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

showed that the committee of the Senate had made a great mistake. Now, I do not know (as I then said) whether the Senator had observed those dotted lines, but I think they do clearly indicate that there is a separate Territory, to which perhaps the attention of the Senator had not been directed, intended to be indicated by those dotted lines-that is, the Balize. I know very well he may put a different construction the map, but that is the construction which I put on it; and I think if upon he will examine it himself carefully, he will see that there was some purpose, some motive in the map-maker for making those dotted lines around the country called Balize or British Honduras.

Mr. MÁSON. Mr. President, it is no light matter to say that a Senator, when in the course of his official duty he endeavors to give information to the Senate, has committed a mistake; and I understood the Senator to say, and say distinctly, that in presenting this map, which I alleged did show that the settlements at Balize were in the Republic of Guatemala, I had committed a mistake. Now, sir, Senators have no right to commit mistakes. A Senator may commit a fault. It may be venial. There may be circumstances that will excuse it or justify it, or that will account for it or explain it; but a mistake in the course of official duty is no light matter, and I submit to the Senator, should not be lightly charged. I understand the honorable Senator to say now, that the dotted lines round that region of country indicated the British possessions. He supposed it had escaped my attention, and therefore I had committed a mistake. He stated to the Senate that the map showed that the possessions did lie in the Republic of Guatemala. Sir, I had examined the map with great care. It had been before me for two months. It is mentioned in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It is relied upon for what it is worth by the report of the committee to show where the possessions are, and I can inform the Senator that those dotted lines did not escape my attention. If he will look at them with the deliberation and care that the committee did, he will find those dotted lines indicate exactly the treaty limits of the settlements as prescribed in 1786.

Mr. CLAYTON. That is what I supposed. Mr. MASON. Very well; then if the map shows, as it does show, that that territory, no matter what the British title to it is, lies within the limits of Guatemala, the dotted lines must do no more than indicate what the territory is that lay there. Sir, they are as distinct upon this map as they could be exhibited on so small a surface. The limits of these settlements prescribed in the treaty of 1786 are these:

"The English line beginning from the sea shall take the center of the river Sibun or Jabon, and continue up the source of the said river. From thence it shall cross in a straight line the intermediate land until it intersects the river Wallys

If the Senator will look at these dotted lines he will find that they commence at the source of the river Sibun, and cross to the river Balize or Wallys:

"And by the center of the same river the line shall descend to the point where it will meet the line already settled and marked out by the commissaries of the two Crowns in 1783, which limits, following the continuation of said line, shall be observed as formally stipulated by the definitive treaty."

The Senator will find that on this map of Guatemala, representing what Guatemala claims as its territory, the British possessions are within the territory of Guatemala, and that the dotted lines are only to indicate those provided by the treaty of 1786, as the lines of the British settlements. I understood the Senator to say yesterday that the map did not show what the committee, and what I claimed it did show, because of the dotted lines. Now, if the Senator understands me, I mean to say this: The map shows that the settlements are in the limits of the State of Guatemala; and the dotted lines indicate nothing more than the positions of the settlements in the State of Guatemala.

Mr. CLAYTON. I have no doubt the Senator understands the matter as he explains it, but I am perfectly willing to submit the question to any set of intelligent men, whom he will select to look at the map, and I am willing to abide by their decision upon the very question which he has chosen to submit. I have taken my view of the , and

and he has taken his. Let others

examine

matter, it, a

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

they will see whether the Balize settlements are included in the State of Guatamala.

SENATE.

my conduct at one time, and at other times different and contradictory reasons, I might be promptMr. DOUGLAS. I have something to say in ed to seek refuge under personalities from the exreply to the remarks of the Senator from Dela-posure that might be made. Sir, I pass that all ware. It is not my purpose to introduce any by. new points in the discussion.

Mr. SHIELDS. If my colleague will give way, I will move an adjournment. He can go on

WEDNESDAY, March 16, 1853. Prayer by the Rev. C. M. BUTLer.

Mr. ADAMS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution which lies upon your table, providing that the Senate will at this session proceed to the election of the Secretary and Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the resolution was taken up for consideration.

Mr. ADAMS. I desire to say that in offering that resolution I do not wish to be understood as giving any expression of opinion unfavorable to the incumbents of those offices. I believe the Senate has the right to elect its own officers at the commencement of each Congressional term, and I offer this resolution to assert that privilege, and not to intimate an opposition to our officers. In the resolution I omitted to insert the Doorkeeper, and therefore I move to amend the resolution by including that officer.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BADGER. I move to strike out the words

