32D CONG.....2D SESS. Colonization in North America-Mr. Douglas. I have thus hurriedly, and in somewhat of a confused manner, gone over the facts in this case. For myself, I will say that I have no doubt whatever of our right, not only to pass the resolution which has been introduced by the Committee on Foreign Affairs; but if I were allowed to follow my own judgment, I would go further; I would take possession of the thing in dispute, as we may under the law of nations, with justice, and without cause of war. But yielding to suggestions of others, I have withdrawn a proposition which I had the honor to offer at the last session, authorizing the President to put these men in the possession of their rights, trusting that a returning sense of justice, together with the persuasive effect of the action of this body, may yet induce that unhappy country to pursue a course that will redound to her own interests and honor as well as to the benefit of mankind. COLONIZATION IN NORTH AMERICA. DEBATE IN THE SENATE. MONDAY, February 14, 1853. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the joint resolution declaratory of the views of the United States resp eting colonization on the North American continent by European Powers, and respecting the Island of Cuba; the pending question being on the motion of Mr. Dixon to refer the resolution and the amendment of Mr. HALE to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with certain instructions. Mr. DOUGLAS said: Mr. President, I regret the necessity which I conceive to exist for trespassing on the attention of the Senate to-day, especially the postponement of the deficiency bill, to discuss the principles, the objects, and the effects of the resolution of the Senator from Michigan in regard to European colonization. as I shall conclusively establish before I close these remarks. Since the ratification of that treaty and in defiance of its express stipulations, as well as of the Monroe declaration, Great Britain has planted a new colony in Central America, known as the colony of the Bay Islands. In view of this fact, and with the colony of the Bay Islands in his mind's eye, the venerable Senator from Michigan lays upon the table of the Senate, and asks us to affirm, by our votes, a resolution in which it is declared that "WHILE EXISTING RIGHTS SHOULD BE RESPECTED, AND WILL BE BY THE UNITED STATES," the American continents "ARE HENCEFORTH not 'to be considered as subjects for FUTURE colonization by any European Power," and "that no FUTURE 'European colony or dominion shall, with their consent, be planted or established on any part of the North American continent." Now, sir, before I vote for this resolution, I desire to understand, with clearness and precision, its purport and meaning. Existing rights are to be respected! What is to be the construction of this clause? Is it that all colonies established in America, by European Powers, prior to the passage of this resolution, are to be respected by the United States as "existing rights?" Is this resolution to be understood as a formal and official declaration, by the Congress of the United States, of our acquiescence in the seizure of the islands in the Bay of Honduras, and the erection of them into a new British colony? When, in connection with this clause respecting "existing rights," we take into consideration the one preceding it, in which it is declared that" HENCEFORTH" the American continents are not open to European colonization; and the clause immediately succeeding it, which says that "no future European colony or dominion" shall, with our consent, be planted on the North American continent; who can doubt that Great Britain will feel herself authorized to construe the resolution into a declaration on our part of unconditional acquiescence in her right to hold all the colonies and dependencies she at this time may possess in America? Is the Senate of the United States prepared to make such a declaration? Is this Republic, in view of our professions for the last thirty years, and of our present and prospective position, prepared to submit to such a result? If we are, let us seal our lips, and talk no more about European colonization upon the American continents. What is to redeem our declarations upon this subject in the future from utter contempt, if we fail to vindicate the past, and meekly submit to the humiliation of the present? With an avowed policy of thirty years' standing that no future European colonization is to be permitted in America-affirmed when there was no opportunity for enforcing it, and abandoned whenever a case was presented for carrying it into practical effect is it now proposed to beat another retreat under cover of terrible threats of awful consequences when the offense shall be repeated? Henceforth" no "future" European colony is to be planted in America" with our consent!" It is gratifying to learn that the United States are never going to consent" to the repudiation of the Monroe doctrine again. No more Clayton and Bulwer treaties; no more British alliances" in Central America, New Granada, or Mexico; no more resolutions of oblivion to protect "existing rights!" Let England tremble, and Europe take warning, if the offense is repeated. "Should the attempt be Thirty years ago Mr. Monroe, in his message to Congress, made a memorable declaration with respect to European colonization upon this continent. That declaration has ever since been a favorite subject of eulogium with orators, politicians, and statesmen. Recently it has assumed the dignified appellation of the "Monroe doctrine." It seems to be the part of patriotism for all to profess the doctrine, while our Government has scarcely ever failed to repudiate it, practically, whenever an opportunity for its observance has been presented. The Oregon treaty is a noted case in point. Prior to that convention there was no British colony on this continent west of the Rocky Mountains. The Hudson's Bay Company was confined, by its charter, to the shores of the bay, and to the streams flowing into it, and to the country drained by them. The western boundary of Canada was hundreds of miles distant; and there was no European colony to be found in all that region on the Pacific coast stretching from California to the Russian possessions. We had a treaty of non-occupancy with Great Britain, by the provisions of which neither party was to be" permitted to colonize or assume dominion over any portion of that territory. We abrogated that treaty of non-occupancy, and then entered into a convention, by the terms of which the country in question was divided into two nearly equal parts, by the parallel of the forty-ninth degree of