32D CONG....3D SESS.

covenants for the mutual benefit of the parties to them. In the progress of events it may become the interest of both parties to remodel and amend them by mutual consent. They are founded upon the assumption, that mutual good faith will preserve them. There are occasions when they might become unjust and oppressive upon one of the parties; and without a mutual release from their obligations, it might be an occasion calling for the highest exercise of sovereign judgment. In such cases the last arbiter of nations must come in to decide the differences. The occasion, in the contemplation of the great tribunal of nations, must furnish its own justification, and such as cannot be the subject of definite prescription.

The Senator from Illinois remarked, that if we wanted Mexico, the treaty we have made could not restrain the acquisition, or something of the same import. Now it may follow that we may not have to take Mexico against her consent; her interest as well as ours, may conform to the law of progress, to which the gentleman has so often alluded. That is, if we want Mexico, Mexico will be just as well prepared to accede to our terms as we are to hers to annul the treaty; or if we want Cuba, it may be our interest to have it, or if another nation attempts to put her hand on Cuba against our policy or consent, what is the resort? War. We resort to it, as every other nation resorts to any measure of policy, under the sanction of its own judgment. Each nation is entirely the judge of its own rights. But, sir, what would be the justification of war? There is a higher tribunal than ourselves. I hope there is a tribunal in Heaven, to which nations will appeal. But history and posterity are the tribunals to which we should look, and not to the tribunal that we may erect for our own pleadings upon a subject of this kind. In looking to such a judgment, we, as the parties, must not exclusively consult the dictates of our own interests. Duty and justice require that we should regard the rights of others, not only as they are involved in solemn treaties, but as the justice of the nations of the earth should regard them. Until some occasion should arise to justify the disregard of treaties, let us not inculcate a popular sentiment that would reconcile it merely to our interests.

The Senator has spoken on other topics, with a gushing exuberance, well calculated to attract applause; but I fear also well calcuated to excite prejudice and to exasperate national resentments. In speaking of the growth of his own country, he had much to justify him in his highly-flattering picture of her prosperity. But when with taunting disparagement he spoke of the decrepitude of England and the other nations of Europe, he spoke in a way well calculated to wound national sensibility; and especially so, when I cannot regard his opinions just. He said that decrepitude had come upon them in their decline and old age. They were the mere mouldering columns of an edifice that had been; and as such their laws and policy could no longer shed light on the path of the young and vigorous people that, with Herculean strength, could throw off the shackles of European instruction. In this judgment, tempered with so much asperity, I am certain that he will find few that are impartial to concur with him. England may become our rival; but in her present strength and vigor of manhood, she cannot but command respect and consideration from all the other nations of the earth. We may claim to be her peer, but we nevertheless are her debtor.

Sír, when we despise England, we must despise the very soil in which grew the tree from whose fruits we have been fed; we must despise Hampden, and Sidney, and Chatham, and Shakspeare, and Burke. Will the Senator tell me that I am to despise them, or to hate England more than any other nation? If he does, I differ from him. I do not say that I have any especial love for any nation. It is not a word properly applicable to other nations. We love our own country-a sentiment of patriotism inspires that feeling. But as to other nations, we have feelings and opinions of different kinds. For some, we have much more respect and regard than for others. But, sir, I say here, in my place, if the word love be a word of preference, I avow it openly, that we have more sympathy with and are under deeper obligations to Great Britain, than to any other nation on earth. I

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

do not hesitate to say, in the sense I have spoken, that I love her more than any other foreign nation on earth. England, in our origin, law, literature, and free institutions, is our mother. In vernacular language, she is our mother country. The very roots of our institutions run into her soil.

From what country do we derive the maxims, the spirit, the institutions, the safeguards of our liberty? Have not the streams of her literature been poured out upon us? Have we not all drunk of them with delight and improvement? From what country do we get Magna Charta, trial by jury, the common-law, with its hardy morality, inculcating all that has given liberty security? Sir, will the gentleman answer? I am willing, in all the arts of peace, in commerce, in literature, in science, in morals, to become the rival of England. But I can see no inducement, consulting national policy, to assume towards her the position of an hostile adversary. Remarks which have been made during this discussion, are well calculated to sow the seeds of jealousy and hatred between the two countries-that is, unless there shall be good sense to have a true understanding of them, when the national interest shall demand it; and I wish the occasion to speak for itself. I would not shrink from a collision or war with Great Britain sooner than any other nation. There is not much patriotism, however, in a mere abuse of her. But, Mr. President, as is sometimes the case, I have spoken beyond what I intended when I rose, and take my seat.