He

The Senator, as a last resort, attempted to get up unkind feelings between my political friends and myself in regard to this debate. He endeavored to show that my speech was an assault upon every Senator who took a different course. went further, and charged that I, as a presidential candidate, was pursuing this course in order to destroy and break down rivals in my own party. Sir, these insidious and disreputable assaults do not disturb my equanimity. The object is to enlist, from prejudice and unworthy motives, a sympathy in the course of discussion which he has attempted to maintain. But I appeal to the Senate if I assailed any Senator upon this floor, either in regard to the Hise treaty or the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I appeal to the Senate if I mentioned the name of any Senator, or stated how any one man had voted. I did not disclose even how the vote stood. No citizen in America would have known the vote of any Senator on this floor from my speech, or from my participation in the recent discussion; and I have yet to learn that a vindication of my own course involves an assault upon those who chose to differ with me. I have not understood the speeches of the Senator from Michigan (Mr. CASS] and of the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] and of other Senators, who have spoken on this question in opposition to some of my views, as an attack on myself. It was their duty to vindicate their own course, and give the reasons which prompted them; and it was my right and my duty to give the reasons which induced and compelled me to pursue the course that

"this session," and to make it more definite, by I did. inserting " to-morrow at one o'clock."

Mr. ADAMS. I assent to that.

Mr. MASON. I have no objection to the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina; but I have an objection to going into an election of these officers at this time. The attendance in the Senate is small; many Senators have gone home, not expecting such action at this session.

Mr. ADAMS. If the Senator from Virginia will move to amend the resolution by striking out "to-morrow at one o'clock" and inserting "next session," we can have a test vote on that.

Mr. MASON. I shall make no motion. I am only giving my personal impression.

Mr. BADGER. I did not mean, by my suggestion, to intimate that I thought the resolution desirable. I have no objection to it; but I think if this business has to be done, it may as well be done now as at the next session. This is the commencement of the Congress; and if the resolution is to be adopted, I think it better to mention in the resolution the precise time of election, that Senators may have notice to attend.

Mr. ADAMS. I accept the suggestion of the Senator from North Carolina, and hope the resolution will be so modified. All I want is a test vote upon the question.

The resolution as modified was agreed to.

I do not choose to occupy the time of the Senate in a matter that partakes so much of a personal character. But the Senator cannot avail himself of that argument in vindication of his course in suppressing the Hise treaty. He is not supported by that array of names which he has produced for that act. No one of the Senators ever did sustain him, so far as I know, in suppressing the Hise treaty. That treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Senate were never permitted to examine it. The treaty, to this day, has been withheld from the Senate. You will have to go elsewhere than to the files of this body to find that treaty. How can it be said that Senators have sustained him in his rejection of the Hise treaty, when he had deprived the Senate of an opportunity of showing whether they were for or against it? Sir, he cannot have the benefit of those names which he has quoted to shelter him upon that point.

Again, sir, he has quoted all the eminent names from General Jackson down to the present time, to support him in his refusal to accept of the exclusive control of the canal for his own country. Sir, he has no authority thus to quote them; he has no authority for saying that any one of those eminent statesmen were opposed to such a privilege as the Hise treaty showed that we could have acquired. It is true that when Central America granted a privilege to a company in the Netherlands to make this canal, the administration of General Jackson, under that state of facts, were

THE CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted on the 7th instant by the Senator from Delaware, in relation to the Clayton-content with asserting our right to an equal parBulwer treaty.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I had a right to expect that the Senator from Delaware, in his reply, would have ventured upon an argument against the positions which I had assumed in my former speech, and which he had assailed. It will be observed, upon a close examination, that he has evaded nearly every point in controversy between us, under the cover of free indulgence in coarse personalities. I do not complain of this. He had a right to choose his own course of discussion. Perhaps it was prudent in him to pursue the course which he adopted. I shall not follow his example, however. I may not have the same inducements that may have prompted him. If I had been driven from nearly every position I had assumed in debate-if nearly every material fact I had asserted had been negatived and disproved by official documents bearing my own signatures-if I had been convicted of giving one explanation of

ticipation. It is also true that when a Frenchman had procured a charter for a railroad across the Isthmus of Panama, and thus it had gone into the hands of foreigners, the administration of President Polk were content to assert our claim to an

equal right. But it is not true that either of them ever refused to accept an exclusive privilege for this country when voluntarily tendered to them.

I am not going to occupy the attention of the Senate with an array of names for or against this proposition. I quoted no names in my first argument. I addressed myself to the merits of the question, and chose to decide it by arguments upon its merits, and not by the authority of great names. I would rather see the Senator sustain his position now by arguments upon the merits of his own official action, and not by an appeal to the action of great men who lived at a different period, and whose acts were dependent upon entirely different circumstances.

