32D CONG.....2D SESS.

Colonization in North America-Mr. Douglas.

I have thus hurriedly, and in somewhat of a confused manner, gone over the facts in this case. For myself, I will say that I have no doubt whatever of our right, not only to pass the resolution which has been introduced by the Committee on Foreign Affairs; but if I were allowed to follow my own judgment, I would go further; I would take possession of the thing in dispute, as we may under the law of nations, with justice, and without cause of war. But yielding to suggestions of others, I have withdrawn a proposition which I had the honor to offer at the last session, authorizing the President to put these men in the possession of their rights, trusting that a returning sense of justice, together with the persuasive effect of the action of this body, may yet induce that unhappy country to pursue a course that will redound to her own interests and honor as well as to the benefit of mankind.

COLONIZATION IN NORTH AMERICA. DEBATE IN THE SENATE. MONDAY, February 14, 1853.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the joint resolution declaratory of the views of the United States resp cting colonization on the North American continent by European Powers, and respecting the Island of Cuba; the pending question being on the motion of Mr. Dixon to refer the resolution and the amendment of Mr. HALE to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with certain instructions.

as I shall conclusively establish before I close these
remarks. Since the ratification of that treaty and
in defiance of its express stipulations, as well
as of the Monroe declaration, Great Britain has
planted a new colony in Central America, known
as the colony of the Bay Islands. In view of this
fact, and with the colony of the Bay Islands in
his mind's eye, the venerable Senator from Michi-
gan lays upon the table of the Senate, and asks us
to affirm, by our votes, a resolution in which it is
declared that "WHILE EXISTING RIGHTS SHOULD BE
RESPECTED, AND WILL BE BY THE UNITED STATES,"
the American continents "ARE HENCEFORTH not
to be considered as subjects for FUTURE colonization
'by any European Power," and "that no FUTURE
European colony or dominion shall, with their con-
'sent, be planted or established on any part of the North
'American continent."

·

Mr. DOUGLAS said: Mr. President, I regret the necessity which I conceive to exist for trespassing on the attention of the Senate to-day, especially the postponement of the deficiency bill, to discuss the principles, the objects, and the effects of the resolution of the Senator from Mich-dominion" shall, with our consent, be planted on igan in regard to European colonization.

SENATE.

proceedings of the Senate this session. I know not what the present Administration has done, or is doing in reference to this question; and I am willing to leave the incoming Administration free to assume its own position, and to take the initiation, unembarrassed by the action of the Sen

ate.

My principal object in addressing the Senate to-day is to avail myself of the opportunity, now for the first time presented by the removal of the injunction of secrecy, of explaining my reasons for opposing the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In order clearly to understand the question in all its bearings, it is necessary to advert to the circumstances under which it was presented. The Oregon boundary had been established, and important interests had grown up in that Territory; California had been acquired, and an immense commerce had sprung into existence; lines of steamers had been established from New York and New Orleans to Chagres, and from Panama to California and Oregon; American citizens had acquired the right of way, and were engaged in the construction of a railroad across the Isthmus of Panama, under the protection of treaty stipulations with New Granada; other American citizens had secured the right of way, and were preparing to construct a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through Lake Nicaragua; and still other American citizens had procured the right of way, and were preparing to commence the construction of a railroad, under a grant from Mexico, across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Thus, the right of transit, on all the routes across the the Isthmus, had passed into American hands, and were within the protection and control of the American Government.

