Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

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

who thought me so silly for admitting that these settlements were not within the treaty, but even to this Committee on Foreign Relations, and invite them to defend this part of their report if they

can.

I shall prove them to have been guilty of a gross error, first, by the authorities which they themselves have relied upon, and then by every authority, whether political, geographical, or historical, which is worthy of respect.

And first, as to the authorities relied upon by the committee. The report states that the Rio Hondo, the northern limit of the Balize settlement, is claimed by Guatemala to be wholly within its territory. Even if this were true, it would prove nothing; for no impartial judge ever admits a party on his own mere assertion to be the owner of any property out of his possession, and in the possession of another who claims it, as is the case here. But it is not true that Guatemala claims or ever has claimed the territory marked out for the Balize by the treaty of 1786. To sustain their assertion, the committee first quote Captain Bonnycastle's description of the boundaries of Vera Paz, which literally proves nothing at all; then they refer to the map which accompanies the work, and say that "on that, which (they admit) is upon too 'small a scale distinctly to mark the boundaries, 'the river Wallys' or Balize would appear marked in the province of Vera Paz." For the boundaries extracted from Captain Bonnycastle's" Spanish America," we are referred by the committee to vol. 1, page 165. Any man who will look at them will see that they are perfectly consistent with what that author had said before, which completely oversets the committee, and which I now proceed to quote. First:

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

confirmation of her title to the settlements at Balize, derived from the Spanish treaty of 1786. It was important for Great Britain to ascertain how far Guatemala might have any claim to the Balize territory. Both Guatemala and Mexico had revolted from Spain, and Great Britain had equally recognized and favored them both. It was immaterial to her whether the Balize was situated in Mexico or Guatemala, as either of them would unhesitatingly have recognized the grant made by Spain of the "useful domain" in British Honduras, granted by the treaty with Spain of 1786. She sought to know only which had the right to grant it, and she ascertained beyond all possible doubt from the archives, not only of Mexico, but of Guatemala herself, that the British settlements at the Balize were in Yucatan. Arrowsmith's map, reduced from the survey, in the archives of Guatemala, to which I have referred, shows that Vera Paz is about one hundred and thirty miles south of the Rio Hondo and the Balize river, and that "Peten," and not Vera Paz, is the northern province of Guatemala. Vera Paz is far south of the " Wallys," or Balize, so called from the old English buccaneer Wallace, who first harbored in British Honduras. On that map, furnished from the survey of Guatemala herself, the Balize settlement extends at least fifty miles south of the river "Wallys," and no part of Guatemala is nearer than eighty miles south of the mouth of the Rio Hondo. Like every other map made by Guatemala or under her surveys, it has but little pretension to scientific arrangement; but it is represented as conveying a just idea of the then existing state of geography in Guatemala, and of her own claims as exhibited by her own original survey. I will send the map to the chairman of the committee, if he requests it; and as it is said to have been one of the very maps made by order of the British Government to ascertain from what country they should obtain a confirmation of the

"Yucatan is the most easterly province of the kingdom of New Spain, and is in the form of a peninsula jutting out into the Gulf of Mexico from the main land of the isthmus; it is surrounded on the northwest by the waters of the Mexican Gulf; by the Bay or Gulf or Honduras on the southeast; the province of Vera Cruz bounds it on the south-Spanish title of occupancy granted to the British west, and Vera Paz, in Guatemala, on the south. HERE it is connected with the continent of North America by an isthmus of about one hundred and twenty miles in breadth. THE ENGLISH HAVE SETTLEMENTS EXTENDING A SHORT DISTANCE ALONG THE EAST COAST OF YUCATAN, OPPOSITE AMBURGUS KEY."-P. 122.

Then again:

"The eastern coast of Yucatan is not inhabited by Spanish colonists, the English alone appearing there, except in the small fort of Bacalar, which has been built to prevent the British from going into the interior."-P. 123.

So we see that the first authority cited by the committee entirely fails them, and proves that the British settlements are in Yucatan.

The next authority relied on by the committee is "an atlas of Guatemala, in eight maps, prepared and engraved in Guatemala, by order of the Chief of the State, C. D. Mariano Galves," in 1832, on which the committee say "the northern and western boundary of Guatemala, although called Lindero Indefinido,' (line undefined,) is thrown 'north of the Rio Hondo; which river, both on 'the map of the Republic of Guatemala and on 'that of the department of Vera Paz, contained in 'the atlas, is altogether within the limits of Vera 'Paz." Now, the first observation which I have to make in regard to this authority is, that a map engraved by order of the President of the United States, including the Canadas within our own limits, would not be regarded by any sensible man in a foreign nation as much proof to show that we were entitled to the Canadas; and the next remark I have to make is, that no northern and western boundary of Guatemala is laid down on these maps. The undefined line proves nothing, and the pretension that the Rio Hondo was in the department of Vera Paz is too absurb in the eyes of any man acquainted even with the pretensions of Guatemala to be credited for a moment. The map itself shows that Balize is not in Guatemala. In the State Department was a map to which this committee ought to have had access, but of which they knew nothing, which proves that the British had obtained the survey of Guatemala, found in her own archives in 1826, that is, six years before the maps relied on were made. It is entitled "Map of Guatemala, reduced from the survey in the archives of that country." It was published January 13, 1826, by Arrowsmith, the royal hydrographer. Great Britain was about to make a treaty with Mexico, and to obtain from Mexico a

settlers by the treaty of 1786, it is the very best evidence that Guatemala had no claims whatever to the Balize; for Great Britain could, I repeat, as easily have obtained the grant of the useful domain in the Balize from Guatemala as from Mexico. Having thus ascertained that Guatemala had no claims, she proceeded to negotiate with Mexico; and on the 26th of December afterwards, she made a treaty with Mexico, of which the following is the 14th article:

"ARTICLE XIV. The subjects of his Britannic Majesty shall, on no account or pretext whatsoever, be disturbed or molested in the peaceable possession and exercise of whatever rights, privileges, and immunities they have at any time enjoyed within the limits described and laid down in a convention, signed between his said Majesty and the King of Spain, on the 14th of July, 1786, whether such rights, privileges, and immunities shall be derived from the stipulations of the said convention, or from any other concession which may at any time have been made by the King of Spain, or his predecessors, to British subjects and settlers residing and following their lawful occupations within the limits aforesaid; the two contracting parties reserving, however, for some more fitting opportunity, the further arrangements of this article."

No such treaty was made with Guatemala that we ever heard of. We see by this treaty that Great Britain admitted that the eminent domain which Spain had lost by the revolution had descended upon Mexico. She did not seek to rob Mexico of the sovereignty over the country; she gained nothing by the treaty which Spain had not before granted to her; and as she sought only the grant of the useful domain, or merely the rights of an old settler, there was not a civilized nation on earth that would have refused to concede as much as Mexico did. If she had thought Guatemala had any right to the territory she would have applied to her to make the same grant, and that State could as well have refused to confirm the grant of lands held under her limits for any other private or special purposes as she could have refused to make the same concession which Mexico made. The rights of Great Britain, under the treaty of 1786, to occupy the land and to cut dye-wood and mahogany, to erect mills to saw it, to fish upon the coast, to refit their ships at the adjoining islands and territories embraced in the triangle described in that treaty, and to occupy those islands when the vomito would not permit them to remain on the main land, were rights which could not be divested by that very revolution which

SENATE.