latitude, and all on the north confirmed to Great Britain, and that on the south to the United States. By that treaty Great Britain consented that we might establish Territories and States south of the forty-made," (says the resolution,) “it will leave the ninth parallel, and the United States consented that Great Britain might, to the north of that parallel, establish new European colonies, in open and flagrant violation of the Monroe doctrine! It is unnecessary for me to remind the country, and especially my own constituents, with what energy and emphasis I protested against that convention, upon the ground that it carried with it the undisguised repudiation of the Monroe declaration, and the consent of this Republic that new British colonies might be established on that portion of the North American continent where none existed before. Again: as late as 1850, a convention was entered into between the Government of the United States and Great Britain-called the Clayton and Bulwer treaty every article and provision of which is predicated upon a practical negation and repudiation of what is known as the Monroe doctrine, United States free to adopt such measures as an independent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights and honor. Are not the United States now free to adopt such measures as an independent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights and honor? Have we not given the notice? Is not thirty years sufficient notice-and has it not been repeated within the last eight years? And yet the deed is done, in contempt of not only the Monroe doctrine, but of solemn treaty stipulations. Will you ever have a better opportunity to establish the doctrine-a clearer right to vindicate, or a more flagrant wrong to redress? If you do not do it now, your " henceforth" resolutions, in respect to "future" attempts, may as well be dispensed with. I have no resolutions to bring forward in relation to our foreign policy. Circumstances have deprived me of the opportunity or disposition to participate actively in the 66 SENATE. proceedings of the Senate this session. I know not what the present Administration has done, or is doing in reference to this question; and I am willing to leave the incoming Administration free to assume its own position, and to take the initiation, unembarrassed by the action of the Sen ate. My principal object in addressing the Senate to-day is to avail myself of the opportunity, now for the first time presented by the removal of the injunction of secrecy, of explaining my reasons for opposing the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In order clearly to understand the question in all its bearings, it is necessary to advert to the circumstances under which it was presented. The Oregon boundary had been established, and important interests had grown up in that Territory; California had been acquired, and an immense commerce had sprung into existence; lines of steamers had been established from New York and New Orleans to Chagres, and from Panama to California and Oregon; American citizens had acquired the right of way, and were engaged in the construction of a railroad across the Isthmus of Panama, under the protection of treaty stipulations with New Granada; other American citizens had secured the right of way, and were preparing to construct a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through Lake Nicaragua; and still other American citizens had procured the right of way, and were preparing to commence the construction of a railroad, under a grant from Mexico, across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Thus, the right of transit, on all the routes across the the Isthmus, had passed into American hands, and were within the protection and control of the American Government. In view of this state of things, Mr. Hise, who had been appointed Chargé d'Affaires, under the administration of Mr. Polk, to the Central American States, negotiated a treaty with the State of Nicaragua which secured to the United States forever the exclusive privilege of opening and using all canals, railroads, and other means of communication, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through the territory of that Republic. The rights, privileges, and immunities conceded by that treaty were all that any American could have desired. Its provisions are presumed to be within the knowledge of every Senator, and ought to be familiar to the people of this country. The grant was to the United States, or to such companies as should be organized under its authority, or received under its protection. The privileges were exclusive in their terms and perpetual in their tenure. They were to continue forever as inalienable American rights. In addition to the privilege of constructing and using all roads and canals through the territory of Nicaragua, Mr. Hise's treaty also secured to the United States the right to erect and garrison such fortifications as we should deem necessary at the termini of such communication on each ocean, and at intermediate points along the lines of the works, together with a grant of lands three miles square at the termini for the establishment of towns with free ports and free institutions. I do not deem it necessary to detain the Senate by reading the provisions of this treaty. It is published in the document I hold in my hand, and is open to every one who chooses to examine it. It was submitted to the Department of State in Washington on the 15th of September, 1849, but never sent to the Senate for ratification. In the mean time the administration of General Taylor had superseded Mr. Hise by the appointment of another representative to the Central American States, and instructed him in procuring a grant for a canal, to "CLAIM NO PECULIAR PRIVILEGE-NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-NO MONOPOLY OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE. After having thus instructed Mr. Squier as to the basis of the treaty which he was to conclude, Mr. Clayton seems to have been apprehensive that Mr. Hise might already have entered into a convention by which the United States had secured the exclusive and perpetual privilege, and in order to guard against such a contingency, he adds, at the conclusion of the same letter of instructions, the following: "If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, SEEK to have it properly MODIFIED TO ANSWER THIE ENDS WE HAVE IN VIEW.' 