Now, sir, before I vote for this resolution, I desire to understand, with clearness and precision, its purport and meaning. Existing rights are to be respected! What is to be the construction of this clause? Is it that all colonies established in America, by European Powers, prior to the passage of this resolution, are to be respected by the United States as "existing rights?" Is this resolution to be understood as a formal and official declaration, by the Congress of the United States, of our acquiescence in the seizure of the islands in the Bay of Honduras, and the erection of them into a new British colony? When, in connection with this clause respecting "existing rights," we take into consideration the one preceding it, in which it is declared that" HENCEFORTH" the American continents are not open to European colonization; and the clause immediately succeeding it, which says that "no future European colony or In view of this state of things, Mr. Hise, who the North American continent; who can doubt had been appointed Chargé d'Affaires, under the that Great Britain will feel herself authorized to administration of Mr. Polk, to the Central Amerconstrue the resolution into a declaration on our ican States, negotiated a treaty with the State of part of unconditional acquiescence in her right to Nicaragua which secured to the United States forhold all the colonies and dependencies she at this ever the exclusive privilege of opening and using all canals, railroads, and other means of commuthe United States prepared to make such a declara-nication, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through tion? Is this Republic, in view of our professions the territory of that Republic. The rights, privfor the last thirty years, and of our present and ileges, and immunities conceded by that treaty prospective position, prepared to submit to such were all that any American could have desired. a result? If we are, let us seal our lips, and talk Its provisions are presumed to be within the knowlno more about European colonization upon the edge of every Senator, and ought to be familiar to American continents. What is to redeem our the people of this country. The grant was to the declarations upon this subject in the future from United States, or to such companies as should be utter contempt, if we fail to vindicate the past, and organized under its authority, or received under meekly submit to the humiliation of the present? its protection. The privileges were exclusive in With an avowed policy of thirty years' standing their terms and perpetual in their tenure. They that no future European colonization is to be per- were to continue forever as inalienable American mitted in America-affirmed when there was no rights. In addition to the privilege of constructopportunity for enforcing it, and abandoned when- ing and using all roads and canals through the ever a case was presented for carrying it into prac- territory of Nicaragua, Mr. Hise's treaty also tical effect is it now proposed to beat another secured to the United States the right to erect and retreat under cover of terrible threats of awful garrison such fortifications as we should deem consequences when the offense shall be repeated? necessary at the termini of such communication Henceforth" no "future" European colony is to on each ocean, and at intermediate points along be planted in America "with our consent!" It is the lines of the works, together with a grant of gratifying to learn that the United States are never lands three miles square at the termini for the esgoing to "consent" to the repudiation of the Mon- tablishment of towns with free ports and free inroe doctrine again. No more Clayton and Bulwer stitutions. I do not deem it necessary to detain treaties; no more British "alliances" in Central the Senate by reading the provisions of this treaty. America, New Granada, or Mexico; no more reso- It is published in the document I hold in my hand, lutions of oblivion to protect "existing rights!" and is open to every one who chooses to examine Let England tremble, and Europe take warning, if it. It was submitted to the Department of State the offense is repeated. "Should the attempt be in Washington on the 15th of September, 1849, made," (says the resolution,) it will leave the but never sent to the Senate for ratification. In United States free to adopt such measures as an the mean time the administration of General Tayindependent nation may justly adopt in defense lor had superseded Mr. Hise by the appointment of its rights and honor." Are not the United of another representative to the Central American States now free to adopt such measures as an in- States, and instructed him in procuring a grant for dependent nation may justly adopt in defense of a canal, to "CLAIM NO PECULIAR PRIVILEGE-NO its rights and honor? Have we not given the no- EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-NO MONOPOLY OF COMMERCIAL tice? Is not thirty years sufficient notice-and INTERCOURSE. has it not been repeated within the last eight years? And yet the deed is done, in contempt of not only the Monroe doctrine, but of solemn treaty stipulations. Will you ever have a better opportunity to establish the doctrine—a clearer right to vindicate, or a more flagrant wrong to redress? If you do not do it now, your "henceforth" resolutions, in respect to "future" attempts, may as well be dispensed with. I have no resolutions to bring forward in relation to our foreign policy. Circumstances have deprived me of the opportunity or disposition to participate actively in the

66

Thirty years ago Mr. Monroe, in his message to Congress, made a memorable declaration with respect to European colonization upon this continent. That declaration has ever since been a favorite subject of eulogium with orators, poli-time may possess in America? Is the Senate of ticians, and statesmen. Recently it has assumed the dignified appellation of the "Monroe doctrine." It seems to be the part of patriotism for all to profess the doctrine, while our Government has scarcely ever failed to repudiate it, practically, whenever an opportunity for its observance has been presented. The Oregon treaty is a noted case in point. Prior to that convention there was no British colony on this continent west of the Rocky Mountains. The Hudson's Bay Company was confined, by its charter, to the shores of the bay, and to the streams flowing into it, and to the country drained by them. The western boundary of Canada was hundreds of miles distant; and there was no European colony to be found in all that region on the Pacific coast stretching from California to the Russian possessions. We had a treaty of non-occupancy with Great Britain, by the provisions of which neither party was to be permitted to colonize or assume dominion over any portion of that territory. We abrogated that treaty of non-occupancy, and then entered into a convention, by the terms of which the country in question was divided into two nearly equal parts, by the parallel of the forty-ninth degree of latitude, and all on the north confirmed to Great Britain, and that on the south to the United States. By that treaty Great Britain consented that we might establish Territories and States south of the forty- | ninth parallel, and the United States consented that Great Britain might, to the north of that parallel, establish new European colonies, in open and flagrant violation of the Monroe doctrine! It is unnecessary for me to remind the country, and especially my own constituents, with what energy and emphasis I protested against that convention, upon the ground that it carried with it the undisguised repudiation of the Monroe declaration, and the consent of this Republic that new British colonies might be established on that portion of the North American continent where none existed before.

Again: as late as 1850, a convention was entered into between the Government of the United States and Great Britain-called the Clayton and Bulwer treaty-every article and provision of which is predicated upon a practical negation and repudiation of what is known as the Monroe doctrine,

After having thus instructed Mr. Squier as to the basis of the treaty which he was to conclude, Mr. Clayton seems to have been apprehensive that Mr. Hise might already have entered into a convention by which the United States had secured the exclusive and perpetual privilege, and in order to guard against such a contingency, he adds, at the conclusion of the same letter of instructions, the following:

"If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been

incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, SEEK to have it properly MODIFIED TO AN

SWER THE ENDS WE HAVE IN VIEW."

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

Colonization in North America-Mr. Douglas.

In other words, if Mr.. Hise shall have made a treaty by which he may have secured all the desired privileges to the United States exclusively, "seek to have it properly modified," so as to form a partnership with England and the other monarchical Powers of Europe, and thus lay the foundation for an alliance between the New and the Old World, by which the right of European Powers to intermeddle with the affairs of American States will be established and recognized. With these instructions in his pocket, Mr. Squier arrived in Nicaragua, and before he reached the seat of government, learned, by a "publication in the Gazette of the Isthmus," that Mr. Hise was already negotiating a treaty in respect to the contemplated canal. Without knowing the provisions of the treaty, but taking it for granted that it was in violation of the principles of General Taylor's administration, as set forth in his instructions, Mr. Squier immediately dispatched a notice to the government of Nicaragua that "Mr. Hise was superseded on the 2d April last, upon 'which date I' (Mr. Squier) received my commis'sion as his successor;' ""that Mr. Hise was not 'empowered to enter upon any negotiations of the 'character referred to;" and concluding with the following request:

"I have, therefore, to request that NO ACTION will be taken by the Government of Nicaragua upon the inchoate treaty which may have been negotiated at Guatemala, but that the SAME MAY BE ALLOWED TO PASS AS AN UNOFFICIAL ACT."