Great Britain had encouraged without manifest dishonor to the local Government. If Great Britain had sought to seize upon the territory, she could much more easily have forced the concession of it from the little State of Guatemala than from Mexico, a greatly superior Power.

The next authority relied upon by the committee is hearsay evidence, and we are not allowed to know the name of the witness. . The report says:

"And the committee are informed that on the official map of Yucatan, subscribed by Señor Negra, as commissioner of that province, published in 1848, the southern boundary of that State is established on the parallel of eighteen degrees north latitude."

If this be true, it only proves that the British settlements at the Balize had encroached further upon Yucatan and Mexico than we had supposed. If, however, this fact is adduced to prove that Guatemala extends to the eighteenth degree of north latitude, it proves too much, and it cannot possibly be true, for then Guatemala would include the celebrated Bacalar, and the fort there established as the northern limit of the British settlers. It is not pretended that on this map, which the committee never saw, Yucatan is bounded by Guatemala; and if the man who gave this information will produce the map, I will stake the whole issue between the committee and myself on the fact that the southern boundary of Yucatan will appear by it to be on British Honduras, or Balize.

The next and last authorities relied upon by this committee to prove that British Honduras lies in the State of Guatemala are still more remarkable. This part of the report is so extraordinary in its character that I dare not attempt to state the mere substance of it lest I should do the committee injustice. I will speak by the book lest equivocation should undo me." It is, literally, as follows:

"In 1834 the State of Guatemala, made a large grant of land to a company, on condition of actual settlement, in the neighborhood of the Bay of Honduras,' when the British authorities at Balize interposed and forbid the settlement, claiming that the grant was within their boundaries. This

collision led the Government of Central America to make it the occasion of a special commission to England to settle and adjust the respective rights of the Republic of Guatemala and of Great Britain, in reference to the British settlements in this quarter. This fact was communicated to the Government of the United States by M. Alvarez, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Central American Confederation, in a dispatch to the Secretary of State, dated December 30, 1834, and the good offices of this Government with the British Court were solicited in the proposed negotiation. In that dispatch the Secretary of State, reminded of the avowed policy of this Government concerning European colonization on the American continents, is referred to the aggressions and encroachments at Balize upon the territory of Central America. The mission, it appears, was fruit

less.

"The British Government, claiming that Don Juan Galindo, the Minister, was a British subject by birth, refused to accredit him as the Minister of Central America. In one of the letters of this Minister, Don Galindo, whilst in Washington, to the Secretary of State, dated June 3, 1835, he communicates a paper, prepared and published in Guatemala, by Señor Annitia, a member of the Federal Congress of Central America for the State of Guatemala, in which, reciting that the English settlements between the Rio Hondo and the Balize are in our territory,' an able and forcible exposition is made of the injury resulting to Central America by the smuggling openly carried on at the Balize, in defiance of the revenue laws of the Confederation; and a strong remonstrance against the pretensions of the authorities there claiming a right to occupy as they held in 1821, (the date of the revolution,) and regardless of the treaty limits with Spain. In the letter of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, before referred to, this encroachment is stated at more than forty-five leagues."

The only thing in all this statement of the committee which can be relied upon as the claim of Guatemala herself, in regard to the extent of her own territories, is the letter of Alvarez, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Central America. The letters of John Galindo, an Irishman, who came here merely as a bearer of dispatches, and so states in his letter of the 22d of May, 1835, and whom the British Government refused to receive as a commissioner to remonstrate against the alleged British encroachments on Guatemala, and the paper of Señor Annitia, which is a magniloquent address or speech by a member of Congress of Central America to the people there, (never intended for us,) from which he doubtless expected to derive much petty local popularity, do not bind the Government of Guatemala, are not uttered by her authority, and are worth about as much as the letters of one of our own bearer of dispatches abroad setting forth the claims of our Government, or the speeches of one of our modern advocates of the Monroe doctrine,

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

when threatening here among us quiet old gentlemen to sweep the British from all the country north of 490, or to annex all Central America to the United States. We know, from the letter of Mr. Dickens, Acting Secretary of State, of the 10th of June, 1835, to this John Galindo, that the subject of the letter of Alvarez must have been made a Cabinet question; for the Secretary pledged himself in that letter that it should be brought to the consideration of the President. Picture to yourself, then, General Jackson and his Cabinet in session; the Senator from Michigan, then being Secretary of War, occupies the third seat at the cabinet table; John Forsyth produces the letter of Alvarez and reads it. I do not believe he soiled his fingers with the speech of Señor Annitia to his constituents in Central America, or with the letters of John Galindo, whom the committee have dignified with the name of the "Minister" Don Galindo. When Mr. Forsyth read the passage of the letter of Alvarez, declaring that "it had always been the policy of the United States to prevent and resist European settlements in America, and that the aggressions and encroachments at Balize were a dangerous and alarming violation of this principle," what do you suppose was the appearance and language of General Jackson, who came into power upon the adverse principle, supported by a party which violently denounced the Monroe doctrines, Clay's instructions to Poinsett, and the authors of the Panama mission especially, and all their works? The Senator from Michigan no doubt sustained the Monroe doctrine and the principles of the Panama mission. But how came it about that the "mission" of John Galindo, the speech of Señor Annitia, and the letter of Secretary Alvarez, were all treated with perfect contempt, or at least passed over in perfect silence? We know that General Jackson refused to take any notice of the subject, as he did of the application of the Government of San Salvador asking admission into our Union.

But this letter of Alvarez, when carefully examined, conclusively shows that the Central American Government at the time did not pretend that the boundaries of the British settlement, under the treaty of 1786, were within their limits. All they claimed was that "the boundaries should be according to the letter of the convention of 1786." They did not complain of the British settlement within those limits, but they did complain" of an encroachment beyond those limits by more than forty-five leagues." They expressly admitted the limits of Balize, which, they said, were "definitely fixed by the treaty of 1786;" and they admitted the Mexican title or "high domain" over the territory of Balize, by saying that "the original treaty limits had been ratified in 1826, by the treaty between Great Britain and the Republic of 'Mexico." They sent John Galindo to England to complain, not of the settlement within the limits of the treaty, but of the encroachments beyond them; and the passage cited by the committee from the letter of Alvarez to prove that the settlement of Balize, within the treaty limits, was upon the territory of Central America, proves directly the reverse, as it shows that only the aggressions and encroachments at Balize were upon that territory. As I consider this dispatch of M. Alvarez as conclusively admitting that British Honduras, within the treaty limits, was not in Central America on the 30th of December, 1834, I ask the reading of

that letter.