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Colonization in North America-Mr. Douglas. In other words, if Mr. Hise shall have made a to have it understood that the failure of the Governtreaty by which he may have secured all the de- ment of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty, was sired privileges to the United States exclusively, the reason why he suppressed it, and refused to "seek to have it properly modified," so as to form allow the Senate the opportunity of ratifying it. Is a partnership with England and the other mon- that the true reason? Why did the Government of archical Powers of Europe, and thus lay the foun- Nicaragua fail to approve the Hise treaty? I have dation for an alliance between the New and the already shown conclusively, that the failure to apOld World, by which the right of European prove on the part of the Government of Nicaragua, Powers to intermeddle with the affairs of Amer- was produced by the representative of General ican States will be established and recognized. Taylor's administration in Central America, actWith these instructions in his pocket, Mr. Squier ing in obedience to the imperative instructions of arrived in Nicaragua, and before he reached the the State Department in this city, over the signaseat of government, learned, by a "publication|ture of Mr. Clayton himself. Mr. Clayton had in the Gazette of the Isthmus," that Mr. Hise instructed Mr. Squier in advance, that in the event was already negotiating a treaty in respect to the Mr. Hise should have made a treaty before his contemplated canal. Without knowing the pro- arrival in the country, he (Mr. Squier) must "seek visions of the treaty, but taking it for granted that to have it properly modified to ANSWER THE ENDS WE it was in violation of the principles of General HAVE IN VIEW. Mr. Squier did "seek" to have Taylor's administration, as set forth in his in- it so "modified," and with great difficulty, as the structions, Mr. Squier immediately dispatched a correspondence proves, succeeded in the effort. notice to the government of Nicaragua that "Mr. The Government and people of Nicaragua were Hise was superseded on the 2d April last, upon anxious to grant the exclusive and perpetual privi'which date I (Mr. Squier) received my commis- lege to the United States, and to prevent the consion as his successor;""that Mr. Hise was not summation of the grand European alliance and empowered to enter upon any negotiations of the partnership. Mr. Squier, in his letter of Septem'character referred to;" and concluding with the ber 10, 1849, communicating to Mr. Clayton the following request: joyous news that his efforts had been crowned with complete success, says: "I have, therefore, to request that NO ACTION will be taken by the Government of Nicaragua upon the inchoate treaty which may have been negotiated at Guatemala, but that the SAME MAY BE ALLOWED TO PASS AS AN UNOFFICIAL ACT." On the some day, Mr. Squier, with commendable promptness, sends a letter to Mr. Clayton, informing our Government of what he had learned in respect to the probable conclusion of the Hise treaty, and expressing his apprehension that the information may be true, and adds: "If so, I shall be placed in a situation of some embarrassment, as I conceive that Mr. Hise has no authority for the step he has taken, and is certainly not informed of the PRESENT VIEWS AND DESIRES OF OUR GOVERNMENT." He also adds: "Under these circumstances, I have addressed a note (B) to the Government of this Republic, [Nicaragua,] requesting that the treaty made at Guatemala (if any such exists) may be allowed to pass as an unofficial act, and that new negotiations may be entered upon at the seat of Government." Having communicated this important intelligence to his own Government, Mr. Squier proceeded on his journey with a patriotic zeal equal to the importance of his mission, and on his arrival upon the theater of his labors, opened negotiations for a new treaty in accordance with the "present views and desires of our Government," as contained in his instructions. The new treaty was concluded on the 3d of September, 1849, and transmitted to this Government, with a letter explanatory of the negotiation, bearing date the 10th of the same month. Mr. Squier's treaty, so far as I can judge from the published correspondence-for the injunction of secrecy forbids a reference to more authentic sources of information-is in strict accordance with his instructions, and entirely free from any odious provisions which might secure "peculiar privileges or exclusive rights" to the United States! These two treaties-the one negotiated by Mr. Hise, and the other by Mr. Squier-were in the State Department in this city when Congress met in December, 1849. The administration of General Taylor was at liberty to choose between them, and submit the one or the other to the Senate for ratification. The Hise treaty was suppressed, without giving the Senate an opportunity of ratifying it or advising its rejection. I am aware that a single letter published in this document of correspondence, (Ho. of Rep., Ex. Doc. No. 75,) gives an apparent excuse-a mere pretext-for withholding it from the Senate. I allude to the letter of Mr. Carcache, Chargé d'Affaires from Nicaragua, to Mr. Clayton, dated Washington, December 31, 1849, that the Hise treaty "has been, as publicly ' and universally known, disapproved by my Government, and that my Government desires the rat'ification of the treaty signed by Mr. Squier on the '3d of September last." And I am also aware that Mr. Clayton, in reply to this letter, stated to Mr. Carcache that "if, however, as you state, that con'vention has not been approved by your Govern'ment, there is no necessity for its further consider'ation by the Government of the United States." From this it would seem that Mr. Clayton desires "SIR: I have the satisfaction of informing the Department that I have succeeded in accomplishing THE OBJECTS OF MY MISSION TO THIS REPUBLIC." Then, after giving an exposition of the main provisions of his treaty, he details the embarrassments he was compelled to encounter before he could bring the Government of Nicaragua to terms. Hear him, and then judge whether the failure of the Government of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty was the reason why Mr. Clayton refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification! SENATE. sulted in what is known as the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In stating my objections to this treaty, I shall not become a party to the protracted controversy respecting its true meaning and construction which has engaged so much of the attention of this session. I leave that in the hands of those who conducted the negotiation and procured its ratification. That is their own quarrel, with which I have no disposition to interfere. Establish which construction you please-that