32D CONG.....2D SESS. that it is fit and proper that the resolution should be then made, and that notice should be served on all mankind, I will go for it, with the proviso this time, that the resolution never shall be outlawed, and that we shall not be under the necessity of renewing it again; but that all nations, for all time to come, shall take notice that this is the only market in which they can dispose of their colonies. But I think the honorable Senator from Michigan-for whom I have none but the kindest feelings, and the most profound respect-will not go that far. Mr. CASS. I will tell you when the time comes. Mr. HALE. I think the time has come now. There is the mistake. I think we are in an epoch, [laughter,] and that if we ever mean to say it, now is the time. I will not detain the Senate any longer, except simply to ask, when the vote is taken upon my amendment, that I may have the yeas and nays. Mr. MASON. I wish to ask the honorable Senator from Michigan, if I correctly understood him, in alluding to the conferences held by Mr. Rush with Mr. Canning, then the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to say that Mr. Rush was acting in pursuance of authority, or under the instructions of the President? Mr. CASS. Unquestionably. He had his consultation with Mr. Canning, after he had received the declaration of Mr. Monroe, and knew the whole views of the Government. At first, as I understand Mr. Rush's book, propositions had been made, which he transmitted to the Government, or on his own responsibility he had refused to join the American Congress, proposed to be held at Panama. The views of the Government were fully conveyed to him before he had this consultation with Mr. Canning; and he states expressly that the first part of the declaration, with reference to the South American States, was well received by England, but the latter part, in reference to anti-colonization by any European power, was not well received. Mr. MASON. Perhaps it would be as well for the Senate to allow me five minutes to put this matter right, as a matter of history, and a very interesting matter of history, connected with this declaration of Mr. Monroe. I have no design to go at length into the debate. Mr. BADGER. To accommodate the Senator, I move that the Senate adjourn. Mr. GWIN. I hope this subject will go over to next week. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. SOULE] intends to address the Senate upon it. The motion to adjourn was agreed to, and the Senate adjourned. WEDNESDAY, January 19, 1853. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the joint resolutionMr. MASON said: Mr. President, it may become my duty, before the debate shall close, or the vote be taken on the resolution offered by the Senator from Michigan, to give my views at large upon the whole scope and tenor of that resolution. Yesterday, when the honorable Senator concluded his introductory speech upon it, I was anxious to say a few words upon one branch of the subject only, in relation to a matter which, as I conceived, had been misinterpreted by the Senator from Michigan in his remarks. I desired to do so yesterday, in order that what I might say should go out contemporaneously with the speech of that Senator; but I had not the opportunity, because of the lateness of the hour; and I trust the Senate will indulge me this morning in doing what I then desired to do. I wish to speak alone now of that portion of the message of President Monroe of 1823, which was directed to the affairs of Spanish America, for the purpose of showing that the principle asserted in that message had not been (as I understood it to be asserted by the honorable Senator from Michigan) laid by in rust, and neglected as obsolete and forgotten; but that the principle there asserted had effected what it was intended to effect, what alone it was intended to effect; and to show that it cannot again be resuscitated by the American Government, unless the same contingency were to arise which brought it into being. I understood the Senator from Michigan, to Colonization in North America-Mr. Mason. whose remarks I listened, as I always do, not only with pleasure, but with instruction, to be impressed in some way that the doctrines thus asserted in the message of President Monroe, with reference to Spanish American affairs, were complicated with a like movement at that time on the part of England; and that he gathered that impression from the book published by Mr. Rush, to which he referred. The message of President Monroe was his annual communication to Congress, in December, 1823. It took a general review, of course, of all the foreign relations of this country; and in speaking of the condition of the Republics, then independent, upon the conti nent of South America, he reviewed the existing relations between them and their parent stock; and it was in that connection, and in reference to Spanish America alone, that the principle adverted to was asserted. In March, 1822, Mr. Monroe, by a special message, had solemnly invoked the Congress of the United States to recognize the independence of certain of the South American Republics. He took the initiative in this, in advance of all the Governments of the world, and called upon Congress in the most solemn manner, declaring to them that the time had come to recognize the independence of such of those Republics as had shown themselves equal to the new positions they had assumed. It was done. Congress, during the same session of 1822, responded to the call. The House of Representatives passed a resolution approving the recommendation, and Congress made an appropriation to meet the necessary expenses of diplomatic intercourse with them. That was the first step which was taken by any Power toward the recognition of the independence of any part of South America. SENATE. in this country, as to whether, in his opinion, the moment were not arrived when the two Governments of Great Britain and the United States might not come to some understanding with each other on the subject of the Spanish-American colonies; and whether, if they could arrive at such understanding, it would not be expedient for themselves, and beneficial for the world, that the principles of it should be clearly settled and plainly avowed." That was the first movement which brought the Ministers of the two Powers together, and at the instance of Mr. Canning, who originated it. The latter met Mr. Canning with the declaration that he had no power, having no instructions from his Government on that subject, but that it was a matter of very great interest, and one that he knew his Government felt deeply concerned in; and waiving the proposition of Mr. Canning, he availed himself of the occasion to press upon Mr. Canning, what England so far had not done, that she should follow the example of the United States, by recognizing the independence of those Republics. The result was, that, after several days of informal discussion and the exchange of notes, Mr. Rush consented, though without authority from his Government, to make such a concerted declaration with England, provided England, as a preliminary, would recognize their independence. In what position did England stand? In a very It was then well difficult and a very delicate one. known that Spain was using every means to induce her allies upon the continent to unite with her in resubjugating her revolted colonies in America, and it was equally well known that England was averse to it. It was well known that, beside grave political considerations, large commercial relations had grown up between England and those Republics, which forbade the assent of England to any such intervention. England felt herself in this position: If her continental allies yielded to the invitation of Spain, and united with her to resubjugate the colonies, it would involve England inevitably in a war with those allies; and thus, though England was stimu At that time, as we are all well aware, the Government of Old Spain-I mean the legitimate Government of Spain-was held in a sort of pupilage by the Cortes, which had prescribed a constitutional government for the King. When the act of the American Government, recognizing the independ-lated by her subjects to recognize the independ ence of the South American States, which had previously been colonies of Spain, came to them, it first opened the eyes of Spain to the fact that its American colonies