32D CONG.....3D SESS. free to judge. The Secretary will read the let ters. } DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, May 3, 1849. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the communications which your Excellency addressed to this Department, under dates the 12th November, 1847, and 6th March, 1848, relative to the seizure by the British of the port of San Juan de Nicaragua. These communications have been read with painful interest, and have led to a determination on the part of the President of the United States to accede to the request of the Government of Nicaragua for the interposition of the good offices of this Government, in a friendly manner and spirit towards both Great Britain and Nicaragua, for the purpose of adjusting the controversy with reference to the Mosquito shore. Instructions have accordingly been transmitted to the Minister of the United States at London, which it is hoped may be instrumental towards inducing the British Government to respect the just rights of Nicaragua, and towards effecting a satisfactory accommodation of all the matters in dispute. I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your Excellency assurances of my most distinguished consideration. JOHN M. CLAYTON. His Excellency the MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS of the Republic of Nicaragua. ZACHARY TAYLOR, DEAR AND GOOD FRIEND: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 15th December, 1847, which has been read with lively and painful interest. The Secretary of State of the United States has this day addressed a note to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, expressing the sympathy of this Government for the injuries which that State believes she has received in consequence of the forcible occupation of the port of San Juan by British authorities, and mentioning the friendly steps which have been taken by us with a view to obtain redress therefor. Your Excellency may be assured that our efforts to this end, in an amicable spirit and manner towards both Nicaragua and Great Britain, will be cordial and zealous, Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. roe doctrine asserted in his messages, and again || Among those who were the most ardent for and will be animated by the desire, which we sincerely duped, and still complains of it. cherish, that the just territorial rights of Nicaragua may be respected by all nations, and that she may advance in prosperity and happiness. Your good friend, Z. TAYLOR. To his Excellency the DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF NIC ARAGUA. By the President: Indulge me in a few more words to close the Monroe declaration and in favor of the amend- JOHN M. CLAYTON, Secretary of State. During the administration of Mr. Polk, the British aggressions in Central America were constantly increasing. The attack in 1848 was made just six days after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which we acquired California. It blocked up our passage to the Pacific. The war with Mexico was ended-the army of Taylor was unemployed. If it were desirable to prove the truth of the Monroe doctrine to the British, a few phi-ninety-nine votes, among which were those of losophers could have been selected from the "army of occupation" that would have been most convincing in their arguments. Thackeray says there is nothing like a good rattling article from the throat of a nine-pounder to carry conviction in such cases. Why not act upon the idea of Louis Napoleon, and "throw the sword of Brennus into the scale of civilization?" The answer is, Mr. Polk preferred to adhere to the doctrine of his speech on the Panama mission, and did not regard this Government as bound by his recommendations of the Monroe doctrine to Congress because Congress had not adopted them. Another instance in which Mr. Polk disregarded these recommendations made by himself, was on the occasion of the Oregon treaty. He was elected on the platform of "the whole of Oregon or none." "Fifty-four forty, or fight," was the euphonious alliteration-the war-cry; the very shibboleth of his party. He recommended to Congress the Monroe doctrine again, and yet we know, from authentic evidence, he did not intend to act upon his own recommendation. He sent Mr. McLane to England to negotiate the Oregon treaty, and Mr. McLane on his return, at a public dinner in New York, informed us that "a divis'ion of the country (i. e. Oregon) upon that prin'ciple, (a compromise on the 49th parallel of lati'tude,) with a reasonable regard to rights grown 'up under the joint possession, always appeared to 'me (him) to afford a just and practicable basis for 'an amicable and honorable adjustment of the sub'ject. Such, also, I was satisfied, were the views of our Government at the time I engaged in my recent 'mission; and in earnestly and steadily laboring to ef*fect a settlement upon that basis, I was but representing the policy of my own Government, AND FAITHFULLY PROMOTING THE INTENTIONS AND WISHES THE PRESIDENT!" Here, again, Mr. evidence of the practical abnegation of Mon ་ Polk the OF gave Messrs. BUCHANAN, Forsyth, Houston, Ingham, "I will venture to affirm that there is not a member on This speech was pronounced the ablest delivered in Congress since Mr. Pinkney's reply to Mr. King. I could fill volumes from the speeches of Mr. Hayne, Mr. Rives, Mr. McLane, Mr. Calhoun, and all the ancient leaders of the Democratic party against this Monroe doctrine. But I will not longer, and in this manner, trespass upon SENATE. your patience by the introduction of their opinions. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. CASS] was perfectly correct when he said that this declaration of Mr. Monroe had lain, ever since its origin, a dead letter on our records. His recent attempt to revive it by his resolution at the last session, closes the history of the Monroe doctrines. That resolution met with such violent opposition from his own party as to give us the assurance that no President who should undertake to act upon it could be sustained. With all similar resolutions, recommendations, and declarations, it was consigned to "that same ancient vault where all the kindred of the Capulets lie. With this history before us, I would leave the Senator from Illinois the full benefit of his objection to the treaty of the 19th April, 1850, if I could. He said, and repeatedly said, that every article of that treaty is predicated upon a negation and repudiation of the Monroe declaration in relation to European colonization on this continent. If that were true, it ought to be the greatest recommendation of the treaty to one who assumes to belong to the Democratic party, and to be a follower of the principles of Jackson. He would have been, if true to his present principles, a thorough-going Adams man in 1826, and ought to have been heard in favor of the Panama mission and the instructions of Mr. Clay to Mr. Poinsett. The Senator does not understand the distinction between an alliance for political purposes and a compact to carry out a commercial enterprise. Every word of objection which he made to this treaty was equally applicable to Mr. Polk's treaty with New Granada to protect the province of Panama, and to Mr. Buchanan's proposition to Mr. Crampton to invite not only Great Britain, but France and other commercial Powers, to enter into the same treaty stipulations which we had contracted in regard to a canal or railroad at Panama, and his opposition is founded on principles which would overthrow every commercial treaty we ever made. But, notwithstanding his assertion that the treaty is a negation of the Monroe doctrine in every particular, I must tell him that it presents the only instance in which an European Power, which had attempted to colonize a portion of this hemisphere, and to extend the European system here, has been induced by the action of this Government to abandon the attempt. Impartial history will distinguish between such action and that mere noisy declamation to frighten the vulture from his victim, which has generally carried more consternation into the ranks of friends at home than of foes abroad. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] very correctly answered the gentleman when he said that after all attempts to adopt the Monroe doctrine had failed, and it had remained a dead letter for a quarter of a century, the treaty" was the best thing we could do." We could not (said he) get a Congressional sanction of the Monroe doctrine;" and the Senator from Illinois, at this day, is not willing to join in giving it. I repeat, what had we to do under these circumstances? Why, it was manifestly our policy to agree with England to keep hands off. If we had not done so, England must now have been and would have been in the undisturbed possession of all the Central American States upon which she desired to fix her grasp. Before I leave this part of the subject, permit me to allude briefly to the reason why I did not vote on the treaty with New Granada in 1847. I was at that time a member of the Senate, and did highly approve of the general provisions of the treaty, but was opposed to so much of it only as guarantied the sovereignty of New Granada in her own territory. No such guarantee is to be found in the treaty of 1850. The treaty with Nicaragua, which Mr. Squier negotiated, was no entangling alliance, but only recognized the title of that State, without any guarantee of that title; and as that treaty provided for the protection of the canal by the local government as well as ourselves, I thought it essential to the completion of the enterprise. President Taylor submitted that treaty to the Senate with an assurance that, should the Senate concur with him, he would ratify it, and recommended only such alterations in it as would make it fully in accordance with the British treaty. I placed 32D CONG.....3D SESS. the amendments which would have effected that object in the hands of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, leaving it to the discretion and judgment of the Senate to decide whether they would or would not recognize the Nicaragua title, which the President was willing to do. Spain had, by treaty, recognized that title. In a few days after I resigned the office of Secretary of State, which I had been anxious to do long before, on account of private considerations. The President had refused to accept my resignation; but his untimely death, on the 9th of July, 1850, released me from the obligations under which I felt bound to remain in office; and after my retirement I never learned the reason for the omission of the Senate to act upon the treaty with Nicaragua. In my judgment that treaty should be revived, or some similar treaty negotiated without delay, to prevent the local government from ever attempting to confiscate the canal in the event of its construction. The failure of this treaty was much regretted by me. one. Special Session-Coal for the Navy. far in abolishing the British protectorate as the dictates of humanity demanded. In no treaty which Great Britain has ever made has she abandoned her allies to the mercy of their enemies. The British settlers in Oregon south of the 49th parallel of latitude were provided for by her in a treaty when she relinquished the country south of that parallel. But, in this treaty of 1850, she reserved to herself no power to protect by arms or force. I understand from undoubted authority, that an offer has been made to Nicaragua in behalf of the Indians, to cede their whole claim; in other words, to extinguish their Indian title, for fifty thousand dollars-a sum much less than we have been accustomed to give in our Indian treaties for the cession of far less territory. The adjustment of the boundary between Costa Rica and Nicaragua is a more difficult matter. Mr. President, I have now considered the principal topics upon which I desired to address the Senate, to vindicate the policy of the lamented Chief Magistrate under whom I served the public as a negotiator; but there are others to which, after hearing all that can be said in reply, I may wish to speak. I thank the Senate for their indulgence, and have done. As to the British protection in Central America, it was of course disarmed by the treaty. Its terms are too plain to be misunderstood by any Great Britain cannot place an armed soldier on the territory without violating the treaty. She cannot protect the Indians with a view to obtain Mr. DOUGLAS. I was unavoidably absent possession of the country, nor can she occupy or during the early part of the Senator's speech this assume any dominion for the purpose of protec-morning, but I presume I understand that part of tion. There is nothing undefined in the treaty on this subject. All British dominion in the whole of Central America, extending as it does by the line of the sea-coast nearly one thousand miles, is abandoned. The member from Illinois says that Great Britain has not abandoned any part of the country. I do not place much reliance on any statement he makes on this subject. The British Minister assures us that his Government has observed the treaty, and means to observe it faithfully; and the Secretary of State informs us that San Juan de Nicaragua is no longer in possession of Great Britain, but is really governed by American citizens who reside there. But if the treaty has not been respected, it is not my fault. It was of no importance to me or my country to expel the miserable savages from their fishing or hunting grounds. Humanity dictated to us that they should not be butchered by those who had been their bitter foes while Great Britain was striving to obtain possession of the country, and was exercising in their name absolute dominion in Central America. We had no justifiable motive for preventing Great Britain from interceding in a friendly way with any one of the Central American Republics to save them from destruction. There are not, I learn, at this time more than five hundred of these wretched Mosquito Indians in existence. They are, like all their race, rapidly disappearing from the earth, and in a very few years will cease to exist, notwithstanding all the care that humanity can bestow upon them. The leprosy and other loathsome diseases have thinned their numbers to a mere shadow of a tribe, and the Minister to Central America tells us, in one of his dispatches, that by the laws of the country the penalty of death is imposed upon any one who shall intermarry with them. The protectorate through which Great Britain intended to assume dominion over all this region, as she had done through other protectorates in India, is already abolished so far as we had any object to abolish it. Stat nominis umbra. She cannot " occupy" to protect these Indians; that is, she cannot either "take or keep possession" to effect that object. She cannot "colonize" with a view to such an object; she cannot "fortify" to do it; she cannot "assume" or exercise any dominion whatsoever with a view to do it. What more do you want of her? Do you desire that she shall not send food to the half-starved savages? May she not send the Bible among them? Do you wish to prevent that? May she not mediate with the local government within whose limits they exist, to prevent them from being massacred by their hereditary enemies? May she not ask those Governments, without offense to you, to act by them as we have done by all Indians within our borders, and extinguish the Indian title, which is nothing more than the mere right of occupancy till the white man wants the land and gives them a pittance to support them when deprived of it? President Taylor went as it from an intimation given yesterday at the conclusion of his remarks at that time. I desire to reply to so