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

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

required no further exertion of the constitutional power to execute and maintain and regulate an exprivilege to America than it did to execute and maintain a partnership privilege with European Powers. Hence his objections upon that score must fall to the ground. The simple question was, whether it would have been wise to accept that privilege. Sir, I think it would have been. I am not going to repeat the argument I made the other day upon that point. If it had been given to us, we could have opened the canal to the world upon such terms as we deemed proper. We could have withdrawn the use of it whenever a nation failed to respect our rights. It would have been a bond of peace instead of being an apple of discord between us and other nations; because when you bring all the great Powers of the earth into partnership, constant disputes arise as to the nature and extent of the rights of the respective parties. The history of these negotiations proves

One word more, and I proceed to the main point at issue. The Senator has accused me of having attempted to make this a party question.clusive How did I attempt it? In my speech of February last, to which he replied, he cannot find the term Whig or Democrat, or a political allusion, or a partisan argument. I explained my own principle of action as evinced in my votes; and I expressly stated that they were not sanctioned by either Whig or Democratic Administrations upon some of the points. I did not invoke the aid or the sympathy of party. I was willing to stand upon the truth and the soundness of my own record, and leave the future to determine whether I was right or wrong on the question. Sir, partisan politics have been introduced by the Senator, and not by me. The Senator, in his speech'in reply to me, endeavored to show that Democratic Administrations have done this, and Democratic Administrations have done that, and appealed to partisan authority, to sustain himself. I admit his right to introduce party questions, and to appeal to party names as authority. I had not done it, and I deny his right to charge it upon me. Sir, I invoked the aid of no partisan feeling or party organization for the support of the position I maintained. But when the Senator showed that a majority of my own party, on the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, had recorded their names in opposition to mine, he ought to have been content, without charging that I was making it a party question. It was not a very agreeable thing to me to be compelled to differ with three fourths of the Senate, including a majority of my own political friends, and nothing but a sense of duty to my own character would have compelled me to take the responsibility of such a course.

Now, let us go back to the real point. Why all these attempts to avoid the main issue? In the first place the Senator denied that he was responsible for not sending the Hise treaty to the Senate, inasmuch as it had been rejected by Central America. Then, when I showed that the rejection of that treaty was procured by his own agent in obedience to his instructions, he denied the existence of the instructions. When I produced the instructions, and showed that the agent acted in obedience to what he believed to be their true meaning, the Senator acknowledged his opposition to the treaty, and justified it upon the ground that it guarantied the independence of Nicaragua. When I showed that he could not have objected to it on that ground, for the reason that at that very time he proposed a guarantee, in connection with Great Britain, of the independence of Nicaragua, he abandons that position, and is driven to the extremity of seeking refuge under what he chooses to consider obnoxious details. When I showed that his objections to the details could not avail him, because it was no reason for withholding the treaty according to the usages of the Senate, he then comes to the point that it was better to have a partnership privilege than an exclusive one. That brings us to the real question. Why could we not have come to it at once? If he was right in his preference for a European partnership over an exclusive privilege to his own country, why did he not avow the fact at once and justify his conduct, instead of wasting the time of the Senate in requiring me to prove facts which ought to have been confessed, and which have been proven by his own written testimony, in opposition to his own denial? In his last speech the Senator chose to persevere in representing me as the advocate of a canal to be made through Central America, with funds from the Treasury of the United States. I need not remind the Senator that he had no authority, from anything I have said, to attribute to me such a purpose. I certainly did not assume any such position, while my remarks were calculated to negative such an idea. My position was this: that while negotiating for the right of way for a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we should have accepted the offer to our own Government of the exclusive right to control it, instead of a partnership with England and the other Powers of the earth. The Hise treaty granted the privilege either to the United States or to an American company under our protection, at our option. I insisted that we had the same right to take it to ourselves that we had to take it jointly with other Powers, It

this fact.

But, sir, let me ask the Senator what he has gained by his rejection of the Hise treaty? He has given the world to understand by his speeches that he has accomplished two great objects: the one to open a canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans; the other to put a stop to British encroachments in Central America. Has he accomplished either of those objects? I ask what privilege he has gained to make a canal? He has not even secured the right of way for a canal, either jointly or separately. He is responsible for having defeated the project of a canal between the two oceans. He refused the grant of the right of way, because it gave the right to control the work exclusively to his own country. The treaty which he caused to be made failed to receive the sanction of the Senate. Thus we are left without any right of way-without any charter, right, or privilege. Instead of accomplishing that object, he is responsible for its defeat. All that he has to boast of is, that he deprived his own country of an inestimable privilege, the necessity and importance of which is now conceded on all hands.

What, then, have we gained by his diplomacy? Why, sir, after having failed in getting the privilege of making the canal, either jointly or separately, he makes a treaty with Great Britain by which, if we hereafter secure it, the privilege is given to Great Britain as well as to ourselves. The Clayton and Bulwer treaty provides that any right of way or communication which may be secured at any future time, shall be open alike to England and the United States, and under the joint control and protection of the two Powers. We have a treaty with England about a canal in Central America, but we have none with any of the Central American States. Let me ask, then, how much have we gained? Has he expelled the British from Central America by his treaty? What inch of country have they given up? What right have they abandoned? What functionary have they withdrawn? Where is the evidence that you have driven the British from Central America? Are they not still in the full enjoyment of their protectorate upon the Mosquito coast? Have you driven them from the Balize?

The Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, [Mr. MASON,] in their speeches, have maintained that the Clayton and Bulwer treaty would fairly include the Balize as a part of Central America. But the Senator from Delaware, while acting as the Secretary of State, gave a construction to that treaty which excludes the Balize. The Senator, therefore, is estopped from saying that he has expelled the British from the Balize. The fact shows that he has not driven the British protectorate from the coast. We find that instead of leaving Central America, the British have not only established a colony at the Bay Islands, but, if the newspaper information received by the last steamers can be credited, they have bombarded the towns upon the main land, and taken forcible possession of a part of the State of Honduras. Then I repeat the question to the Senator, what has he gained? I can tell him what has resulted from his negotiation. He has recognized the right of Great Britain and all European Powers to interfere with the affairs of the American States. He has recognized that right by a treaty; and he has guarantied to England that we will use our

SENATE.

good offices to enable them to enter into arrangements with these Central American States. He has excluded the idea that the question of the Central American States is an American question, and by his negotiation has opened it as a European question. In other words, he has, by his treaty, abolished what is known as the Monroe doctrine with reference to a large portion of the American continent.

This brings me to the examination of another question. The Senator from Delaware chose to arraign me upon that portion of my speech, in which I stated that I was unwilling to give a pledge never to annex any more territory to the United States. He then went on to argue against annexation, said we were pledged, and that the pledge given was correct, and attempted to vindicate it. He arraigned me for having said that such a treaty could not be enforced through all time to come. explained to him that my idea was that the growth of this country was so great and so rapid that the barriers of any treaty would be irresistibly broken through by natural causes, over which we had no control; and hence that the treaty ought not to have been made. He told me that the explanation made it worse, and that he would show that the doctrine involved moral turpitude; that he was amazed and grieved that any one here from this high place should proclaim such a sentiment.

Sir, I will proceed to show my authority on that point, which I think he will be compelled to respect. In taking that position, I only reiterated the doctrine proclaimed by the late Secretary of State, and now Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT,] in his letter to the Comte De Sartiges, a few months ago, in respect to the Island of Cuba; and when the Senator from Delaware arraigns me for uttering sentiments involving a want of respect for treaty stipulations, or moral turpitude, I will turn him over to the Senator from Massachusetts and to ex-President Fillmore, and allow them to settle that issue between themselves. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the letter of Mr. EVERETT to the Comte De Sartiges. In that letter you find the following passage in regard to a proposed convention stipulating that we

would never annex Cuba:

"The convention would be of no value unless it were lasting; accordingly its terms express a perpetuity of purpose and obligation. Now, IT MAY WELL BE DOUBTED WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD ALLOW THE TREATY-MAKING POWER TO IMPOSE A PERMANENT DISABILITY ON THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT FOR ALL COMING TIME, AND PREVENT IT, UNDER ANY FUTURE CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, FROM DOING WHAT HAS BEEN SO OFTEN DONE IN TIMES PAST. In 1803 the United States purchased Louisiana of France, and in 1819 they purchased Florida of Spain. IT IS NOT WITHIN THE

COMPETENCE OF THE TREATY-MAKING POWER IN 1852 EFFECTUALLY TO BIND THE GOVERNMENT IN ALL ITS BRANCHES; AND FOR ALL COMING TIME NOT TO MAKE A SIMILAR PURCHASE OF CUBA."

The Senator from Delaware will see that the late Secretary of State, Mr. Everett, by the direction of President Fillmore, has pronounced such a guarantee to be a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and the exercise of an authority not conferred by that instrument. Sir, if the Constitution gave no authority to make a pledge by this Government that we will never annex Cuba, I suppose it does not authorize a pledge never to annex Central America. The constitutional objection applies to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, in relation to Central America, with the same force that it did to the proposed convention in respect to Cuba. They take higher ground than I did. I was not willing to do that which would involve a breach of faith in the progress of events. But I did not go so far as to deny the constitutional power to make such a treaty. And, therefore, I ask the Senator why he did not ar raign President Fillmore-why did he not arraign the late Secretary of State, Mr. Everett, for uttering those monstrous sentiments, instead of hurling his anathemas upon my head, as if I had been the only man in America who ever ventured to proclaim such opinions? According to the opinions of President Fillmore, and his Secretary of State, as promulged in Mr. Everett's celebrated letter, and applauded by the almost unanimous voice of the American people, the Clayton and Bulwer treaty was a palpable violation of the Constitution of the United States. But Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Everett were not content with denying the power of this Government,

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

under the Constitution, to enter into this treaty stipulation. They deny its propriety, its justice, its wisdom, as well as the right to make it. I will read a passage upon this point:

"There is another strong objection to the proposed agreement. AMONG THE OLDEST TRADITIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AN AVERSION TO POLITICAL ALLIANCES WITH EUROPEAN POWERS. In his memorable Farewell Address, President Washington says: The great rule of 'conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little polit'ical connection as possible. So far as we have already 'formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.' President Jefferson, in his inaugural address, in 1801, warned the country against entangling alliances. This expression, now become proverbial, was unquestionably used by Mr. Jefferson in reference to the alliance with France of 1778, an alliance at the time of incalculable benefit to the United States, but which in less than twenty years came near involving us in the wars of the French Revolution, and laid the foundation of heavy claims upon Congress not extinguished to the present day. It is a significant coincidence that the particular provision of the alliance which occasioned these evils was that under which France called upon us to aid her in defending her West Indian possessions against England. Nothing less than the unbounded influence of Washington rescued the Union from the perils of that crisis and preserved our neutrality."