were in truth dismembered. There is a very interesting history of this subject given by Mr. Rush, who, at that time, was Minister of the United States in England. I wish to refer to it, first, to show that the American Government proceeded alone in everything that it did relative to the affairs of Spanish America; and secondly, that what the American Government then did was directed to Spanish America alone, to the exclusion of any other matter connected with our foreign relations. What is Mr. Rush's account? He says that, having occasion, in August, 1823, to ask an interview with the British Minister for Foreign Affairs, (then Mr. George Canning,) after the object of the interview had been disposed of, (one which was totally foreign to the affairs of South America,) he "transiently" asked Mr. Canning, as Mr. Rush expressed it, about the recent news from Spain. His inquiry of Mr. Canning was in these words, as stated in his book: "The proper object of it [the conference] over, I transiently asked him whether, 'notwithstanding the late news from Spain, we 'might not still hope that the Spaniards would get 'the better of their difficulties?" The question was thus transiently put upon a subject totally foreign to that which had brought them together. Mr. Canning gave him the information, and it led to a further conversation, in the course of which Mr. Canning inquired of Mr. Rush if the proper time had not arrived, in his opinion, for the two Governments of England and the United States to make a concerted declaration upon the affairs of Spanish America? This inquiry of Mr. Canning, as given by Mr. Rush, was as follows: "Whether the 'United States would join England in a concerted 'declaration against the intervention of the Holy 'Alliance in the affairs of South America." In tracing this subject further, I have found the English account of this interview, given in a very interesting work published by a gentleman who, I understand, was the Secretary of Mr. CanningMr. Stapleton-who wrote "The Political Life of Canning." He states that— "Towards the latter end of August, 1823, Mr. Canning sounded Mr. Rush, the then Minister of the United States ence of the South American States, the Government was deterred, and hesitated, because it might drive her into a war with the whole continent of Europe; and this recognition Mr. Rush had made a condition precedent to any action on his part toward the concerted declaration. Eventually the subject was dropped between them, on the ground, as set forth by Mr. Canning, that Mr. Rush had no powers. So much is due to the history of that occasion, to show that the United States as a Government never invited the coöperation of England in the matter; that when the proposal was assented to in the modified form admitted by Mr. Rush, it was assumed by him as his act, and without authority from his Government, and that it was never subsequently confirmed by his Government. He, as a matter of course, communicated to his Government immediately and fully all that took place; and in one of his letters, from which I quote an extract, he told the Secretary of State this: "Should the issue of things be different, and events, notwithstanding, arise threatening the peace of the United States, or otherwise seriously to affect their interest in any way, in consequence of such a declaration by me, it would still remain for the wisdom of my Government to disavow my conduct, as it would manifestly have been without its previous warrant." Now, I think I have shown, in the first place, that the true line of American policy of avoiding foreign alliances was not departed from in that instance; and, secondly, that the Government of the United States not only preceded England, but preceded all other Powers in recognizing first, and alone, the independence of the South American colonies. These propositions I may assume to be established. I come now to the question, to what issue was this declaration of Mr. Monroe directed? With a very limited knowledge of the practices of Governments in their relations towards each other, but with some knowledge of human affairs and human conduct in the relations of the world, I apprehend that no principle can be more important to be maintained than that declarations made, or positions assumed by the Powers of the world to regulate and define their intercourse with each other should not be extended by loose interpretation beyond their legitimate scope and meaning. What, then, was the state of things to which this declaration by Mr. 32D CONG....2D SESS. Colonization in North America-Messrs. Mason and Cass. Monroe was directed? Why it was this, and this alone: It was the imminently-threatened intervention of the allied Powers of Europe to enforce on the continent of America, in the affairs of Spain and her colonies, their continental system-legitimacy." It was directed to that, and confined to that, as I think I can show by a very few historical references. Was that intervention threatened? The first piece of evidence I shall advert to on that point, is a declaration made by Mr. Brougham, in the House of Commons, in 1824, referring to the position of this Spanish question in the preceding year, as follows: "Mr. Brougham then proceeded to state, as an indisputable fact, that Ferdinand had been promised by the Em'peror Alexander, that if the King of Spain would throw off the constitutional fetters by which he was trammeled, he would assist him in recovering his transatlantic do'minions."" tested. Again, in a further paragraph, the mes- "With the existing colonies or dependencies of any Eu- towards the United States." He then went on to speak of our policy in regard to Europe. It was one of disconnection and alienation. He referred to the system of the allied Powers on the continent of Europe, and concludes as follows: "But in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied Powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent, without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can any one believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. "It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference." SENATE. "The question with regard to South America," said Mr. Brougham," was now, he believed, disposed of, or nearly so; for an event had recently happened, than which no event had ever dispersed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the free men of Europe: that event, which was decisive on the subject, was the language held with respect to Spanish America in the speech, or message of the President of the United States to Congress." I shall not detain the Senate longer. All that I desired to do was to show, first, that there was nothing to be found in the history of this occasion showing any departure from the established policy of this Government to refrain from all foreign alliances whatever; secondly, that the declaration of Mr. Monroe was guarded in its terms, and was designedly confined to the occasion then existing -the apprehension that the Powers of Europe would endeavor to establish their "continental system" upon the continent of America. I had a further object: to call upon the Senate and the country to prevent injustice to the memory of the great departed statesman whose act it wasto disclaim extending his language beyond its true import and its true meaning. You may establish a principle, if you please, that European Powers shall not be permitted to do this, that, or the other, I on this continent; but establish it as your own principle, and not as Mr. Monroe's. The act of Mr. Monroe was confined to a single object: the prevention of the intervention of the allied Powers of Europe to restore the colonial possessions of Spain on this continent, because their revolt was in violation of their established dogma of the legit There can be no doubt that if the United States had not, by the message of Mr. Monroe, in December, 1823, made such a declaration, England would have been driven to do from necessity what the United States had done from choice. The people of England would never have permitted their Government to stand by indifferently and see the continental policy established between Spain and her colonies on the continent of America. But the fact remains, that the United States went into it alone and in advance. At that time Louis XVIII. had been restored to the Throne of France by the allied Powers. Ferdinand of Spain, of the same family