On the some day, Mr. Squier, with commendable promptness, sends a letter to Mr. Clayton, informing our Government of what he had learned in respect to the probable conclusion of the Hise treaty, and expressing his apprehension that the information may be true, and adds:

"If so, I shall be placed in a situation of some embarrassment, as I conceive that Mr. Hise has no authority for the step he has taken, and is certainly not informed of the PRESENT VIEWS AND DESIRES OF OUR GOVERNMENT."

as con

Having communicated this important intelligence to his own Government, Mr. Squier proceeded on his journey with a patriotic zeal equal to the importance of his mission, and on his arrival upon the theater of his labors, opened negotiations for a new treaty in accordance with the "present views and desires of our Government,' tained in his instructions. The new treaty was concluded on the 3d of September, 1849, and transmitted to this Government, with a letter explanatory of the negotiation, bearing date the 10th of the same month. Mr. Squier's treaty, so far as I can judge from the published correspondence—for the injunction of secrecy forbids a reference to more authentic sources of information-is in strict accordance with his instructions, and entirely free from any odious provisions which might secure "peculiar privileges or exclusive rights" to the United States!

These two treaties-the one negotiated by Mr. Hise, and the other by Mr. Squier-were in the State Department in this city when Congress met in December, 1849. The administration of General Taylor was at liberty to choose between them, and submit the one or the other to the Senate for ratification. The Hise treaty was suppressed, without giving the Senate an opportunity of ratifying it or advising its rejection. I am aware that a single letter published in this document of correspondence, (Ho. of Rep., Ex. Doc. No. 75,) gives an apparent excuse-a mere pretext-for withholding it from the Senate. I allude to the letter of Mr. Carcache, Chargé d'Affaires from Nicaragua, to Mr. Clayton, dated Washington, December 31, 1849, that the Hise treaty" has been, as publicly ' and universally known, disapproved by my Gov'ernment, and that my Government desires the rat'ification of the treaty signed by Mr. Squier on the '3d of September last.' And I am also aware that Mr. Clayton, in reply to this letter, stated to Mr. Carcache that "if, however, as you state, that con'vention has not been approved by your Govern'ment, there is no necessity for its further consideration by the Government of the United States," From this it would seem that Mr. Clayton desires

to have it understood that the failure of the Govern-
ment of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty, was
the reason why he suppressed it, and refused to
allow the Senate the opportunity of ratifying it. Is
that the true reason? Why did the Government of
Nicaragua fail to approve the Hise treaty? I have
already shown conclusively, that the failure to ap-
prove on the part of the Government of Nicaragua,
was produced by the representative of General
Taylor's administration in Central America, act-
ing in obedience to the imperative instructions of
the State Department in this city, over the signa-
ture of Mr. Clayton himself. Mr. Clayton had
instructed Mr. Squier in advance, that in the event
Mr. Hise should have made a treaty before his
arrival in the country, he (Mr. Squier) must "seek
to have it properly modified to ANSWER THE ENDS WE
HAVE IN VIEW. Mr. Squier did" seek" to have
it so "modified," and with great difficulty, as the
correspondence proves, succeeded in the effort.
The Government and people of Nicaragua were
anxious to grant the exclusive and perpetual privi-
lege to the United States, and to prevent the con-
summation of the grand European alliance and
partnership. Mr. Squier, in his letter of Septem-
ber 10, 1849, communicating to Mr. Clayton the
joyous news that his efforts had been crowned
with complete success, says:

"SIR: I have the satisfaction of informing the Depart-
ment that I have succeeded in accomplishing THE OBJECTS
OF MY MISSION TO THIS REPUBLIC."

provisions of his treaty, he details the embarrass-
Then, after giving an exposition of the main
ments he was compelled to encounter before he
could bring the Government of Nicaragua to terms.
Hear him, and then judge whether the failure of
the Government of Nicaragua to approve the Hise
treaty was the reason why Mr. Clayton refused
to submit it to the Senate for ratification!

"THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF EMBARRASSMENT WAS
MR. HISE'S SPECIAL CONVENTION, which had raised ex-
travagant hopes of a relation between the United States,
amounting to something closer than exists between the
States of our Confederacy. However, as matters have
been finally arranged, they are all the better for this Repub-
lic, and quite as favorable to the United States."

