counsel, and after every Senator had made up his mind, he was permitted to appear at the bar and make a speech of two hours at the close of the session when our appropriation bills were in danger, and when every Senator, notwithstanding his respect to him personally, had so completely made up his mind that there were few listening to his argument, and then after having consumed that period of anxiety and excitement, the liberty was extended to him to consume another hour; and after all that, not one single member of the body voted to give him his seat.

If, sir, we set this down as a precedent, where the claim was so fallacious as not to be able to get one man out of sixty-two to vote for it, and we should pay him for the entire session, we may as well pass a resolution that whoever runs against another and is defeated and contests the seat, shall be paid a per diem and mileage for the first session, and that will save the trouble of the Senate investigating each claim. What propriety, I ask Senators, is there in allowing Mr. Yulee pay, simply because he thought proper to prefer a claim to the seat of an individual elected to this body? I can see none. I know the House of Representatives has been in the habit, where a contest was plausible, and a doubt was entertained, and a difference of opinion prevailed in regard to the right, to refer it to a committee for investigation, and when the conclusion had been arrived at to pay both. I know that upon many occasions when this question has been determined in favor of one over the other claimant, where there was a doubt, and where it was thought right and proper that the question should be brought before the body, they have been paid. But, where the decision is unanimous, that

ary questions, which I did not think myself qualified to decide; and I was willing that they should be decided by the able parliamentarians and constitutional lawyers elected by the Senate to decide the question. They, after nine months' consideration, decided that question, in which decision the Senate acquiesced. I have not a word to say in opposition to the decision. My situation was a delicate one. My relations were of the most friendly character towards both gentlemen. They both belong to a different party organization from the one to which I belong; and of course my vote on such a question could not have been controlled by a consideration of that kind. But I think it due to my late colleague, who now stands in the position of a constituent to me, that I should say here to the Senate, as most Senators who know him will believe, that he honestly and religiously believed that he was entitled to the seat which he demanded; that he believed it involved a high constitutional question which should be decided by the Senate; that he was not influenced by any sordid or mercenary motives in prosecuting the contest; that nothing of the kind had influenced him, but that he honestly believed that he was entitled to the seat.

As to the allusion which the Senator from Mississippi makes to the time during which the contest was pending before the Senate, the committee will bear me out in saying that it was no fault of my late colleague. The Senate will recollect the constitution of that committee; that after it was first appointed, some three or four were called home and vacated their seats, and other members had to be appointed. My late colleague was anxious that a prompt decision should be had; every courtesy was extended to him. He was heard before the committee and before the Senate. It is true he was heard, as the Senator from Mississippi said; but, if I may use an Irish bull, he was heard but not listened to. It was too near the close of the session for the Senate to attempt to review and pass judgment upon the decision of the committee.

I have felt bound in justice to my late colleague to say this. I think he was operated upon by no mercenary views and motives whatever. If he had been he would have gained nothing, for I doubt not that the loss of time, which was valuable to him, and the expenses incurred in the prosecution of his claim will not be covered by the amount of compensation proposed to be given him by this resolution.

Mr. BORLAND. I shall vote for this resolution, as I think all such resolutions have heretofore been adopted, so far as I can learn, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, without any reference to the question involved as affecting the right of the sitting member, or the one who lost his seat. All that I understand has been looked to in the action of either House, in settling a question of this kind is, Did the individual act in good faith in prosecuting his claim?

Mr. ADAMS. I will explain what I understand to be the case. Formerly, when an individual claimed the seat of the sitting member, and the sitting member was ousted, then the sitting