of Bourbons, was upon his Throne it was true; but he was fettered by the constitutional Cortes, who had As I read this matter, the true history of the ocattempted to engraft upon the Spanish monarchy casion was this: There was imminent reason to the free institutions of a representative government. believe that the Powers of Continental Europe The King of France had marched one hundred would come to the aid of Spain to resubjugate her thousand men into Spain to set him free. The colonies in South America, then independent, and King of Spain was calling upon his allies to come admitted to be so by the United States. England, to his aid. Conferences were going on; notes conscious that when the time came, a necessity were being constantly exchanged, as the diplo-would be imposed upon her to interpose, had not matic history of the times shows, between the yet interposed. The United States had acknowl-imacy of Kings. Spanish Embassador at Paris and the Embassa- edged the independence of the South American dors of the other European Powers at that Court; Governments, in 1822; England had not yet done the great end and object of which was to bring so in August, 1823, when the conversation from about a Congress of the allied Powers, to take which I have read took place between Mr. Rush into consideration the condition of the Spanish and Mr. Canning; and when Mr. Rush pressed Throne, and to restore its legitimate rule both at it upon England as a preliminary to the proposed home and in Spanish America. Mr. Brougham union, that England should recognize their indesays that this had been promised by the Emperor pendence, the matter was waived on the part of the Alexander, upon condition that the King of Spain British Secretary, and the whole affair was comwould free himself from the constitutional govern- municated to the Government of the United States ment at home. Mr. Canning told Mr. Rush, as by our Minister. the latter reports, in the course of the conversations which took place between them on the subject to which I have alluded, that " he had received notice of measures being in projection by the 'Powers of Europe relative to the affairs of Span'ish America, as soon as the French succeeded in their military movement against Spain." England knew perfectly well that the occasion was imminent. There was every reason to believe that the allied Powers of Europe would rally around Spain, for the purpose of resubjugating her colonies. England knew, not only that she could not unite with them, but that she must resist them; and whenever that resistance was made, she would be involved in a war with the whole continent of Europe. The invitation of the 26th of December, 1823, given by the Spanish Minister to the various European Powers to come to the rescue of Spain, was of course made known to England, though the invitation was not addressed to her. It was What followed? The Government of the United States took that step singly, which it had been proposed on the part of the British Government that the two Governments should take jointly. It was a declaration made against the purpose, on the part of the allied Powers, to bring their " polil-understood that there was to be this meeting of ical system" to this continent. It was narrowed and confined to that, and that alone. Did it have its effect? I will tell you what followed. In December, 1823, as I find in looking at the political history of the day, a formal request was made by the Government of Spain to certain of the allied Powers, to carry into execution that purpose against which the protest of Mr. Monroe was directed-a request to those Powers that they would aid Spain in reestablishing her legitimate authority over the revolted colonies of Spanish America. Here it is. It is a letter from the Prime Minister of the King of Spain to his Ma This state of things led to the invitation which Mr. Canning gave to Mr. Rush. The latter assented to it, but upon terms which England was not at once prepared to adopt-a previous recog-jesty's Ministers at Paris, St. Petersburgh, and nition of the independence of the Republics-and the whole matter was then, as a matter of course, communicated by Mr. Rush to his Government. It must be remembered that the interview spoken of by Mr. Rush, took place in August, 1823. In December, 1823, President Monroe made his annual communication to Congress, which contained the famous protest which has been so often quoted. What was the protest? We shall find, on looking back to it, that it was made in the most circumspect and guarded manner, and confined to a single purpose. Every word seems to have been weighed, and its expressions sedulously guarded. Here is his language: "We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those Powers, to declare that we should consider any attempts on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety." "To extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere." What system? Why, the system by which those Powers of Continental Europe had been banded together-the system which recognized none but a legitimate throne, and which bound the sovereigns to each other to protect each in his throne, because it was legitimate. That is the system, as I shall have occasion presently more fully to develop, against which Mr. Monroe pro Vienna, dated December 26, 1823, in these words: The invitation was based upon a mutual recog- That message effected its object. It averted the threatened interposition; and in proof of it we have, first, the broad fact that they never did interpose, that the invitation of Spain was declined. The allied Powers never came to her aid. We have, secondly, the high testimony borne to the fact by Mr. Brougham in the British House of Commons in the succeeding year, (1824,) when he used this language: the allied Powers upon the continent of Europe, to which England was not invited; but when it came to her knowledge, Mr. Canning immediately gave them to understand that such an act on the part of the allied Powers would be instantly followed by a recognition of the independence of South America on the part of England. All that I have wished to attain on this subject is to show that the doctrines of Mr. Monroe, adverted to by the honorable Senator from Michigan, and embraced in his resolution, was confined to a single issue, and that issue was the intervention of the allied Powers of Europe between Spain and her colonies, in order to establish their continental system; and to insist, as I do insist, that, taking it as the doctrine of Mr. Monroe, we cannot extend it one hair's breadth beyond that. We may establish a new doctrine if we please, but that will not be the Monroe doctrine. In the same message of 1823, Mr. Monroe declared, as an additional policy by this Government, that the American continents were not, thereafter, to be considered as fit subjects for European colonization. I do not mean to go into that It is true that enunciation was made in the same message of 1823, but it was connected with a different matter, and asserted in a different manner. I do not mean to go into that now, though I shall probably have occasion to do so some time before the debate closes. now. Mr. CASS. I shall detain the Senate but a very short time. As Mr. Polk said, for a quarter of a century down to his day-and that is now some years since-the doctrine of Mr. Monroe had been distinctly understood by the American people, I thought it was a historical fact which had never been doubted, as far as I recollect, that Mr. Monroe protested against the recolonization of any portion of the American continents by any of the European Powers. They expressly excluded the idea of interfering with existing rights; but he protested forever afterwards against the recoloni 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Colonization in North America-Messrs. Soulé and Dixon. zation of any portion of the North or South American continents. Every man, so far as I recollect, has understood it so. Mr. Polk distinctly understood it so. So did Mr. Canning and Mr. Rush, as the paragraph which I read yesterday from Mr. Rush's book shows. I have not a word to say with respect to the history of the time given by the honorable Senator from Virginia. I agree to it all. I have no doubt whatever that the existing condition of South America directed the eyes of our country to it. His whole narrative of the matter is correct. I give Mr. Rush great