Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

32D CONG....1st Sess.

Colonization in North America-Messrs. Cass and Douglas.

vain display, but it is a solemn annunciation of their purpose, and as such will be believed and heard by the Powers of the world, and it does not become an American Senator to diminish the influence of such a proceeding by any doubts as to the course of other countries, or as to his own.

The Senator recommends a course that contradicts his own doctrine. He is for a protest-by whom? By the President. Thirty years have gone by since Mr. Monroe proclaimed his doctrine. He protested, Mr. Polk protested, and it is to avoid the failure which attends an Executive protest that I introduced this resolution. I wish to put upon record the solemn protest of the American people by a public act of their Government. I want this to go before the world authoritatively, as the declaration of the sentiments and purposes of the American people. Suppose the honorable gentleman's recommendation should be adopted, and the President should protest; it is well known to Europe that our Executive has no power to declare war; no power, in truth, to enforce his own act. That power is lodged exclusively in the two Houses of Congress, and unless they assert the principle, the nations of Europe may continue to disregard our presidential declarations; for they well know that he who makes them cannot give them effect. Are you going to protest without reference to what is to follow? Your protest, in such a conjuncture, to be effectual, must be followed by some indication of the course you intend to pursue in the event of its being disregarded; at any rate, some declaration of your determination to meet the contingency with firmness and decision. The Senator says he is for giving no pledges; yet he is for protesting on the part of the Executive in relation to the colonization of the Bay Islands, and he intimates rather than states his willingness to support it by Congressional action. Such a protest, if it carries with it no pledge of action or resistance, is a mere waste of words unworthy of the American people. The only value of such a national declaration consists in the determination of the people making it to enforce it, and in the conviction of other nations that it is a pledge that will be redeemed, whatever may be the consequences. The honorable Senator says this is an awful threat. Well, sir, his protest, if it is anything but waste paper, is another awful threat. There is no view which you can take of a general protest, which is not equally applicable to a special one. The history of the world is filled with such examples and declarations. If the honorable Sen-| ator is in favor of the principle, what objection can he have to proclaiming it, and making it efficient at once by Congressional declaration? What objection can there be to its receiving our sanction without first passing through the Executive Department? Congress, if I understand the gentleman, and I am not sure I do, is to act after the President has acted, and acted in vain. The difference between us is, that I choose to go at once to the great depository of the power of the American people for that indication of national action which may be necessary;

ity of the American people heartily join in this
declaration that we do not intend unjustly to seize
the Island of Cuba.

I did not exactly understand an allusion of the
Senator, but I thought he intimated that this reso-
lution was aimed at him. I can assure the honor-
able gentleman that I never thought of him while
preparing the resolution. My mind was turned
to a very different quar er, to the honor and in-
terest of my country. I had not the remotest al-
lusion to him in drawing up the resolution; and I ||
repeat, that my mind was upon a vastly more im-
portant subject, and I say that without meaning
any disrespect to him. I assure him I had no
reference to "Young America," or Old America.
Such a thought never entered my head. As to the
attacks, of which he spoke, against himself, as
the impersonation of "Young America," I have
nothing to say, as I have had nothing to do with
them. I take it that Young America" and Oid
America have been pretty well abused; and I have
had a pretty good share of one, as the Senator
thinks he has had of the other. I do not believe
it has done either of us much harm, nor do I think
it is worthy of the slightest notice. I have no
doubt but that Old America, or, in other words,
Old Fogyism, will continue to be abused, and
Young America, as it passes on in the journey of
life, must expect to become Old America itself, and
share in the abuse which that respectable condition
is sure to bring with it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. In reference to the last re-
marks of the Senator from Michigan, I will do him
the justice to say, that I do not suppose he intended
the peculiar phraseology of that resolution to con-
vey any injurious insinuation against myself or
any other Senator; but he must be aware that ef-
forts have been made to give it such a construction
here and elsewhere.

Mr. CASS. Does the honorable Senator allude to me?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly not. The Senator from Michigan has informed us that allusions to Old America and Young America are not fit to be made in the Senate. Perhaps he is right in this respect, but he will bear in mind that I have never alluded to Old America, or uttered the word in the Senate. He has been in the almost daily habit for the last year of assuming to himself the cognomen of Old Fogy, and seems to rejoice in the appellation. He has not unfrequently made pointed remarks about Young Fogies and Young America; but _has_failed, up to this day, to provoke a response from me, or to induce me to permit the word to pass my lips. The Senator also had an opportunity the other day to rebuke his friend from Alabama, [Mr. CLEMENS,] when he devoted a great portion of his speech to denunciations of what he was was pleased to call Young America and its principles. The venerable Senator from Michigan will therefore pardon me for having been guilty of the indiscretion, in a single instance, of having followed his almost daily example.