contended for by the Secretary of State who signed it, or the one insisted upon by the venerable Senator from Michigan and those who acted in concert with him in ratifying it-neither obviates any one of my objections. In the first place, I was unwilling to enter into treaty stipulations with Great Britain or any other European Power in respect to the American continent, by the terms of which, we should pledge the faith of this Republic not to do in all coming time that which in the progress of events our interests, duty, and even safety may compel us to do. I have already said, and now repeat, that every article, clause, and provision of that treaty is predicated upon a virtual negation and repudiation of the Monroe declaration în relation to European colonization on this continent. The article inviting any Power on earth, with which England or the United States are on terms of friendly intercourse, to enter into similar stipulations, and which pledges the good offices of each, when requested by the other, to aid in the new negotiations with the other Central American States, and which pledges the good offices of all the nations entering into the "alliance" to settle disputes between the States and Governments of Central America, not only recognizes the right of European Powers to interfere with the affairs of the American continent, but invites the exercise of such right, and makes it obligatory to do so in certain cases. It establishes, in terms, an alliance between the contracting parties, and invites all other nations to become parties to it. I was opposed also to the "THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF EMBARRASSMENT WAS So it seems that the Hise treaty was "the principal source of embarrassment" to the consummation of the European partnership. It "had raised extravagant hopes" on the part of the Government and people of Nicaragua of a "closer" relation to the United States, which it was difficult to induce them to relinquish. It required all the zeal, skill, and tact of Mr. Squier, to accomplish so great a feat. Finally" the matter was "arranged," and the result communicated to the Department with " satisfaction," in these memorable words, which must have carried great joy to Mr. Clayton's heart: "I have succeeded in accomplishing the objects of my mission to this Republic." Rejoice, all ye advocates of European in 66 tervention in the affairs of the American continent ! Now, sir, I repeat that these two treaties- nor the United States will ever occupy, colonize, or exercise dominion over any portion of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America. I did not desire then, nor do I now, to annex any portion of that country to this Union. I do not know that the time will ever come in my day when I would be willing to do 80. Yet I was unwilling to give the pledge that neither we nor our successors ever would. This is an age of rapid movements and great changes. How long is it since those who made this treaty would have told us that the time would never come when we would want California or any portion of the Pacific coast? California being a State of the Union, who is authorized to say that the time will not arrive when our interests and safety may require us to possess some portion of Central America, which lies half way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions and embraces the great water lines of commerce between the two oceans? I I think it the wiser and safer policy to hold the control of our own action, and leave those who are to come after us untrammeled and free to do whatever they may deem their duty, when the time shall arrive. They will have a better right to determine for themselves, when the necessity for action may arise, than we have now to prescribe the line of duty for them. I was equally opposed to that other clause in the same article, which stipulates that neither party will ever fortify any portion of Central America, or any place com-. manding the entrance to the canal, or in the vicinity thereof. It is not reciprocal, for the reason that it leaves the Island of Jamaica, a British colony, strongly fortified, the nearest military and naval station to the line of the canal. It is, therefore, equivalent to a stipulation that the United States shall never have or maintain any fortification in the vicinity of, or commanding the line of navigation and commerce through said canal, while England may keep and maintain those she now has. I was not satisfied with the clause in relation to the British protectorate over the Mosquito coast. It is equivocal in terms, and no man can say with certainty whether the true construction excludes the protectorate from the continent or recognizes its rightfuetence and imposes restraints upon 32D CONG.....2d Sess. Colonization in North America-Mr. Douglas. which either is on terms of friendly intercourse, to ple is established; the right of European Powers ture. When the American continent shall have passed under the protectorate of the allied Powers, and her future made dependent upon treaty stipulations for carrying into effect the objects of the alliance, Europe will no longer have cause for serious apprehensions at the rapid growth, expansion, and development of our Federal Union. She will then console herself, that limits have been set and barriers erected beyond which the territories of this Republic can never extend, nor its principles prevail. In confirmation of this view, she will find additional cause for congratulation when she looks into the treaty of peace with Mexico, and there sees the sacred honor of this Republic irrevocably pledged that we will never, in all coming time, annex any more Mexican territory in the mode in which Texas was acquired. The fifth article contains the following extraordinary provision: its use and exercise. Equivocal terms in treaties But there was another insuperable objection to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, which increases, enlarges, and extends the force of all the obnoxious provisions I have pointed out. I allude to the article in which it is provided that "The Governments of the United States and Great Britain, having not only desired to accomplish a particular ob. ject, BUT ALSO TO ESTABLISH A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, THEY HEREBY AGREE TO EXTEND THEIR PROTECTION, BY TREATY STIPULATIONS, TO ANY OTHER PRACTICABLE COMMUNICATIONS, whether by canal or railway, across the Isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of TEHUANTEPEC OR PANAMA." The "particular object " which the parties had in view, being thus accomplished-the Hise treaty defeated, the exclusive privilege to the United