32D CONG....3D SESS. of dates, because the treaty was made in 1826, and the map was published in England in the same year, and it is hardly to be presumed that the treaty followed so immediately upon the promulgation of the map. I have taken the precaution to look into other maps of Arrowsmith in reference to these British possessions, and have found what any Senator will find who will examine them, that they are made exclusively with reference to British pretension, and without any earthly regard to the existing state of facts-geographical or political. Sir, there is a map of Arrowsmith, a very large map, in the office of the Secretary of the Senate, a map of the West India Islands and the coast of Central America opposite. It has no date, but you will find upon it that the British settlements at Balize are laid down, as they should be, between the Rio Hondo on the north, and the Rio Sipon on the south. These are the treaty limits with Spain as prescribed by the treaty of 1786. And then, if you will extend your walk into the Library, you will find a large atlas, published by Arrowsmith, again without date, in which you will find the British possessions at Balize extended as far down as the river Sarstoon, embracing an extent, it is said, of one hundred and fifty miles below the southern limit of the treaty; so that this author, upon whom the Senator relies to settle this geographical question, on the author's own word that his map is compiled from the archives of Guatemala, lays down the British possessions on his map, not as they are prescribed by the treaty, but as successive encroachments by the settlers have enlarged them, according to the treaty limits in the earlier map, and according to the British trespasses in the later map. I say, then, with all possible respect to the literature of that country and to those who have charge of the geographical portions of it, that when British interests are concerned, there is not the slightest credit to be given to this map-maker, Arrowsmith. And thus, sir, although Arrowsmith claims in 1826 to have compiled his map from the archives of Guatemala, and thus to throw those settlements in Mexico, yet in the year 1832, an official map was published by the Republic of Guatemala, in which the whole of these settlements are shown to be comprised within the limits of that Republic. I have that map in the committee room, and intended to have brought it up with me, but it escaped my recollection; any gentleman, however, who is curious on the subject, may examine it for himself. It is an atlas published in Guatemala, entitled "An Atlas of Guatemala, in eight maps, prepared and engraved in Guatemala by order of the Chief of the State, C. D'Mariano Galves." The north and northwestern boundary of Guatemala, although called "line undefined," is there north of the Rio Hondo, which river by the map is altogether within the limits of Guatemala. The author of that map is a certain Allejandro Marure, professor of history and geography in the Academy of Sciences of the State of Guatemala. Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. [March 14, the Senator boldly affirms, that he was an impostor-to establish which, he avers that he was a mere bearer of dispatches, whilst claiming to be a minister to a foreign court; and again, that whilst he assumed to have been sent by the Federal Government of Central America to England, he was in truth but an emissary of the separate State of Guatemala. England is not territorially interested in the question of boundary between Guatemala and Yucatan. England is interested only to know the boundaries prescribed by Spain to her settlements; but whether they lie in Guatemala or in Mexico is not the question which interests her. Her rights remain the same, be they where they may. We are interested in it only under the treaty of 1850, because Great Britain has stipulated that she These positions of the Senator to discredit the will not colonize in Central America. We are State of Guatemala, and with it all evidence deinterested, therefore, in knowing whether the rived from that Republic, I think will furnish no settlements of England are or are not in Central bad exemplar of the mode in which the Senator America. That is our interest. England may have has dealt with the argument against the English a like interest as against us; but against the Re- pretensions, and I shall therefore present the facts public of Guatemala she has none. She has not to the Senate as they appear in the documents to the slightest interest as to the disputed boundary which the report of the committee had reference. between Guatemala and Yucatan. Then I say In 1834, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the confidently, that for the present at least, and until "Confederation of Central America," by letter to we are further informed, we are to take as true Mr. Forsyth, then Secretary of State, introduced what we are officially informed by Guatemala is to him a certain Colonel John Galindo, who, he. true, that the British settlements are in her terri- informs Mr. Forsyth, had been sent by the Govtory. Upon survey and examination, conducted ernment of Central America as a Commissioner in the proper manner to determine the question of "accredited" to the Government of England, to boundary, let the facts be what they may, when-lay before the latter Government the complaints ever established we will assent; but for the present I shall repose upon the assertion of Guatemala, that these settlements are within her territory, and take it as prima facie true. But, sir, we have some further proof on this subject which I was concerned to find met with little favor at the hands of the Senator from Delaware-some further Guatemalan authorities. I have said, in one of the maps of Arrowsmith, (that found in the atlas,) the British possessions, which in a previous map he had correctly defined by the limits prescribed in the Spanish treaty, are extended very far south of the treaty line, and as low as the river Sarstoon. The treaty made with Spain in 1783, clearly defined the limits of those British settlements; they were bounded on the south by the river Wallis or Balize, and on the north by the Rio Hondo. Three years afterwards, in 1786, by a new treaty between Spain and England, the southern boundary was extended to the river Sipon or Tabon, so that from that day to this, without question as far as the title is concerned, the British possessions at Balize, by the treaty are confined to the country between the river Sipon on the south, and the Hondo on the north; but yet, as I said, on this map of Arrowsmith, (the map-maker on whom the Senator relies,) you will find these British settlements extended as low as the Sarstoon river, a river emptying as far south as the bight of the Bay of Honduras, giving, it is said, forty-five leagues of sea-coast outside of the treaty limits to the British settlements. Now, we have what Guatemala said on that subject in 1835, contained in a letter from a gentleman who, I was also concerned to find, met with little favor at the hands of the Senator from Delaware-Colonel Galindo, or Don Juan Galindo, whichever may please the Senator best. Colonel Galindo, who was a minister or commissioner from the confederacy of Central America to Great Britain in 1835, in a letter addressed to the Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, gives him the following information: "The authorittes of Balize took upon themselves, in November last, to declare their limits to be the Hondo on the north, the Sarstoon on the south, and on the west a line drawn parallel to the coast through Garbutt's Falls, in the river Balize, thus extending the old grant by at least five fold." Here, then, is a map published at Guatemala, by direction of the government