It was then read by the Clerk, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ST. SALVADOR, December 30, 1834. SIR: A short time since the authorities of the State of Guatemala granted, for purposes of settlement, sundry lands situated in the neighborhood of the Bay of Honduras to a company, whose object was to form a national establishment upon them. As soon, however, as the authorities of Balize were informed of this grant, they declared that the lands in question were within their jurisdiction, were their property; and they positively refused to give the contractors possession of a right which now justly belongs to them.

This extravagant pretension is plainly contrary to the convention of 1786, based upon that of 1783, between their Britannic and Catholic Majesties, which definitively fixed the confines of Balize, within which the inhabitants were to keep themselves; which convention, having been ratified by the respective courts in 1814, and subsequently in 1826, by the treaty between Great Britain and the Republic of Mexico, it seems clear, without entering into questions of another description, that the boundaries should be according to the letter of that convention.

The inhabitants of Balize, who have exceeded the estab

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

lished limits by more than forty-five leagues, found their pretensions upon the circumstance of their having occupied the lands in controversy prior to the independence of Central America. But such a violation of existing treaties, persisted in despite the earnest and repeated remonstrances of the Spanish authorities, cannot give those of Balize a lawful right to consider that as their own which they have in fact usurped.

An affair of such magnitude has constrained the Government of Central America to accredit Colonel John Galindo to the British Cabinet; and the Vice President of this Republic does not doubt that, through your honorable conduct, the President of the United States may make the most pointed intimations to the court of his Majesty upon the subject, and that he will take a lively interest to the end that the rights of a nation, who is a sister and a friend of that of the North, may not be violated.

The mediation of the President will doubtless give greater weight to the representations which our Commissioner may make to the British Government; and this Republic would deem such a measure a most decided proof of friendship and of a concern for her rights. Suffer me, upon this occasion, to remind you that it has always been an object of the policy of the United States that there should be no European settlements upon the American continent, and that the aggressions and encroachments at Balize upon the territory of Central America are a dangerous and an alarming violation of this principle. It belongs to your great and happy Republic to place herself in the vanguard of a policy so interesting to the new American States, and to uphold with her name our rights in the presence of England.

Meanwhile I have the honor to tender to your Excellency the most distinguished sentiments of the consideration with which I am your Excellency's very devoted and obedient servant, M. ALVAREZ. The SECRETARY OF STATE,

of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Government of the Republic of North America.

lindo admits that the British are entitled to occupy I will only add that even the letter of John Gathe town of Balize, though I do not consider his letter as compromitting any interest, for he disregarded all historical truth, and did not represent Central America or anything else. A letter of Mr. Murphy to the Secretary of State proves that he was an impostor, and was never accredited to England as a commissioner from Central America, but only from the little State of Guatemala.

I have now examined every authority cited by the committee, and by each of them I have proved that the report of the committee is erroneous. All these authorities prove the Balize to be in Yucatan, and nearly all contain the admissions of Guatemala herself, that the conclusion of the committee is utterly destitute of foundation.

Notwithstanding the committee state in one part them, they entertain a decided opinion that the of their report that "from the information before British settlements at Balize, as defined by the treaties with Spain, lie within the territory of the Republic of Guatemala, and so equally constitute a part of Central America," yet they evidently doubt whether "the information before them" was sufficient to establish that fact; for in the very next paragraph they add, that "in the event of its being ascertained hereafter that these British settlements on Honduras Bay lie in whole or in part ' north and west of the proper boundaries of Guateany part of Central America, and thus are not 'mala, though they would not, in such case, form 'within the strict engagements of the treaty, yet that any colonies or other permanent establishments there by Great Britain or any other European Power, must necessarily excite the most anxious concern of this Government, and would, if 'persisted in, lead to consequences of most unpleasant character."

[ocr errors]

As the committee thus avow themselves doubtful of the "decided opinion" they expressed, 1 will proceed to strengthen their doubts, and to refute their opinion, by giving them the information which was not before them. Their report says that "by some of the European geographers, [not Spanish,] these British settlements are spoken of as in Yucatan." The first authority to which I shall refer them, as they have denied that Spanish geographers have so spoken, is the "Dictionario Geographico" of Don Antonio de Alcedo, published at Madrid, in 1786. I quote from the English edition, translated by Thompson, in five volumes quarto, London, 1812:

"BALIS, RIO DE, a river in the province and Government of Yucatan, which runs into the sea upon the same coast near the strand of Bacalar, and into the bay which is formed by that strand and Long Island."-Vol. 1, p. 129.

After mentioning the thirteen provinces of Guatemala, Alcedo expressly mentions Yucatan among the provinces of "Nueva-Espana," [Mexico.]Vol. 2, p. 64, and vol. 3, p. 106. The authority is the more conclusive, as the writer, who was a

SENATE.

Spaniard, published his work at Madrid in 1786, the date of the convention which fixed the limits of the Balize settlement. In volume 2, page 207, Alcedo says: "The kingdom of Guatemala' is bounded on the northeast by the province of Yuca

tan.

[ocr errors]

The next authority to which I refer is Humboldt's "Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain, containing researches relative to the Geography of Mexico," translated from the original French by John Black, published in New York in 1811. This work of Humboldt "underwent the examination of the Spanish Government before it was published in Paris in 1810." In vol. 1, p. 203, the intendency of Merida, or Yucatan, is included among the twelve intendencies of Mexico; and in vol. 2, p. 159, the author says: "The intendency of 'Merida comprehends the great peninsula of Yu'catan, situated between the bays of Campeachy 'and Honduras." Observe, it comprehends the whole of the "peninsula," not merely a part of it. Again: Humboldt says on the same page:

"The province of Merida is bounded on the south by the kingdom of Guatemala, on the east by the intendency of Vera Cruz, on the west by the English establishments which extend from the mouth of the Rio Hondo to the north of the Bay of Hanover, opposite the island of Ubero, [Ambergris Key.] In this quarter, Salamanca, or the small fort of San Felipe de Bacalar, is the most southern point inhabited by the Spaniards.'

Again, the author says, on page 160:

"Since the settlement of the English between Omo [Omoa] and the Rio Hondo, the Government, to diminish the contraband trade, concentrated the Spanish and Indian population in the part of the peninsula west from the mountains of Yucatan. Colonists are not permitted to settle on the western [error, for eastern] coast, on the branches of the Rio Bacalar and Rio Hondo. All this vast country remains uninhabited, with the exception of the military post [presidio] of Salamanca."

And on the map of Humboldt the British settlements are included in the peninsula of Yuca

catan.

The next work to which I refer is that of the celebrated French geographer, (the greatest of the age,) Malte-Brun, printed at Paris in 1847, p. 725, from which I make the following extract:

"COLONIE ANGLAISE.-Sur le territoire de l'ancien état Mexicain d'Yucatan, les Anglais possèdent à l'embouchure de la Balize, rivière qui se jette dans la baie de Honduras, une colonie composée de 4,000 habitans. Elle porte le nom de colonie de Honduras. Son chef lieu est Balize, petite ville avec un port situé à l'endroit où la rivière de ce nom se jette dans le mer."