much of the Senator's speech only as relates to some topics of discussion introduced by myself some two or three weeks ago. I shall not enter into the question that he has made between the Committee on Foreign Relations and himself with regard to the report, I having been unavoidably absent and thus prevented from concurring in the report of the committee, or even reading it. I do not desire to enter into any controversy with regard to what has grown up relating to British Honduras. I only desire to confine myself to the points at issue in my own speech to which the Senator has alluded. I therefore move to postpone the further consideration of the subject until to-morrow. The motion was agreed to. JAMES H. WEST. Mr. JAMES presented resolutions passed by the Legislature of Rhode Island in regard to the imprisonment in Cuba of James H. West, a citizen of Rhode Island; which were read, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed. Mr. MASON. My honorable friend from Rhode Island did me the honor of communicating that memorial to me before he presented it to the Senate; and at his suggestion, I thought it was proper that I should offer a resolution on the subject. I have not had an opportunity of submitting it to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and I will now submit it on my own part, calling upon the Executive for information with respect to the matter. The resolution is as follows: Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested (if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interest) to communicate to the Senate copies of any correspondence relating to the imprisonment or detention in custody of James H. West, a citizen of the United States, at Sagua le Grande, in the Island of Cuba, and of the seizure of his property by the authorities of said island, together with all information connected therewith. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. THURSDAY, March 10, 1853. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. Mr. COOPER. I submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby, required to communicate to the Senate the contract entered into with Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall for supplying the Japan squadron with coal, the price per ton which the said coal will cost delivered in the Chinese seas, the amount of commissions and insurance, respectively, together with the rate of exchange which the Government SENATE. will be required to pay for such of the coal as may be pur chased in England. That the Secretary be also required to inform the Senate whether offers were made by other parties than Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall to supply the above-named squadron with coal, by delivering the same at such places as might be designated in the Chinese seas; the prices per ton at which these parties proposed to deliver it, stating particularly the rates at which anthracite, American bituminous, and English bituminous were respectively offered; and whether, after these offers had been made, a contract at higher prices was not entered into with Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall for English coal. That the Secretary be further required to inform the Senate whether, previous to the time of contracting for the supply of the said squadron with coal, the Government had not regularly-authorized agents employed for the express purpose of purchasing and inspecting all coal necessary for the supply of the Navy, and what commission the said agents received by way of compensation for their services. That he be required further to inform the Senate whether Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall were not appointed agents to purchase and inspect the whole, or a great part of the coal necessary for the supply of the Japan squadron; whether the commissions allowed them are not double the amount of those allowed and paid to the regular purchasing and inspecting agents; whether the said commissions are not counted on the gross price of the coal, namely: on the price, with freight, exchange, and insurance added. That he be required also to inform the Senate what quantity of coal it is estimated will be required for the supply of the said squadron annually, and what kind principally will be used; what amount of demurrage has been paid, and for what quantity of coal, for what length of time, and to whom; also, what rate of demurrage is to be paid hereafter. Mr. President, the object of the resolution which has been proposed is to ascertain, if practicable, something in relation to the supply of fuel for the squadron which has been ordered into the Chinese seas for the purpose of opening commercial and other relations with the Japanese empire. It is known, Mr. President, to the Senate that the Government some time ago appointed two agents for the purpose of purchasing and supplying coal for the use of the Navy; one of these agents being appointed for the purpose of purchasing and inspecting anthracite, and the other for the purpose of purchasing and inspecting bituminous coal. It is their duty, by virtue of their office, to supply and inspect the coal, not only for the Navy proper, but likewise all that is used in the dock-yards and shops belonging to the Government; and as a compensation for their services they have received a commission of five per cent. on the amount furnished. When the squadron was about to sail, or rather previous to the period of its sailing, these agents offered to supply coal upon certain terms; that is, they offered to supply both anthracite and bituminous, and to deliver it at such ports as should be indicated in the Chinese seas, at a price not exceeding fifteen dollars per ton. I think the offer was to supply anthracite at $14 50 per ton, and Cumberland bituminous at $14 90 per ton. At any rate, neither the one nor the other was to exceed fifteen dollars per ton, with a commission of five per cent. added. It seems, however, that neither of these offers was accepted, and that Messrs. Howland and Aspinwall were appointed inspectors and authorized to purchase the coal for the supply of the squadron. They purchased a few thousand tons of American anthracite and bituminous coal; but have relied mainly upon English coal for the supply of the squadron; and they have purchased it, as I am informed, at a much higher price than either the American anthracite or bituminous were offered for, although the latter are greatly superior, according to tests made on various occasions, and in various ways. I have been informed, and I have no doubt of the fact, that the coal, delivered in the Chinese seas, will cost a fourth more; that is, the English coal which these parties are to deliver will cost one fourth more than American coal which is so much superior in character. And instead of a commission of five per cent. which has been allowed to the regularly-authorized agents of the Government, Howland & Aspinwall are to receive ten per cent. They also pay ten-and-a-half per cent. by way of exchange upon all the coal that they purchase abroad. Now, if this be so, it is a wrong committed against important domestic interests, and my object is to ascertain the facts. I have been informed that during the period which it is anticipated the squadron will remain upon that station, or rather in those seas, some eighty or a hundred thousand tons of coal will be required for its consumption. These men receive ten per cent. commission; and if the price should be $20 per ton they will receive by 32D CONG....3D SESS. way of commissions $160,000; and the Government will have to pay besides, by way of exchange, more than $160,000. This is benefiting foreigners at the expense of our own citizens, who, as I am informed, offered to supply the Government at $15 per ton, delivered where the article was needed. I do not intend, in what I have said, to reflect upon the Secretary of the Navy at all. The late Secretary of the Navy, as I understand, had nothing to do with it. Nor had his predecessor in office. I wish to be understood here, and that I do not intend to reflect upon either of those officers in the slightest degree. I believe both of them are men of the purest integrity, and eminently qualified for the discharge of the duties of their high position. I understand these contracts are made by the Bureau of Construction and Supply, at the instance of the commander of the squadron, who probably preferred English to American coal. All I desire is the facts, and for that purpose I have offered the resolution; and I hope, as it is a matter of inquiry merely, that it may be considered now. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS. Mr. SEBASTIAN. I submit the following resolution, and ask for its consideration now: Resolved, That all business heretofore referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs and not reported on, or otherwise definitively disposed of, be again referred to said committee, with like power and authority possessed by them at the late session. Mr. MASON. I submit to the Senator from Arkansas that the Senate at this session is not competent to enter upon any business of a legislative character, which, of course, requires the concurrence of the House of Representatives. The scope of the resolution would appear to confer on the committee the same powers which it had during the late session. If there are any special matters which should be referred to the committee, and which would not require the concurrence of the House, I have no objection to it. Mr. SEBASTIAN. I am aware of the fact suggested by the Senator. This resolution is to extend to the committee the powers in reference to special subjects which it had during the late session. I allude particularly to the matter of the inquiry into the conduct of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Minnesota. The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to the Senator to modify his resolution so as to make it refer to that subject. Mr. WELLER. There is another committee which I should like to have continued with the same powers that it had at the late session. I allude to the Committee in relation to the Mexican Boundary Commission. It has been unable to report; and for the purpose of giving it an opportunity to report, I should like to have that resolution so modified as to include it. The PRESIDENT. The Senator from California can move to amend the resolution. Mr. WELLER. After it is disposed of, I can offer one providing for the committee to which I allude. Mr. SEBASTIAN. I will modify the resolution by inserting in itafter" Committee on Indian Affairs," the words "and pertaining to the business of the Executive session." The PRESIDENT. The Chair will suggest to the Senator that it had better be offered in Executive session. Mr. SEBASTIAN. The object of the resolution is to continue the duties of the committee in reference to the investigation of the charges against the Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Minnesota; and that was brought before us in open session. The resolution was then adopted. INDIAN ANNUITIES. Mr. SEBASTIAN submitted the following resIolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to furnish a statement of the amounts paid as annuities under the different treaties with the Choctaw tribe of Indians, specifying the amount and date of each payment, and including the interest on investments under the treaty of 1837; together with a statement in detail of the expenditures under the various treaty provisions for education. NEW SERIES.-No. 17. Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS. Mr. BRODHEAD. I submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the clerk to the Committee on Claims be continued as heretofore, until otherwise ordered by the Senate, to be employed in completing and keeping up the index and digest of the reports of the committee authorized by the resolution of March, 1851, and in such other duties as the committee may require. I presume there can be no objection to the resolution. In 1850, the Senate, on the motion of the tion continuing this clerk for the purpose of making Senator from New Hampshire, adopted a resolua classified index of the proceedings of the Senate on claims. The index will be completed by the meeting of the next Congress. I understand it is about three fourths done. The Committee on Claims has unanimously instructed me to submit this resolution to the Senate, and ask for its consid eration now. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. DEBATES IN THE SENATE. SENATE. ation of the Senate. The first is, that it was concluded by Mr. Hise without the authority of this Government. That may be true, but it is the first time I have ever heard it urged as a valid reason for withholding from the consideration of the Senate a treaty the objects and provisions of which were desirable. The treaty with New Granada, which he so warmly commends in his speech, was made by Mr. Bidlack without authority. President Polk stated this fact in his message communicating the treaty to the Senate, and the Senator from Delaware has read that message and incorthat fact when he gave as a reason for withholdporated it into his speech. He therefore knew ing the Hise treaty, that it was made, without authority. The treaty of peace with Mexico, to the provisions of which the Senator has also referred on another point, was entered into by Mr. Trist, not only without authority, but in bold defiance of the instructions of our Government to the contrary. The administration of President Polk did not feel at liberty to withhold these two treaties from the Mr. BADGER submitted the following resolu- Senate, merely because they were made without tion for consideration: authority or in defiance of instructions, for the reason that the objects intended to be accomplished by the treaty were desirable, and the provisions could be so modified by the Senate as to make the details conform to the objects in view. It may not be amiss for me to remind the Senator from Delaware, that he was a member of the Senate at the time the Mexican treaty was submitted for ratification, and that he voted for it, notwithstanding it was concluded in opposition to the instructions of our Government. If, therefore, the Senator has any respect for the practice of the Government heretofore, or for his own votes recorded upon the very point in controversy, he is not at liberty to object to the treaty upon the ground that it was concluded by our diplomatic agent without authority. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate have published in the Daily National Intelligencer, the full debates and proceedings of the Senate for the late legislative session, and pay the same compensation therefor as is allowed to the Union and Globe, and pro rata for what has been reported and published in the Intelligencer during the present Congress. CAPTAIN MARCY'S REPORT. Mr. CHASE submitted the following resolution for consideration; which was referred to the Committee on Printing: Resolved, That two thousand additional copies of the report of Captain R. B. Marcy, of his exploration of the waters of the Red river, ordered to be printed by the resolution of the Senate of the 4th of February last, be printed for the use of the Senate; two hundred copies of which to be furnished to Captain Marcy; and that two hundred copies of the report of Captain Sitgreaves, ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate, be furnished to Captain Sitgreaves. CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions submitted on Monday by Mr. CLAY ΤΟΝ. Mr. DOUGLAS. I have nothing to do with the controversy which has arisen between the Senator from Delaware [Mr. CLAYTON] and my venerable friend from Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] who is now absent in consequence of the severe illness of one nearest and dearest to him. We all know enough of that Senator to be assured that when he shall be in his place, he will be prompt to respond to any calls that may be made upon him. Neither have I anything to do with the dispute which has grown up among Senators in respect to the boundary of Central America, and the position of the British settlement at the Balize. I leave that in the hands of those who have made themselves parties to the controversy. Nor shall I become a party to the discussion upon the issue between the Senator from Delaware and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in their report on that question. Not having been present when the committee made their report, and not yet having had the opportunity of reading it, I leave the chairman of the committee to vindicate his positions, as I doubt not he will prove himself abundantly able to do. I have, therefore, only to ask the attention of the Senate to such points as the Senator from Delaware has chosen to make against a speech delivered by me a few weeks ago in this Chamber. I understand the rule to be this: whenever the treaty is made in pursuance of instructions, the Executive is under an implied obligation to submit it to the Senate for ratification. But if it be entered into without authority, or in violation of instructions, the Administration are at liberty to reject it unconditionally, or to send it to the Senate for advice, amendment, ratification, or rejection, according to their judgment of its merits. Whether the Hise treaty was perfect in all its provisions, or contained obnoxious features, is not the question. It furnished conclusive evidence that the Government of Nicaragua was willing and anxious to confer upon the United States the exclusive and perpetual privilege of controlling the canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, instead of a partnership between us and the European Powers. The Senator from Delaware (then Secretary of State) had the opportunity of securing to his own country that inestimable privilege, either by submitting the Hise treaty to the Senate, with the recommendation that it be so modified as to obviate all the objections which he deemed to exist to some of its provisions, or by making a new treaty which should embrace the principle of an exclusive and perpetual privilege without any of the obnoxious provisions. He did not do either. He suppressed the treaty-refused to accept of an exclusive privilege to his own country-and caused a new treaty to be made, which should lay the foundation of a partnership between the United States and Great Britain and the other European Powers. The next reason assigned for withholding the Hise treaty from the Senate is, that it has not been approved by Nicaragua. It is true that Nicaragua did not ratify that treaty; but why did she fail to do so? I showed conclusively in the speech to which the Senator was replying that the non-approval was in consequence of his instructions, as Secretary of State, to Mr. Squier, our chargé d'affaires to Nicaragua. It required the whole influence of the representative of our Government in that country to prevent the ratification and approval of the Hise treaty by the State of Nicaragua. Sir, it is not a satisfactory reason for suppressing the treaty, therefore, that it had not been ratified by the other party, when the non-ratifica The Senator seems to complain that I should have questioned the propriety of withholding from the consideration of the Senate what is known as the Hise treaty, and the substitution of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty in its place. Those two treaties presented a distinct issue of great public concern to the country; and it was a difference of opinion between him and me as to which system of policy should prevail. I advocated that system which would secure to the United States the sole and exclusive privilege of controlling the communication between the two oceans. He substituted that other policy which opened the privilege to a part-tion was produced by the action of the agent of nership between the United States and Great Bri- this Government in pursuance of instructions. tain. The Senator has assigned various reasons Mr. CLAYTON. I desire distinctly to underfor withholding the Hise treaty from the consider- || stand the Senator. If I understood him, he said 32D CONG.....3D SESS. that Mr. Hise's treaty was rejected in consequence of Mr. Squier's interference. Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAYTON. And then I understand him to say that Mr. Squier did it by instruction. Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAYTON. Now will the Senator submit the proof to substantiate that assertion? I know of no such instruction. Mr. DOUGLAS. I will do that with a great deal of pleasure. Mr. Hise was sent to the Central American States by Mr. Polk. He negotiated a treaty with the State of Nicaragua-the treaty in question on the 21st of June, 1849. Prior to that time he had been recalled, and Mr. Squier had been appointed by the Administration which succeeded that of President Polk. Mr. Hise had received no knowledge of his removal; no instructions from the new Administration at the time when he made the treaty. In the instructions which the Secretary of State gave to Mr. Squier on the 2d of May, 1849, when he was about to proceed to Central America to supersede Mr. Hise, you will find that he was directed to "claim no peculiar privilege; no exclusive right; no monopoly of commercial intercourse" for the United States. I will read from the letter of instructions: "We should naturally be proud of such an achievement as an American work; but if European aid be necessary to accomplish it, why should we repudiate it, seeing that our object is as honest as it is openly avowed, TO CLAIM NO PE CULIAR PRIVILEGE; NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT; NO MONOPOLY OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE, but to see that the work is dedicated to the benefit of mankind, to be used by all on the same terms with us, and consecrated to the enjoyment and diffusion of the unnumbered and inestimable blessings which must flow from it to all the civilized world?" Then, sir, after having instructed Mr. Squier as to the character of the treaty which he was to form-a treaty which was to open the canal to the world-a treaty which was to give us no peculiar privilege, and secure to us no exclusive right, after giving that instruction, the Secretary in the concluding paragraph says: "If a charter or grant of theright of way shall have been INCAUTIOUSLY OR INCONSIDERATELY made before your arrival in that country, SEEK TO HAVE IT PROPERLY MODI FIED TO ANSWER THE ENDS WE HAVE IN VIEW." Mr. CLAYTON. Is that the passage? Mr. DOUGLAS. That and the other together. Mr. CLAYTON. I endeavored to correct the misapprehension of the honorable Senator yesterday in reference to that. That is not an instruction to the minister to Central America in regard to the treaty made by Mr. Hise, or any other treaty. It is a direction to the minister to Central America to see that any contract which had been made by the local government should be so made as not to be assignable. If the gentleman will read the context, he will see at once that that does not allude to a treaty. It is merely, I say again, an instruction to the minister in that country to look to it, that the capitalists who were about to construct the canal should not speculate upon the work. There is nothing there touching a treaty; nothing whatever. The gentleman is entirely mistaken. The whole instruction is in reference to the character of the contract or charter. Mr. DOUGLAS. I will read the preceding sentence, and we will see then who is mistaken: "If they do not agree to