of Guatemala, drawn by one of their most eminent literary characters, showing the Rio Hondo, which is the northern boundary of the British settlements, to be altogether within the limits of Guatemala; and yet the honorable Senator says you are to give no credit in the world to the map, because Guatemala was interested in the matter; but you are to ascribe all faith to the British map-maker, because he says his map is compiled from materials in the archives of that State. I say, sir, that in my judgment, I would rely, for the present at least, upon the map of the State of Guatemala, which has the credit and the faith of the State of Guatemala attached to it, because it was published under its authority. I ask the honorable Senator from Delaware, how are we to know the boundaries of any nation but from the declaration or prescription of the nation itself? Every nation has a right to assert its own boundaries as against others who are not territorially interested, and they are to be taken, if not as absolutely, certainly prima facie true. WeThere was another part of the report of the have no territorial interest in the boundary of Guatemala. We have no contiguous territory, and no disputed line between us; and I say to the Senator from Delaware, that England has none. This gentleman, who was sent from Guatemala to England to remonstrate upon the subject of these British trespasses in that country, informed the Secretary of State, in 1835, that the authorities of Balize claimed, in contravention of the treaty, as far south as the Sarstoon river; and here you find upon the map of Arrowsmith, to which I have adverted, that convenient map-maker, the British possessions extending to that river. I have now had brought to me the map published by Guate mala, to which I referred, and any Senator who desires may look at it; and it will be found that the British possessions are fixed within the limits of the State of Guatemala. I rely upon that until the contrary is shown. Committee on Foreign Relations upon which the Senator animadverted. I mean the information communicated by Colonel Galindo, who was sent upon this mission to England. Of this gentleman of Central America against the aggressions of the English settlers at Balize-a most unwelcome topic certainly to England; and Mr. Forsyth was further informed that Colonel Galindo was instructed to come first to the United States, and to ask the good offices of this Government to aid him in his mission to England. He was received by Mr. Forsyth in due form as the representative of Central America, but, for reasons satisfactory to our Government doubtless, but which do not appear in the correspondence, interference on our part was declined. Colonel Galindo went on his way to England, and that Government declined receiving him as the representative of Central America, on the ground that he was a British subject, and therefore could not be accredited as the representative of a foreign Power. It was in this manner that England evaded the remonstrance of Central America, shielding herself behind the arrogance of British law, which acknowledges no expatriation-once a subject of England's monarch, always a subject. Colonel Galindo, it seems, was of Irish birth. Such was his mission, and such its termination. Central America was too feeble a Power to enforce a hearing at the haughty Court of St. James; but I demand to know through what sympathy is her accredited minister now to be denounced in our American Senate as an impostor? Mr. Forsyth in a letter to Mr. Murphy, who was the confidential agent of the United States at Central America, speaks of Colonel Galindo in this language: "Colonel Galindo, a distinguished officer in the Central American army, was bearer of the application of his Government to ours." In the letter quoted, from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Central America to Mr. Forsyth, he says that a grant of land had been made by the State of Guatemala to a certain company for purposes of colonization, and that the colonists had been driven off by the English settlers. This was the cause of Colonel Galindo's mission in England. In the same letter that Secretary says, speaking of the boundaries of Guatemala, "the Rio Hondo forms the boundary between Guatemala and Yucatan." If that be true, it settles the whole question as to whether these possessions are or are not in Central America. Is it true? The honorable Senator from Delaware says it is false, and undertakes to show that it is false; and he makes that assertion upon such authority as the British mapmaker, Arrowsmith, in direct contradiction to the solemn asseveration made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Central America. To give this history, however, correctly, I will quote it at large from the letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as follows: "The Rio Hondo forms the boundary between Guatemala and Yucatan, and consequently the whole of the grant made by her Catholic Majesty to the British cutters is within the sovereignty of Central America: however, the Mexican States, in their treaty with Great Britain, took upon themselves to sanction the said grant of the Spanish monarch; in consequence of which the English settlers again possessed themselves of the southern bank of the Hondo, but never took any measures to disoccupy the country to the west and south, which, in every view, they had only held as an equivalent." It then goes on to say: 32D CONG.....3D SESS. "In consequence of the grants of land made of that territory by the State of Guatemala to certain Central American citizens, and an European colonization company, the authorities of Balize took upon themselves, in November last, to declare their limits to be the Hondo on the north, the Sarstoon on the south, and on the west a line drawn parallel to the coast through Garbutt's Falls, in the river Balize, thus exceeding the old grant by at least fivefold." Here, then, is a complaint made by our sister Republic, the Confederation of the Centre of America, to the United States, upon whose justice and strength it relied against these British aggressions at Honduras bay, in which they state their title, and say that their boundary is the Rio Hondo. The honorable Senator from Delaware says that no earthly credit is to be given to what comes from that quarter, because they are interested; and for what reason does he say it? What is the end to be attained by the honorable Senator, if he could prove his proposition to be true that these settlements are not in Central America, except that he would then show they were withdrawn from the obligations of the treaty of 1850? Sir, there was communicated by that gentleman, Colonel Galindo to Mr. Forsyth, a paper which none can read without seeing that it is the work of a man of ability. It is a remonstrance drawn up by a certain Mr. Annitia, who, Colonel Galindo informed the Secretary, was a member of the Congress of the Confederation from the State of Guatemala. It was published in Guatemala, and was intended to present to the people of Guatemala their true position in reference to the British settlements; and he draws a picture which will show to us, and to any who will read it, that these settlements within the territory of Guatemala, not only caused endless discord and trouble, but would ruin the resources of Guatemala by the cupidity of British merchants. This gentleman, a member of the Congress of Central America; also claims, in direct terms, that the whole of the settlements are within their territory. His language is this: "In the year 1783, the Spanish Government, which, until then, exercised in this country the power which they had acquired by conquest, agreed that the subjects of his Britannic Majesty might cut dye or Campeachy wood within the