credit for the whole course of his negotiations, and the administration of Mr. Monroe greater credit; because they, notwithstanding the boast Mr. Canning made before the world that it was he that called these States into existence or recognized them, recognized their independence before him. stood that language precisely as I have explained it. That was the distinct understanding both of Mr. Bush and of the English Government; and, in fact, the whole world understood it so. Let me, upon this point, read again the extract which I read yesterday, from Mr. Rush's book. Mr. Rush, in his account of his conversation with Mr. Canning, says: "But although no joint movement took place, my dispatches had distinctly put before our Government the intentions of England; with which, in the main, our policy harmonized; and President Monroe, in his opening message to Congress, which followed almost immediately afterwards, in December, 1823, put forth the two following declarations: "I. That it was impossible for the allied Powers to extend their political system to any part of America without endangering our peace and happiness; and equally im possible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition with indifference." That is the first proposition. And here let me But allow me to say that that portion of the mes- say, that the honorable Senator is perfectly right sage of Mr. Monroe which the honorable gentle- in his whole history of the controversy, the diffiman read, applies to all time hereafter. Its rea-culties that led to it, and the ground taken by sonings are capable of general and universal ap- the American Government. But what else does plication. The doctrine laid down is, that the Mr. Rush say? What is the second proposition American continents have interests of their own to which he alluded? It is : distinct from Europe; and Mr. Monroe's object was, in that existing state of things, to sweep the allied Powers from this continent; to prevent them from taking possession of any of the American States. Everybody knows that if we were to allow recolonization, we would prefer that these colonies should be held by Spain, rather than by England. What, then, would Mr. Monroe have gained by his declaration, if it was to be restricted to what some gentlemen seem to think it was restricted? What would he have gained by simply saying: "We protest against these colonies being recolonized by Spain?" It will be recollected that it ran through England, and it was announced on this floor, that the extent of Mr. Monroe's declaration was to sweep all the colonies on this continent out of existence. But it was not so. Mr. Monroe expressly reserved the rights of the existing colonies. In his message, he merely referred to South America, to the precise state of things existing, and to no other. There was no object in putting in a reservation. I agree with the honorable Senator from Virginia in his estimate of Mr. Monroe. I consider him one of the best and wisest statesmen we ever had. He was exceedingly guarded and cautious in his language. I had the honor of knowing him personally; and the panegyric of the Senator from Virginia is one that he well deserves. His character ought to stand, as it does stand, high in the estimation of his countrymen. He was not only guarded and cautious, but, when the interests of his country required it, he took a firm and decided stand. The declaration which the Senator has just read is this in substance: We owe it to those Powers to declare that they shall not extend their system to this continent, because we have peculiar interests of our own, distinct from European interests. We had then, we have now, and we shall have through all time; and every reason applying to that state of things applies with as much force to any future state of things, in which there may be attempts made to recolonize any portion of America. In the same message, as the honorable gentleman has said, the doctrine for which I contend was laid down still more distinctly. To be sure, the occasion for it was different; it was in reference to some controversy with the Russians, who wanted to extend their dominions on the western coast of America down as far as a portion of California, and even including that. Referring to that, President Monroe made a broad general declaration, which went out to the world in his annual message to the American Congress, stating distinctly what was the position of this Government. He said: "In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which they may terminate, the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power." It is utterly impossible for words to make the proposition plainer than it is here announced; and the whole world, from that day to this, has under "2. Whilst alluding to discussions between the United States and Russia, then commenced with a view to ar ranging the respective claims of the two nations on the northwest coast of America, the President also declared that the occasion had been judged proper for asserting, as ' a principle in which the right and interests of the United 'States were involved, that the American continents, by 'the free and independent condition which they had as'sumed and maintained, were henceforth not to be consid'ered as subjects for future colonization by any European 'Power."" What said Mr. Canning and the British Government to that? "The first of these declara tions," (as to the intervention of the allied Powers of the American States,) "was," says Mr. Rush, "probably expected by England, and was well 'received. Everybody saw at once that it refer'red to the hostile plans of the allied Powers against the late Spanish Provinces;" which it undoubtedly did, although its general reasoning applied to all time to come, and to all similar circumstances. But with respect to the second declaration, in which the general doctrine of anticolonization was laid down, Mr. Rush says, it was unexpected, and not acquiesced in, as ac'counts I am yet to give of negotiations with the 'British Government will make known." This is precisely what I said yesterday. I had no idea of renewing the subject. My only intention was to put myself right; and having done that, I yield the floor. Mr. SOULE. It was by the consent of the honorable Senator from California, that this debate went on yesterday, and was resumed to-day; and it was with the understanding that it should not interfere with the bill which he was pressing upon the consideration of the Senate for the construction of a railroad to the Pacific ocean. As he is very anxious that the Senate should restore to him its attention upon that bill, and as I am unwilling at present to divert it from that object, and as I am desirous, however, to secure the floor, I will move that the further consideration of this joint resolution be postponed until Tuesday next. Mr. DIXON. Will the gentleman allow me to occupy the floor for a moment? Mr. SQULE. I withdraw the motion for the present. Mr. DIXON. Mr. President, I have not risen to enter at large into this discussion, but to give notice to the Senate that I shall, at the proper time, move to refer the joint resolution offered by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] and also the amendment offered by the able Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HALE,] to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with the following instructions: First. That the said committee be instructed to examine the treaty concluded at Washington, on the 4th day of July, 1850, between Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, by her Minister Plenipotentiary, Sir Henry L. Bulwer, and the Government of the United States, by John M. Clayton, Secretary of State; and ascertain whether the Government of Great Britain, since the ratification of said treaty, has violated any of the provisions thereof, by the establishment of any colonial government, the construction of fortifications in Central America, or otherwise; and that they report the facts in connection therewith; and if, in their opinion, there has been any violation of said treaty, that they make further report, by resolution, of such measures as they may deem necessary to enforce a faithful ob SENATE. servance of the stipulations of said treaty, and preserve the honor and interest of the country. Second. That said committee inquire and report whether or not the establishment in the Bay of Honduras, by the