GRANT US PASSAGE on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua”— Mr. CLAYTON. If the gentleman will look at the context which goes before, he will see that the word "they" refers to the capitalists. Mr. DOUGLAS. I will read what goes before: "See that it is not assignable to others; that no exclusive privileges are granted to ANY NATION that will not agree to the same treaty stipulations with Nicaragua; that the tolls to be demanded by the owners are not unreasonable or oppressive; that no power be reserved to the proprietors of the canal or their successors to extort at any time hereafter, or unjustly to obstruct or embarrass the right of passage. This will require all your vigilance and skill. If they do not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua. If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view." Mr. CLAYTON. The honorable Senator will observe that that does not refer to a treaty. The grant of the right of way was a different thing. It Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. was a contract between the local government and the capitalists. Not a treaty at all. SENATE. still it is better to have it right than wrong. If the Senator will only read the last paragraph, he will see that the charter or grant of the right of way which Mr. Squier was instructed to see was not incautiously made, was a very different thing, indeed, from the treaty; and he will see that that is the thing which I directed the minister to look to, as I stated, and endeavored to be understood yesterday, and as I was anxious to be understood by the gentleman on this point-what I instructed the capitalists should not be such as would enable them to extort from persons using the canal. The last sentence of the instruction applies, if he will look at it, exclusively to the case of the contract, and not to that of the treaty. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator's explanation is doubtless satisfactory to himself. He may imagine that it will suit his present purposes to place upon his instructions the construction for which he now contends; but it is wholly unwarranted by the language he employed. His instructions speak of securing the right of way to "us." To whom did he allude in the word "us?" Did he refer to the capitalists, proprietors, and specula-minister to look to was that the contract of these tors, who should become the owners of the charter? Was he one of the company, and therefore authorized to use the word "us," when speaking of the rights and privileges to be acquired of a foreign nation through his agency as Secretary of State? I have supposed that Mr. Squier was sent to Central America to represent the United States and to protect our rights and interests as a nation. I have always done the Senator from Delaware the justice to believe that when he gave those instructions to Mr. Squier he was acting on behalf of his country to secure the right of way for a canal to the UNITED STATES, and not to a few capitalists and speculators under the title of "us." For the honor of our country I will still do him that justice, notwithstanding his disclaimer. His instructions also speak of the right of way to "nations," and caution Mr. Squier to see "that no exclusive privileges are granted to any nation," &c. It is plain, therefore, that in the instructions relative to the securing the right of way for a canal to the nations of the earth, Mr. Squier was directed to see that no exclusive privilege was granted to any other nation, and not to claim any peculiar advantages for our own. Then follows the concluding paragraph which has been read: "If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in the country, seek to have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view," Modified how? If before the arrival of Mr. Squier in the country, Mr. Hise shall have acquired a charter or grant which shall secure peculiar privileges or exclusive rights for this country, he was to seek to have it so modified as to open the same rights and privileges to all other nations on equal terms. This is what I understand to be the meaning of those instructions, and it is clear that Mr. Squier understood them in the same way, for when Mr. Squier arrived in Nicaragua, and discovered by a statement in a newspaper of the Isthmus that Mr. Hise was about making a treaty for a canal, without knowing what its terms were, without waiting to ascertain its provisions, he sent at once a notice to the Government of Nicaragua, that Mr. Hise was not authorized to treat-that he did not understand the policy and views of the new Administration-that he had been recalled, and that any treaty he might make must be considered and treated as an unofficial act. He communicated this protest to the Secretary of State on the same day, and then proceeded to his point of destination, where he made a treaty for the right of way for a canal to all nations on the partnership plan in pursuance of his instructions. These two treaties-the Hise treaty and the Squier treaty-were in the Department of State at the same time the one having arrived about the middle of September, and the other about the first of October. It then became the duty of the Senator from Delaware, as Secretary of State, to decide between them: in other words, to determine whether he would accept of an exclusive privilege to his own country, or enter into partnership with the monarchies of Europe. He did determine that question, and his decision was in favor of the partnership, and against his own country having the exclusive control of the canal. Then, sir, I think I was authorized to say what I did say, that the non-ratification of the Hise treaty by the Government of Nicaragua was procured by the agent of General Taylor's administration in that country, and that the agent acted under the authority of this Government. He certainly acted in obedience to what he understood to be his instruction, and that is, the instruction, that if such a charter had been incautiously granted to seek to have it modified to conform to the ends had in view, as stated in the instruction. Mr. CLAYTON. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him? It is not a very material point, One remark more: How is it possible for the gentleman to reconcile the fact, that the State Department could know or imagine that Mr. Hise had made a treaty on the 2d of May, 1850, when those instructions were given, when, in point of fact, Mr. Hise was not heard from until June afterwards? How could I imagine any such thing? And again: how could I possibly suppose that Mr. Hise had made a treaty, or was going to make a treaty, when the records of the State Department showed me the instructions given to him by Mr. Buchanan, in which he tells Mr. Hise to make no treaty whatever with Nicaragua? If the gentleman can reconcile these things, I should be happy to hear him. Mr. DOUGLAS. I will have less difficulty in reconciling these things with my views of his instructions than he will with his construction of them. I have already shown that the instructions related to the right of way to nations and not to individuals; that they were in favor of equal rights to all nations, and opposed to any peculiar privileges to our own country. Is it not as reasonable to suppose that the instructions meant what they said, as it is to conceive that our minister was directed to procure the modification of contracts previously entered into with individuals, and for the observance of which Nicaragua was supposed to have pledged her faith as a nation? Was our minister sent there to represent individuals in their schemes of procuring charters and contracts on private account, or to interfere with and prevent the faithful observance of such contracts as that Government might previously have made with our own citizens or others? While this supposition might extricate the Senator from