district prescribed for them, between the rivers Hondo and Balize, or Belese, which are in our territory." He then goes on to depict the mischiefs, the injuries, and the evils under which the Republic of Guatemala was laboring, on account of the contraband trade carried on in the British settlements. He speaks, as I have read, of the aggressions of the settlers extending their limits beyond the proper southern boundary, and he says: "But the transaction of which they ought to be ashamed is, by a strange process, made the ground of a title; for those gentlemen affirm that they have a right to retain all they occupied up to the year 1821. If it were true that they could thus establish a legal claim, to what, with their activity, and our apathy, would they not soon pretend? Besides, by giving the provisional settlement in question the importance of a colony, and making it, with the provinces that composed the ancient kingdom of Guatemala, some of its inhabitants advance other arguments, which, although easy to refute, it is not the object which I have in view." Now, Mr. President, it has never been assumed on the part of the Committee on Foreign Relations, nor have I assumed it in the debate here, as a fact upon which the action of this Govern ment is to be founded in reference to the British treaty, that these possessions are in Central America. I assume only so far as we are informed that the weight of authority is on that side. I say that the Republic of Guatemala claims it-claims it not only through her official documents, to which I have referred, but through her official maps; and that in the present posture of the question, we are bound to take that as prima facie true. Sir, during the last Congress a mission was instituted to these Governments of Central America, and a minister will be sent there doubtless with the instruction to obtain and report to his Government accurate information upon this whole subject, and particularly as to the geographical position of these British settlements. We shall probably know at the next session of Congress whether those settlements are in Central America or not, and when that fact is established the proper action of the Government will follow in respect to the treaty of 1850. The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations on this branch of the inquiry committed to them, submits only that prima facie the title is with Guatemala; and if this be so, the result in regard to England, in reference to the treaty, is, Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. that her settlements there remain undisturbed within the limits and under the rights acquired from Spain. But she has not the right to colonize, to fortify, or to assume, or to exercise any dominion or jurisdiction greater than that existing before the treaty of 1850. Mr. President, I do not intend to prosecute this discussion further. Whenever a question shall come up between the two Governments, the United States and England, as to the proper construction of this treaty, the stipulations in regard to Central America, or as to the effect, if any, upon the text of the treaty, by the subsequent declaration and correspondence between the Secretary of State and the British minister, we shall be prepared to meet it. Sir, peace in our beloved coun try is to be preferred over everything except national safety and national honor. That statesman or that man who would precipitate his country into a war carelessly, recklessly, or idly, upon the assertion of any abstract opinion, would go down, as he would deserve, to posterity with execration. But that statesman or that man who would jeopard the national honor or the national safety, from any fear of war, would go down with deeper execration still. For one, I am prepared to say, that while a fair, a legitimate, a just construction is to begiven to the treaty, England must be held strictly America are weak and feeble-they are powerless to its engagements. The governments of Central against England. In 1835 she refused to hear their remonstrance against aggressions under British authority. Now, by this treaty of 1850, the honor of this country is sternly committed to preserve the integrity of every part of Central America as essential to our own safety. Sir, the Government of Old England is known -well known. It is great, mighty, and powerful, and not great, mighty, and powerful alone, but wise and sagacious. Look at her! Why, it has been truly said that the sun never sets upon her dominion! The world is circled by her "martial airs," as was beautifully and strongly said by the lamented Webster. Look at our own continent! From the Island of Trinidad, at the mouth of the Orinoco, to the Cape of Florida, you find her entrenched on a cordon of islands. We cannot put her out of them. She commands the southern outlet of the Caribbean sea, and at the Bahamas, the Gulf of Mexico. She is fortified everywhere. Why? To protect her fleets in a state of war, and further her commerce in a state of peace. How is it in the eastern hemisphere? She commands the Mediterranean sea at Gibraltar; the pass between Africa and Sicily, at Malta, and recently, as late as 1839, she has mastered the enterprise of commanding the route to India, by seizing the fortress of Aden at the Straits of Babelmandel, the Arabian "Gate of Tears." I do not complain of that. We have no right to complain. England is wise in her generation. She reposes upon her own strength. If other nations permit her to seize and retain such strongholds on the eastern hemisphere, be it so; but upon this continent she has gone as far as she can go, consistent with the safety and interest of this country. Now, sir, I am prepared to make no charge. I am uninformed upon the subject. We are told that these British settlers at the Balize are constantly trespassing upon Central America; that they have endeavored more than once to seize the Bay Islands, and colonize them. Intelligence in the public journals of this very day tell us of some new aggression committed in Honduras by the British authorities there. Still they are in report and rumor only. I make, therefore, no charge of bad faith or violation of the treaty, because I have not information to justify me in making such a charge. But, sir, just as certain as the seasons return and the earth revolves in its orbit, this continent, so far as it interests the welfare and safety of the United States, must be freed from the aggressions of England. Mr. CLAYTON commenced replying to Mr. DOUGLAS and Mr. MASON, but after speaking nearly an hour without concluding, gave way for a motion to postpone the further consideration of the subject until to-morrow. SENATE. and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned. TUESDAY, March 15, 1853. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Navy, in answer to a resolution of the Senate calling for information in regard to the contract made with Howland & Aspinwall for the supply of coal for the Japan expedition; which was ordered to be printed. On motion by Mr. EVERETT, it was Ordered, That two thousand additional copies of the message of the President of the United States, communicated to the Senate on the 8th instant, transmitting the re port of the Secretary of State in relation to the fisheries on the coasts of the British North American Provinces, be printed for the use of the Senate. PAPERS WITHDRAWN. On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky, it was Ordered, That E. P. Colkins have leave to withdraw his petition and papers from the files of the Senate. On motion by Mr. RUSK, it was Ordered, That Harriet F. Fisher have leave to withdraw her petition and papers from the files of the Senate. EXECUTIVE SESSION. On motion by Mr. MASON, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business; and, after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened. CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. 