Having thus described the British settlement as a British colony in the ancient State of Yucatan, in Mexico, at the Balize, a river which empties into the Bay of Honduras, which British colony is called the colony of Honduras, M. Malte-Brun says, p. 740, that the ancient captaincy general of Guatemala, or confederation of Central America, is bounded on the Gulf of Honduras and the Bay of Mosquitos. In the 3d volume of the American edition of 1827, p. 301, Malte-Brun speaks of "the peninsula of Yucatan, or the intendency of Merida," and says:

"We have distinguished on our maps, under the name of ENGLISH YUCATAN, that part of the peninsula which lies to the south of the river Honda, [Hondo,] and of the Spanish military post of Salamanca.

[ocr errors]

Domingo Juanos, a Spaniard, in his "History of Guatemala," says that " the jurisdiction of the Royal Audiencia and Chancery of Guatemala 'extended along the Atlantic from the coast of Balize, in the Bay of Honduras, to the Escudo de Veraguay."

In the third volume of the London Encyclopedia, page 419, we find that

"Balize is a river in the peninsula of Yucatan, South America, which falls into the Bay of Honduras, in latitude 14° 59 N. On its banks, and to the extent of two hundred miles up the stream, the English cut mahogany, and by the treaty of 1783 a right was guarantied to British subjects of cutting and carrying away logwood in the district between this river and the Rio Hondo. Beyond the scene of their operation the Balize is very imperfectly known."

Again:

"Balize, a sea-port town of Yucatan, South America, is an establishment chiefly coinposed of English settlers at the mouth of the above river."-Ibid.

I could fill a volume with British authorities, describing, at various periods during the last hundred years, their settlements in Honduras as being in Mexico or Yucatan. The committee avoided all these; and their report declares that " respect 'for the State of Guatemala requires of this Gov'ernment to recognize the boundaries she has 'prescribed for herself, at least until they are

[ocr errors]

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

'successfully controverted by those territorially " interested." Why did not respect for Great Britain equally require of this Government equally to recognize the boundaries she has prescribed for herself; or at least equally refer to her claims? With her we have an existing treaty of peace, amity, and commerce, and yet no English authorities are referred to for the purpose of showing her pretensions, although so much more easy of access. I shall not dwell upon them; but, having cited the French and Spanish authorities, I shall conclude my review of the report by referring to some of the leading American authorities on the subject.

Darby informs us that "Balize is a river of 'North America, in Yucatan, and on its banks 'the English have their principal settlements for cutting mahogany," &c.

The "Encyclopedia Americana" defines Balize as a "sea-port of Mexico, in Yucatan, at the mouth of the river Balize," and says "it is the only settlement belonging to the British on the coast." The character of Francis Leiber, the editor, as a man of science, can be stated by the Senators from South Carolina.

In the "Encyclopedia of Geography," by Hugh Murray, revised by Bradford, published in 1837, page 328, the author, after speaking of Merida and Campeachy, on the western side of the peninsula of Yucatan, says: "On the other side of the peninsula of Yucatan the British possess the 'settlement of Honduras, extending along the 'shore from the Rio Hondo to the Liburn. 99

I have no time to cite other geographical works to which I could readily refer, but I may be permitted to quote the instructions given by my immediate predecessor, Mr. Buchanan, who, as I think, was qualified to judge of this question, and who, in his letter to Mr. Hise, of the 3d of June, 1848, describes the country ceded by the treaties of 1783 and 1786, when referring to the British encroachments, as the "present British province of the Balize," and as the "established British colony of the Balize," to which he, under the direction of Mr. Polk, appointed a consul, thus directly recognizing the colony as a British colony long before the treaty of the 4th of July, 1850, and still longer before the 11th of February, 1853, when this committee declared that the whole territory was in Central America. If it were so, why did Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan seek and obtain the exequatur for Mr. Hempstead, our Consul at the Balize, from the British Government, and not from Guatemala? If there had been any foundation for the decided opinion " of this committee, was NOT the course adopted by Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan a direct insult to Guatemala? And why did the members of this committee, who now show no respect for the rights of Great Britain, and refuse even to quote her pretensions to the territory, relying, as they have done, exclusively upon the mere claims of Guatemala, then pass over in silence all that was done by Mr. Polk's administration, acknowledging the domain to be in Great Britain by asking her consent to the consulate at Balize?

I now leave those gentlemen who were so confident that British Honduras was in Central America, on the 6th of January last, and who said they would not have voted for the treaty if they had not believed it was there, to the enjoyment of their own reflections.

My next object is to vindicate the treaty, which received the vote of forty-two Senators against ten. To do this I shall review the history of the principle on which it was negotiated.

The principle which for twenty years has governed all the negotiations of the American Government on the great subject of an interoceanic communication between the Atlantic and Pacific, across the isthmus which divides North from South America, was suggested by a unanimous vote of Senate, in Executive session, on the third day of March, 1835. The resolution then adopted by the Senate is in the following words:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to consider the expediency of opening negotiations with the Governments of other nations, and particularly with the Governments of Central America and New Granada, for the purpose of effectually protecting, by suitable treaty stipulations with them, such individuals or companies as may undertake to open a communication between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, by the construction

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

of a ship canal across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and of securing forever, by such stipulations, the free and equal right of navigating such canal to all such nations, on the payment of such reasonable tolls as may be established to compensate the capitalists who may engage in such undertaking and complete the work."

This resolution was at the time debated by Daniel Webster, John Forsyth, and myself. It had long been a cherished object with me to procure some communication across the isthmus which would bring this country nearer to the territories on the Pacific, and draw the treasures of that mighty ocean, with its ten thousand fertile and productive islands, into the ports of the United States. I thought then, and still think, that the opening of such a passage was of paramount importance not only to my own country but to all others; and that even if, in completing such a work, fifty or a hundred millions of dollars (ay, one half the money vainly expended in attempting to discover a northwest passage) should be expended, it would be a cheaper outlay, and render more benefits and blessings to the world, than an equal expenditure in any other enterprise that had ever been or could be undertaken by man. I introduced the resolution just eighteen years ago last Friday, and on the next day Congress adjourned, and John Forsyth entered upon the duties of Secretary of State, under the administration of President Jackson. The suggestion contained in the resolution met with a warm and hearty approval from the President; and on the first day of May, 1835, Charles Biddle was charged with the duty of making inquiries, with a view to enable the Executive to comply with it. Mr. Forsyth's instructions to. Mr. Biddle direct him to proceed by the most direct route to Lake Nicaragua, to explore the contemplated communication by canal or railroad in that quarter, for which purpose every facility was granted to Mr. Biddle. He was afterwards directed to proceed to examine the Panama route, and such other points on the Atlantic side of the isthmus as would probably be fixed on for the termination of a road. I was anxious at the time that William Radcliff, the former consul at Chagres, who had devoted much of his life to the examination of the subject, should receive the appointment. But, unfortunately, he was no politician. Mr. Biddle disobeyed his instructions-never visited Nicaragua; and after having procured from the Government of New Granada an exclusive grant of the right of way across the isthmus of Panama, vesting in citizens of the United States the monopoly of the route, in direct opposition to the resolution of the Senate, he returned home, and then, for the first time, coolly informed Mr. Forsyth that it "appeared to him unnecessary at present to enter into any negotiations with foreign nations upon the subject."