Government of Great Britain, of the colony called "The Bay of Islands," is or is not a violation of the provisions of the said treaty, or of the doctrines of Mr. Monroe, as proclaimed in his message of the second of December, 1823, on the establishment of colonies on this continent by European Powers; and if it shall appear that the rights of the United States have been invaded, by either a disregard of the provisions of the said treaty, or of the doctrines proclaimed by Mr. Monroe in his message aforesaid, that they report the facts to the Senate, together with such measures as, in their judgment, may be deemed necessary to vindicate the honor of the country. Third. That said committee inquire whether the seizure by the French Government of the peninsula of Samaná, in the Republic of Dominica, is or is not a violation of the same great principle proclaimed, as aforesaid, in the message of Mr. Monroe, and if so, what action is necessary on the part of this Government to protect itself against such encroachments on its rights. If I were disposed, Mr. President, to take part in this discussion, such is the feeble condition of my health that I would not even dare to attempt it. I am anxious, however, that this debate shall have some point upon which it is to turn. I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to the very able discussion which has been going on here during the last ten days upon the various propositions which have been presented, not in the form of resolutions, but in the form of debate. Senators seem to think this Government has suffered under the construction given to the Bulwer and Clayton treaty, and which was the subject of discussion a short time since, and which treaty is alluded to in one of the instructions I have drawn up. But upon this question it is not my purpose to give any opinion; for, not having been a menber of the Senate when that treaty was confirmed, of course I have no explanations to give of what the Senate's understanding was upon the question of whether British Honduras and its dependencies were intended to be excluded from its provisions or not. But Senators seem to think, and indeed openly declare, that that treaty has been violated by the Government of Great Britain, by the establishment in the Bay of Honduras of the colony called "The Bay of Islands." If that be true, it is right that this Government should act upon it. If that treaty has been violated, it is proper that the Senate should know it. If this country has been outraged by the disregard of the principles contained in that treaty, it is useless for us to be talking and exhausting the time of the Senate in idle speculation of what may or may not be the future policy of European nations, in regard to the purchasing of Cuba, or the establishment of colonies on the continent, or what may be necessary for this Government to do, on the happening of such contingencies, should they ever happen. But rather the inquiry should be, whether the treaty had been violated, and if so, whether this country will fold its arms and tamely submit to such violation. Should the committee, Mr. President, find that the provisions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty have been violated by the British Government, or that the principles as proclaimed by Mr. Monroe have been disregarded by the Government of Great Britain or of France, in the establishment by the one of the colony of "The Bay of Islands," in the Bay of Honduras, or the seizure by the other of the peninsula of Samaná, in the Republic of Dominica, the known experience and ability of the Senators who compose that committee will afford a sufficient guarantee to the whole country, that whatever measures they may propose will be dictated by prudence, and the exercise of a sound and patriotic judgment. For myself, although I should deprecate a war with England or with France as one of the greatest calamities that could befall this nation, yet I would rather see my country subjected to such a calamity, than dishonored by quietly submitting to a wanton violation by any country, however powerful she may be, either upon the land or upon the sea, of a stipulation solemnly entered into, involving not only her rights, but her honor also. For, without, Mr. President, being a flibustier or a propagandist, in any sense of the word, I am for maintaining the principles upon which this Government has hitherto acted; of asking from other nations nothing but what is right, and submitting to nothing that is wrong. 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Affairs of New Mexico-Mr. Weightman. I understood from the very distinguished Sena- ciples of that treaty inviolate. That, sir, is proper tor from Louisiana, [Mr. Downs,] in his remarks and right, and I have risen, as I said before, not the other day, that he was of the opinion that the with a view to enter into any discussion of this treaty had been violated. If that is not his opin-subject, but merely to give notice to the Senate ion, what is the meaning of these remarks which that I shall, at the proper time, move that the reshe made, and which I will now read to the Sen- olution of the Senator from Michigan, together ate? with the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with the instructions which have been read to the Senate. "While we are on this subject-for it is an interesting one, and I think everything in regard to it ought to be understood-I would like the honorable Senators from Maryland [Mr. PEARCE] and New York, [Mr. SEWARD,] who have looked so closely into it, and talked so much about British rights, to explain what they mean by those British rights. Do they mean that England retains after this treaty, or had before, the right not merely to cut wood in Honduras, but to colonize it, as they have now, in a proclamation, declared their intention to do? That is the real question. We assume that, by the treaty, it has renounced that right. The late President of the United States seems to have entertained that view when the treaty was submitted to the Senate; and I would like to know now if the gentlemen still think that, under the stipulations of that treaty, they have that right?" I understand, also, that the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. SHIELDS] asserted it as a clear proposition that the treaty had been violated; for he said: "Whether you give to this treaty the meaning put upon it by the negotiators, their own private understanding, or whether you give it the meaning that the language imports, the treaty has been violated by the seizure of these islands. So far as Balize, or what is termed British Honduras, is concerned, I am not disposed to enter into that question now, and for this reason: I think it might be impolitic for us at this time to construe the treaty in relation to it, as I apprehend, in doing so, it might embarrass our friends hereafter." In the same speech, that honorable Senator said further: "I merely rose, not to enter into this doubtful question, but to show that no matter how this point is argued, the seizure of the islands is a violation of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and this has nothing to do with any pretension, or any right, or any pretense, which Great Britain claims to the possession called Balize, or British Honduras." I understood the very distinguished Senator from Michigan, in the same debate, to concur fully in the opinions which had been expressed and given out to the Senate by the Senators to whom I have just alluded, that this treaty had been violated; for he said, speaking of the action of the British Government: "I do know now, that, in the very face of this treaty, she, in July last, went on to establish a colony called the 'Bay of Islands."" Of course the honorable Senator meant to be understood, when he used the language, "in the very face of this treaty," that the treaty had been violated by the establishment by the British Government of the Bay of Islands; and if this was not his meaning, what was it? Mr. SHIELDS. Will the honorable Senator permit me to make one suggestion? It is clearly my opinion that the authorities at the Balize who have erected these islands into a colony have done so in violation of the treaty. But we have no official or authentic information on that subject. There is another point in the case: The act of those authorities may be disavowed by the British Government; and my opinion is, it will