'The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. CLAYTON on the 7th instant. Mr. CLAYTON. I have now heard both the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] and the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] and shall reply to both. First, let me notice the remarks of the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations [Mr. MASON] in defense of his report. The Senator from Illinois, who is a member of that committee, says for himself, by way of excuse, I suppose, that he was not present when it was read in committee, and, accordingly, he does not attempt to defend it. The late Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. UNDERWOOD,) another member of the committee, announced his dissent from it when the report was made. The honorable chairman, [Mr. MASON,] for whom I have great respect, defends it still, after all I have said to refute it. But it cannot escape observation that he has not been able to produce any authority to sustain it besides that which the report itself sets forth. What was that? Why, nothing more, according to his own present showing, than the assertion by Guatemala in some maps, purely ex parte maps, each entitled to no more credit than a plat of a farm made by a man claiming it who has never been in possession of it and never sought to obtain it. But I do not agree with him that the maps he has produced do prove that Guatemala makes any claim to the Balize territory within the limits of the treaty of 1786. The map made by order of the chief of the State of Guatemala, C. D. Mariano Galvez, appears, like every other map made by Guatemala which I have seen, to be constructed without scientific arrangement, and on its own face unreliable; and, if I understand it, the chairman is entirely mistaken in his inference from it, that it includes Balize within the limits of the State of Guatemala. The lines appear to be dotted which are to designate her boundaries, and dotted lines are marked around Balize, as if to exhibit it as a separate territory. The honorable chairman and I draw different inferences from the same paper, and the paper itself is no authority for either of us. As to his remarks on the passages from Humboldt and Alcedo quoted by me, I can only desire others to look at them and decide between us. Humboldt does not, in the passage cited by the honorable Senator, discredit Alcedo in reference to this question, but differs from him in regard to another matter. The honorable Senator was entirely silent in regard to all the other authorities I quoted, except the map of Guatemala published On motion by Mr. ADAMS, the Senate pro- by Arrowsmith, the royal hydrographer, in Janceeded to the consideration of Executive business,uary, 1826, which he admits proves all I stated if EXECUTIVE SESSION. 32D CONG..... 3D SESS. it is to be credited, but which he thinks ought to be discredited, because it was made by an Englishman. I produced it for the very purpose of showing how Englishmen understood the subject, when they sought from Mexico and not from Guatemala the confirmation of their claims on British Honduras, under the treaty of 1786, and obtained the ratification of them by the treaty with Mexico in December, 1826. The map does conclusively prove this, as it was made from "the original survey in the archives of Guatemala" herself. But I ask again, why is it that all English authorities are to be wholly disregarded, and all the mere pretensions of Guatemala are to be viewed with perfect confidence? He says we are bound to receive her assertions, because she claims it. I deny that she claims it; and if she did, does not Great Britain also claim it under a grant from Mexico and has she not been in the undisputed possession of it ever since Guatemala had existence as a State? The honorable Senator may well express doubts of the conclusion arrived at in his report, since he has had time to look into the many other authorities to which I referred him, and to which he has made not the slightest exception. It is true, as the Senator states, that Mr. Webster did, in a letter to Mr. Murphy, of the 6th of August, 1841, speak of the Irishman, John Galindo, as "Colonel Galindo, a distinguished officer in the Central American army," and of his mission to England as being "accredited by the Government of Central America." But it is also true that Mr. Murphy, writing from Guatemala on the 20th January, 1842, informed Mr. Webster of the imposition which caused his mistake. The Irishman, John Galindo, now called in the report "Don Galindo," "the Minister," was, as I said, an impostor; and the letter of Mr. Murphy proves that there was a gross misrepresentation of his official character, even in the letter of Alvarez himself. Who could rely on such testimony, even if it had stated that Balize was in Guatemala? Sir, I submit that there is no shadow of evidence left to sustain the position that Balize is or ever was in the State of Guatemala, and knowing that I have fully refuted the report, I leave it. As to my letter to Mr. Bulwer, which is a counter-declaration to prevent a misconstruction of his letter of the 4th of July, 1850, the chairman was perfectly right in his report that it did not consent to any alteration of the treaty, or to the possible inference that the eminent domain was in Great Britain at the Balize. The letter also expressly states that the dependencies of Balize are the small islands known to be dependencies of British Honduras;" it declares also, without contradiction, that the treaty does embrace" all the Central American Republics, with all their just limits and proper dependencies.' With these facts before him, any man may decide the honorable chairman's appeal from the Senate to the Secretary of State. Special Session-Clayton Bulwer Treaty. your own organ, to inform me of your views My object in offering the second resolution was The member from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] says again, that Great Britain still remains in possession of Central America. He says she has not relinquished" an inch" of it. This only proves that he has not read the official papers before us, and has made a reckless assertion, without proof. The Secretary of State, in his letter before us of the 16th of February last, says that "the British 'Government does not expect to make complete || 'provision against the danger to the Mosquito In'dians." 66 They consider it, however, their duty to do what is required by honor and humanity in 'behalf of the Mosquito nation; declaring at the 'same time, that they intend to adhere strictly to 'the treaty of Washington of the 19th April, 1850, ' and not to assume any sovereignty, direct or in'direct, in Central America." The British have no right to exert any force, I repeat again, with a The Senator from Virginia undertook to state view to the support of the pretended protectorate the facts in regard to the declaration of Sir Henry of the Mosquito king. If they do attempt it, that L. Bulwer, and my counter-declaration of the 4th must inevitably involve us in a controversy which of July, 1850. In doing this he has omitted some never can terminate honorably for us without their of the facts. He omitted, I observe, to state that utter abandonment of any such claim. I do not Congress was officially informed by me, almost pretend that either they or we cannot interfere immediately after the exchange of ratifications, with a Central American State which robs or plunthat British Honduras was not included in the ders the subjects of their country, or the citizens treaty of 1850. He has omitted to state that the of the other. Were any of these States to impublic were also