States surrendered and abandoned, and the European partnership established-yet they were not satisfied. They were not content to "accomplish a particular object," but desired to " ESTABLISH A GENERAL PRINCIPLE!" That which, by the terms of the treaty, was particular and local to the five States of Central America, is, in this article, extended to Mexico on the north, and to New Granada on the south, and declared to be a general principle, by which any and all other practicable routes of communication across the Isthmus between North and South America, are to be governed and protected by the allied Powers. New and additional treaty stipulations are to be entered into for this purpose, and the network which had been prepared and spread over all Central America, is to be extended far enough into Mexico and New Granada to cover all the lines of communication, whether by railway or canal, and especially to include Tehuantepec and Panama. When it is remembered that the treaty in terms establishes an alliance between the United States and Great Britain, and engages to invite all other Powers, with "The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two Republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own Constitution." SENATE. any aggression upon Mexico. I do not desire, at this time, to annex any portion of her territory to this Union; nor am I prepared to say that the time will ever come, in my day, when I would be willing to sanction such a proposition. But who can say, that, amid the general wreck and demoralization in Mexico, a state of things may not arise in which a just regard for our own rights and safety, and for the sake of humanity and civilization, may render it imperative for us to do that which was done in the case of Texas, and thereby change the boundary between the two Republics without the free consent of the General Government of Mexico, lawfully given in conformity with her Constitution? Recent events in Sonora, Chihuahua, and Tamaulipas do not establish the wisdom and propriety of that line of policy which ties our hands in advance, and deprives the Government of the right, in the future, of doing whatever duty and honor may require, when the necessity for action may arrive. Mr. President, one of the resolutions under consideration makes a declaration in relation to the Island of Cuba which requires a passing notice. It is in the following words: "That while the United States disclaim any designs upon the Island of Cuba, inconsistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to Spain, they consider it due to the vast importance of the subject, to make known, in this solemn manner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to procure possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that island, which as a naval or military position, must, under circumstances easy to be foreseen, become dangerous to their southern coast, to the Gulf of Mexico, and to the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts, directed against them, to be resisted by all the means in their power." That we would resist any attempt to transfer the Island of Cuba to any European Power, either with or without the consent of Spain, there is, [ trust, no question in the mind of any American, and the fact is as well known to Europe as it is to our own country. That the United States do not meditate any designs upon the island inconsistent with the laws of nations, and with their duties to Spain, has been demonstrated to the world in a manner that forbids the necessity for a disclaimer of unworthy and perfidious purposes on our part. The resolutions convey, beneath this disclaimer, the implication that our character is subject to suspicion upon that point. Shall we let the presumption go abroad that a disclaimer of an act of dishonesty and perfidy and infamy has become necessary upon our part? Sir, is there anything in the history of our relations with foreign nations, or in respect to Cuba, that should subject our country to such injurious imputations? When has our Government failed to perform its whole duty as a neutral Power in respect to Cuba? The only complaint has been, that in its great anxiety to preserve in good faith its neutral relations, it has permitted treaty stipulations with Spain proown||viding for the protection of our citizens to be wantonly and flagrantly violated. No suspicion that this Government has been wanting in energy and fidelity in the enforcement of our laws has been entertained in any quarter. It was the excessive energy and severity with which the duty was performed that has provoked the disapprobation of some portion of the American people. One would naturally suppose, that for all the ordinary purposes of a treaty of peace, the first clause of the paragraph would have been entirely sufficient. It declares that "the boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two Republics." Why depart from the usual course of proceeding in such cases, and add, that "no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, LAWFULLY given by the GENERAL Government of each, in conformity with its OWN CONSTITUTION?" What is the meaning of this peculiar phraseology? The history of Texas furnishes the key by which the hidden meaning can be unlocked. The Sabine was once the boundary between the Republics of the United States and Mexico. By the revolt of Texas, and the establishment of her independence, and the acknowledgment thereof by the great Powers of the world, and her annexation to the United States, the boundary between the two Republics was "changed" from the Sabine to the Rio Grande, without "the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its Constitution." Mexico regarded that change a just cause of war, and accordingly invaded Texas with a view to the recovery of the lost territory. A protracted war ensued, in which thousands of lives were lost, and millions of money expended, when peace is concluded upon the express conditions that the treaty should contain an open and frank avowal that the United States has been wrong in the causes of the war, by the pledge of her honor never to repeat the act which led to hostilities. Wherever you turn your eye, whether to your own record, to the statute-books, to the history of this country or of Mexico, or to the diplomatic history of the world, this humiliating and degrading acknowledgment stares you in the face, as a monument of your own creation, to the dishonor of our common country. Well do I remember the determined and protracted efforts of the minority to expunge this odious clause from the treaty before its ratification, and how, on the 4th of March, 1848, we were voted down by