Mr. DOUGLAS. In reply to the honorable Senator from South Carolina, I wish to state to him, without going into the controversy as to which is the right policy for the President when a treaty contains objects desirable and details obnoxious, that he will find an example in point in the case of the Mexican treaty containing provisions which the President and Senate both regarded as unconstitutional, yet the President sent the treaty here, and pointed out the obnoxious parts. The Senator and those acting with him modified it, perfected it, voted for it, and ratified it in opposition to my vote, and it became the law of the land. It is a case precisely in point, and I merely mention it, and leave that part of the question.

Mr. BUTLER. I think the Mexican treaty was sent as an entirety. We amended it no doubt, but it was sent as an entirety by President Polk, saying that Mr. Trist had usurped power which he did not possess. It was exactly one of those instances in which the treaty had been made, and he asked the Senate to adopt it, but he sent it in as an entire thing.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The President sent it in, stating that there were certain provisions in it which must be stricken out before it could be sanctioned by him. But now as to another point: The gentleman commented upon a remark that I had made, and which also was contained in the letter of the late Secretary of State, [Mr. EVERETT,] and seems to suppose that we were advocating the doctrine of not observing the faith of treaties. That did not put us before the country in the true position which we have assumed. My position is this: That we should never make a treaty which we cannot carry into full execution; that good faith requires us not to make a treaty unless we intend to execute it, nor make one which we probably cannot be able to execute. My argument, therefore, was an argument against the making of treaties improperly upon points that were unnecessary, and which could not be carried into effect, and not in favor of violating any treaties that had been made. It was an argument in favor of the sanctity of treaties; and those who make treaties profusely and recklessly, binding us for all time to come without reference to the ability in future to execute them, are the ones who ought to be arraigned, if anybody should be, for not being faithful to treaty stipulations. I wish, therefore, to make this explanation, in order that no misapprehension as to the position which I have assumed may be entertained in any quarter.

The Senator referred to a remark of mine in regard to the decay and decline of European Powers, and made it the excuse for a eulogium upon England as the source from which we have derived everything that is valuable in science and arts, in literature, laws, and politics.

SENATE.

When I am reminded of the greatness of England, as connected with her statesmen and orators, and the illustrious names of Hampden and Sidney are pointed to as examples, I cannot fail to remember-I can never forget-that the same England which gave them birth, and should have felt a mother's pride and love in their virtues and services, persecuted her noble sons to the dungeon and the scaffold, and attempted to brand their names with infamy in all coming time, for the very causes which have endeared them to us and filled the republican world with their fame! Nor am I unmindful of the debt of gratitude which the present generation owes to the brilliant galaxy of great names whose fortune it was to have been born and to have suffered in England, and whose labors and researches in political, legal, and physical sciences-in literature, poetry, and art, have added so much luster to their native land. Some pursue their labors under the protection and patronage of England—others in defiance of her tyranny and vengeance. I award all credit and praise to the authors of all the blessings and advantages we have inherited from that source.

I cannot as far as the Senator from South Carolina. I cannot recognize England as our mother. If so, she is and ever has been a cruel and unnatural mother. I do not find the evidence of her affection in her watchfulness over our infancy, nor in her joy and pride at our ever-blooming prosperity and swelling power, since we assumed an independent position.

The proposition is not historically true. Our ancestry were not all of English_origin. They were of Scotch, Irish, German, French, and of Norman descent as well as English. In short, we inherit from every branch of the Caucasian race. It has been our aim and policy to profit by their example to reject their errors and follies-and to retain, imitate, cultivate, perpetuate all that was valuable and desirable. So far as any portion of the credit may be due to England and Englishmen-and much of it is-let it be freely awarded and recorded in her ancient archives, which seem to have been long since forgotten by her, and the memory of which her present policy towards us is not well calculated to revive. But, that the Senator from South Carolina, in view of our present position and of his location in this Confederacy, should indulge in glowing and eloquent eulogiums of England for the blessings and benefits she has conferred and is still lavishing upon us, and urge these considerations in palliation of the wrongs she is daily perpetrating, is to me amazing. He speaks in terms of delight and gratitude of the copious and refreshing streams which English literature and science are pouring into our country and diffusing throughout the land. Is he not aware that nearly every English book circulated and read in this country contains lurking and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of our people and the institutions and policy of our Government? Does he not know that abolitionism, which has so seriously threatened the peace and safety of this Republic, had its origin in England, and has been incorporated into the policy of that Government for the purpose of operating upon the peculiar institutions of some of the States of this Confederacy, and thus render the Union itself insecure? Does she not keep her missionaries perambulating this country, delivering lectures and scattering broadcast incendiary publications, designed to incite prejudices, hate, and strife between the different sections of this Union? I had supposed that South Carolina and the other slaveholding States of this Confederacy had been sufficiently refreshed and enlightened by a certain species of English literature, designed to stir up treason and insurrection around his own fire-side, to have excused the Senator from offering up praises and hosannas to our English mother! [Applause in the galleries.] Is not the heart, intellect, and press of England this moment employed in flooding America with this species of "English literature?" Even the wives and daughters of the nobility and the high officers of Government have had the presumption to address the women of America, and in the name of philanthropy appeal to them to engage in the treasonable plot against the institutions and Government of their own choice in their native land, while millions are being expended to distribute"Uncle Tom's Cabin" throughout the