apprised of the fact at the very prison our citizens, or rob them of their property, moment of the first publication of the treaty, and it is our duty to protect them, and after all efforts that no complaint was ever made of the exclusion of honorable diplomacy are exhausted, to compel of British Honduras from the treaty by any man a full indemnity for the wrong. It may be postill the 6th of January last, more than two years sible that Great Britain may have endeavored to after every one knew it or had reason to know it. enforce such an indemnity for her subjects for Above all, he omitted to state-what was pub-torts of Honduras to them. The treaty does not licly known here and elsewhere-that at the very protect any of these Central American States from moment of the exchange of ratifications I was of punishment for outrages committed by their auficially informed by Mr. King, the chairman of thority to either English subjects or American your Committee on Foreign Relations, that the citizens. Those States are only on the same footSenate, at the time of voting on the treaty, "per- ing under the treaty with all other independent fectly understood that British Honduras was not nations. It is possible that assaults or threats included in the treaty.' If they did and they may have been lately made against Honduras on dare not deny the statement of their own official account of injuries to British subjects residing organ, the chairman of that committee-why is it there. The omission to pay damages due them that so elaborate and persevering an effort is was the reason assigned for the seizure of Tigre made to inculcate the absurd notion that British Island in 1850, which was on the Pacific side of Honduras was included in the treaty? I have the State of Honduras. Neither the law of rehere before me the letter of your own chairman- || prisals for torts, nor the right of any Government SENATE. to interfere for the protection of its citizens or subjects against oppression and outrage, have been abolished by the treaty of 1850. We should be as prompt to demand reparation for wrongs done to an American citizen by Honduras as by any other State or country, without in any way violating the treaty. We know that in the case of the island (Tigre) I have mentioned, the occupation was disavowed promptly. Let us wait patiently, and learn how the facts really are, before we proclaim the perfidy of any nation. But, without blustering, let us be firm in executing the observance of the whole treaty when our intervention is really necessary to enforce it. Having done with the honorable Senator from Virginia, I will now pay my respects again to the member from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS.] He addressed a speech to his partisans in the galleries on all the topics used to excite and inflame the populace. When defeated on one point, he shifted to another. From glorifying Hise's treaty, (as he has done for two years,) he shrunk back, when its folly was exposed, to a mere assertion that he only preferred it because it gave us the exclusive right of way. What has become of his Monroe doctrine, which was the chief objection he made to the treaty? He has abandoned it-fled from it, and has not a word to say in its defense? What answer has he made to the glaring evidence of the gross unconstitutionality of the Hise treaty creating a corporation to dig a canal more than a thousand miles from the utmost limits of the United States? Not a word! He is equally silent now on every other topic connected with the treaty, upon which he harangued the populace for the last two years, except the single matter of the exclusive privilege. On that point he is yet sure he is right, and it is my duty to expose him. I will begin by simply reading the names of the Senators who voted for the treaty of 1850, providing against any exclusive privilege in any one nation, and extending the privilege of passage to all nations. The vote stood: "YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Berrien, Butler, CASS, Chase, Clarke, CLAY, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dawson, Dayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Felch, Foote, Green, Hale, HousTON, HUNTER, Jones, KING, Mangum, MASON, Miller, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pratt, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soulé, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales, and WEBSTER-42. "NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Borland, Bright, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Turney, Walker, Whitcomb, and Yulee-10." I have the official list which was sent to the President of the United States at the time of the vote upon the treaty, certified in proper form by the Secretary of the Senate, showing that there were forty-two yeas in favor of it, and only ten nays against it, and it does not appear upon the face of that paper that the Senator from Illinois did vote on either side. Mr. DOUGLAS. I may as well here make an explanation of the point that the Senator is raising, which he could have learned from the Secretary's table, if he had chosen, without any difficulty. The Senator knows as well as any living man that I was opposed to the treaty. The Senator recollects well an interview which took place between him and the Vice President of the United States and myself, at the Vice President's seeking, in which we discussed every provision in the treaty. That Senator well knows that I arraigned every article of the treaty in that interview long before the vote was taken. That Senator well knows that then I insisted upon the Hise treaty, and he well knows all my objections on the subject, and that we had an interview of three hours, the result of which, I apprehend, left a little irritation, in consequence of which I suffered in my position on the committees in the Senate. Hence my opposition to the treaty was not equivocal. By an accident in taking the names my vote was omitted. At the next Executive session after it was observed, I called the attention of the Senate to the fact that the record was wrong. The whole Senate recognized the fact and corrected it. The Senator ought to present the record as corrected, and not the record which was made under a mistake. Mr. CLAYTON. I present the record as it was sent to the President of the United States, and that record never was corrected. Mr. DOUGLAS. That may be, but it had been stated in debate that I had voted; and if he had 32D CONG....3D SESS. looked at the records of the Senate he would have found upon the corrected record that the error had been corrected. Mr. CLAYTON. I know nothing of the fact of the Senator having corrected the vote some time after it was taken. I know not when the Executive session was held. I am bound to take the Senator's own statement, but I beg to differ with him in regard to the recollection in which he is so confident in reference to the discussion before Colonel King. We will settle that, however, when we can see him. Mr. DOUGLAS. Very well. Mr. CLAYTON. My recollection is different from the Senator's, but at the same time I will state Mr. DOUGLAS. Will not the Senator from Delaware concede to me that I did object to the treaty in toto? Mr. CLAYTON. I will state what I understood to be the position of the Senator. I understood him distinctly to object to the treaty because it deprived us of the power of annexing Central America. Mr. DOUGLAS. That was one of my objections. Mr. CLAYTON. But I do not recollect anything at all of the gentleman's extending Mr. DOUGLAS. Did not Colonel King hold out a strong argument to show me that I was wrong in preferring an exclusive privilege, and was it not said that England and Europe would never consent that a great commercial Power should have the exclusive privilege; and