His idea of an exclusive grant to our citizens of the right of way was in accordance with the opinion of Mr. Hise, subsequently appointed by Mr. Polk. Both negotiated for a monopoly of the passage in our own citizens. But there was this difference between them: that the grant negotiated by Mr. Biddle provided that two thirds of the stock created by it should be "the property of Charles Biddle and such citizens of the United 'States as he might associate with him, the office ' of the company to be in Philadelphia, and all 'installments to be paid there, and the number of 'directors to be in the same proportion as the quantity of stock." President Jackson was highly displeased with the result; and Mr. Forsyth, on the 23d of September, 1836, immediately after ascertaining the facts, in a dispatch to Robert B. McAfee, our Chargé d'Affaires at Bogota, disavowed and censured the whole proceeding, and directed him "to disclaim all connection with the 'project on the part of this Government, to prevent any misunderstanding with the Govern'ment of New Granada." The whole object of the Senate and the President was thus frustrated by the incompetency of the agent. President Jackson shortly after went out of office. But the subject was not permitted to sleep. The records of the State Department show that during every succeeding Administration that Department has been engaged in the consideration of this subject, and especially in the acquisition of information necessary to enable it to act with effect. In the admirable dispatch of Mr. Wheaton, of the 17th December, 1845, it is observed that, "in the letter

SENATE.

' of instructions given in 1826 by Mr. Clay, then Secretary of State, to our plenipotentiaries ap'pointed to attend the Congress of Panama, ref'erence is had to a correspondence on this subject 'between him and the Minister of Central America; and it was stated that if the work [a canal] 'should ever be executed so as to admit of the passage of sea vessels, the benefits of it ought 'not to be exclusively appropriated to any one nation, but should be extended to all parts of the globe, upon 'the payment of a just compensation or reason'able tolls."

6

By recurring to the instructions given to our Minister to Panama by Mr. Clay in 1826, it will be seen that President Adams fully approved the principle subsequently adopted by the American Government, so far at least as to negative the idea that it was either the interest or the duty of the American people to obtain a monopoly of the right of way. Mr. Wheaton correctly observes that after the failure of Mr. Biddle's grant, and a subsequent similar grant of exclusive privileges to Baron Thierry, the subject was again taken up in 1839 in the House of Representatives of the United States, on the memorial of the merchants of New York and Philadelphia, on which a very elaborate report was made by Mr. Mercer, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, accompanied with documents and maps illustrative of this important subject. The report concluded with proposing a resolution that the President should be requested "to consider the expediency of opening or continuing negotiations with the Governments of other nations, and particularly with those the 'territorial jurisdiction of which comprehends the Isthmus of Panama, and to which the United States have accredited ministers or agents, for 'the purpose of ascertaining the practicability of effecting a communication between the Atlantic 'and Pacific oceans, by the construction of a ship 'canal across the isthmus, and of securing forever, by suitable treaty stipulations, the free and equal 'right of navigating such canal to all nations." This resolution was unanimously agreed to by the House. It will be seen that it is almost a literal copy of the Senate's resolution of the 3d of March, 1835.

[ocr errors]

It thus appears that the House of Representatives adopted the identical principle established by the President and Senate four years previously. Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay had merely proposed that the benefits of the communication between the two oceans should not be exclusively appropriated to one nation, and should be extended to all parts of the globe on the same terms. But during the administration of President Jackson, we see that our Government extended the principle to the length embraced in the resolution of the Senate; and during the administration of President Van Buren, the House of Representatives adopted the same principle by a resolution in nearly the same words. In 1847, President Polk carried the principle into practical execution by the treaty which was negotiated with the Government of New Granada. In his executive message to the Senate of the 10th of February, 1847, communicating the treaty with New Granada in regard to a canal or railroad across the Isthmus of Panama, he quotes at full length the resolution of the Senate of the 3d of March, 1835; approves of the policy adopted by President Jackson and the Senate at that period; denies the policy of obtaining an exclusive grant or monopoly of the right of way to the American people; and vindicates the principle of opening the communication to all nations on the same terms, and of constituting alliances by negotiation, not for political objects, but for purely commercial purposes, equally interesting to all the navigating nations of the world. I ask the Secretary to read the message:

"To the Senate of the United States:

"I transmit to the Senate, for their advice with regard to its ratification, a general treaty of peace, amity, navigation, and commerce, between the United States of America and the Republic of New Granada,' concluded at Bogota on the 12th of December last, by Benjamin A. Bidlack, Chargé d'Affaires of the United States, on their part, and by Manuel Maria Mallarino, Secretary of State and Foreign Relations, on the part of that Republic.

"It will be perceived by the thirty-fifth article of this treaty that New Granada proposes to guaranty to the Government and citizens of the United States the right of passage across the Isthmus of Panama, over the natural roads, and over any canal or railroad which may be constructed to

[ocr errors]

252

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

APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

unite the two seas, on condition that the United States shall make a similar guaranty to New Granada of the neutrality of this portion of her territory, and her sovereignty over the

same.

"The reasons which caused the insertion of this important stipulation in the treaty will be fully made known to the Senate by the accompanying documents. From these it will appear that our chargé d'affaires acted, in this particular, upon his own responsibility, and without instructions. Under such circumstances, it became my duty to decide whether I would submit the treaty to the Senate; and, after mature consideration, I have determined to adopt this

course.

"The importance of the concession to the commercial and political interests of the United States cannot easily be overrated. The route by the Isthmus of Panama is the shortest between the two oceans; and, from the information herewith communicated, it would seem to be the most practicable for a railroad or canal.

"The vast advantages to our commerce which would result from such a communication, not only with the west coast of America, but with Asia and the islands of the Pacific, are too obvious to require any detail. Such a passage would relieve us from a long and dangerous navigation of more than nine thousand miles around Cape Horn, and render our communication with our own possessions on the northwest coast of America comparatively easy and speedy. "The communication across the isthmus has attracted the attention of the Government of the United States ever since the independence of the South American Republics. On the 3d of March, 1835, a resolution passed the Senate in the following words:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to consider the expediency of opening negotiations with the Governments of other nations, and particularly with the Governments of Central America and New Granada, for the purpose of effectually protecting, by suitable treaty stipulations with them, such individuals or companies as may undertake to open a communication between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, by the construction of a ship-canal across the isthmus which connects North and South America; and of securing forever, by such stipulations, the free and equal right of navigating such canal to all such nations, on the payment of such reasonable tolls as may be established, to compensate the capitalists who may engage in such undertaking and complete the work.'. "No person can be more deeply sensible than myself of the danger of entangling alliances with any foreign nation. That we should avoid such alliances has become a maxim of our policy, consecrated by the most venerated names which adorn our history, and sanctioned by the unanimous voice of the American people. Our own experience has taught us the wisdom of this maxim in the only instancethat of the guarantee to France of her American possessions-in which we have ever entered into such an alliance. If, therefore, the very peculiar circumstances of the present case do not greatly impair, if not altogether destroy, the force of this objection, then we ought not to enter into the stipulation, whatever may be its advantages. The general considerations which have induced me to transmit the treaty to the Senate, for their advice, may be summed up in the following particulars:

"1. The treaty does not propose to guaranty a territory to a foreign nation in which the United States will have no common interest with that nation. On the contrary, we are more deeply and directly interested in the subject of this guarantee than New Granada herself, or any other coun

try.