32D CONG....2D SESS.

world, with the view of combining the fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred of all the nations of the earth in a common crusade against the peculiar institutions of the State and section of this Union represented by the Senator from South Carolina; and he unwittingly encourages it, by giving vent to his rapturous joy over these copious and refreshing streams with which England is irrigating the American intellect. [Renewed applause in the galleries.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Rusk in the chair.) There must be order in the galleries. If there is not, they will be ordered to be cleared. Mr. ADAMS. I desire to ask that the galleries may be cleared if such an outrage occurs again.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope it will be done. It is manifestly improper to have such proceedings in the galleries.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It certainly will be done, if the same thing occurs again.

Mr. BUTLER. I have but one word to say in reply to the Senator from Illinois. When I spoke of our gratitude to England, I did not allude to the sentimental kind of literature to which the Sena

tor refers. I thought I indicated the authors of the literature to which I referred; and I do not thank the Senator for going out of his way, and indicating impure streams, as if they had a connection with my remark, for there are impure streams flowing from other sources besides Great Britain; and there are impure examples in other parts of the world besides Great Britain. When I spoke of it, I spoke in emphatic terms of those writers who have poured upon us what the Senator himself will not deny to be refreshing streams; what I hope he will regard as refreshing to him, and to the intelligence of the age. I named authors. Will he dissent from Burke? Will he dissent from Chatham? Will he dissent from Shakspeare? Will he dissent from the literature and the eloquence and the example and the tone of feeling of Hampden and Sidney? Sir, when I spoke in the spirit of a man judging the literature of England, I did not expect to be diverted by this miserable allusion to "Uncle Tom's Cabin." [Laughter.] That may do for an ad captandum, but it is not a manly mode of meeting what I said in relation to the literature of England.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I spoke in terms of reverence and respect of the monuments and tombstones which were found in England, to the great men, to their patriotism, to their legal learning and science and poetry, and all that was great and noble and admirable. I spoke of them with respect as a matter in the past; but, sir, I do not think it was a legitimate argument to go back two or three centuries past to justify English aggressions in the present upon this continent; and when I heard the allusion and laudations and eulogiums upon past English history in palliation of present English enormity, I thought it was right and proper to remind the Senator himself of some of the present conduct of England, which should be borne in mind when he pronounced eulogies upon the past. I am talking of the present, and its bearing upon the future. It is that to which I am directing my remarks, and not to the past.

Mr. BUTLER. I should like to know how England is to be responsible for "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Is England the indorser of it? I have alluded to the masterly intellects of England, and not to the spurious, miserable, sickly sentimentality of the day. If such literature as that to which he alludes is to be taken as a standard, England is not the only place in which it is found. She is no more responsible for that miserable cant in relation to this subject than others. But with regard to England, in all our commercial relations, in all our connection with her as a civilized nation, I presume the honorable Senator would not be disposed to postpone her to any other nation.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I would neither postpone nor give her the preference. I have no eulogium to make upon her. I will treat her as our duty as a nation requires.

Mr. BUTLER. I have pronounced no other eulogium than history yields to her literature, commerce, and civilization, and we are bound to maintain our relations with England if we intend to be a civilized nation ourselves. I made no allusion to the kind of literature which the Senator

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

has brought in debate. We can find this miserable sentimentality anywhere, and there are many other things which the Senator might as well have brought in, which would have been as pertinent to the debate. He had better get up a discussion of the Maine liquor law. [Laughter.] I do not see why he should not. It has about as much connection with the question as the other.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have introduced into this discussion none of these extraneous topics. I have contented myself with replying when others have brought them forward and thrust them upon me. My object has been to confine the debate to the points at issue between the Senator from Delaware and myself, and I have not departed from that line except when compelled to do so by the remarks

of others.

It

Mr. CLAYTON. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] will recollect how this discussion in open session was forced upon me. was introduced here by the member from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] on the 14th of February, and Í was compelled to defend myself in open session, because the Senate permitted the attack to be made in open session. I wish no concealment, and do not mean to permit the member from Illinois to escape an exposure in public of the misstatements he has publicly made. He shall not avoid the notice of his own changes of position, by charging the same things on me.

The Senator from South Carolina justly considers that treaty as so absurd on its own face, that no President would have been justified in submit. ting it to the Senate for ratification. Such a course would have implied his approbation of it. In the event that England had refused all our proposals for an equal right of passage, he might have sent it to the Senate, if he had deemed it expedient, to ascertain whether his constitutional advisers desired an exclusive privilege to be acquired. But it could not possibly have in any event been confirmed, without so changing it as to make an entirely new treaty.