forty-two to eleven. The stain which that clause fastened upon the history of our country was not the only objection which I urged to its retention in the treaty. It violated a great principle of public policy in relation to this continent. It pledges the faith of this Republic, that our successors shall not do that which duty to the interests and honor of the country, in the progress of events, may compel them to do. I do not meditate, or look with favor upon Sir, what right has Great Britain to call upon the United States, as she did in a late application, to enter into a negotiation to guaranty Cuba to Spain? Such a step might have been necessary on the part of England in order to satisfy Spain that she has abandoned the policy which for centuries has marked her colonial history with plunder and rapine. Why does not England first restore to Spain the Island of Jamaica, by the seizure and possession of which she is enabled to overlook Cuba, while it gives her the command of the entrance of the proposed Nicaragua canal? Why does she not restore to oid Spain Gibraltar, which from proximity and geographical position naturally belongs to her, and is essential to her safety? Why does she not restore the colonial possessions which she has stretched all over the world, commanding every important military and naval station, both upon land and water? Why does she not restore them to their original owners, from whom she obtained them by fraud and violence? Why does she not do these things before she calls upon us to enter into stipulations that we will not rob Spain of the Island of Cuba? 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Colonization in North America-Messrs. Douglas and Cass. The whole system of European colonization rests upon seizure, violence, and fraud. European Powers hold nearly all their colonies by the one or the other of these tenures. They can show no other evidence, no other muniment of title. What is there in the history of the United States that requires us to make any such disclaimer? We have never acquired one inch of territory, except by honest purchase, and full payment of the consideration. We have never seized any Spanish or other European colony. We have never invaded the rights of other nations. We do not hold in our hand the results of rapine, violence, war, and fraud, for centuries, and then prate about honesty, and propose to honest people to enter into guarantees that they will not rob their neighbors. Fortunately the history of our country subjects her to no such imputation, and relieves us from the necessity of making disclaimers which carry with them the implication of an equivocal reputation. England, France, and the other European Powers are at liberty to judge for themselves whether any such necessity exists in their case. I have not much faith in these gratuitous protestations of honesty and disinterestedness. They are generally made for the purpose of concealing a dark design while preparations are maturing for its execution! I recollect that pending the Clayton and Bulwer treaty before the Senate, a rumor was set afloat that England meditated the extension of her dominion or protection over Costa Rica, or some other portion of Central America. Sir Henry Bulwer deemed the time opportune and the rumor a sufficient excuse for addressing to our Department of State an official letter, disclaiming, in the name and by the authority of the British Government, any such design, and saying: "I am also desired to add, that it would be contrary to the fixed and settled policy of Great Britain to entangle herself by any engagement to protect distant States over whose policy and conduct it would be impossible for the British Government to exercise any effective control. Such a protectorate would confer no possible advantage on Great Britain, and might become the source of many embarrassments to her." Mr. Clayton was so much delighted with this frank disclaimer, that he promptly replied: "I take pleasure in expressing the satisfaction with which this Government has received this friendly assurance from that of her Britannic Majesty, and more especially as it cannot fail to strengthen the bonds of amity now existing between our respective countries." General Taylor deemed the matter of sufficient importance to communicate the evidence of this "friendly assurance" to the Senate in a special message. Well, the treaty was ratified, and in less than three years Great Britain seizes the Bay Islands and erects them into a colony, in the face of this "friendly assurance," and in direct violation of the provisions of the treaty! to denounce and stigmatize a certain class of poli- SENATE. of the time of the Senate in relation to the British Now, sir, a few words with regard to the Island I confess I have not formed a very high appre- Thus far I have often gone; thus far I now go. These are my individual opinions, not of much consequence, I admit, but any one who desires to know them, is welcome to them. But it is one thing for me to entertain these individual sentiments, and it is another and very different thing to pledge forever and unalterably the policy of this Government in a particular channel, in defiance of any change in the circumstances that may to affirm by a resolution, in the name of the Republic, every opinion that I may entertain, and be willing to act upon as the representative of a local constituency. I am not, therefore, prepared to say that it is wise policy to make any declaration upon the subject of the Island of Cuba. Circumstances not within our control, and originating in causes beyond our reach, may precipitate a state of things that would change our action, and reverse our whole line of policy. Cuba, in the existing position of affairs, does not present a practical issue. All that we may say or do is merely speculative, and dependent upon contingencies that may never happen. So it is, in a great measure, with the discussion that has occupied so much Mr. President, I will trespass on the kindness of the Senate no longer. I have deemed it due to myself and the occasion to make this exposition of my views. I have availed myself of the earliest opportunity afforded by the removal of the injunction of secrecy, to explain my reasons for opposing the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I have contented myself with vindicating my own course without assailing any one, or calling in question the conduct of others. I return my thanks to the Senate for the kindness and courtesy extended to me on this occasion. Mr. CASS. Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] has indulged in some pretty hard criticisms upon the terms of my resolution, and I desire to show him and the Senate, as I trust I can in a few moments, that they are rather hypercriticisms, not at all warranted by the tenor of the resolution. The honorable Senator commences by saying that the terms of this resolution relinquish the past and the present, and 32D CONG....2D SESS. refer only to the future, because they save "existing rights." Does the honorable Senator mean to violate existing rights? Mr. DOUGLAS. I have answered emphatically, no. Mr. CASS. Then why not say it in the resolution? It saves "existing rights," not existing wrongs. It is in the very words of Mr. Polk, used more than twenty years after Mr. Monroe proclaimed the doctrine. Yet, Mr. Polk very properly in his message, saved existing rights, not existing wrongs. But he did not thereby mean to sanction any violation of this principle, which had previously occurred. If, therefore, the British Government has established a colony in any part of the continent in direct contravention of this resolution and of the Monroe doctrine, it is an existing wrong and not an existing right, and it cannot shelter itself under any construction of this resolution. It secures to the British nothing more than their rights; and that is just what it purports to do. Colonization in North America-Mr. Cass. Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois says there is no use in laying down the principle, for it will be violated. Mr. Monroe thought it of some use, and actually laid it down. Mr. Polk thought it of use, and also laid it down. Mr. Jefferson, in a letter which I have already read to the Senate, announced his adhesion to the doctrine, and thought it very important it should be sol'emnly proclaimed by a public national act. Where has been our error in our course upon this grave subject? Precisely the one now sought to be remedied by this resolution. In 1823, when the doctrine was first promulged here, resolutions were introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Clay and Mr. Poinsett, affirming the doctrine, in order to give it an authoritative influence through the world. But it was not done. The matter slept. Mr. Polk sought the same object. An honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. ALLEN] also felt the necessity of Congressional action, and introduced a resolution similar to the present one. But all these efforts were in vain. The efficient And what such rights are, the American peo- prop to support the building was wanting. Mr. ple must judge, upon that responsibility which Jefferson says expressly, in a letter which I have they owe to the world and to history, when they before me, that inasmuch as the declaration might come to make a practical application of the prin- lead to war, it was proper that it should be laid ciple, and are required to decide whether a colo-before Congress for its sanction; but it was not nial establishment is a right to be tolerated, or a done. The doctrine, as sound a one as any nation wrong to be redressed. And this duty is one ever proclaimed, almost passed into oblivion. And which always devolves upon nations in their in- now, in this new condition of the world, when tercourse with other Powers of the earth. God alone knows from day to day what convulsion is about to break out in Europe, and the effect it will have upon us, and upon the other American States, it is proposed to put the doctrine in an authoritative form; and what right has the honorable Senator to say that if this be done we shall suffer it to be violated? Now, then, if Great Britain has taken possession of the Bay Islands, and established a colony there, which she had no right to establish, her existing rights there are not affected, for she has none. Her wrongs make no rights. The whole subject is fully open for redress. Mr. Monroe very properly, Mr. Polk very properly, and this resolution, with equal propriety, in order to prevent any charge of an unjust spirit of aggrandizement on our part, by the nations of Europe, have said, "We do not interfere with your existing rights, whatever they may be; of the extent of these we must judge when the occasion arises; but we disclaim any intention to interfere with your own colonies-to hold them, to settle them, to maintain them, just as you please these are existing rights which we do not touch; but if you have done us wrong by establishing and holding colonies where you have no rights, then we intend to apply our American principle and dislodge you from positions unjustly taken." The honorable Senator says the doctrine was violated in the case of Oregon. I say it was not, and I say that the honorable Senator is under a total misconception of the effect of the treaty relating to Oregon. By that treaty England extended her boundaries beyond what he and I thought she had a just claim to do. We believed she had no just title by four and a half degrees to the boundary she obtained; but the American Government said, your colony does come down to the fortyninth degree of north latitude. That being the case, there was no Monroe doctrine in the question. The fault was not in the application of the doctrine, but it was in allowing Great Britain to have a larger colony than she had a right to. But I repeat Mr. Polk's language, that the existing the moment we conceded that the line of the Britrights of every European nation should be respect-ish possessions came down to the forty-ninth deed. Twenty-five years before his declaration the doctrine had been proclaimed by Mr. Monroe; but no man then contended, and Mr. Polk never dreamed, that this provision had a retrospective effect, and protected wrong running back through a period of a quarter of a century. The idea never entered his mind. The Senator supposes, if I understand his construction, that such a resolution as this would wipe out all preceding acts. Why, sir, until you can convert a wrong into a right, it wipes out nothing at all. It leaves us just as free to pursue the course towards them which our honor and our interests demand, as though we passed no resolutions at all. The principle is right, and I do not understand, though I must confess I do not clearly comprehend him, that the Senator from Illinois contests it. I mean the principle of maintaining that we, as a principal Power upon this continent, have a right to say that European influence shall not be extended here. I do not understand him to deny it at all. You lay down a principle, and when you come to apply it, you judge of existing rights; you judge of the condition of the colonies of the European Powers upon this continent; and, acting as becomes an upright nation, if they have colonies they have a fair right to hold, you