be disavowed, if the point is made by our Government. Consequently, I think there may be, perhaps, some impetus necessary in regard to our action. | My opinion is, if the British Government recognizes the act of its officers in the Balize, it is a violation of the treaty. Mr. DIXON. I fully concur, Mr. President, in the view taken by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS.] The British Government may disavow the act, but it has not yet done so. The Senator from Illinois has expressed it as his opinion that the treaty has been violated; and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Downs] has expressed his opinion that the treaty has been violated; and the honorable Senator from Michigan [Mr. CASS] has also expressed the same opinion. Now, then, as we have no information in regard to the violation of that treaty from the President of the United States, it is proper that a reference of this whole subject should be made to the Committee on Foreign Relations, that they may inquire into the whole matter, and report to the Senate whether or not, in their opinion, the treaty has been violated; and, if in their judgment, it has been, that they may also report the measures proper to be adopted by this Government with a view to vindicate its honor and sustain the prin Ho. OF REPS. I pointed, I intended no speech on that account. reflected, that there sits in the Cabinet of the President an honorable gentleman, a citizen of Louisi ana, whose people are of "a different race speaking a different language," and while he was silent, well might I be. This gentleman has been honored by the people of his district with a seat in this body. They confided to him the care of their interests, and the protection of their honor. The people of Louisiana, in their sovereign capacity as a State, honored him with a seat in the Senate. They confided to him the maintenance of the digof that State, and the protection of its honor. If he could retain his seat in the Cabinet of a President, who would not on his demand expunge a passage disrespectful, if not insulting to the "different race speaking a different language," who had honored him with their confidence, I might hold my peace. Mr. SOULE. I now renew the motion, Mr. President, if it be the pleasure of the Senate, that the further consideration of this subject be post-nity poned until Tuesday next, at which time I wish to avail myself of the indulgence of the Senate, to make some remarks upon the question. The motion was agreed to. AFFAIRS OF NEW MEXICO. SPEECH OF MR. WEIGHTMAN, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, In the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, in regard to the censure conveyed by the Report of the Secretary of War upon the People of New Mexico. Mr. WEIGHTMAN said: No one, Mr. Chairman, can regret more than I do that New Mexico has not an abler advocate than myself upon this floor. I regret that her Delegate is not a man experienced in parliamentary debate, and gifted with eloquence. New Mexico needs, but has not, such a man for her champion. Of this, no one is more sensible than myself. A plain story, plainly told, is all that I can offer. I feel that a duty devolves upon me, and I shrink not from its performance. In the President's message which was read on the first day of the session, occurs the following passage. After speaking of the invitation which France and England tendered to the United States to enter into a tripartite convention, in virtue of which the three Powers should severally and collectively, now and for the future, disclaim all intentions to obtain possession of the Island of Cuba, and his refusal to enter into such a convention because he thought the proposed measure of doubtful constitutionality, impolitic and unavailing, the President proceeds: "I have, however, in common with several of my predecessors, directed the Ministers of France and England to be assured that the United States entertain no designs against Cuba; but that, on the contrary, I should regard its incorporation into the Union at the present time as fraught with serious peril. "Were this island comparatively destitute of inhabitants, or occupied by a kindred race, I should regard it, if voluntarily ceded by Spain, as a most desirable acquisition. But, under existing circumstances, I should look upon its incorporation into our Union as a very hazardous measure. It would bring into the Confederacy a population of a different national stock, speaking a different language, and not likely to harmonize with the other members. It would probably affect in a prejudicial manner the industrial interests of the South; and it might revive those conflicts of opinion between the different sections of the country, which lately shook the Union to its center, and which have been so happily compromised." On the same day on which was read the message, and soon after its reading, I obtained the floor and made the proposition that five thousand copies of the message should be printed in the Spanish language. In my remarks in support of that proposition, I took occasion to express my dissent from the view of the President, that differences of race, or differences of language, or any other sort of differences, were detrimental to us as a people. I urged that diverseness was the centrifugal force in our Government which maintained the rights and authority of the States, and homogeneousness, which the President deemed so desirable, was the centripetal force which tended towards consolidation, and I then repudiated for myself the idea that this Government is capable of making happy but one race of people. I did not then, hearing the message for the first time read by the Clerk of the House, perceive the covert fling at "different races speaking different languages." When, by reading the message, I did perceive that fling, whose meaning has since become so A day or two afterwards, we read in the papers the official report of the honorable gentleman to whom I have alluded, the Secretary of War. From this report I read an extract: "What policy, however, it may be deemed proper to adopt in reference to the Indian tribes of Texas, California, and Oregon, is a question only of humanity or of temporary policy, as a period cannot be very remote when they will be swept before the resistless tide of enigration, which continually flows towards those countries. "The case is different with regard to New Mexico. That Territory is so remote and inaccessible, and holds out so little inducement to emigration, that the struggle between the two races is destined, in all probability, to continue there long after it shall have ceased in every portion of the continent. "By the last census, the total population of New Mexico, exclusive of wild Indians, is (in round numbers) sixty-one thousand souls; and its whole real estate is estimated at (in round numbers) $2,700,000. "To protect this small population, we are compelled to maintain a large military force, at an annual expense nearly equal to one half the value of the whole real estate of the Territory. Would it not be better to induce the inhabitants to abandon a country which seems hardly fit for the habitation of civilized man, by remunerating them for their property in money, or in lands situated in more favored regions? Even if the Government paid for the property quintuple its value, it would still, merely on the score of economy, be largely the gainer by the transaction, and the troops now stationed in New Mexico would be available for the protec tion of other portions of our own, and the Mexican territory." When the portion of the documents accompanying the message I have just read came to my knowledge, I determined that it was my duty to make a speech. The substantial interests of my constituents, indeed their very identity, was involved in this executive recommendation. Though there was food for indignation in this proposition, that feeling was swallowed up in the ridicule and contempt with which it has been received in all quarters and from all parties. Indignation merged in the ridiculous. I say, however, there was food for indignation in this recommendation. If it could be carried out, what a spectacle should we see! Passing by the preparation for departure, with the tears of bitterness and sobs that rend the heart, let us be witnesses of the exodus of the people of New Mexico. Behold the multitude! The rich, in their