The Senator from Illinois has not ventured to deny that the treaty was unconstitutional as it stood. He evades that point, because he knows he cannot defend his favorite Hise treaty as a constitutional measure for a moment. He dared not attempt to defend it, after I had exposed it. Yet he had committed himself in favor of it by at least four or five electioneering speeches last summer, (one of which he made and published at Richmond,) and by his speeches here in the Senate so often, that he knew not how to retreat without discredit. When I read his Hise treaty to the Senate, it not only shocked the honorable Senator from South Carolina, who has just given utterance to his feelings, but I will venture to say it astonished nearly every other Senator present, that any man should have been so reckless as to have maintained for years past that such a treaty should have been sent to the Senate for confirmation. Now he is driven, by the exposure made here, to desert everything he ever said in favor of it before, with this solitary exception, that he still is in favor of the exclusive privilege provided for in it. All his declamation in its favor has ended in

that.

Sir, it was not only objectionable on the ground that it was a violation of the Constitution, but on the ground that it was a gross political and entangling alliance. The very remarks which the Senator has made so often in opposition to the treaty which Mr. Squier negotiated, and the treaty of the 19th of April, 1850, lie in justice, with all their force, to the treaty of Mr. Hise, but not one of them had any justice whatever when applied to the treaties to which he has objected. Neither of them provided for any political connection or entangling alliance.

I quoted, on a former occasion, the names of some of the most distinguished statesmen of this country, in favor of the principle which I had adopted, of opening the right of way to all nations on the same terms; that is, on condition of protection from all. But the Senator will be satisfied with nothing but an exclusive right or monopoly vested in us. He misrepresents the contract obtained by American citizens, and intended to be protected by the treaty of Mr. Squier, when he says that grant was a grant to English as well as

SENATE.

American capitalists. It was a grant to American capitalists.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator misunderstood me. I did not speak of the specific terms of the treaty of Mr. Squier, for the reason that the injunction of secrecy has not yet been removed, although I saw some papers friendly to the Senator putting some sections of it in the paper. Mr. CLAYTON. What papers?

Mr. DOUGLAS. A New York paper did it the other day. I only spoke of the general terms used by Mr. Squier, and published by the Senator in 1850. But when I said that it opened to England and to us jointly, I spoke of the Senator having provided for that in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.

Mr. CLAYTON. The whole contract protected by the Squier treaty, of which I am speaking, was published two years ago, and is in a document before Congress.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I was speaking of the treaty. Mr. CLAYTON. Then why did you interrupt me? You knew I was speaking of the contract or grant, and not of the treaty. The substance of the treaty was published long ago. It has been published at least two years; and there is not anything in it or the grant, about a partnership between European and American capitalists.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator from Delaware say that the Squier treaty has been published by authority?

Mr. CLAYTON. No, sir; but you know the substance of it was published long ago, and the injunction of secrecy has long since been taken off the treaty of the 19th of April, 1850, which discloses the principle of both. The Senator has shown that he has not the slightest difficulty in speaking of either of these treaties, or of anything connected with either of them.

The Senator presents new issues for discussion, and changes his ground in his reply. But I mean to bring him back to the points from which he seeks to escape. He has not attempted, in his reply, to fasten on me, as he endeavored to do in the beginning of the debate, and as he did in his speech of the 14th of February, the charge that I had, in negotiating the treaty of the 19th of April, 1850, abnegated, as he expressed it, the Monroe doctrine. No, sir; he has abandoned that, and he will not venture to touch it again. He has good reason to shun it, for it burnt his fingers. He has fled from it. He cannot now vindicate a word he uttered on that subject. He beats a retreat. Mr. DOUGLAS. No, sir; the Senator is mistaken.

Mr. CLAYTON. Then he is not willing to retreat, after he has become totally silenced on the subject, and ceased to make battle.

Now, a word as to his favorite exclusive privilege. If we had it, it would involve us in controversies with all other nations, and would prove a curse instead of a blessing. In the event of a war between this country and any great naval power, the canal would be seized. The Senator fears nothing-oh no, not he! He would fortify it at both ends! Yes, sir; build a fort at both ends. A fort at San Juan de Nicaragua, and a fort on the Pacific; and then we must garrison them, and keep a standing army there. How many soldiers would it take to garrison a fortress if England and France, or either of them, should go to war with us? How many would the Senator have at San Juan?-how many on the Pacific? Does he suppose that any force that this country could possibly send there, and at that distance from us, could resist the other great Powers of the world, in a war? He is fond of boasting (and I love to hear it-it is quite flattering) that we are a giant Republic; and the Senator himself is said to be a "little giant;" [laughter;] yes, sir, quite a giant, and everything that he talks about in these latter days is gigantic. [Laughter.] He has become so magnificent of late, that he cannot consent to enter into a partnership on equal terms with any nation on earth-not he! He must have the exclusive right in himself and our noble selves! We must own the canal. Why not demand the same exclusive privilege at Gibraltar? What is the difference in principle? Why should we not seek to obtain the exclusive right of passage into the Mediterranean, as well as the passage across the Isthmus?