2. The guarantee does not extend to the territories of New Granada generally, but is confined to the single province of the Isthmus of Panama, where we shall acquire by the treaty a common and coextensive right of passage with herself.

3. It will constitute no alliance for any political object, but for a purely commercial purpose, in which all the navi gating nations of the world have a common interest.

4. In entering into the mutual guarantees proposed by the thirty-fifth article of the treaty, neither the Government of New Granada nor that of the United States has any narrow or exclusive views. The ultimate object, as presented by the Senate of the United States in their resolution, to which I have already referred, is to secure to all nations the free and equal right of passage over the isthmus. If the United States, as the chief of the American nations, should first become a party to this guarantee, it cannot be doubted-indeed, it is confidently expected by the Government of New Granada-that similar guarantees will be given to that Republic by Great Britain and France. Should the proposition thus tendered be rejected, we may deprive the United States of the just influence which its acceptance might secure to them, and confer the glory and benefits of being first among the nations in concluding such an arrangement upon the Government either of Great Britain or France. That either of these Governments would embrace the offer, cannot well be doubted; because there does not appear to be any other effectual means of securing to all nations the advantages of this important passage but the guarantee of great commercial Powers that the isthmus shall be neutral territory. The interests of the world at stake are so important that the security of this passage between the two oceans cannot be suffered to depend upon the wars and revolutions which may arise among different nations.

"Besides, such a guarantee is almost indispensable to the construction of a railroad or canal across the territory. Neither sovereign States nor individuals would expend their capital in the construction of the expensive works, without some such security for their investments.

"The guarantee of the sovereignty of New Granada over the isthmus is a natural consequence of the guarantee of its neutrality, and there does not seem to be any other practicable mode of securing the neutrality of this territory. New Granada would not consent to yield up this province in order that it might become a neutral State; and if she should, it is not sufficiently populous or wealthy to establish and maintain an independent sovereignty. But a civil Government must exist there, in order to protect the works

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

which shall be constructed. New Granada is a Power
which will not excite the jealousy of any nation. If Great
Britain, France, or the United States held the sovereignty
over the isthmus, other nations might apprehend that, in
case of war, the Government would close up the passage
against the enemy: but no such fears can ever be enter-
tained in regard to New Granada."

The vote on the treaty was as follows:
"YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Atherton, Badger, Bagby,
Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bradbury, Bright, Butler, Cal-
houn, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Dix, Downs, Foote,
Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Lewis, Moore, Niles, Rusk,
Sebastian, Spruance, Turney, Underwood, Westcott, and
Yulee-29.

"NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Clarke, Davis of Massachu-
setts, Dayton, Hale, Miller, and Upham-7."

It thus appears that every Democratic Senator
of that day voted for the treaty. The Senator
from Illinois, it would seem, is not of that school.

When I went into the office of Secretary of State
under President Taylor, I found that a company
of British capitalists contemplated the formation of
a ship canal by the way of the river San Juan and
Lake Nicaragua, and that they had employed Mr.
Wheelright, an English gentleman, to make the
necessary arrangements and obtain the requisite
grant for that purpose from the Government of
Nicaragua. At the same time a company of Amer-
ican capitalists, the chief of whom was Mr. Van-
derbilt, of New York, was engaged in the prosecu-
tion of the same purpose, and had employed an
agent to procure a grant from Nicaragua in their
behalf. Supposing that Great Britain would throw
her influence in favor of the English adventurers,
the American capitalists naturally sought the aid
of their own Government. The President appoint-
ed E. George Squier chargé d'affaires to Central
America, in lieu of Elijah Hise, who had been ap-
tion of President Polk. His instructions, dated
pointed to the same place during the administra-
the 1st of May, 1849, fully explain the object of
the appointment of Mr. Squier, in aiding the Amer-
ican capitalists to obtain the grant of the right of
and to carry out the principles of the resolu-
way,
tion of the 3d of March, 1835. Those instructions,
after denying the validity of the Mosquito title, and
asserting that of the State of Nicaragua, arrive at
the conclusion that the United States, being in-
terested in a free passage to and from the Pacific
ocean by the way of the river San Juan and Lake
Nicaragua, cannot tamely allow that interest to be
thwarted by the pretensions set up by Great Bri-
tain as the protector of the Mosquito coast. As it
is necessary to explain the policy of this Govern-
ment, and especially that of President Taylor, I
trust I shall be pardoned for quoting the following
passage from the instructions which I gave to the
minister to Central America before he proceeded
on his mission:

"Having now sufficiently apprised you of the views of
this Department in regard to the title to the Mosquito coast,
I desire you distinctly to understand how important it is
deemed by the President so to conduct all our negotiations
on the subject of the Nicaragua pass as not to involve this
country in any entangling alliances or any unnecessary con-
troversy. We desire no monopoly of the right of way for
our commerce, and we cannot submit to it if claimed for
that of any other nation. If we held and enjoyed such a
monopoly, it would entail upon us more bloody and ex-
pensive wars than the struggle for Gibraltar has caused to
England and Spain. The same calamities would infallibly
be cast upon any other nation claiming to exclude the
We only ask an
commerce of the rest of the world.
equal right of passage for all nations on the same terms-a
passage unencumbered by oppressive exactions either from
the local government within whose sovereign limits it may
be effected, or from the proprietors of the canal when ac-
complished. For this end we are willing to enter into a
treaty stipulation with the Government of Nicaragua, that
both Governments shall forever protect and defend the pro-
prietors who may succeed in cutting the canal and opening
the water communication between the two oceans for our
Without such protection, it is not believed
commerce.
that this great enterprise would ever be successful. Nicar-
agua is a feeble State, and capitalists, proverbially a timid
race, may apprehend from the rapacity of great maritime
Powers the obstruction and even the seizure of the canal.
Similar apprehensions on their part, from revolutions in
the local government, from the oppression and exactions of
temporary chieftains, and from causes not necessary to be
explained, may operate to retard a work in regard to which
it may be safely predicted, that when successfully accom-
plished, its benefits to mankind will transcend those of any
other similar work known in the history of the world. All
these apprehensions may and will be removed by the sol-
emn pledge of protection given by the United States, and
especially when it is known that our object in giving it is
not to acquire for ourselves any exclusive or partial advan-
tage over other nations. Nicaragua will be at liberty to
enter into the same treaty stipulations with any other na-
tion that may claim to enjoy the same benefits, and will
agree to be bound by the same guarantee. In desiring that
our own countrymen may obtain the charter or grant of the

HO. OF REPS.