his present difficulty on this point, it would not tend to elevate the character of our diplomacy during his administration of the State Department. I think I do the Senator more justice by the construction I have put upon his conduct than he does by his own explanation. But, sir, I wish to know whether I understand the Senator now? Does he wish now to be understood as saying that he preferred an exclusive privilege to his own country to a partnership with England? Mr. CLAYTON. No, sir. Mr. DOUGLAS. Ah! then as he did not prefer the exclusive privilege to a partnership with the European Powers, does he wish the Senate to understand that he did not mean to convey his true idea in his instructions? If he preferred the partnership to the exclusive privilege, was it not his duty to make known that wish in his instructions? Why should he complain when I show that by his instruction he said precisely what he now avows to be his policy upon that subject? Why, sir, I am defending the consistency of his own opinions, according to his present views, by showing that his instructions embraced what he says now was his true policy-in favor of a partnership with other nations, instead of an exclusive privilege to our own country. But, sir, whatever may have been his meaning in those instructions, it is undeniable that Mr. Squier understood them as I now do, and acted upon them accordingly. Hence, as I have already remarked, before he arrived upon the theater of his operations, and upon the mere authority of a newspaper paragraph, that Mr. Hise was about making such a treaty, he sent ahead a messenger to inform the Government of Nicaragua that Mr. Hise had no authority to treat upon the subjectthat he had been recalled-that he was not informed of the views and purposes of the new Ad 32D CONG.....3D SESS. ministration-and that whatever treaty he made must be regarded and treated as an unofficial act and requesting that "new negotiations may be entered upon at the seat of Government." Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. with a view to its ratification; and, if that enlightened body should approve it, he also will give it his hearty sanction, and will exert all his constitutional power to execute its provisions in good faith-a determination in which he may confidently count upon the good will of the people of the United States." SENATE. vote to strike out the obnoxious features in the treaty was unanimous. Not one man in the body, not even the Senator from Delaware, dared to affirm those clauses or vote to keep them in the treaty. Having perfected it so as to suit the views of about vote of the Senator recorded in the affirmative, according to my recollection. Here we find the true reason assigned for with-four fifths of the Senate, it was ratified with the holding the Hise treaty from the Senate. It was to induce Great Britain to enter into partnership with us. Lord Palmerston is informed that if Great Britain refuses our offer of a partnership, that "we shall deem ourselves justified in protect The new negotiations were immediately opened accordingly, and on the 3d of September terminated in a treaty, which was a substitute for that|| which Mr. Hise had previously made. I do not understand that the Hise treaty was formally rejected or disavowed by the Government of Nicar-|| agua. It was treated as an unofficial act-a mere nullity-upon the authority of Mr. Squier's pro-ing our interests independently of her aid, and in test. I again submit the question to the Senate, therefore, whether I am not fully justified in the statement that the non-approval of the Hise treaty by the Government of Nicaragua was in consequence of the action of the agent of this Government in that country, under the instructions of the Senator from Delaware as Secretary of State? I am only surprised that he should attempt to avoid the responsibility of the act, since, when hard pressed in this discussion, he has been driven into the admission that he preferred a partnership with the monarchies of the Old World to an exclusive privilege for his own country. If such were his opinions and preferences, he was bound by every consideration of duty and patriotism to have given the instructions, and produced the result which I have attributed to him. Why not avow that which he now acknowledges to have been his purpose, in obedience to what he conceived to be his duty? I only ask him to assume the responsibility and consequences of his own conduct, and then to assign such reasons as he may be able in justification. The next reason which he gives for suppressing the Hise treaty is totally inconsistent with the first. He alleges that the clause guaranteeing the independence of Nicaragua was wholly inadmissible, and could never receive his sanction. In a report which was communicated to the House of Representatives in 1850, he assigned the same reason, and stated that such a guarantee was a departure from our uniform policy, and had no precedent in our history except in the one case of the French colonies in America. despite of her opposition or hostility," and that "with a view to this alternative," we held the Hise treaty in reserve, to be submitted to the Senate for ratification or not, dependent upon the decision of Great Britain in relation to the partnership. This is the only reason assigned for withholding the treaty from the Senate. The pretext that it was made without authority is expressly negatived by the threat to accept the exclusive privilege, in the event that England refuses to enter into the partnership. Not a word of objection that it guarantees the independence of Nicaragua! But the testimony does not stop here. This same dispatch furnishes affirmative evidence-conclusive and undeniable-that the "guarantee constituted no portion of his objection to the Hise treaty-was not deemed objectionable by him at that time-but, on the contrary, was looked upon with favor, and actually proposed by Mr. Clayton himself as a desirable provision which might be incorporated into a treaty for the protection of the canal! I read from the same dispatch: "YOU MAY SUGGEST, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN SHOULD ENTER INTO A TREATY GUARANTEEING THE INDEPENDENCE OF NICARAGUA, Honduras, and Costa Rica, which treaty may also guarantee to British subjects the privileges acquired in those States by the treaties between Great Britain and Spain, provided that the limits of those States on the east be acknowl edged to be the Caribbean Sea." Now, sir, let me ask the Senator from Delaware what becomes of his pretext that he deemed the guarantee of the independence of Nicaragua an insuperable objection to the Hise treaty? Have I not proven by his own dispatches, written at the time, that such an idea could never have entered his brain when he determined to withhold the treaty from the Senate?