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

of the right of way or charter to the company of Americans who asked for it, with the treaty between Nicaragua and this Government.

I interrupted him, and explained it to him; and the more clearly it was made to appear that he was wrong, the more strongly he seemed to adhere to his error. He knew well enough that the word "us" referred to our countrymen. The instructions say: "If they [the company] do not agree to grant us [Americans] passage on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection," &c. He knew well enough what this meant; yet he put to me the question: "Was he [1] one of the com'pany, and therefore authorized to use the word us,' when speaking of the rights and privi'leges to be acquired of a foreign nation through his agency as Secretary of State?" He surely did not mean, by putting such a question to me, to insinuate that I was one of the company of "capitalists, proprietors, and speculators who might become the owners of the charter." If he did, I will not charge him here with falsehood, but, with all possible politeness, I will prove him to be guilty of it.

Mr. President, I do not at all object to any statement of the fact that I utterly disapproved of the Hise treaty. I only complained of his misrepresentations in regard to it. His statement that the clause guarantying the independence of Nicaragua was not one of the reasons which induced me to withhold the Hise treaty from the Senate, is palpably incorrect. To sustain himself in his assertion, he refers to my letter to Mr. Lawrence, of the 20th October, 1849. The very passage he has cited shows that "if our effort to place, by our own arrangement with the British Government, our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation should prove abortive, (that is, upon the foundation of equal privileges in the treaty,) then the President will not hesitate to 'submit this or some other treaty" (that is, the treaty of Hise or the treaty of Squier; the one for exclusive privileges, or the other for equal privileges to all nations)" which may be concluded by the present chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, to the Senate of the United States for their advice." It was a threat, if you please, that if the British Government continued to occupy Central America as they had done, and should refuse to yield us the right of passage through the isthmus on equal terms with them, then we would submit, when we could obtain no justice from Great Britain, some treaty to the Senate which would grant us the right of way on the most favorable terms, without regard to the interests of Great Britain. We should have been perfectly justified in endeavoring to exclude her, if we saw evidently that she intended to exclude us; and we desired her fairly to understand that. The very quotation from the instructions to Mr. Lawrence which he has made, proves that he himself well knew that my reference to the Hise treaty was nothing more than a threat, that if we could not obtain equal privileges with Great Britain with her own consent, we would have them in dispite of her. With a view to expose his misstatements on this subject, I quote from the dispatch to Mr. Lawrence-the very passage on which he pretends to rely:

"If, however, the British Government shall reject these overtures on our part, and shall refuse to cooperate with us in the generous and philanthropic scheme of rendering the interoceanic communication, by the way of the port and river San Juan, free to all nations upon the same terms, we shall deem ourselves justified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and despite her opposition or hostility. With a view to this alternative, we have a treaty with the State of Nicaragua, a copy of which has been sent to you, and the stipulations of which you should unreserv edly impart to Lord Palmerston. You will inform him, however, that this treaty was concluded without a power or instruction from this Government; that the President had no knowledge of its existence, or of the intention to form it, until it was presented to him by Mr Hise, our late chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, about the first of September last; and that, consequently, we are not bound to ratify it, and will take no step for that purpose, if we can, by arrange. ment with the British Government, place our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation. But if our effort for this end should be abortive, the President will not hesitate to submit this or some other treaty which may be concluded by the present chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, to the Senate of the United States, for their advice and consent, with a view to its ratification; and, if that enlightened body should approve it, he also will give it his hearty sanction, and will exert all his constitutional power to execute its provisions in good faith-a determination in which he may confidently count upon the good will of the people of the United States."

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

It is impossible to reason with one who says he does not understand the object for which this passage in the dispatch was written.

But he has quoted another passage from the same dispatch. I could not wish to expose him more effectually than by quoting it myself. It is as follows:

"You may suggest, for instance, that the United States and Great Britain should enter into a treaty guarantying the independence of Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica, which treaty may also guaranty to British subjects the privileges acquired in those States by the treaties between Great Britain and Spain, provided that the limits of those States on the east be acknowledged to be the Caribbean sea."