So it seems that the Hise treaty was "the principal source of embarrassment' to the consummation of the European partnership. It "had raised extravagant hopes" on the part of the Government and people of Nicaragua of a "closer" relation to the United States, which it was difficult to induce them to relinquish. It required all the zeal, skill, and tact of Mr. Squier, to accomplish so great a feat. "Finally" the matter was "arranged," and the result communicated to the Department with " satisfaction," in these memorable words, which must have carried great joy to Mr. Clayton's heart: "I have succeeded in accomplishing the objects of my mission to this Republic." Rejoice, all ye advocates of European intervention in the affairs of the American continent! The Hise treaty is dead! The principal source of embarrassment is removed! Nicaragua has failed to approve the special convention, granting peculiar privileges and exclusive rights to the United States! This failure has enabled us "properly to modify the grant, so as to answer the ends we have in view," and at the same time relieves Mr. Clayton from the imminent risk of submitting these peculiar privileges to the Senate, where there was great danger of their being accepted! Nicaragua has at last consented! Her appeals to the United States for mediation or protection against British aggression being unheeded-her letters to our Government remaining unanswered, their receipt not even acknowledged--her hopes of a closer relation to this Union blasted-the Monroe doctrine abandoned -the Mosquito kingdom, under the British protectorate, rapidly absorbing her territory, she sinks in despair, and yields herself to the European partnership which was about to be established over all Central America by the Clayton and Bulwer treaty!

SENATE.

sulted in what is known as the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In stating my objections to this treaty, I shall not become a party to the protracted controversy respecting its true meaning and construction which has engaged so much of the attention of this session. I leave that in the hands of those who conducted the negotiation and procured its ratification. That is their own quarrel, with which I have no disposition to interfere. Establish which construction you please-that contended for by the Secretary of State who signed it, or the one insisted upon by the venerable Senator from Michigan and those who acted in concert with him in ratifying it-neither obviates any one of my objections.

In the first place, I was unwilling to enter into treaty stipulations with Great Britain or any other European Power in respect to the American continent, by the terms of which, we should pledge the faith of this Republic not to do in all coming time that which in the progress of events our interests, duty, and even safety may compel us to do. I have already said, and now repeat, that every article, clause, and provision of that treaty is predicated upon a virtual negation and repudiation of the Monroe declaration in relation to European colonization on this continent. The article inviting any Power on earth, with which England or the United States are on terms of friendly intercourse, to enter into similar stipulations, and which pledges the good offices of each, when requested by the other, to aid in the new negotiations with the other Central American States, and which pledges the good offices of all the nations entering into the "alliance" to settle disputes between the States and Governments of Central America, not only recognizes the right of European Powers to interfere with the affairs of the American continent, but invites the exercise of such right, and makes it obligatory to do so in certain cases. It establishes, in terms, an alliance between the contracting parties, and invites all other nations to become parties to it. I was opposed also to the clause which stipulates that neither Great Britain nor the United States will ever occupy, colonize, or exercise dominion over any portion of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America. I did not desire then, nor do I now, to annex any portion of that country to this Union. I do not know that the time will ever come in my day when I would be willing to do

Yet I was unwilling to give the pledge that neither we nor our successors ever would. This is an age of rapid movements and great changes. How long is it since those who made this treaty would have told us that the time would never come when we would want California or any portion of the Pacific coast? California being a State of the Union, who is authorized to say that the time will not arrive when our interests and safety may require us to possess some portion of Central America, which lies half way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions and embraces the great water lines of commerce between the two oceans? I I think it the wiser and safer policy to hold the control of our own action, and leave those who are to come after us untrammeled and free to do whatever they may deem their duty, when the time shall arrive. They will have a better right to determine for themselves, when the necessity for action may arise, than we have now to prescribe the line of duty for them. I was equally opposed to that other clause in the same article, which stipulates that neither party will ever fortify any portion of Central America, or any place commanding the entrance to the canal, or in the vicinity thereof. It is not reciprocal, for the reason that it leaves the Island of Jamaica, a British colony, strongly fortified, the nearest military and naval station to the line of the canal. It is, therefore, equivalent to a stipulation that the United States shall never have or maintain any fortification in the vicinity of, or commanding the line of Now, sir, I repeat that these two treaties-navigation and commerce through said canal, while the one negotiated by Mr. Hise and the other by England may keep and maintain those she now Mr. Squier-the first conceding peculiar privileges has. and exclusive and perpetual rights to the United States, the second admitting of a partnership in these privileges with Europeon Powers, Mr. Clayton suppressed the first and sent the second to the Senate for ratification, and immediately opened negotiations with the British Minister, which re

I was not satisfied with the clause in relation to the British protectorate over the Mosquito coast. It is equivocal in terms, and no man can say with certainty whether the true construction excludes the protectorate from the continent or recognizes its rightful estence and imposes restraints upon

Colonization in North America-Mr. Douglas.

which either is on terms of friendly intercourse, to any aggression upon Mexico. I do not desire, become parties to its provisions, it will be seen at this time, to annex any portion of her territory that this article seeks to make the principles of the to this Union; nor am I prepared to say that the Clayton and Bulwer treaty the law of nations in time will ever come, in my day, when I would be respect to American affairs. The general princi- willing to sanction such a proposition. But who ple is established; the right of European Powers can say, that, amid the general wreck and deto intervene in the affairs of American States is moralization in Mexico, a state of things may not recognized; the propriety of the exercise of that arise in which a just regard for our own rights and right is acknowledged; and the extent to which the safety, and for the sake of humanity and civilizaallied Powers shall carry their protection, and the|tion, may render it imperative for us to do that limits within which they shall confine their opera-which was done in the case of Texas, and thereby tions, are subject to treaty stipulations in the fu