As the Senator from Delaware is fond of the authority of great names, I not only furnish him with the name of the late Secretary of State, and that of the late President of the United States, upon the points to which I have referred, but I have the authority of these gentlemen for saying that his doctrine with regard to Central America is in violation of the solemn warnings of the Father of his Country, and in derogation of the protests of Mr. Jefferson, repeated over and over again during his eventful life. I find that the late Secretary of State has again, in another passage, summed up the objections which I entertained to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and I will call the attention of the Senate to it. It is this:

"But the President has a graver objection to entering into the proposed convention. HE HAS NO WISH TO DIS

GUISE THE FEELING, THAT THE COMPACT, ALTHOUGH EQUAL IN ITS TERMS, WOULD BE VERY UNEQUAL IN SUB

STANCE. France and England, by entering into it, would disable themselves from obtaining possession of an island remote from their seats of government, belonging to another European Power, whose natural right to possess it must always be as good as their own-a distant island, in another hemisphere, and one which by no ordinary or peaceful course of things could ever belong to either of them. If the present balance of power in Europe should be broken up; if Spain should become unable to maintain the island in her possession, and France and England should be engaged in a death-struggle with each other, Cuba might then be the prize of the victor. Till these events all take place, the President does not see how Cuba can belong to any European Power but Spain. THE UNITED STATES, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD, BY THE PROPOSED CONVENTION, DISABLE THEMSELVES FROM MAKING AN ACQUISITION WHICH MIGHT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT ANY DISTURBANCE OF EXISTING FOREIGN RELATIONS, AND IN THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS."

If the proposed guarantee never to annex Cuba was not reciprocal as between the United States and England, how is it that it can be said that a similar guarantee respecting Central America was reciprocal Every argument urged by the late Secretary of State against reciprocity in one, applies with equal force to the other. It may be said that Cuba stands at the entrance of the Gulf of Mexico; but it can be said with equal truth that Central America is upon the public highway to our Pacific possessions. Both stand as gates to this public highway, and every argument urged in relation to the one is equally applicable to the

other.

Now I have to quote the late Secretary of State and President Fillmore against the Senator from Delaware on another point. When I remarked that the history of this country showed that our growth and expansion could not be resisted, and would inevitably break through whatever barriers might be erected by the present generation to restrain our future progress, the Senator from Delaware assumed the right to rebuke me for uttering sentiments implying perfidy and moral turpitude. He desired to know if sentiments of that kind were to be tolerated in the American Senate? Let him hear his friend from Massachusetts on that point, in the same document:

"That a convention such as is proposed would be a

TRANSITORY ARRANGEMENT, SURE TO BE SWEPT AWAY BY THE IRRESISTIBLE TIDE OF AFFAIRS IN A NEW COUN TRY, IS, TO THE APPREHENSION OF THE PRESIDENT, TOO OBVIOUS TO REQUIRE A LABORED ARGUMENT. The project rests on principles APPLICABLE, if at all, TO EUROPE, where international relations are in their basis of great antiquity, NEW SERIES-No. 18.

"But whatever may be thought of these last suggestions, it would seem impossible for any one who reflects upon the events glanced at in this note to mistake the LAW OF AMER

ICAN GROWTH AND PROGRESS, OR THINK IT CAN BE ULTIMATELY ARRESTED BY A CONVENTION LIKE THAT PRO

POSED. In the judgment of the President, IT WOULD BE AS EASY TO THROW A DAM FROM CAPE FLORIDA TO CUBA, IN THE HOPE OF STOPPING THE FLOW OF THE GULF STREAM, AS TO ATTEMPT, BY A COMPACT LIKE THIS, TO FIX THE FORTUNES OF CUBA, NOW AND FOR HEREAFTER, or, as expressed in the French text of the convention, pour le present comme pour l'avenir,' THAT IS, FOR ALL COMING TIME."

There the Senator is told that such a stipulation might be applicable to European politics, but would be unsuited and unfitted to American affairs; that he has mistaken entirely the system of policy which should be applied to our own country; that he has predicated his action upon those old, antiquated notions which belong to the stationary and retrograde movements of the Old World, and And no sympathy in the youthful, uprising aspirations of the American heart. I indorse fully the sentiment. I insist that there is a difference, a wide difference, between the system of policy which should be pursued in America and that which would be applicable to Europe. Europe is antiquated, decrepit, tottering on the verge of dissolution. When you visit her, the objects which enlist your highest admiration are the relics of past greatness; the broken columns erected to departed power. It is one vast grave-yard, where you find here a tomb indicating the burial of the arts; there a monument marking the spot where liberty expired; another to the memory of a great man, whose place has never been filled. The choicest products of her classic soil consist in relics, which remain as sad memorials of departed glory and fallen greatness! They bring up the memories of the dead, but inspire no hope for the living! Here everything is fresh, blooming, expanding, and advancing. We wish a wise, practical policy adapted to our condition and position. Sir, the statesman who would shape the policy of America by European models, has failed to perceive the antagonism which exists in the relative position, history, institutions-in everything pertaining to the Old and the New World.