After citing this, he gravely asks me, "What has become of my objection to the guarantee of the independence of Nicaragua?" His question scarcely deserves an answer. Great Britain was in possession of the country, in virtue of the protectorate, and we were not; and the proposition made to her was, that she should not only abandon it, but also guaranty the independence of the Central American States adjoining the proposed canal. The Senator is incapable of perceiving the difference between a treaty of the United States and Nicaragua, guarantying the independence of Nicaragua, and a treaty of the United States and Great Britain jointly, on the one part, and Nicaragua on the other, for the same purpose. If Great Britain had joined us in such a treaty, we should have readily reached our whole object. She refused to accede to this proposition; and it was palpably a suggestion to ascertain her views. The separate guarantee of independence by us alone, was indeed an objection to the Hise treaty, and it was one among many other objections which made the whole insurmountable. Our separate guarantee was a guarantee against Great Britain, the party in possession. A joint guarantee with her was liable to no such exception, and could not possibly entangle us.

The Senator is guilty of so many other misstatements, that it is a difficult matter to correct them all. He says that I voted for the Mexican treaty of peace-the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo-according to his recollection. His recollection is in this respect, as in many others, entirely at fault. The record shows that I did not vote upon the treaty.

His statement that the Hise treaty was evidence of the fact that Nicaragua was willing and anxious to grant to the United States forever the exclusive right and control over a ship canal between the two oceans, is contradicted by the letter of Carcache, the Nicaraguan minister, who declares she rejected it after it had been signed by Señor Selva, the commissioner on her part. The treaty was evidence of extreme folly, and of little else beside.

The Senator recurs again to his objection that the convention will not permit us to annex Central America, and points with triumph to a passage in the letter of my distinguished friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Everett,] to the Comte de Sartiges, in which he expresses a doubt whether the Constitution would permit us, by the tripartite treaty proposed by France and England, to declare that we would never purchase Cuba. The Senator from Illinois held this up as a conclusive authority to prove that the treaty of the 19th April, 1850, was unconstitutional. He did not venture to argue this position. The treaty of 1850 was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, was at the time a member, who joined in reporting the treaty and in voting for it: did he not understand the Constitution? Without referring to all the other distinguished jurists who voted for it, or to the numerous treaties in which this Government has defined the limits of its own territory as perpetual, including the Ashburton treaty, and the treaty of Ghent, and the treaty with Mexico, and I know not how many others, I say to the Senator from Illinois, that I acknowledge a wide distinction between the purchase of Cuba and the annexation of Central America. Cuba was not in the possession of Great Britain, under the name of a protectorate or otherwise. A large part of Central America was. We had no canal to make in Cuba. She presented no obstacle to us in our passage to California and Oregon. Central America did. Sir, I do most cordially concur in all the encomiums upon the letter of my

President Taylor, at an early period of his administration, was informed of the substance of Mr. Forsyth's letter, which has been since published, instructing our Minister at Madrid to say to the Spanish Government that we would defend the title of Spain to Cuba, with all the naval and military power of the United States. I thought it impolitic, as it led, of course, to a similar communication to Spain from Great Britain and France. The French and English Governments, being apprised by Spain of our guarantee against them, of course, I thought, would give her a similar guarantee against us. The assurance of the United States, Great Britain, and France, thus made to Spain, virtually guarantying Cuba to Spain, was equal in efficacy to any tripartite treaty that could have been concluded. By the President's direction, I did not continue the assurance on our part. I allude to this as illustrating the identical policy adopted by my honorable friend from Massachusetts in his letter to the Comte de Sartiges. Our Minister at Madrid was instructed, on the 2d of August, 1849, that the President could not comprehend or appreciate the motives or expediency of openly declaring to Spain that the whole power of the United States would be employed to prevent the occupation, in whole or in part, of Cuba from passing into other hands, because he had reason to believe that this declaration of Mr. Forsyth, on our part, had led to counter declarations to Spain of a similar character by other interested Powers; that whilst this Government was resolutely determined that the Island of Cuba should never be ceded by Spain to any other Power than the United States, it did not desire, in future, to enter into any guarantees with Spain on that subject; that, without guarantees, we should be ready, when the time came, to act; that the news of the cession of Cuba to any foreign Power would, in the United States, be the instant signal for war; and that no foreign Power would attempt to take it that did not expect a hostile collision with us as an inevitable consequence.

This discontinuance, or revocation, of Mr. Forsyth's declaration, which had bound this Government for so many years, was not exactly a refusal to agree to such a tripartite convention, as was very properly rejected by my honorable friend from Massachusetts, but it was the first instance in which this Government gave unmistakable evidence of its policy not to agree to any such convention.

Sir, the Senator said that I had abolished the Monroe doctrine. If I have really done that, I have done more than I ever thought I was capable of doing. If I have done that, I have abolished a fruitful source of controversy between my own country and other nations. But how and in what sense have l abolished the Monroe doctrine? One of the principles on which I acted, in the formation of the treaty, was the exclusion of a European nation from further interference on a part of this continent. Was that exclusion an abolition of the Monroe doctrine? Will he tell me of any instance in the history of this country, in which any other Administration has carried out the Monroe doctrine in the same way, or in any other way? Can he find any other instance in which there has been the slightest approximation to it.