Mr. CASS. The honorable Senator will allow

SENATE.

day to this? Does he propose an inquiry into the rightful authority by which Great Britain and all other European nations hold their colonies in America? If so, he is several steps in advance of Young America, and his resolution carves out more work than the public generally suppose from reading the Senator's speeches in its support. Under this interpretation who will be authorized to say what existing rights are protected and what colony is condemned by the resolution? Its vague uncertainty will assuredly deprive it of all efficacy. No matter what construction the Senator may put upon it, I am sure England and all Europe will understand it as recognizing their right to hold all existing colonies, and a proclamation of our purpose never to allow any new European colony to be planted in America; that it is a full act of forgiveness and oblivion as to the past, and a solemn warning as to the future.

But the Senator insists that his resolution will have, and ought to have, a retrospective effect. If so, let him so amend his resolution as to make it declare distinctly that all European colonies established in America since Mr. Monroe's memorable declaration, and in violation of it, together with all which shall hereafter be established, are to be resisted by this Government at all hazards. Is he prepared to do that?

Mr. CASS. Perfectly.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Then I understand that the honorable Senator is willing to say in his resolution: "Resolved, That all colonies which have been established upon the American continent by Great Britain, or any other European Power, since 1823, in violation of the Monroe declaration, and all that may be hereafter established, are to be deemed hostile to our interests and safety, and to be resisted by the full power, if necessary, of this Government.

Mr. CASS. I will vote for it to-day. Mr. DOUGLAS. Why did he not make his purpose apparent on the face of his resolution? Mr. CASS. Certainly; that is my idea; that is my construction. It is plain talk, and I like it. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is plain talk. Then, let us see where we are according to the explanations that have been made. Does the Balize come within this restriction, and is Great Britain to be required to draw in her boundaries to what they were in 1823?

Mr. CASS. She must draw it in just so far as she has extended it illegally, or in contravention of our rights.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The seizure of the Bay Islands is to be disavowed, and those islands are to be restored?

Mr. CASS. Precisely.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The seizure of the town of San Juan, at the mouth of the San Juan river, on the 8th of February, 1848, is at once to be diaavowed, and it is to be restored to Nicaragua ? Mr. CASS. Certainly.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The British protectorate over the Mosquito coast is to be abandoned, and

me to say one word. If from this time the hon-treated as if it had not existed?
orable gentleman will call himself Young Ameri-
ca, I will allow myself to be called the Old Fogy,
and I shall have no objection to his using the term
as much as he pleases.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The penalty is too great for
the privilege conferred. Although he has shown
every disposition to call himself an Old Fogy, it is
not agreeable to my tastes to call him by the one
name or to assume the other to myself.

A few words now with respect to Cuba. I repeat, and the Senate all know as well as I do, that the condition of Europe and the world is most extraordinary, and from day to day, from hour to hour indeed, no man can tell what is to happen. It is therefore necessary for all nations to be prepared. It is the very time when nations should make known to foreign Powers the policy they mean to pursue in certain probable contingencies; and why? That other nations, knowing the de- But enough of this. The Senator says I have termination, may be induced to refrain from de- put a wrong construction upon his resolution, signs they might otherwise pursue. It is one that it only respects existing rights, and therefore chance the more of averting serious consequences. by implication condemns all existing wrongs. The honorable Senator maintains that the terms Under this interpretation it is difficult to perceive of this resolution, disclaiming any designs against of a European colony in America which would Cuba, convey an impression that there are such be protected by it. What one of them is rightdesigns. That is certainly a far-fetched conclu- fully held, according to our ideas of political sion. Why not make such a disclaimer, if we mean justice? Does the Senator propose to dispossess it? The Senator says it is disclaiming what there Great Britain of Jamaica because she holds it by is no just cause for imputing. We say, or rather the title of Cromwell's seizure, who, according we intimate in the resolution, that Cuba would be to English doctrine, had no rightful authority acceptable to us, but we disclaim before the world, to wield the power of that kingdom? Does he what we have repeatedly been charged with, the propose to give England notice to abandon the design of taking forcible and unjust possession of Balize settlement, because she holds it by no other it. We do it in the existing state of the world to authority than a mere permit to cut logwood, of put an end to those reproaches which are eternally an older date than our Declaration of Independmade against us; and I suppose that a vast major-ence, and an undisturbed possession from that

[ocr errors]

Mr. CASS. It is abandoned by the treaty. Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not think it has yet been abandoned. I shall wait patiently for the Senator to bring forward his modified resolution in such terms as to embrace all the objects to which I have referred, for I looked in vain through his speeches for something to show that he ever dreamed of carrying his resolution back to the past.

Mr. CASS. I never thought of anything to the contrary.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not longer doubt it. I think the Senator and myself will soon get on ground where we will understand each other's meaning better. I see clearly that the debate will do good, for the explanations which have been so frankly made will enlighten Senators as to the real objects and purposes the Senator from Michigan has in view. Instead of taking it unkindly, he ought to feel grateful to me for calling out this explanation.

Mr. CASS. I am much obliged to you.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Passing from this point, the Senator from Michigan has stated that I am opposed to declaring the Monroe doctrine, and then proceeded to show my inconsistency by proving that I was in favor of it.

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

Mr. CASS. I beg pardon. The honorable Senator will allow me to say, that I stated his objection was to Congress declaring it, but still he wished the President to carry it out.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I did not object to Congress declaring it.

Mr. CASS. Then I misunderstood the hon

orable Senator.