The Senator from Delaware seems always to have had his back turned upon his own country, and his eye intently fixed upon Europe as the polar star of all his observations. If it would not qe deemed an indelicate interposition between the Senator from Delaware and his friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT,] I should be inclined to say that the criticism of the late Secretary of State, although not intended for the Senator from Delaware, is strictly applicable to his diplomacy, and fully deserved. I shall not go into the discussion of that question, however. I deny the right of the Senator from Delaware to come back at me on that point. I shall certainly turn him over to his friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT,] because he will not dare to accuse him of political prejudices and partisan feelings. He has said severer things of the Senator's diplomacy than I thought the rules of the Senate would authorize me to indulge in. The ex-President of the United States has sanctioned them, and now I think I am at liberty to refer to them, for if it were not within the rules of courtesy and diplomacy, they would not be sent here. But, sir, I may be permitted to add that the nation has sanctioned them too; for I am not aware that a State paper was ever issued in America that received a heartier response in most of its principles, than the letter of the late Secretary of State to the Comte de Sartiges, to which I have referred. Sir, if he had done nothing else to render his administration of the State Department illustrious, his name would live in all coming time in that diplomatic letter, as one who could appreciate the spirit of the age, and perceive the destiny of the nation. No document has ever received such a universal sanction of the American people as the one to which I have referred, condemning and repudiating the diplomacy of the Senator from Delaware in relation to the American continent.

Mr. President, I have not much more to add. The Senator has arraigned me also for having at

SENATE.

tempted to arouse unkind feelings between the United States and England. I deny that the arraignment is just. I have attempted no such thing. I have never attempted to foster jealousies or unkind feelings between our own country and any other. I have attempted to plant our relations on amicable terms, by speaking the truth plainly as we and they know it to exist. The remarks that I have made about friendly relations between the two countries, were drawn out by his statement that England was known to be so "friendly to us. I said to him I did not think the friendly relations of England constituted any claim upon our gratitude. I have seen no evidence of that friendship. I said frankly I did not think that England loved us, and it was useless for us to pretend that we loved her. The history of the two countries proves it. The daily action of the two countries proves it. England is spending her millions to maintain her fortifications all along our coast at the Bermudas, the Bahamas, and at Jamaica, and on every rock and barren waste along the American coast. What does she keep them up for? Does she make money out of them? Why, you all know that they are a source of unbounded expenditure to her. Does it extend her commerce? Does it employ her shipping? Not at all. Why does she keep them? In order to point her guns at America.

Well, if she is so friendly to us, and we are so friendly to her, what necessity is there for pointing her cannon all the time at us? And if these are evidences of friendship, why do we not reciprocate it by sending over a few cannon and planting them on every little island and rock near her coast? If we were to seize upon rock and expend millions in keeping up fortifications all along her coast, would that be any evidence of friendly feeling on our part towards England? I do not so see it.

Again: the moment it was discovered that we were to acquire California as a consequence of the Mexican war, England sent her armed ships and seized possession of the town of San Juan; and I have the authority of the Senator from Delaware for saying there is reason to believe that the act was done out of hostility to the American Government. Why did she want the town of San Juan? Simply for the reason that by the Mexican treaty our possessions had been enlarged upon the Pacific coast, and it evidently became necessary, in order to preserve this Union and maintain our commerce, that we should have the line of intercommunication between the two oceans so as to connect the Atlantic and Pacific States together; and therefore, in order to cut off our right of way, in order to establish a toll-gate upon our public highway, she seized possession of that point as the one from which she could annoy us most.

The Senator will not pretend that he believes that act originated in friendly feelings towards us on the part of England. I have his authority in his public documents for saying that he believes it originated in motives of jealousy and hostility. The object was, not to advance her own interest, not to increase her own commerce, not to extend her own power, but to restrain, fetter, and cripple our energies and our power. Are these acts evidence of friendship on her part towards us, and are we so constituted that we feel grateful for them? Sir, let us not play the hypocrite upon this subject. Let us speak out the naked truth, plainly, and boldly. We feel that this seizure of every rock and island upon our coast, and converting them into garrisoned fortresses, with guns to bear on American commerce and American interests, are no evidence of friendship. We feel that these attempts to surround and fetter us, and hem us in, are evidences of hostility, which it is our duty plainly to see and boldly to resist. Sir, the way to establish friendly relations with England is, to let her know that we are not so stupid as not to understand her policy, nor so pusillanimous as to submit to her aggressions. The moment she understands that we mean what we say, and will carry out any principle we profess, she will be very careful not to create any point of difference between us. It is a want of candor and frankness that keeps the two nations in conflict with each other. I say, that as long as this policy of hemming us in, and fettering us, and trying to restrain our growth and curtail our power continues, we cannot feel friendly and kindly towards