As to the Indian protectorate in Nicaragua, I have only to say of it as I said before," Stat nominis umbra"-it stands, the shadow of a name!

The Senator is fond of talking violently about driving European nations from this continent. When he discourses in such magnificent terms as he employed a few years ago, about "fifty-four forty or fight," he does no harm among his own countrymen. We all know exactly what it means. But when these speeches reach the other side of the Atlantic, they have a different effect. They induce foreigners to believe that we are a quarrelsome, violent, and aggressive race, denying to all other men equal rights with ourselves; and they are well calculated to make us odious among other nations. We once held among them a high character for probity and honor; but if it shall come to be understood among them that we are bent

32D CONG.....3D Sess.

upon seizing every country to which we may take a fancy, we shall be looked upon as pirates and enemies of the human race. Then it will be found that, instead of maintaining the highest position upon earth, we have descended to the lowest, and the sun of our glory will set forever. I am, and profess to be, an American in heart-every inch an American; as determined to assert and enforce respect for American rights, and the duty of protecting American interests at home and abroad, as any man; but I am also resolved to assert and maintain American faith and honor. Let us proclaim it among all the nations of the earth that there does not exist under the sun a people more proud of observing and maintaining their treaties and all their contracts than the people of the United States. Let us discountenance this system now practiced by the Senator from Illinois and others among us, of denouncing Europeans, and of inculcating it as a duty to hate the men of any other nation. I cannot express my sentiments on the subject in more appropriate terms, than by asking the Secretary to read a passage from the Farewell Address of the Father of his Country. Let us refresh and strengthen ourselves, at the close of this turbulent debate, by a resort to that fountain whose bright waters have never failed to invigorate us.

The Clerk read it, as follows:

"Nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is, in some degree, a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts, through passion, what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes, perhaps, the liberty of nations, has been the victim. "So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, illwill, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom EQUAL PRIVILEGES are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."

Mr. President, I have done. The first resolution which I offered, calling for information, has been passed, and the other may sleep upon the table, if I can be assured that the information sought by it can be had, as it ought to be, without it. I am quite indifferent to its fate. My chief object was to defend my own position, and that|| object has been accomplished.*

The further consideration of the subject was then postponed until to-morrow.

ADMISSION TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.

Mr. FISH submitted the following resolution for consideration:

Resolved, That the 48th rule of the Senate be amended by inserting after the word "Treasury," the words "Secretary of the Interior," and also by adding the following to

the rule:

No person except members and officers of the Senate shall be admitted at either of the side doors of the Senate Chamber, and all persons claiming admission on the floor, excepting members and the Clerk of the House of Representatives for the time being, the heads of the several De partments, the Private Secretary of the President, the *CORRECTION.-An error occurred in the publication of Mr. CLAYTON's speech of the 15th instant. Nineteen lines at the foot of the first column of page 268 of the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, beginning-" Mr. DOUGLAS. I never said that I would not," &c., were inserted by mistake. Also, two paragraphs at the top of the second column of the same page.

chaplains of Congress, the judges of the United States, foreign ministers and their secretaries, and officers who by unme shall have received the thanks of Congress, or medals by a vote of Congress, shall, each time before being admitted upon the floor, enter their names, together with the official position in right of which they claim admission, in a book to be provided and kept at the main entrance to the Senate Chamber; and no person except members of the Senate shall be allowed within the bar of the Senate, or to occupy the seat of any Senator.

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPErs.

The PRESIDING officer, (Mr. COOPER in the chair.) The Secretary of the Board to examine the claims of Lieutenant Colonel Frémont, has addressed a letter to the President of the Senate requesting permission to withdraw a report submitted on the 29th December last, with the view of correcting certain errors. Will the Senate grant the leave asked for?

Mr. WELLER.

Let that lie over until I can have an opportunity of seeing what that report is. It accordingly went over.

On motion by Mr. COOPER, it was Ordered, That Daniel Nippes have leave to withdraw certain papers from the files of the Senate.

On motion by Mr. ADAMS, it was Ordered, That leave be given to withdraw the papers on the claim of Clemens, Bryant & Co., from the files of the Senate.

On motion by Mr. JAMES, it was Ordered, That Margaret Barnett have leave to withdraw her papers from the files of the Senate.

THURSDAY, March 17, 1853.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. The PRESIDENT presented a communication from the Department of the Interior, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st instant, transmitting a report from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

SELECT COMMITTEES.

On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was

Ordered, That the vacancies in the Select Committee on Frauds, &c., occasioned by the expiration of the terms of Mr. UNDERWOOD and Mr. BROOKE, be filled by the Chair. And Mr. MORTON, and Mr. THOMPSON of Kentucky, were appointed.

On motion by Mr. WELLER, it was

Ordered, That the vacancy in the Select Committee on the Mexican Boundary, occasioned by the expiration of the term of Mr. CLARKE, be filled by the President. And Mr. FISH was appointed.