carriages; others in wagons and carts. See the domestic animals-the flocks and herds, the sheep and goats. The shepherd dogs are there, leading and protecting their charge. But the poor -let me direct your attention to the poor. The patient ass bears his part in the mournful procession. On this patient beast are laden the aged poor-the gray-haired widow and the man bowed with years; the mother, with child in arms, the sick, the lame, the halt, and the blind. No one in all that multitude has forgotten to bring with him his crucifix and his rosary, or his images, remembrancers of the Saviour, the Virgin, and the saints. Few are without some memento of their homes-mayhap a fragment of the cross which stands in the Campo Santo, where lie buried their fathers for two hundred years. While this vast multitude pause on an eminence, to take a last lingering look at the land they are to behold no more forever, what is it we see? The uniform of the American army! There are the dragoons, their sabers flashing in the rays of the setting sun; the serried infantry, with their bristling bayonets; the artillery troops, with their terrible batteries. All are gallant men, who have covered themselves and their country with glory in honorable war. Who commands the army of the exodus? There is no Haynau in our army. 32D CONG.....2D Sess. But were there to be an exodus, it would not be in this direction, Mr. Chairman. The people of New Mexico would flee from our limits, carefully shaking the dust from their feet, as they crossed the boundary. But I am aware that it is not necessary to lay much stress upon this matter. Indignation has been merged in the ridicule with which this proposition has been received in all sections and by all parties. As I have said, I intended, when I became possessed of the contents of the report of the Secretary of War, to make a speech. I intended, in that speech, to display the folly of a Louisiana statesman, in recommending the depopulation of the best line for a railroad to connect the Mississippi with the Pacific, which, in my judgment, we have within our limits. I mean from the head of steamboat navigation, on the Red river, whose mouth is in Louisiana, in the direction of El Paso del Norte, to California. I intended to display the folly of a Secretary of War, in thwarting the construction of a railroad, which, on the line he proposes to yield to savage enemies, more effectually than many armies, would prevent the inroads of our Indians upon our neighbor, Mexico. Before I could obtain the floor to submit the remarks I proposed, the second part of the documents accompanying the message of the President was laid upon our desks. Amongst those transmitted from the Department of War, and coming from the ninth military department, which includes New Mexico, I find a letter, which I ask the indulgence of having read at the Clerk's desk: NEW MEXICO, SANTA FE, May 27, 1852. SIR: It may be well to premise that I consider it certain that some radical change must and will be made, in the government of this Territory, sooner or later; that the people of the United States will not consent to bear this heavy burden, endlessly, without receiving the slightest return, and without even the possibility of bettering the condition of this people. It would, therefore, seem to be a question only as to time. I would respectfully submit the following project: Place the Territory in the same relation to the Govern ment of the United States that it held towards the Mexican Government before the war. Withdraw all the troops and civil officers, and let the people elect their own civil officers, and conduct their Government in their own way, under the general supervision of our Government. It would probably assume a similar form to the one we found here in 1846, viz: a civil government, but under the entire control of the Governor. This change would be highly gratifying to this people, and I believe they would cheerfully pledge themselves never to ask for any further aid from the United States than the same appropriations that were granted to the other Territories. There would be a pronunciamento every month or two, but these would be of no consequence, as they are very harmless when confined to Mexicans alone. With all the economy that can be used, and exertions in agriculture, &c., so long as we hold this country, as we do now, it must be a very heavy burden to us; and there never can be the slightest return for all this outlay-not even in meliorating the condition of the people; for this distribution of public money makes them more idle and worthless. There is no possibility of any change for the better. Twenty-fifty years hence-this Territory will be precisely the same it is now. There can never be an inducement for any class of our people to come here whose example would improve this people. Speculators, adventurers, and the like, are all that will come, and their example is rather pernicious than beneficial. No civil Government, emanating from the Government of the United States, can be maintained here without the aid of a military force; in fact, without its being virtually a military Government. I do not believe there is an intelligent man in the Territory who is not, at the present time, fully sensible of this truth. All branches of this civil government have equally failed-the executive, for want of power; the judiciary, from the total incapacity and want of principle in the juries; and the legislative, from want of knowledge-a want of identity with our institutions, and an extreme reluctance to impose taxes; so much so, that they have never even provided the means to subsist prisoners, and, consequently, felons of all kinds were running at large. The New Mexicans are thoroughly debased and totally incapable of self-government, and there is no latent quality about them that can ever make them respectable. They have more Indian blood than Spanish, and in some respects are below the Pueblo Indians, for they are not as honest or industrious. In this remark, I allude to the lower classes; there are some educated gentlemen, with respectable families-about enough for magistrates and other official per sons. There is not much increase in the population, owing to their gross depravity. I doubt if there is a tribe of In dians on the continent who are more abandoned in their commerce between the sexes than the great majority of this people. The reduction of Government expenses was, no doubt, the primary cause of the recent disaffection. As a conquered people, they feel a natural dislike towards us; but so long as we kept them supplied with money, and they had nothing to do but revel in their vices, they were content to stifle their patriotism. It requires but very little to subsist them, and, therefore, a small pittance enables them to pass their Affairs of New Mexico—Mr. Weightman. time in idleness and vice; but that little they must have, and there is no way they can get it. The truth is, the only resource of this country is the Government money. All classes depend upon it, from the professional man and trader down to the beggar. Before we took the country, a considerable part of the population earned a scanty livelihood at the mines; but this work was abandoned directly when the Government money was scattered broadcast among them. These mines are not productive, and never can be made so, in comparison to the inexhaustible mines of California; but a part of this people managed to earn at them a few shillings a day, and that supported them. They will be obliged to return to this work again, as the only means of living, while the rest must get from the soil the few articles that are necessary for their subsistence. There can never be any profitable agriculture in this country. There is but a very small part of it that is arable land; the valleys of the few streams comprise the whole of it; and much of this cannot be cultivated, owing to the efflorescence of salt; and the residue requiring such a laborious kind of irrigation and cultivation that corn cannot be raised here for less than a dollar a bushel. But, even if it could be raised as cheap as it is in Missouri, there would be no market for it beyond the wants of the Government; and no agricultural product would ever pay transportation from this remote country. With regard to their protection from the Indians, they would have the same that was extended to them by the Mexican Government-that is to