-that it was an afterthought upon which he has since seized as an excuse for an act which had been previously done with a view to another object, and for different reasons? I will now proceed to consider the fourth objection made by the Senator to the Hise treaty. He goes on to criticise its various provisions, denounces them as ridiculous, as absurd, as unconstitutional, and he puts the question with an air of triumph whether there was a man in this body who would have voted for all the provisions of that treaty. Sir, I have no fancy for that species of special pleading which attempts to avoid the real issue by a criticism upon mere details which are subject to modification at pleasure. Does not the Senator know that when a treaty is made, the objects of which are desirable, while the details are inadmissible, the practice has been to send it to the Sen Of course courtesy requires me to acknowledge that the Senator really believes that this was one of the reasons which induced him to withhold the Hise treaty from the Senate. I must be permitted, however, to inform him that he is entirely mistaken; that the clause in question did not constitute an objection in his mind at that time; that it is an afterthought which he has since seized hold of to justify an act which he had previously performed upon totally different grounds. The evidence of these facts will be found recorded in a dispatch written by the Senator from Delaware, as Secretary of State, on the 20th of October, 1849, to Mr. Lawrence, our Minister to England. The document containing this dispatch was printed and laid upon our tables a few days since, and is entitled Senate Ex. Doc. No. 27. It will be remembered, that the Hise treaty was communicated to the Department of State on the 15th of September, and the Squier treaty about the first of October of the same year. On the 20th of October, Mr. Clay-ate, ton (in the dispatch to which I refer) discussed our relations with the Central American States at great length-among other things communicated to Mr. Lawrence the substance of these two treaties and directed him to make the same known to Lord Palmerston: "If, however, the British Government shall reject these overtures on our part, and shall refuse to cooperate with us in the generous and philanthropic scheme of rendering the interoceanic communication by the way of the port and river San Juan free to all nations upon the same terms, we shall deem ourselves justified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and despite her opposition or hostility. With a view to this alternative, we have a treaty with the State of Nicaragua, a copy of which has been sent to you, and the stipulations of which you should unreservedly impart to Lord Palmerston. You will inform him, however, that this treaty was concluded without a power or instruction from this Government; that the President had no knowledge of its existence, or of the intention to form it, until it was presented to him by Mr. Hise, our late chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, about the 1st of September last; and that, consequently, we are not bound to ratify it, and will take no step for that purpose, if we can, by arrangements with the British Government, place our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation. But, if our effort for this end should be abortive, the President will not hesitate to submit this or some other treaty which may be concluded by the present chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, to the Senate of the United States for their advice and consent, that the object may be secured and the details so modified as to conform to the ends in view? Whoever supposed before that a treaty, desirable in its leading features, was to be rejected by the Department, merely because there was an obnoxious provision in it. I could turn upon the Senator with an air of as much triumph, if I had practiced it as well, and ask him if there was a man in this body who would have voted for the Mexican treaty of peace as it was sent to us by the Executive? Do we not all know that the treaty which was ratified by about four fifths of the Senate came to us in a shape in which it could not receive one solitary vote upon either side of the Chamber? Do we not know that Mr. Polk in his message communicating the treaty intimated that fact, and called the attention of the Senate to the obnoxious provisions? While it contained provisions which would exclude the President from the possibility of ever ratifying it, which would have prevented every Senator from giving his sanction to it, yet inasmuch as the main objects of the treaty met the approval of the President, and it was only matters of detail that were obnoxious and inadmissible, he sent it to the Senate that its details might be made to harmonize with its objects. Sir, the If, therefore, the Senator from Delaware had followed the practice which he sanctioned by his own vote in the case of the Mexican treaty, he would have sent the Hise treaty to the Senate for amendment and ratification, even if the details had been obnoxious to all the objections he now urges to them. For this reason I do not deem it necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reply to his objections relative to making a canal outside the limits of the United States, or the creation of a company either by Congress or the President for that purpose. I care not whether these provisions were admissible or inadmissible. It is not material to the argument. It can have no bearing upon the question. The Hise treaty was evidence of one great fact, which should never be forgotten, and that fact is that Nicaragua was willing and anxious to grant to the United States forever the exclusive right and control over a ship canal between the two oceans. The Secretary of State [Mr. CLAYTON] knew that fact. If the details were not acceptable to him, he could have availed himself of the main provision and made the details to suit himself; I confine myself, therefore, to the great point, that you might have had the exclusive privilege if you had desired it. You refused it with your eyes open, and took a partnership in lieu of it. All about the details is a matter of moonshine. You could have modified them to suit yourself before sending the treaty to the Senate, or you could have followed the example of Mr. Polk, in the case of the Mexican treaty, and sent it to the Senate with the recommendation that the details be thus modified. All this talk about obnoxious features and objectionable provisions-about guarantees of independence and want of authority to make the treatymust be regarded as miserable attempts to avoid the main point at issue. Why this pitiful equiv ocation, if the Senator was really in favor of the European partnership in preference to the exclusive privilege for the United States, as all his acts prove the whole tenor of his correspondence clearly and conclusively prove-was the case? If he thinks his policy was right, why not frankly avow the truth, and justify upon the merits? I am not to be diverted from my purpose by his assaults upon the administration of President Polk, nor by his array of great names in opposition to the views I entertain. History will do justice to Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan upon this as well as all other questions connected with their administration of the Government. In the speech to which the Senator professed to reply, I did not make an allusion to party politics. I do not think the term Whig or Democrat can be found in the whole speech. I am sure that it does not contain a partísan reference to the state of political parties in the country during the period to which my remarks applied. I attempted to discuss the question upon its merits, independent of the fact whether my views might come in conflict with those professed by either of the great parties, or entertained by the great men of our country at some former period. I should have been better satisfied if the Senator had pursued the same course, instead of calling upon Jackson, Polk, and Buchanan, and sheltering himself behind their great names, while attempting to detract from their fame by representing them as having sacrificed the interests and honor of their country. Mr. CLAYTON. I deny it. There was not one word in my speech which went to arraign Mr. Polk or General Jackson, or any body. There was nothing like a party spirit in the speech. If the gentleman so understood me, he entirely misunderstood me. I stated the fact that Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan had been applied to by the local government of Nicaragua for the intervention of this Government to protect it from the aggressions of the British. I stated, and proved the fact, that the Monroe doctrine had never been carried out-that Mr. Polk on that occasion had declined to interfere; but I disclaimed entirely assailing him, and |