did I not tell him that I never would ask their consent, because it was an American question? Mr. CLAYTON. If the Senator will have patience, I will state what recollection I have of the interview; and I am very confident of the correctness of my recollections. I do recollect very well putting the question to the Senator: How shall we exclude the British from Central America? That was the question which I presented. How shall we get them out? Shall we propose the Monroe doctrine? Shall we endeavor to enforce it? Will Congress sustain any such attempt? I think the Senator will agree with me that he assured me that he did not doubt that Congress would not. Mr. DOUGLAS. Not at all. I only answered for my vote. The PRESIDENT. The honorable Senator from Illinois is out of order. Mr. DOUGLAS. If the honorable Senator asks me if I did not so state, certainly I should be permitted, in a matter involving my own reputation for truth, to respond to the question. The PRESIDENT. The Chair objects to the Senator answering the questions of the Senator from Delaware in this manner: it is utterly opposed to the usages of the Senate. Mr. DOUGLAS. Very well. Mr. CLAYTON. I certainly do not intend to impeach the honorable Senator's veracity, but I tell him that we have different recollections of the conversation. I did not understand him to conclude the conversation with the declaration on his part that he intended to oppose the treaty. I did suppose that the arguments addressed to him had some influence on his mind, and I so informed some of my friends at the time; and I was surprised that he did not vote on the treaty, or, as he says, that he did vote, and vote against it. Mr. DOUGLAS. I never said that I would not sustain him in the assertion of the Monroe doctrine-never uttered such a word-never entertained such a thought. I could not speak for Congress, but my own opinions and determinations were known and proclaimed to be in favor of preventing any more European colonization on this continent. must be permitted to inform the Senator from Delaware that I am not mistaken about the conversation held with Colonel King and myself. He cannot have forgotten-he must remember, that I opposed the treaty then in all its parts and provisions, for the same reason that I have since given for my vote against it-that I opposed it because it surrendered the exclusive privilege which we might enjoy by the Hise treaty; because it abrogated the Monroe doctrine; because-because-because it proposed an alliance with England and the other European Powers Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. in respect to the American continent; because Mr. CLAYTON. Very well, then. So far SENATE. privileges or facilities are given in the amount of toll, tonnage, or other duties or charges, to the vessels or merchandise of any foreign Power, greater than those which the vessels or merchandise of the United States would enjoy, by the terms of the act, in passing through the canal or in the ports at its termination, you will immediately signity to the Government that the United States consider themselves, by the terms of the treaty, as entitled to the same advantages." The treaty here referred to was the treaty with Central America of the 5th of December, 1825, which secured to us the privileges "of the most favored nation"-the same commercial privileges which Central America and we ourselves ceded to every nation with which either of the two Republics ever made a commercial treaty. Had Central America or "Guatemala" granted to the King of the Netherlands an exclusive privilege, such as the Senator from Illinois demands for us, we see that Mr. Livingston and President Jackson would have viewed it as a breach of her commercial treaty with us and her commercial treaty with every other civilized State. It turned out that all their apprehensions were groundless. The patriotic and philanthropic King of the Netherlands had asked for no exclusive privilege. He differed from the wise Senator from Illinois. The grant to the Dutch capitalists was liberal, and offered the use of the canal to all nations on the same terms. I have a copy of it before me. The Senator evidently knew nothing about it when he referred to it. The monarch of the Netherlands was not a man of an illiberal, contracted, narrow, mean, and little mind. He, however, and President Jackson, and Livingston, and Polk, and Buchanan, and all the Senate of 1835, and all the House of Representatives of 1839, and twentynine Senators in 1847, and forty-two Senators in 1850, and President Taylor and all his advisers, The Senator, in reply to the remarks I made in relation to the eminent men who voted for the treaty, and the other eminent men who voted for the Panama treaty, charged me with seeking to screen myself behind the names of those distinguished gentlemen. Forty-two Senators voted for the treaty he attacks. Twenty-nine more sustained the same principle by their votes on the Panama treaty-making seventy-one Senators. The Senator from Illinois did not utter a word against it when it passed. Three weeks afterwards he had his name recorded against it. He was a candidate for the Presidency we all know. By taking ground against the treaty, he placed himwere behind the times-did not understand the self in direct antagonism with all the other candigrowth of this giant Republic like the Senator from dates for the Presidency of both parties. By Illinois-and I may not take shelter behind their aumaking the treaty unpopular he killed off Cass, thority! Johnson and Meredith, two of the Caband Clay, and Webster, and Houston, and both inet ministers of President Taylor, among the first the distinguished Senators from Virginia, and all the others who had ever been named for the Pres-jurists and constitutional lawyers in this country, are not of any estimation when brought in compeidency. He fired into the whole flock of his rivalstition with him! shot dead, as he thought, all who could stand in his way. How persevering he has been in attacking the treaty since we all know. We know how many stump speeches he has made in opposition to it. It has been his theme by day and by night: his grand point which entitles him to preference over all others is just here. He is for annulling the treaty, and all the rest for it. He must kill the treaty, or it will kill him. He shows the country how weak Mr. Buchanan was, in endeavoring to make just such a treaty in regard to Panama. Taylor was alive and well when the Senator commenced his opposition. He now tells me I may not take shelter behind the great names of his rivals. Why not? Henry Clay was, in his day and generation, a man supposed by many to have some sagacity-almost equal to his. Daniel Webster, too, had some reputation. Buchanan and Cass have both been esteemed for their sagacity. Polk had some character too. These, and fifty more on the list opposed to his opinion, were accounted men whose decision was worthy of regard. The unanimous opinion of the Senate, on the 3d of March, 1835, against him, ought to be considered as worth something. The unanimous opinion of the House of Representatives, on the 2d of March, 1839, also fully sustaining the prin-mercial treaty with England as a partnership, and ciple of the treaty, one would think was worth something. The opinion of President Jackson ought to be held worth something, to any man who seeks the good will of the Democracy. But the Senator doubts about the opinion of President Jackson. I will fix him on that point. He shall not escape. Edward Livingston, while Secretary of State, acting under the direction of President Jackson, on the 20th July, 1831, addressed a letter to Mr. Jeffers, in Central America, inquiring what was the character of the cession made on the application of the King of the Netherlands