say, permission to defend themselves. Besides, they would be much better armed than they have ever been before, and the Indians would have more respect and fear for them. There is, too, a growing disposition on the part of the Indians to remain at peace, and support themselves by cultivation. The Navajoes and Utalis are perfectly quiet, and the Apaches, the only hostile band now in the Territory, have committed no depredations within the last month, and have sent in word that they wish to make peace. If the Mexicans should act justly by the Indians, I think there would be no difficulty; but if they did not, and war should ensue, the Mexicans would always steal from the Indians quite as much as the Indians would steal from them, and thus they would be no losers in the end. On this point, too, I would remark that if this Territory was erected into a State, it would be expected that the people would take care of themselves, and they would be no better able to do it then than they are now. Again, why are we bound to give any more protection to this Territory than we give to Oregon and Utah? Those people are obliged to defend themselves against the Indians. Why should not this people do the same? I should think it would be well to give the Mexicans a liberal allowance of arms and aminunition, especially as there is a large supply here that is not worth transporting back. It would be impossible for our troops to remain here with Mexican civil officers, for we should have to interpose in their squabbles, which would make them serious matters. There would be no danger of any attempt to throw off our sovereignty; the authorities (and they would soon be absolute) would be too much interested in getting appropriations; besides this, they would know that we could annihilate them at any time. There would be very few Americans remain in the Territory; the number has already diminished very much. They are nearly all adventurers, not intending to reside here permanently; and, when they can no longer make money, they will soon leave. At all events, the few that would remain could take care of themselves quite as well as those did who were here before the war. It may be thought that the abandonment of the new posts so recently established would be a great sacrifice; but it would not be so. They were built entirely by the troops, and cost but little, and labor was beneficial to the command. I am, sir, with high respect, your obedient servant, E. V. SUMNER, Breret Col., Lieut. Col. 1st Dragoons, 9th Department, in charge of executive office. Hon. C. M. CONRAD, Secretary of War. Mr. WEIGHTMAN, (resuming.) Mr. Chairman, when I read the atrocious libel which you have just heard, I determined to make a speech of a different character to the one I previously intended. Yet, sir, for forty-eight hours after, I did not desire to obtain the floor. When a man is filled with honest, healthful, well-grown indignation, he is apt to scatter epithets, as an ancient and barbarous people did their barbed javels, at their foes; and although, sir, I, as the representative of an insulted and slandered people, am under no obligation to be choice in my words, or to select my expressions in speaking of an Administration to which I owe no duty or respect, yet, sir, I was not unmindful of the respect due to this House, the respect I owe myself, and my duty to the cause of the people I represent. For forty-eight hours I did not desire to obtain the floor. My just anger rendered me unfit then to address the House. Sir, the people I represent are grossly calumniated by the letter of Colonel Sumner, which has been adopted as an Executive document. Some of the charges are of such a character that I can hardly discuss them. So sweeping is the denunciation of the people, that it includes every man, every matron, every maiden, every child, every child in its mother's womb, and the unborn children of that unborn child. Sir, Burke, the great Irish orator, who stamped upon the annals of the British Parliament the im Ho. OF REPS. print of his wonderful ability and genius, as ineffaceably as the tracks of men in the hard rock made in ages passed away-Burke said he knew not how to draw an indictment against a whole people. Not so with the commander of the ninth military department and the Secretary of War. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." I desire to say a few words regarding the capacity of my constituents for self-government. That thing to which they have the greatest repugnance, to which they have the greatest indisposition to submit, and which they think most destructive of the liberty of the people, is the assumption by the military of the civil functions of the Government. There are members of the House, who perhaps remember that when I came here in 1850, as the agent of New Mexico, then seeking admission as a State, that there was then going on there a furious quarrel between the people and the military-a contest for power and control of civil affairs. The people claimed that the military government existed not by law, but by acquiescence, and in this, the opinions expressed by President Polk sustained them. In their memorial to Congress, the Legislature said as follows: "In putting in operation the form of government set forth in the constitution, they believe they have done no act inconsistent with a proper respect to the Government of the United States. The form of government adopted by the people of New Mexico is set up in. opposition to no government recognized by Congress, or known to the Constitution and laws, but simply takes the place, under circumstances of urgent necessity, of an unacknowledged government, which has utterly failed to protect the inhabitants of New Mexico in their dearest rights, or to preserve the plighted faith of the Government of the United States." This was in 1850. Colonel Munroe, the then military commander and governor, maintained, by force, the existence of this repugnant government, and sent to Washington for instructions. He received them by special messenger sent from Washington to Santa Fé, on the 22d day of October, 1850. He was directed, through the Secretary of War, by the President, the constitutional commander of the Army, "to abstain from all further interference in the civil and political affairs of that country. Did he do it? He did not. His unrebuked contempt for the orders of his lawful superior has had its consequence. In a speech delivered at the last session, I gave a full account of the military government in New Mexico. I denounced it, and the documents I then read proved the truth of my denunciations, and laid bare the shocking details of a government in which the military was supreme; in which the commanding officer was supreme-a government which harassed the people, which interfered with their religion, which disturbed congregations in the control of their own temples, which fined and imprisoned the people without the intervention of juries, which taxed them without their consent, which embezzled the taxes when collected, and which scourged them without trial. I might add to this list of enormities which have taken place under the military government. And, sir, notwithstanding the act of Congress organizing the Territory of New Mexico, giving to it a civil government, we have just heard read a recently-written letter of another commander of the ninth military department, signing himself "in charge of the Executive office." Mr. SWEETSER. If the honorable gentleman from New Mexico will allow me, I desire to put an inquiry to him, with a view of replying to some portions of his remarks. In order that he may understand the point I desire to make, and that the House may understand it, I hope he will yield me the floor for a moment. Mr. WEIGHTMAN. I will yield to the gentleman with pleasure. Mr. SWEETSER. I desire, then, to inquire of the gentleman whether Colonel Sumner took upon himself the civil government of the Territory of New Mexico during the time that there were any civil executive officers there? I am informed, and so charge, that Colonel Sumner never undertook to meddle with the civil affairs of the Territory until after Governor Calhoun and the Secretary of the Territory, upon whom the functions of the Executive would have fallen in the absence of the Governor, had both left; that he assumed to control at the urgent request and desire of the judges of the supreme court; that prior to his assumption |