The "particular object "which the parties had in view, being thus accomplished-the Hise treaty defeated, the exclusive privilege to the United States surrendered and abandoned, and the European partnership established-yet they were not satisfied. They were not content to "accomplish a particular object," but desired to " ESTABLISH A Wherever you turn your eye, whether to your GENERAL PRINCIPLE!" That which, by the terms own record, to the statute-books, to the history of of the treaty, was particular and local to the five this country or of Mexico, or to the diplomatic States of Central America, is, in this article, ex- history of the world, this humiliating and detended to Mexico on the north, and to New Gra-grading acknowledgment stares you in the face, as nada on the south, and declared to be a general prin- a monument of your own creation, to the dishonor ciple, by which any and all other practicable routes of communication across the Isthmus between North and South America, are to be governed and protected by the allied Powers. New and additional treaty stipulations are to be entered into for this purpose, and the network which had been prepared and spread over all Central America, is to be extended far enough into Mexico and New Granada to cover all the lines of communication,|| It violated a great principle of public policy in rewhether by railway or canal, and especially to include Tehuantepec and Panama. When it is remembered that the treaty in terms establishes an alliance between the United States and Great Britain, and engages to invite all other Powers, with

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

Colonization in North America-Messrs. Douglas and Cass.

The whole system of European colonization rests upon seizure, violence, and fraud. European Powers hold nearly all their colonies by the one or the other of these tenures. They can show no other evidence, no other muniment of title. What is there in the history of the United States that requires us to make any such disclaimer? We have never acquired one inch of territory, except by honest purchase, and full payment of the consideration. We have never seized any Spanish or other European colony. We have never invaded the rights of other nations. We do not hold in our hand the results of rapine, violence, war, and fraud, for centuries, and then prate about honesty, and propose to honest people to enter into guarantees that they will not rob their neighbors.

Fortunately the history of our country subjects her to no such imputation, and relieves us from the necessity of making disclaimers which carry with them the implication of an equivocal reputation. England, France, and the other European Powers are at liberty to judge for themselves whether any such necessity exists in their case. I have not much faith in these gratuitous protestations of honesty and disinterestedness. They are generally made for the purpose of concealing a dark design while preparations are maturing for its execution! I recollect that pending the Clayton and Bulwer treaty before the Senate, a rumor was set afloat that England meditated the extension of her dominion or protection over Costa Rica, or some other portion of Central America. Sir Henry Bulwer deemed the time opportune and the rumor a sufficient excuse for addressing to our Department of State an official letter, disclaiming, in the name and by the authority of the British Government, any such design, and saying:

"I am also desired to add, that it would be contrary to the fixed and settled policy of Great Britain to entangle berself by any engagement to protect distant States over whose policy and conduct it would be impossible for the British Government to exercise any effective control. Such a protectorate would confer no possible advantage on Great Britain, and might become the source of many embarrassments to her."

Mr. Clayton was so much delighted with this frank disclaimer, that he promptly replied:

"I take pleasure in expressing the satisfaction with which this Government has received this friendly assurance from that of her Britannic Majesty, and more especially as it cannot fail to strengthen the bonds of amity now existing between our respective countries."

General Taylor deemed the matter of sufficient importance to communicate the evidence of this "friendly assurance" to the Senate in a special message. Well, the treaty was ratified, and in less than three years Great Britain seizes the Bay Islands and erects them into a colony, in the face of this "friendly assurance," and in direct violation of the provisions of the treaty!

to denounce and stigmatize a certain class of poli-
ticians, by attributing to them unworthy and
disreputable purposes, under the cognomen of
"Young America." It is their amiable custom, I
believe, when they come to individualize,to point to
me as the one most worthy to bear the appellation.
I have never either assumed or disclaimed it. I
have never before alluded to it, and should not on
the present occasion, had it not been introduced
into the discussions of the Senate in such a man-
ner as to leave the impression that I evaded it if I
failed to notice it. I am aware that the Senator,
who the other day directed so large a portion
of his speech against the supposed doctrines of
"YOUNG AMERICA," had no reference to myself
in that part of his speech, and that the only allu-
sion he made to me was kind and complimentary.
So far as I am concerned, and those who harmo-
nize with me in sentiment and action, the votes to
which I have referred, and the reasons I have given
in support of them, constitute the only profes-
sion of faith I deem it necessary to make on this
subject. I am willing to compare votes and
acts, principles and professions, with any Senator
who chooses to assail me. I yield to none in strict
observance of the laws of nations and treaty stip-
ulations. I may not have been willing blindly or
recklessly to pledge the faith of the Republic for
all time, on points where, in the nature of things,
it was not reasonable to suppose that the pledge
could be preserved. I may have deemed it wise
and prudent to hold the control of our own action,
and leave our successors free, according to their
own sense of duty under the circumstances which
may then exist.