by the decree of Guatemala of December, 1830, relative to a canal through that country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. President Jackson apprehended it might be a grant of exclusive privileges, at least so far as related to toll and tonnage duties. Mr. Livingston, by his direction, wrote to Mr. Jeffers: "Should you find, on inspecting the act, that particular The Senator from Illinois complained that the treaty was a European partnership. This word "partnership" composed a large part of his address. He seemed to think that if he could only get the idea fixed in the American mind that we had gone into partnership with England, that would make the treaty odious. So he exerts himself to rouse the ancient prejudice against England. He says she does not love us, and we do not love her. Will he tell us what foreign nation he does love? An American statesman, when speaking or acting in a public capacity, has no right to love any country but his own. She furnishes an object large enough for all his affections. The great Father of his Country, in his Farewell Address, warns us of the folly and danger of either loving or hating any foreign nation. As to Englishmen, when we declared independence, we announced that we held them as we hold men of all other nations, " enemies in war-in peace friends." The policy pursue here by the Senator has shown him to be rather a lover than a hater of England and her people. There is just as much propriety in saying that all the men who travel on the highway are partners, as that the contracting parties to this convention are such. He would view every com therefore objectionable. The Senator endeavored to present the questions between us as party issues. When the Senator did that, he knew well that he spoke in the presence of an overwhelming majority of his own party men, not only here on the floor of the Senate, but above, and all around us. I made no such issue. I desired to make none. I made some remarks, to which he chose to advert, that Mr. Polk and my distinguished predecessor in the office of Secretary of State had made no response whatever to the implorations of the government of Central America, asking us to intercede against the encroachments and aggressions of Great Britain. [ had to state that, as a part of the facts to explain the history of the Monroe declaration; but I thought that I endeavored, in the course of the remarks which I made to the Senate, to show that Mr. Polk was right, according to the principle upon which I supposed he acted, which was, that as 32D CONG.....3D SESS. the Monroe declaration which he recommended to Congress had never been confirmed by either branch of Congress, he therefore refused to act upon it. I thought he was right in not regarding his own declaration as the principle upon which the Government should be administered, until it had received the sanction of the Congress of the United States. I thought I had exonerated him from the imputations which I have often heard made against him. If the gentleman wishes to press me into a discussion of a party character, I know no good reason why I should avoid it with him; but I desire not to mingle up at all in the debate, upon this question with regard to the true history of a treaty, anything of a party char acter. Sir, I do not come here for the avowed purpose of opposing the President of the United States. I mean to make no factious opposition to his administration. I mean to support him so far as I can conscientiously, and oppose him only when I am bound in conscience to oppose, if unfortunately his administration should require opposition. I stand pledged to no party and no set of men to make opposition to him merely because he has been elected as a Democrat to the Presidency of the United States; and it will give me great pleasure, through the whole course of his administration, to sustain him here on the floor of the Senate, if I can. All the objections of the Senator dwindle down at last, as I have said, to a single point-that the treaty ought to have been a treaty for the exclusive right of way across the isthmus; that the error of the treaty of 1850 is, that while it obtains protection from all nations, it makes a navigable highway for all nations on the same terms; and we see that if he had negotiated the treaty, he would have obtained an exclusive right; and he stood up here in defense of the treaty of Mr. Hise, which would have secured to this Government (if it had been ratified by Nicaragua and the United States) an exclusive right. What sort of an exclusive right is it that he demands? He thinks that the Government of the United States should have obtained the grant-the right to make a canal, and an exclusive right to navigate it; that forts should be built at both ends to protect it; and of course that we should protect it by every other means necessary. When the Government shall have made it, and when the Government shall have established the forts, the canal, he says, will be open to everybody on the same terms; and thus he seeks the exclusive grant of a right of way! What does he want with it? Why does he prefer it to the plan adopted, of opening the canal to all nations on the same terms? The Senator says he would hold it as a rod-yes, a rod, to compel other nations to keep the peace! He would have no more settling of islands on the coast of Central America! If any Government attempted it, he would shut his canal to them! He would also compel all foreign nations to treat us with all respect and regard, by means of the tremendous rod which he would hold in his hands. Let us look a little into the justice of this thing, as regards our own country. It has been supposed that the construction of this great work will cost fifty or a hundred millions of dollars. I suppose we could not build a proper fortification at each end under less than a million of dollars for each fort. We would be compelled to maintain a garrison there; and, in the event of a war, to maintain a large navy, such a one as could resist the naval Powers of the earth. If we were to go to war with France, or England, or any other great naval Power, that, of course, would be one of the first points of attack. How convenient would it be for us to defend it at a distance of two thousand miles, and send troops to the different forts, and ships to protect our vessels that pass through the canal! We build it, and everybody is to have the benefit of the canal on the same terms, in time of peace! In war we alone are to defend it! The interest on a hundred millions would be six millions a year. The expenses of protecting and taking care of the canal and keeping it in good order, would probably, when added to the interest, make an annual outlay from the Treasury of the United States, in that distant country, of not less than ten millions of dollars. Now, why should we make such an ex Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. penditure? Because we want a rod-a rod! Sir, I think it would prove to be a rod to inflict injuries upon ourselves. We want nothing but the right of way there. We proposed that no nation should go through that canal, unless she agreed to protect it. In case they agreed to protect it, we should want no forts, no garrisons, and no naval force to guard what none could attack. But, on the other hand, if we were to adopt the plan of the Senator, we should have to keep a standing army in that country to protect it, in the event of a war between us and foreign nations. What would be thought of a man who should purchase a farm, and then, after he had gone to the expense of putting it in order, invite everybody to come and till it, but should direct them to take care that they should pay no part of the expense of keeping up the repairs, nor any part of the taxes upon the