right to make the canal, we do not mean to be misunder-
stood. Our purpose in aiding American citizens to obtain
the grant is to encourage them in a laudable effort, rely.
ing, as their Government does, more on their skill and en-
terprise than that of others. If they themselves prefer to
unite with their own the capital of foreigners who may de-
sire to embark in the undertaking, this Government will
not object to that. We should naturally be proud of such
an achievement as an American work; but if European
aid be necessary to accomplish it, why should we repudiate
it, seeing that our object is as honest as it is openly avowed,
to claim no peculiar privilege, no exclusive right, no mo
nopoly of commercial intercourse, but to see that the work
is dedicated to the benefit of mankind, to be used by all on
the same terms with us, and consecrated to the enjoyment
and diffusion of the unnumbered and inestimable blessings
which must flow from it to all the civilized world?
"You will not want arguments to induce Nicaragua to
The canal will be pro-
enter into such a treaty with us.
ductive of more benefit to her than any other country of the
same limits. With the aid of the treaty it may (without
such protection from some Power equal to our own, it can-
not) be accomplished. Let your negotiation with her be
frank, open, and unreserved, as to all our purposes.
same reasons for our interference must be avowed to the
capitalists who may enlist in the work. Before you treat
for their protection, look well to their contract with Nicar-
See that it is not assignable to others, that no ex-
agua.
clusive 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 unreason-
able or oppressive, that no power be reserved to the propri-
etors of the canal or their successors to extort at any time
hereafter, or unjustly 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 incon-
siderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to
have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in
view."

The

It will thus be seen that the policy of President lution of 1835, but with the principles adopted by Taylor was not only in accordance with the resoboth Houses of Congress, and with those of every President of the United States from the days of as we have the means of ascertaining them. Presidents Adams and Jackson to this time, so far

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

But, it will be asked, if the views of President Polk were really such as are here represented, why was it that he suffered Mr. Hise to violate the principle and abandon the whole policy of the Government by the negotiation of Mr. Hise's treaty with Nicaragua of the 21st of June, 1849, by which Nicaragua grants" to the United States, 'or to a company of the citizens thereof, the exclu 'sive right and privilege to make, construct, and 'build, within the territories of the State of Nicar'agua, through and by the use and means of any ' of the streams, rivers, bays, harbors, lakes, or lands, under the jurisdiction or within the limits ' of said State, a canal or canals, or road or roads, ' either railways or turnpikes, or any other kind of roads, for the purpose of opening a convenient and communication between the Caribpassage 'bean sea and the Pacific ocean?" The answer is, that Mr. Polk never assented to or authorized any such thing. Mr. Hise acted in making the treaty not only without instructions and beyond his powers, but in direct opposition to the instructions which Mr. Buchanan gave him in his letter of the 3d of June, 1848. He went with powers to conclude a common treaty of commerce with the ReBut Mr. publics of Guatemala and San Salvador. Buchanan expressly added, "it is not, however, 'deemed advisable to empower you to conclude a treaty with either Nicaragua, Honduras, or Costa 'Rica, until you shall have communicated to the 'Department more full and authentic statistic in'formation in regard to those States than that which it now possesses." Mr. Hise's treaty, granting to us the exclusive right of way, was not only hostile to all the views and opinions of Mr. Polk, but it was also adverse to the sentiments of Mr. Buchanan, the Secretary, as expressed by him to Mr. Crampton, the British Minister, on the 22d of May, 1848, at which time Mr. Buchanan reston's opinion with regard to a plan he felt very quested Mr. Crampton to ascertain Lord Palmeranxious to give effect to for the establishment of a communication by a railroad, in the first instance, and afterwards, if practicable, by a ship canal, across the Isthmus of Panama, between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans.

The great obstacle which had prevented the execution of this important undertaking had been, in Mr. Buchanan's opinion, the want of security for property in the territory which embraces the isthmus, resulting from the continual revolutions and

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

hostilities of the Republics of Central America; and for this state of things he proposed the remedy by the conclusion of a treaty between Great Britain and the United States, admitting as parties to it, should it be thought desirable, France or any other great commercial Power, by which treaty the perpetual neutrality of the province in which the Isthmus of Panama is situated should be guarantied. Mr. Buchanan proposed to afford the advantage of the communication at a moderate toll to all nations. In these views, General Herrau, the Minister of New Granada, concurred. The British Minister himself is my authority for the fact.

We know, therefore, that the views of Mr. Buchanan concurred with the principle established in 1835, and that he could not have yielded his approbation to Mr. Hise's treaty for a monopoly. But Mr. Hise's treaty, independently of the objection on the ground of the exclusive privileges it conferred, was liable to others.

By the third article

"It is agreed that if the Government of the United States shall decide not to undertake and construct the said works, then either the President or Congress thereof shall have the power and authority to frame, enact, and issue a charter or act of incorporation, containing such liberal provisions, and such grants of rights and privileges, (not inconsistent with the rights of the contracting parties herein secured,) as may be necessary, convenient, or proper to effect the great objects in view. "

We see, then, that Mr. Hise's treaty proposed, first, that the Government of the United States should undertake and construct the canal in Nicaragua; and, secondly, if it should decide not to do so, then either the President or Congress should issue a charter or act of incorporation for the purpose. As to the first proposition, I have never yet met with any man of any party who supposed that our Government had power to make improvements outside the United States and their territories. Mr. Polk denied that it had power to make internal improvements, and Mr. Buchanan was of the same strict-construction school. As to the second proposition, to confer upon the President or Congress the power to issue a charter or act of incorporation for the purpose of cutting a canal in Nicaragua, I need not ask the question, Who believes that either of them could exercise such a power under the Constitution? No foreign Government could confer a greater power upon our President or our Congress than the Constitution delegates to them. The power of Congress to create a corporation within the limits of the United States was denied by Mr. Polk. But if there be any man (except the Senator from Illinois, Mr. DOUGLAS) who thinks that either the President (who has no legislative power) or Congress, or both combined, have power to issue a charter incorporating a company to make a canal in Nicaragua, or a railroad in China, I have not yet seen him.

By the twelfth article of Mr. Hise's treaty it is provided, in consideration of the monopoly granted and the other grants in the preceding articles, that

[ocr errors]

"The United States of America doth solemnly agree and undertake to protect and defend the State of Nicaragua in the possession and exercise of the sovereignty and dominion of all the country, coasts, ports, lakes, rivers, and territories that may be rightfully under the jurisdiction and within the just and true limits and boundaries of the said State; and when the circumstances and condition of the country may require it, the United States shall employ their naval and military force to preserve the peace and maintain the neutrality of the said coasts, ports, lakes, rivers, and territories, and to hold and keep the same under the dominion and sovereignty of the Government of the State of Nicaragua, or of the Government of such State or political community of which Nicaragua may voluntarily become a member, or with which, of her own accord, she may hereafter be identified."

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

not a treaty for a political alliance, which he admits would have been fatal to its confirmation. On the very principles laid down by Mr. Polk in that message it is impossible that he could have ever consented to the ratification of Mr. Hise's treaty.