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

her; and so long as she persists in that policy, we ought not to believe that she feels kindly towards us. If we tell her so, she will do one of two things; either abandon her aggressive course, or avow her hostility: and of all things let us know whether she is our friend or our enemy. Therefore, I will repeat very frankly, that it is useless to endeavor to conceal the fact that there are jealousies between us and England growing out of rival interests, and that her policy has for its aim to restrain our power rather than increasing her own. Our policy is, to enhance our own power and greatness, without attempting to restrain hers. Ours is generous, honorable, and justifiable; hers is illiberal, unkind, unjust, and we ought to tell her so.

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

maintain this proposition: That the Hise treaty, repugnant essentially in nearly all of its provisions to the Constitution of the United States, and at variance with the general usage of the Government, should have been sent by the President to the Senate for its consideration, and there to be moulded and amended in a form so as to serve one single view entertained by the gentleman from Illinois. The treaty was not only entered into by one without authority, but its entire predicate is in ignorance and disregard of the constitutional powers of this Government.

it saw proper. The rule, as I understand it, is, that when a treaty is made in pursuance of instruction, the Department is under obligation implied to the foreign Power, to send it here. When one is made without instruction, it may or may not send it as it sees proper; and I said, if the Senator from Delaware had been in favor of the exclusive privilege, and only objected to the details of the Hise treaty, it was his duty to send the treaty here that the objects desired might be secured.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will restate my position. I stated expressly the other day, and intended to express the same idea now, that when the Hise treaty came to the State Department, it having I believe, Mr. President, I have said all I have been executed without authority, the Department to say upon this question. My object has been was entirely at liberty either to withhold it or resimply to reply to the points raised by the Sen-ject it unconditionally, or send it to the Senate, as ator in his speech. I do not wish to travel over the ground again. There are many other points in the discussion into which I could have gone. There are many other positions that the documents which have been lately published would furnish me ample material for prolonging the discussion, but I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate. I only wish to show that the real points at issue are: first, that the Senator preferred a partnership with England to an exclusive privilege to his own country for the great interoceanic canal. Secondly, that he believes in the policy of pledging this country never to annex any more territory in all time to come. I repudiate that policy. These are the main points between us, and the last point, in the course of the discussion, seems to have become the material one. He is opposed to all further annexation, and wishes to make treaties now to restrain us in all time to come from extending our possessions.

Mr. BUTLER. In that I differ entirely from the Senator from Illinois, as a cardinal principle affecting the functionary agency of this Government. The President of the United States is exclusively vested with the power of making treaties and having them perfected by the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate; and, sir, it is the duty of the President to send a treaty down, an entire treaty, without expecting the Senate to perfect it for him.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator allow me to make my meaning intelligible to him?

Mr. BUTLER. Not now; because I am going on to say further, that the President of the United States, in my deliberate judgment, ought not to have sent the Hise treaty to the Senate, for it con

of not only no Senator upon this floor, but of no jurist that can read and understand the Constitution of the United States. He dared not, accord

I do not wish to annex any more territory now. But I avow freely that I foresee the day when you will be compelled to do it, and cannot help it, and when treaties cannot prevent the consummation of the act. Hence my policy would be to hold the control of our own action, give no pledges upon the subject, but bide our time, and be at lib-tained provisions that could receive the sanction erty to do whatever our interest, our honor, and duty require when the time for action may come. An old, decrepit nation, tottering and ready to fall to pieces, may well seek for pledges and guar-ing antees from a youthful, vigorous, growing Power, to protect her in her old age. But a young nation, with all of her freshness, vigor, and youth, desires no limits fixed to her greatness, no boundaries to her future growth. She desires to be left free to exercise her own powers, exert her own energies, according to her own sense of duty, in all coming time. This, sir, is the main issue between us, and I am ready to submit it to the Senate and to the country.

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, if this were a mere gladiatorial contest between the honorable Senators from Illinois and Delaware, I might forbear entering into the discussion; but topics have been discussed, doctrines avowed, and sentiments expressed, from which I wholly dissent. I do not propose now to go into the questions which have been raised in the discussion of this subject itself. I thought it unfortunate when the subject was first introduced by the Senator from Michigan. It has given rise, in my deliberate judgment, to an unpropitious discussion of matters connected with our foreign relations. Sir, when delicate questions of diplomacy and of our relations with other Governments shall become the subject of open discussion in this Senate-nay, more, sir, the subject of political agitation and of party issues-we cannot hope to be favorably regarded by that kind of judgment which history dictates, and which is far superior, in my opinion, to the ephemeral opinions of the day. I heard the Senator from Illinois with great interest, and perhaps the ability with which he has spoken has, in some measure, reconciled us to the discussion itself, whilst it has not vindicated its original introduction; but I heard him avow an opinion from which I wholly dissent; and it was, as I understood him--and I wish the Senator to understand me, for I intend to make my proposition intelligible, and to exempt it from the questions mainly at issue between himself and the Senator from Delaware-I understood him to