Now, sir, a few words with regard to the Island
of Cuba. If any man desires my opinions upon
that question, he can learn them very easily.
They have been proclaimed frequently for the last
nine years, and still remain unchanged. I have
often said, and now repeat, that so long as the
Island of Cuba is content to remain loyal to the
Crown of Spain, be it so. I have no desire, no
wish to disturb that relation. I have always said,
and now repeat, that whenever the people of the
Island of Cuba shall show themselves worthy of
freedom by asserting and maintaining their inde-
pendence, and establishing republican institutions,
my heart, my sympathies, my prayers are with
them for the accomplishment of the object. I have
often said, and now repeat, that when that inde-
pendence shall have been established, if it shall be
necessary to their interest or safety to apply as
Texas did for annexation, I shall be ready to do
by them as we did by Texas, and receive them
into the Union. I have said, and now repeat, that
whenever Spain shall come to the conclusion that
she cannot much longer maintain her dominion
over the island, and that it is better for her to
transfer it to us upon fair and reasonable terms, I
am one of those who would be ready to accept the
transfer. I have said, and now repeat, that when-
ever Spain shall refuse to make such transfer to
us, and shall make it to England, or any other
European Power, I would be among those who
would be in favor of taking possession of the
Island, and resisting such transfer at all hazards.

|

SENATE.

of the time of the Senate in relation to the British
settlement at the Balize. Although Great Britain
has no other title than a mere permit to cut log-
wood, it is undeniable that she was in possession
of the country before the United States become an
independent Power, and has maintained the un-
disturbed possession ever since. Our Government
has recognized it as a British colony in various
ways, and it is so designated in our public docu-
ments. If the object be to provoke a difficulty
with England, regardless of the merits of the quar-
rel, I am inclined to think that it can be accom-
plished as easily and readily by a notice to quit
the Balize as to abandon Canada. But if the ob
ject be to establish and maintain a cherished prin-
ciple of public policy in opposition to European
colonization in America, the new British colony
recently established at the islands in the bay of
Honduras presents that distinct, naked issue, in
a form which places us clearly in the right. Now
is the time for action. Here is a practical issue
presented which should not be evaded by vague
generalities and equivocal resolves, which will be
understood to mean one thing on this side of the
Atlantic, and quite a different thing in Europe.
Whatever action we take should be direct, unequiv-
ocal, and against the Bay Island colony by name.
I am not certain as to the best mode of proceeding;
but I am inclined to the opinion that the Executive
should take the initiative, and make a courteous,
but firm and manly protest against the infraction of
the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, as well as the vio-
lation of our known policy in relation to European
colonization, by the creation of this new British
colony, together with the distinct and unequivocal
declaration, that in no event or contingency can the
United States acquiesce in the continuance of the
Bay Island colony. If Great Britain yields to the
protest, and discontinues the colony, our rights
and honor will be vindicated, and a sufficient
notice will be given to the world of our determina-
tion to enforce the principle hereafter. If, on the
contrary, Great Britain should insist in maintain-
ing the colony in contempt of our protest, it would
become the duty of the President to communicate
the result to Congress, with the recommendation
for the adoption of such measures as should be
necessary to enable him to vindicate our violated
rights. I am not particular, however, as to the form
of the proceeding. My great desire is to meet the
question fairly, and assume whatever responsibil-
ity the consequences may involve, and not beat a
disgraceful retreat under shelter of terrible threats
in the event the offense is repeated. If we act with
becoming discretion and firmness, I have no ap-
prehension that the enforcement of our rights will
lead to hostilities; Great Britain will not be will-
ing to engage in a contest of arms with us when
she is so clearly in the wrong. She has given bond
and security to keep the peace towards the United
States, and she well knows that the condition of a
forfeiture is the loss of her colonies, and her expul-
sion forever from the American continent. Firm-
ness, and prompt unequivocal action on our part,
is the only sure mode of preserving peace. Let the
Bay Island colony be discontinued, and let us free
ourselves from entangling alliances by the annul-
ment of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and the
United States will assume the position we are en-
titled to among the nations of the earth.

I confess I have not formed a very high appreciation of the value of these disclaimers of all intention of committing crimes against our neighbors. I do not think I should deem my house any more secure in the night in consequence of the thief having pledged his honor not to steal my property! If I am surrounded by honest men there is no necessity for the "friendly assurance," and if by rogues, it would not relieve my apprehensions or afford much security to my Thus far I have often gone; thus far I now go. rights. I am unwilling, therefore, to make any These are my individual opinions, not of much disclaimer as to our purposes upon Cuba, or to consequence, I admit, but any one who desires to give any pledge in respect to existing rights upon know them, is welcome to them. But it is one Mr. President, I will trespass on the kindness this continent. The nations of Europe have no thing for me to entertain these individual senti- of the Senate no longer. I have deemed it due to right to call upon us for a disclaimer of the one, ments, and it is another and very different thing myself and the occasion to make this exposition or for a pledge to protect the other. It is true, to pledge forever and unalterably the policy of of my views. I have availed myself of the earliest British newspapers are in the habit of calumnia- this Government in a particular channel, in defi- opportunity afforded by the removal of the inting the people of the United States, as a set of ance of any change in the circumstances that may junction of secrecy, to explain my reasons for opmarauders upon the territorial rights of our neigh-hereafter take place. I do not deem it necessary posing the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer bors. It is also true, that for party purposes, to affirm by a resolution, in the name of the Re-treaty. I have contented myself with vindicating some portion of the press of this country is in the public, every opinion that I may entertain, and my own course without assailing any one, or callhabit of attributing such sentiments to some of be willing to act upon as the representative of a ing in question the conduct of others. I return my our public men; but it is not true, so far as I local constituency. I am not, therefore, prepared thanks to the Senate for the kindness and courtesy know, that any one man in either House of Con- to say that it is wise policy to make any declara- extended to me on this occasion. gress does entertain, or has ever entertained or tion upon the subject of the Island of Cuba. Ciravowed a sentiment that justifies such an impu- cumstances not within our control, and originating tation. I am unwilling, therefore, to countenance in causes beyond our reach, may precipitate a the vile slander, by voting for a resolution which state of things that would change our action, and by implication contains so base an insinuation. reverse our whole line of policy. Cuba, in the exPerhaps I may as well speak plainly. I feel that isting position of affairs, does not present a practhere may be a lurking insinuation in these two tical issue. All that we may say or do is merely clauses, having a little bearing towards an indi- speculative, and dependent upon contingencies vidual of about my proportions. It is the voca- that may never happen. So it is, in a great meastion of some partisan presses and personal organs, ure, with the discussion that has occupied so much