land? I do not know that this or any other illustration can make his proposition seem more preposterous than it does on its own mere statement. SENATE. was to be under the control and protection of England in conjunction with this country. I do not raise a question as to how the canal shall be made, whether by a company or not; but I say, if we are to enter into a guarantee, let it be a guarantee of Americans and not of British; let it be a guarantee on our own account, and not in partnership with England. That was my position. Mr. CLAYTON. He has shifted again. But he cannot escape by it. I will meet all the issues he has made, and all the new ones he can invent. The speech he made on the 14th of February will convict him (if now read) of having preferred the very treaty made by Mr. Hise without any of his present qualifications. I have exposed it, and he has become ashamed of it. He now qualifies his position, so that he is only in favor of so much of Mr. Hise's treaty as secured to us the exclusive right. That he is for. Let us see now how soon he will change from that. If he is for the exclusive right ceded in the treaty of Mr. Hise, he is of course for the consideration on which that right was ceded. As an honest man, he would not take the grant and then refuse to pay for it. Then he is for an entangling alliance, against which he has said so much. Mr. DOUGLAS. Not at all. But an important objection to the obtaining of such a grant as that, from a foreign Government to the United States, for the construction of a canal by the United States is, that it is unconstitutional, utterly and absolutely unconstitutional. I said, before the Senator addressed the Senate, that I Mr. CLAYTON. Why, sir, the consideration did not know that there was a man on this floor for which the right was to be ceded, as I have who would contend that this Government had the shown from the treaty itself, was an engagement power, under the Constitution of the United States, on our part to guarantee the title of Nicaragua, to construct a canal in Nicaragua, a railroad in and to fight her battles, and "put down all the wars China, or to build turnpikes in England, or any and bloodshed arising therefrom." Unless he encountry out of the limits of the United States, or tangled us in that way, he could not obtain from to charter a corporation to do such things. I said Nicaragua the exclusive right. He cannot take I supposed heretofore, that the Senator from Illi- the grant without the consideration for it. As to nois belonged to the strict-construction school, the question, how the treaty for an exclusive privwhich denied even the power to make internal im-ilege should have been drawn, or how the Hise provements in our own limits. But he goes for such a treaty as Mr. Hise's, and says that he does not like special pleading. Does the Senator mean that a constitutional objection is mere special pleading? Sir, I never wish any better special plea against any treaty than the Constitution of my country. The gentleman cannot show, by any possible ingenuity, that Mr. Hise's plan of building a canal in Nicaragua is or can be made in any way constitutional. Who ever heard before that a power could be conferred by a treaty that was not conferred upon this Government under the Constitution itself? We are, says he, to build a canal to unite us with our possessions on the Pacific, and Mr. Hise's treaty provides that the Government of the United States may build it. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is the Senator really serious in putting it, that I insisted that the Government should go to work and make the canal in Central America, or that I intimated any such thing, or that I said a word from which such a conclusion could be drawn? Mr. CLAYTON. The Senator repeatedly avowed himself, in all his speeches, in favor of Mr. Hise's treaty. He dare not deny it. treaty, securing such a privilege, could have been amended, he has evaded it. He cannot draw the amendments which would have made a measure so objectionable reconcilable with the Constitution and the treaty with Central America or Nicaragua, and he has not ventured to propose them. Yet he interrupted the Senator from South Carolina, and said he only supported the treaty so amended as to secure the exclusive privilege. The Senator from Illinois said "that treaties could not fetter or confine the limbs of this giant Republic." I do not know precisely the extent to which he meant to be understood; but the language and the manner in which the Senator applied it, seemed to me to go to this extent: that we had a country exempt from the obligations of treaties, and that our limbs cannot be circumscribed by treaties. We were to disregard obligations of that description, being, like a "young giant," rising in power beyond anything that had been known in the history of the world before. The Senator made the same remark in reference to the treaty with Mexico. There is a clause in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to which the Senator made great objection at the time of its ratification, in effect, that without the consent of the governments of both countries, the line established by that treaty as the boundary between them, should be the ultima thule-the utmost limit of our territory. Yes, sir, we plighted our faith and honor in that treaty, confirmed as it was by more than two thirds of the American Senate, that beyond that limit we would never go. Yet the Senator from Illinois says that the day is coming when we shall be compelled to violate the treaty-that treaties cannot fetter our limbs or restrict our limits. Sir, I regretted to hear it, because of the influence of that Senator in his party, as one of their standing candidates for the Presidency. I should have regretted to have heard it from any Senator. We form the body that is to ratify all the treaties of the United States. We are the Mr. DOUGLAS. I said that an exclusive privilege was tendered, and a partnership privilege was tendered. We had a right to take the one or to take the other. The Secretary of State chose to take the partnership in preference to the exclusive privilege. In reply to the objection, that it was unconstitutional to make a canal by this Government in Central America, I told him, when he would demonstrate the power of the United States and England to make a canal jointly, I would demonstrate the power of our Government to do it separately; or when he would demonstrate the power of the United States and Great Britain to protect a British and American company jointly, I would demonstrate to him, by his own argument, our power to protect a separate American company. I never dreamed, nor is there anything in my speech to show that I believed that this Gov-constitutional advisers of the President. We are ernment ever was to go to work to make the canal there. What I did mean was, that an exclusive privilege was tendered to an American company, under the protection of the American Government; and the same right which would authorize us to protect, in connection with England, a British company, would authorize this Government to protect an American company. The question was not how the canal should be made, but whether its protection, and hence its control, was to be exclusively under this Government, or whether it a part of the treaty-making power. Mr. DOUGLAS. If it gives the Senator any regret that I stated that, I will explain to him what I did state, and thereby, I imagine, relieve him from all his regret. What I said was, that the steady, regular growth and expansion of this country would in all probability go ahead in the future as it has done in the past; that you might make as many treaties as you please, and still they would not check our growth, and because they could not, it was use |