to my judgment, have sent it here. I suppose the Senator from Illinois will admit that there were provisions wholly repugnant to the Constitution in that treaty, and they were the essential and leading provisions constituting the staple of the treaty; they were not mere omissions or incidental objections. I am not going to enter into the contest which is carried on between the Senators from Illinois and Delaware. It is as a Senator of the United States that I wish to express my opinion upon the single proposition referred to, and one I consider of cardinal interest and importance, and one that may affect deeply the practical and constitutional workings of this Governmentconfounding the functions of one department of the Government with those which properly belong to another; in other words, making the Senate, which is but the advisory part of the treaty-making power, assume a primary jurisdiction and responsibility. I take the broad ground, that the President ought to perfect the treaty in its essential provisions, and such as would receive the sanction of his judgment, before he sends it at all to the Senate for its consideration and concurrence; and when it contains provisions repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, he should not send it. I know that the honorable Senator, if he should ever occupy that place, would not do it; yet I understood him to say that the Hise treaty should have been sent here; that we should have taken, amended, and moulded it in such a way as to subserve the great objects contemplated. That could not be, according to the organization of this Government. The President has no right to send any but a treaty that he approves. I maintain the broad proposition, that the President of the United States should send the treaty down as an entirety, and ask the Senate to ratify it or not, and amend it in such a way as to make it conform to the essential provisions, which had received the approbation of the President. But to send a treaty down here, and ask the Senate to mould it in such a way as to make it proper, would be

SENATE.

changing the whole function of this Government, and would be a dangerous innovation. It would be something like the very innovation which has taken place by this debate-the making of this body the initiatory organ in relation to matters of diplomacy. Now what would be thought of such a procedure as this: Suppose the President were to send to the Senate a treaty with many provisions not having his approbation, with a recommendation that the Senate would take a single provision of minor importance and graft upon it all other provisions that would make it an acceptable treaty? This would be, in my opinion, inverting the organic action of the Government. It would be devolving upon the Senate the function of making a treaty, and asking the President to concur in it. Whereas, by the Constitution of the United States, "He shall have power, by and with the 'advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, 'provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. From this, it is clear that it was contemplated that the Senate should be a reviewing and concurring body in and of a treaty already made by the President.

I rose merely to make this remark; but, sir, I am pledged in some measure to my constituents to discuss this subject fully. I am not prepared to do it now, because I do not think I ought to interfere in such a debate as has been going on. Whilst I shall forbear at present from entering into the general topics of the debate, I must allow myself to make one or two remarks, and I shall make them in perfect kindness to the Senator from Illinois. I do not undertake to say that the expansibility of our system is to be restrained by treaties. I do not mean to say that our progress is to be retarded in that way. Why, sir, the progress of human events is beyond the absolute control of any written law. It was unwise when Lycurgus made a code of laws which was never to be changed, and left his country with an injunction that it never should be changed. Laws are stationary, things are progressive. I concede that much to the honorable Senator from Illinois. But, when I am told that the United States, as a civilized confederacy of Republics, are not to resort to the ordinary appliances of civilization to conduct their concerns and intercourse with the world by treaties, and that they are not to observe their obligations, or that they will not be restrained by them, but that the aggressive spirit of progress has no other or higher law than the temptation of interest and policy, I do feel that if that prevails, we may grow fast, but we cannot live long. Nations, as well as individuals, must submit to the penalties of transgression; and if the historian who is to write the history of this day, or of the events which are now transpiring with such eventful interest, were to pass his judgment, a part of that judgment would be, that whenever the United States in the spirit of progress, the spirit of aggressive progress, shall maintain, or shall have illustrated the doctrine that "might makes right," and that treaties can be violated with impunity, it was one of the elements of their decay. It seems to me that the doctrine of the honorable Senator from Illinois would make us a people to illustrate the destiny of Benjamin: "He shall raven as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil."

Sir, are we to fulfill that destiny, without law, without constraint? In my deliberate judgment, treaties and constitutions and laws are the restraining influences to prevent us from running with an acceleration that is likely to result in ruin. I love the restraints of treaties. I love all the restraints and controlling influences of civilization. I do not wish American society and the American Government to be like the Numidian cavalry, riding with spurs, and without bridles, to rush impetuously into the charge, perhaps to be successful for a moment, but to perish in the end. Sir, I want the bridle. The very thing which I want is the bridle, to restrain and control, and not altogether the spurs, to drive you on with ruinous impetuosity. Treaties must be resorted to. They are the very things upon which civilized nations must rely. All treaties, in their ordinary language, are made to be perpetual; and yet we know that they never have been perpetual. They impose upon the parties making them the obligation of good faith; they are leagues of honorable