Mr. CASS. Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] has indulged in some pretty hard criticisms upon the terms of my resolution, and I desire to show him and the Senate, as I trust I can in a few moments, that they are rather hypercriticisms, not at all warranted by the tenor of the resolution. The honorable Senator commences by saying that the terms of this resolution relinquish the past and the present, and

32D CONG....2D SESS.

"'ex

refer only to the future, because they save
isting rights.' "Does the honorable Senator mean
to violate existing rights?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have answered emphatically, no.

Mr. CASS. Then why not say it in the resolution? It saves "existing rights," not existing wrongs. It is in the very words of Mr. Polk, used more than twenty years after Mr. Monroe proclaimed the doctrine. Yet, Mr. Polk very properly in his message, saved existing rights, not existing wrongs. But he did not thereby mean to sanction any violation of this principle, which had previously occurred.

If, therefore, the British Government has established a colony in any part of the continent in direct contravention of this resolution and of the Monroe doctrine, it is an existing wrong and not an existing right, and it cannot shelter itself under any construction of this resolution. It secures to the British nothing more than their rights; and that is just what it purports to do.

And what such rights are, the American people must judge, upon that responsibility which they owe to the world and to history, when they come to make a practical application of the principle, and are required to decide whether a colonial establishment is a right to be tolerated, or a wrong to be redressed. And this duty is one which always devolves upon nations in their intercourse with other Powers of the earth.

Now, then, if Great Britain has taken possession of the Bay Islands, and established a colony there, which she had no right to establish, her existing rights there are not affected, for she has none. Her wrongs make no rights. The whole subject is fully open for redress. Mr. Monroe very properly, Mr. Polk very properly, and this resolution, with equal propriety, in order to prevent any charge of an unjust spirit of aggrandizement on our part, by the nations of Europe, have said, "We do not interfere with your existing rights, whatever they may be; of the extent of these we must judge when the occasion arises; but we disclaim any intention to interfere with your own colonies-to hold them, to settle them, to maintain them, just as you please-these are existing rights which we do not touch; but if you have done us wrong by establishing and holding colonies where you have no rights, then we intend to apply our American principle and dislodge you from positions unjustly taken.

I repeat Mr. Polk's language, that the existing rights of every European nation should be respected. Twenty-five years before his declaration the doctrine had been proclaimed by Mr. Monroe; but no man then contended, and Mr. Polk never dreamed, that this provision had a retrospective effect, and protected wrong running back through a period of a quarter of a century. The idea never entered his mind.

The Senator supposes, if I understand his construction, that such a resolution as this would wipe out all preceding acts. Why, sir, until you can convert a wrong into a right, it wipes out nothing at all. It leaves us just as free to pursue the course towards them which our honor and our interests demand, as though we passed no resolutions at all.

The principle is right, and I do not understand, though I must confess I do not clearly comprehend him, that the Senator from Illinois contests it. I mean the principle of maintaining that we, as a principal Power upon this continent, have a right to say that European influence shall not be extended here. I do not understand him to deny it at all. You lay down a principle, and when you come to apply it, you judge of existing rights; you judge of the condition of the colonies of the European Powers upon this continent; and, acting as becomes an upright nation, if they have colonies they have a fair right to hold, you ought not to interfere with them.

But if one of them has established the colony of Bay of Islands in the very face of our rights, and in the very face of existing treaties, that is not a claim which is saved by this resolution, but is an unjust pretension, which we are authorized to remove and correct. To be sure, as I have already said, in judging such cases we act upon our responsibility, and we ought so to act as to be absolved from the charge of aggression and injustice.

Colonization in North America-Mr. Cass.

Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois says there is no use in laying down the principle, for it will be violated. Mr. Monroe thought it of some use, and actually laid it down. Mr. Polk thought it of use, and also laid it down. Mr. Jefferson, in a letter which I have already read to the Senate, announced his adhesion to the doctrine, and thought it very important it should be solemnly proclaimed by a public national act. Where has been our error in our course upon this grave subject? Precisely the one now sought to be remedied by this resolution. In 1823, when the doctrine was first promulged here, resolutions were introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Clay and Mr. Poinsett, affirming the doctrine, in order to give it an authoritative influence through the world. But it was not done. The matter slept. Mr. Polk sought the same object. An honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. ALLEN] also felt the necessity of Congressional action, and introduced a resolution similar to the present one. But all these efforts were in vain. The efficient prop to support the building was wanting. Mr. Jefferson says expressly, in a letter which I have before me, that inasmuch as the declaration might lead to war, it was proper that it should be laid before Congress for its sanction; but it was not done. The doctrine, as sound a one as any nation ever proclaimed, almost passed into oblivion. And now, in this new condition of the world, when God alone knows from day to day what convulsion is about to break out in Europe, and the effect it will have upon us, and upon the other American States, it is proposed to put the doctrine in an authoritative form; and what right has the honorable Senator to say that if this be done we shall suffer it to be violated?