COAL FOR THE JAPAN EXPEDITION. Mr. BUTLER. I ask unanimous consent to make an explanation connected with some remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. COOPER,] the other day, reflecting on a constituent of mine, who is one of the officers of this Government. Unanimous consent was given.

Mr. BUTLER. The Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. COOPER,] the other day, in introducing certain resolutions, which I hold in my hand, made the following remark:

"He meant to cast no reproach on the late Secretary of the Navy or his predecessor; they were both highminded and honorable men, men of character and integrity; but nevertheless these contracts have been made by the bureaus possibly without their knowledge. He desired to have this information; and he hoped the resolution would now be passed."

The resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby, required to communicate to the Senate the contract entered into with Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall for supplying the Japan squadron with coal, the price per ton which the said coal will cost delivered in the Chinese seas, the amount of commissions and insurance; respectively, together with the rate of exchange which the Government will be required to pay for such of the coal as may be purchased in England.

That the Secretary be also required to inform the Senate whether offers were made by other parties than Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall, to supply the above-named squadron with coal, by delivering the same at such places as might be designated in the Chinese seas, the prices per ton at which these parties proposed to deliver it, stating partic

SENATE.

ularly the rates at which anthracite, American bituminous, and English bituminous were respectively offered; and whether, after these offers had been made, a contract at higher prices was not entered into with Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall for English coal.

"That the Secretary be further required to inform the Senate whether, previous to the time of contracting for the supply of the said squadron with coal, the Government had not regularly-authorized agents employed for the express purpose of purchasing and inspecting all coal necessary for the supply of the Navy, and what commission the said agents received by way of compensation for their services. That he be required further to inform the Senate whether Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall were not appointed agents to purchase and inspect the whole or a greater part of the coal necessary for the supply of the Japan squadron; whether the commissions allowed them are not double the amount of those allowed and paid to the regular purchasing and inspecting agents; whether the said commissions are not counted on the gross price of coal-namely, on the price with freight, exchange, and insurance added. That he be required also to inform the Senate what quantity of coal it is estimated will be required for the supply of the said squadron annually, and what kind principally will be used; what amount of demurrage has been paid, and for what quantity of coal, for what length of time, and to whom; also, what rate of demurrage is to be paid hereafter."

Whilst the remark exempts the Secretaries of the Navy from censure and blame, it leaves but one inference, that it may be applicable only to the head of the Naval Bureau, my friend and constituent Commodore Shubrick, than whom no one in the public service could be less liable to such a

censure.

In fact there was no contract entered into by the Navy Department, either by the Secretary himself or the head of the bureau, with Howland & Aspinwall, for coal, in the proper acceptation of the term contract. The Navy Department, by express law, and in change of an old regulation, is authorized to purchase coal for the use of the Navy. The mode of making such purchases is left to the judgment of the Secretary, under his official responsibility. In carrying out the provisions of this law, the late Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Graham, appointed Howland & Aspinwall as agents to supply the Japan squadron with coal. To enable them to do so with certainty and precision, that is, as to quantity and place, they are subject to the requisition and orders of the head of the bureau. For their services as agents, thus appointed, they receive a stipulated commission, previously agreed upon between themselves and the Secretary of the Navy. The only function to be performed by the head of the bureau is strictly ministerial, that is, to make a requisition on the agents, and to pay their bills when duly presented and authenticated.

Commodore Shubrick, the head of the bureau, confining himself strictly in the sphere of his official agency, has done nothing more nor less than carry out the stipulated arrangements of the Secretary of the Navy. He could have no inducement to do anything else; and I will answer for it, sir, that if anything had depended on his discretion, it would have been performed with good judgment and honorable purpose. I have no doubt that the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania had no intention of saying anything to wound the feelings or touch the honor of my honorable friend and constituent.

Mr. COOPER. The Senator from South Carolina certainly did me no more than justice, when he said that I intended to cast no reflection upon Commodore Shubrick. I did not intend to convey the idea that Commodore Shubrick had acted dishonestly, or perhaps even improperly. I believe I stated at the time that the contracts were made by the Bureau of Construction and Supply, and it is probable that if I had reflected a moment, I would have known that Commodore Shubrick was at the head of that bureau. But there is one suggestion in that letter that I think had better have been left out.

Mr. BUTLER. It is not a letter. It is my own memorandum from his conversation.

Mr. COOPER. He states that there is no contract entered into. There is no contract, perhaps, made with the persons who furnish the coal, but they are appointed agents, and ex officio their duty is to furnish coal, and they become in law contractors with the Government. Now, sir, let me say further, that instead of paying a commission of five per cent., which the regularly-authorized agents of the Government are entitled to receive, these men receive ten per cent. In addition to that, by the bills, as they will be seen in the return