I have quoted but a part of the twelfth article. The other provisions of that article are not only entangling, but entangled. If I understand the article at all, it provides that we shall not support Nicaragua in her wars of aggression outside of her just limits; yet the naval and military forces, and the entire means and resources of both the contracting parties shall be employed "to put down all wars and bloodshed arising therefrom," and to suppress all violations of the peace and interruptions of the neutrality of the State of Nicaragua; that is to say, if Nicaragua should go to war outside of her own limits, we are bound to fight till we put down the wars and bloodshed arising from them; and Nicaragua is to help us to do that, for not only our entire means and resources, (that is, all we have in the world, or can possibly get,) but all she has or can procure shall be employed for the common purpose. We are also bound to suppress all violations of the peace within her limits; to effect which we must have kept an army there. The twelfth article then proceeds to declare, "for further explanation, it is 'understood that if the State of Nicaragua should 'become involved in a [just] war with any for'eign Power or neighboring State within her own 'border, to defend the territories rightfully belonging to her, or to recover such territories wrongfully wrested from her, the United States engage to aid and defend Nicaragua in carrying 'on such war within her own rightful limits. Comment upon this provision of Mr. Hise's treaty would seem to be an inexcusable waste of time.

[ocr errors]

There are other articles in this treaty sufficiently absurd to condemn it. But if I have not already shown enough for that purpose, I feel that it would be useless to refer to any others. Is there a man in this Senate who will dare to stand up and say he would have voted for it? Not one! And if the whole Senate had voted for such a treaty, it could never have been ratified either by President Polk or by President Taylor. If the President had ratified it on our part, we know it never could have become a treaty, for the Government of Nicaragua, when this treaty was presented to it by Señor Selva, the commissioner who signed it with Mr. Hise, utterly disapproved it, and refused to ratify it. Of this fact all were fully apprised by the published letter of Mr. Carcache, the charge d'affaires accredited to our Government by that of Nicaragua, addressed to the Secretary of State on the 31st of December, 1849.

It was under these circumstances that the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] made a charge against me on the floor of the Senate, on the 14th day of February last, that I had suppressed Mr. Hise's treaty. What right had he to say that I had suppressed the treaty? As a Senator he ought to have known, and if he attended to his duty, and read the correspondence transmitted to the Senate by the President, he did know that it was utterly untrue; for General Taylor himself informed the Senate that he had declined sending it to the Senate for ratification, for reasons which I have already given. If the Senator meant to say that I had concealed the treaty, then his statement was equally destitute of truth, for he knew well that I had sent that treaty to Congress on the 18th day of July, 1850, and that it was among the published documents when he made the state

ment.

[Mr. DOUGLAS here said he meant only that the treaty had not been sent to the Senate for ratification.]

The Senator has been on many occasions engaged in making charges against the administration of President Taylor that this treaty was not

Does any man here defend such a treaty as that? This is one of the first instances since the ancient entangling alliance made with France by the treaties of 1778, in which any minister of this Government has attempted to disobey the solemn injunction of the Father of his Country to avoid all such politicial connections. For this is a polit-submitted to the Senate for ratification. I have ical, not a mere commercial alliance. It is difficult to perceive how it could have failed to plunge us into a war. Mr. Polk, in his message to the Senate, when transmitting the treaty which provides for the protection of the Panama railroad, that the Province of Panama shall be neutral territory, justifies that treaty on the ground that it is a treaty for commercial purposes merely, and

[ocr errors]

read publications of some of his stump speeches in regard to this treaty-has he any complaint to make now? Dare he now say that he would, under any possible circumstances, have voted for that treaty? Would he desire me to send such a treaty as that to the Senate for ratification? Would he ratify it? He cannot say that he would; and if he cannot, with what show of propriety did he

SENATE.

arraign me or President Taylor for declining to offer it to the Senate for ratification? When he indulged himself so freely at my expense, on the 14th day of February last, did he not know that neither Mr. Buchanan nor Mr. Polk had ever authorized Mr. Hise to make such a treaty ?-that although Mr. Hise stated in the treaty that he had full powers to negotiate it, yet he had no such powers? Did he not know that Mr. Hise made the treaty in utter disobedience to Mr. Buchanan's instructions? Did he not know that Mr. Hise made that treaty after his recall, and after the appointment of his successor? Did he not know that the treaty was utterly inadmissible on the principles publicly avowed and acted upon by Mr. Polk? Did he not know that the treaty violated plain principles of constitutional law, and overthrew the settled policy of this Government since its origin? Did he not know, while he was delivering his speech here in the Senate, that this was a treaty the like of which no man of any party could either ratify or approve?

In a report of the speech of the Senator from Illinois, now before me, he states his objections to the treaty made by Mr. Squier with the State of Nicaragua, and also to the Central American treaty concluded with Great Britain on the 19th of April, 1850. As both these treaties were negotiated on the principles of the resolution laid down in the Senate on the 3d of March, 1835, I will take this occasion of answering his objections, and correcting some of his misstatements. In that speech the Senator says that Great Britain could never have colonized any part of Central America. In another part of the same speech he says that Great Britain had colonized the Bay of Islands, which he says lie in Central America, and belong to the State of Honduras, in violation of the Monroe doctrine and the treaty negotiated by me with Mr. Bulwer. Both the statements cannot be correct-the one or the other must be untrue; and strange must have been that obliviousness which involved the Senator in such a flat contradiction of himself. Again: he says that I had instructed Mr. Squier to say to the Government of Nicaragua that Mr. Hise had no authority to act. This is another singular misstatement. There is not a word in my instructions to excuse the Senator for making it. I had no idea that Mr. Hise had disobeyed Mr. Buchanan's instructions when I wrote the instructions to Mr. Squier. He had been directed to make no treaty with Nicaragua. How could I imagine that Mr. Hise had acted upon powers which were never granted to him by my predecessor? The date of my instructions to Squier, as the Senator knew, was the 1st of May, 1849. He equally well knew, if he read the public documents, that Mr. Hise's treaty was not made till the 21st day of June thereafter. The Senator prefers Mr. Hise's treaty on account of the monopoly of the right of way; and his objection to that of Mr. Squier is, that it opened the right of way to all nations upon the same terms. Did the Senator object to the treaty negotiated in the time of Mr. Polk with New Granada? And is not that treaty liable to the very same objection which he now makes against that of Mr. Squier? It is Mr. Polk's boast in his message transmitting the New Granada treaty, that the Panama route would be "open to all nations on the same terms.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The Senator, who has joined with a few others in denouncing the treaties with Nicaragua and Great Britain for making the "Nicaragua passage free to all nations on the same terms, was never known to open his mouth against the treaty which opened the Panama railroad to all nations. The treaty of the 19th of April, 1850, provides for the neutrality of the territory of all the Central American States, and for that reason the Senator condemns it. The treaty with New Granada, having in view the same object-the protection of an interoceanic communication through the Isthmus of Panama, and providing for the neutrality of the province of Panama-meets with his unqualified approbation. The Senator has taken up his song against the treaty which guaranties the neutrality of all the Central American Republics, and liberates them from the dominion of Great Britain. That Government had actually seized them and occupied them, and yet his harp hung upon the willows from the day when the treaty establishing

« ZurückWeiter »