SENATE.

trust the Executive Government-but upon this without book, as I know nothing-have taken a proper course, and made the necessary investigations and remonstrance. At any rate, this branch of the Legislature, as a depository of much of the powers of the American people, has but recently been made acquainted with the facts, and a reso lution on the subject has been reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations within the last week. Therefore, I say that no man has a right to assert that we have conceded any principle of the Monroe doctrine in relation to the Bay Islands.

not.

Then how is it with respect to the other two cases mentioned by the Senator-the treaty with Mexico, and the Clayton-Bulwer treaty? The Mexican treaty terminated a glorious war with a great many advantages to our country. It is not necessary to go over the circumstances of the formation and ratification of the treaty. We gained much and conceded but little. The Clayton and Bulwer treaty was concluded twenty-five years after the Monroe doctrine had been promulgated, but not enforced. Attempts had more than once been made to procure the sanction of Congress to this doctrine, in order to give it its proper effect. But they had failed, and it is possible that the same fate may for a while await the present effort. That doctrine had remained a dead letter upon your national archives. Then there came a proposition from England to agree that we should not interfere in that part of the continent, if they would It was the best thing we could do. We could not get a Congressional sanction of the Monroe doctrine; and the honorable Senator at this day is not willing to join in giving it. I repeat, what had we to do under those circumstances? Why, it was manifestly our policy to agree with The honorable Senator says the doctrine was England to keep hands off. Therefore it was that violated in the case of Oregon. I say it was not, I voted for the ratification of the Clayton-Bulwer and I say that the honorable Senator is under a treaty. I agree that the subsequent conduct of total misconception of the effect of the treaty re- England has been perfectly unjustifiable, and those lating to Oregon. By that treaty England extended who voted against the treaty had good ground for her boundaries beyond what he and I thought she their position, if they suspected her of bad faith, had a just claim to do. We believed she had no as the subsequent facts have shown. But instead just title by four and a half degrees to the bound- of that treaty being an abandonment of the Monary she obtained; but the American Government roe doctrine, its very object was to carry that said, your colony does come down to the forty- doctrine into effect, by preventing the future inninth degree of north latitude. That being the terference of an European power in the affairs of case, there was no Monroe doctrine in the ques- this continent. That this object has failed of attion. The fault was not in the application of the tainment by the bad faith of England, and by her doctrine, but it was in allowing Great Britain to pretension to circumscribe Central America, not have a larger colony than she had a right to. But by its true boundaries, but by those assumed by the moment we conceded that the line of the Brit-yourself, is no charge against those who voted for ish possessions came down to the forty-ninth dethe treaty. gree of north latitude, that moment we conceded that the Monroe doctrine had no application to it; for we thereby conceded that the country was a British colony, and of course her existing rights secured to Great Britain the just power to deal with such colony as she pleased. It was a question of colonial government, and not of Monroe doctrine. The Senator is therefore under a total misapprehension with regard to the matter; and if we had said that the British line came down to San Francisco, there would have been no question for the application of the Monroe doctrine, as that would have been estopped by the establishing of a boundary between us and her colony on the Pacific coast.

With respect to the Bay Islands, the other question to which the honorable Senator has referred, what have we given up there? Nothing. We never heard even a rumor of it till within a few weeks; and the moment I heard of it, I introduced a resolution into the Senate, with a view to ascertain from the Executive what were the true facts of the case. And the resolution now before us, instead of conceding anything in favor of this colony of the Bay Islands, was introduced before we had any answer from the Executive, or any knowledge but a vague report of the British Government. Subsequent events have come to enlighten us. Who, then, has a right to say that there has been any delay or neglect in this matter, or that these resolutions concede anything to Eng. land? Have we said that the Monroe doctrine shall not apply, but that Great Britain has a right to hold this colony, in the very face of her own stipulation? No American citizen or legislator ought to say we have done anything by which we acquiesce in the conduct of Great Britain in reference to the colonization of the Bay Islands, I

The honorable Senator objects that this resolution declares that in any ultimate contingency that may arise, we will do what our interests and honor require. Now allow me to say to the honorable gentleman, that in the intercourse between nations, where solemn declarations like these arise, there are two modes of proceeding; one is an absolute declaration to the nations of the world, or to such of them as are interested in the matter, if such a certain act is done injurious to the Power protesting, it shall be followed by war. Another

is by a declaration that such Power reserves to itself the right to act under the circumstances as the occasion may require. The latter is the declaration of this resolution in regard to colonization; the former is the declaration of the one in regard to Cuba. By it we pledge ourselves to intervene by war if any other Power should attempt to gain possession of Cuba.

But with regard to colonization, we leave it to our successors to act as circumstances may require. There is nothing more common in the history of national intercourse, nothing more common when grave exigencies arise, when events seem to announce political convulsions, in consequence of unreasonable and unjust pretensions, seriously effecting the honor or interest of a nation, than for such nation publicly to proclaim its policy, and the course of action it intends to pursue if the pretension is pushed to action. And I would say to the honorable gentleman, as I said before, that there is no Power in the world which will entirely disregard the declaration of the people of the United States upon a point respecting their interests and honor. Nor is it merely throwing away words to declare what that course will be. Such a declaration made in the name of the American people by their authorized servants is not a