ought not to interfere with them. But if one of them has established the colony of Bay of Islands in the very face of our rights, and in the very face of existing treaties, that is not a claim which is saved by this resolution, but is an unjust pretension, which we are authorized to remove and correct. To be sure, as I have already said, in judging such cases we act upon our responsibility, and we ought so to act as to be absolved from the charge of aggression and injustice. gree of north latitude, that moment we conceded that the Monroe doctrine had no application to it; for we thereby conceded that the country was a British colony, and of course her existing rights secured to Great Britain the just power to deal with such colony as she pleased. It was a question of colonial government, and not of Monroe doctrine. The Senator is therefore under a total misapprehension with regard to the matter; and if we had said that the British line came down to San Francisco, there would have been no question for the application of the Monroe doctrine, as that would have been estopped by the establishing of a boundary between us and her colony on the Pacific coast. With respect to the Bay Islands, the other question to which the honorable Senator has referred, what have we given up there? Nothing. We never heard even a rumor of it till within a few weeks; and the moment I heard of it, I introduced a resolution into the Senate, with a view to ascertain from the Executive what were the true facts of the case. And the resolution now before us, instead of conceding anything in favor of this colony of the Bay Islands, was introduced before we had any answer from the Executive, or any knowledge but a vague report of the British Government. Subsequent events have come to enlighten us. Who, then, has a right to say that there has been any delay or neglect in this matter, or that these resolutions concede anything to Eng. land? Have we said that the Monroe doctrine shall not apply, but that Great Britain has a right to hold this colony, in the very face of her own stipulation? No American citizen or legislator ought to say we have done anything by which we acquiesce in the conduct of Great Britain in reference to the colonization of the Bay Islands. I SENATE. trust the Executive Government-but upon this without book, as I know nothing-have taken a proper course, and made the necessary investigations and remonstrance. At any rate, this branch of the Legislature, as a depository of much of the powers of the American people, has but recently been made acquainted with the facts, and a reso lution on the subject has been reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations within the last week. Therefore, I say that no man has a right to assert that we have conceded any principle of the Monroe doctrine in relation to the Bay Islands. Then how is it with respect to the other two cases mentioned by the Senator-the treaty with Mexico, and the Clayton-Bulwer treaty? The Mexican treaty terminated a glorious war with a great many advantages to our country. It is not necessary to go over the circumstances of the formation and ratification of the treaty. We gained much and conceded but little. The Clayton and Bulwer treaty was concluded twenty-five years after the Monroe doctrine had been promulgated, but not enforced. Attempts had more than once been made to procure the sanction of Congress to this doctrine, in order to give it its proper effect. But they had failed, and it is possible that the same fate may for a while await the present effort. That doctrine had remained a dead letter upon your national archives. Then there came a proposition from England to agree that we should not interfere in that part of the continent, if they would not. It was the best thing we could do. We could not get a Congressional sanction of the Monroe doctrine; and the honorable Senator at this day is not willing to join in giving it. I repeat, what had we to do under those circumstances? Why, it was manifestly our policy to agree with England to keep hands off. Therefore it was that I voted for the ratification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. I agree that the subsequent conduct of England has been perfectly unjustifiable, and those who voted against the treaty had good ground for their position, if they suspected her of bad faith, as the subsequent facts have shown. But instead of that treaty being an abandonment of the Monroe doctrine, its very object was to carry that doctrine into effect, by preventing the future interference of an European power in the affairs of this continent. That this object has failed of attainment by the bad faith of England, and by her pretension to circumscribe Central America, not by its true boundaries, but by those assumed by yourself, is no charge against those who voted for the treaty. The honorable Senator objects that this resolution declares that in any ultimate contingency that may arise, we will do what our interests and honor require. Now allow me to say to the honorable gentleman, that in the intercourse between nations, where solemn declarations like these arise, there are two modes of proceeding; one is an absolute declaration to the nations of the world, or to such of them as are interested in the matter, if such a certain act is done injurious to the Power protesting, it shall be followed by war. Another is by a declaration that such Power reserves to itself the right to act under the circumstances as the occasion may require. The latter is the declaration of this resolution in regard to colonization; the former is the declaration of the one in regard to Cuba. By it we pledge ourselves to intervene by war if any other Power should attempt to gain possession of Cuba. But with regard to colonization, we leave it to our successors to act as circumstances may require. There is nothing more common in the history of national intercourse, nothing more common when grave exigencies arise, when events seem to announce political convulsions, in consequence of unreasonable and unjust pretensions, seriously effecting the honor or interest of a nation, than for such nation publicly to proclaim its policy, and the course of action it intends to pursue if the pretension is pushed to action. And I would say to the honorable gentleman, as I said before, that there is no Power in the world which will entirely disregard the declaration of the people of the United States upon a point respecting their interests and honor. Nor is it merely throwing away words to declare what that course will be. Such a declaration made in the name of the American people by their authorized servants is not a |