Colonization in North America Mr. Badger.

platform, struggling side by side in a common

cause.

Mr. BADGER. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of doing a simple act of justice to this resolution. I rise for the purpose of saying a word in its defense, from what I think was an extremely undeserved and illiberal criticism which the Senator from Illinois has bestowed upon it. "Sir, I have taken no part, and I design to take no part, in the discussion which is going on in the Chamber between our very harmonious friends on the other side of it; but I am a friend of justice; I am an advocate for protecting the old from the assaults of the young. I dislike especially to see injustice measured out by "Young America " to an "Old Fogy," professing myself to belong in some respects to that category.

[ocr errors]

SENATE.

you must

will signify to her from "henceforth
direct and manage your conduct with a proper
respect to the restrictions we have laid upon you.
Do you not see, sir, that if the Senator from
Illinois could strike out the word "henceforth”-
and I will vote against any such striking out; I
do protest against it-it would deprive the resolu-
tion of all practical bearing and useful operation?
I should be obliged to go against the resolution if
you strike out "henceforth." It is possible I may
go for it with the word "henceforth" in; and
then, you see, we will have this beautiful spec-
tacle presented to the world.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I stated that the seizure of the Bay Islands, and their erection into a colony, was in direct violation of the Monroe doctrine, as well as an infraction of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty; that these islands presented the distinct issue under circumstances which place our country We lawyers used to hear, in old times, about clearly in the right; that I desired to make the issue what was called "continual claim." When a on that point, and have all our proceedings meet fellow was in possession of a tract of land to that issue fairly and directly. I objected to the which another man set up a title which he was Senator's resolution, because, according to my con- The Senator from Illinois has said, with an in- not exactly disposed to give up, and when, perstruction of its terms, it would be understood as genuity which belongs to him, but with a disre-haps, the claimant distrusted his power to enforce acquiescing in the existing state of things; or, in gard to justice and fairness which I have seldom other words, that it was an abandonment of the seen him exhibit, that this resolution is liable to doctrine as to all practical questions to which it exception, because it is altogether future in its may now be applied. I expressed the opinion operation-because it leaves all past transactions that it was the duty of the President to make a undisposed of, and dates itself from the present courteous but firm and manly protest against the es- time by the emphatic word "henceforth." Why, tablishment of that colony, together with the state- sir, the honorable Senator ought to have known, ment that the United States could never submit to and from the expression upon his countenance, I such a violation of the treaty in contempt of our believe he did know, but concealed his knowledge, cherished policy, and that in the event that Eng- that that word "henceforth" comprises the very land should persist, the President should commu- virtue, and excellence, and particular spirit and nicate the facts to Congress, and that we should matter of the resolution. Do you not see how clothe him with the power, and furnish him with the thing operates? The Monroe doctrine is to the means for vindicating our rights and redress- be reaffirmed. How, sir? From "henceforth." ing our wrongs. I intimated the opinion that [Laughter.] Let by-gones be by-gones; we do perhaps it was better for the Executive to take the not touch anything that is past; but, sir, "henceinitiative, as that is the only branch of the Gov-forth" we put forth the Monroe doctrine as the ernment through which we can communicate with law which we dictate to the Powers of the world. foreign nations, but in respect to the mode of pro- Mr. Monroe put it forth some years ago with ceeding, I expressed my willingness to conform exactly the same qualification upon it of "hencemy action to the views of the Senate. The main forth." Now, sir, if the honorable Senator is the || point I made was, that having a distinct issue be- advocate of the Monroe doctrine, permit me to fore us, on which we were clearly right, we should inquire of him how he can strike out the word or meet it fairly, and assume whatever responsibilities the sense" henceforth?" [Laughter.] the vindication of our rights might involve, and not evade it under cover of vague generalities and equivocal resolutions about henceforth" and "future" colonies.

Passing from this point, I must remind the Senate that the Senator from Michigan did not undertake to show that I was not right in saying that every article, provision, and line of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty was predicated on a virtual and practical negation and repudiation of the Monroe doctrine. He prudently passes over in silence the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, which is of recent origin, and the terms of which are being daily and flagrantly violated, and attempts to show that|| I was mistaken in relation to the Oregon treaty, about which no practical question can at present possibly arise. I admire the prudence which dictated this course, and will proceed to show that I || was not mistaken in respect to the Oregon treaty. Prior to its date there was no British colony in America, west of the Rocky Mountains. The Hudson's Bay Company's charter confined them to the country drained by the waters flowing into the bay. Neither Canada nor any other colony extended west of the Rocky Mountains. The title to that country was held in abeyance by the treaty of non-occupancy, which prohibited both parties from colonizing it. We terminated that treaty and formed a new one, which established the parallel of 490 as the boundary. By this treaty Great Britain consented that we might erect Territories and States south of that boundary, and the United States consented that Great Britain might establish new colonies north of that line, and in a portion of the continent where they did not exist

before.

But I will not weary the Senate by discussing points of no practical value. I have great respect for the opinions of the honorable Senator from Michigan. I know his familiarity with our foreign relations, and shall be glad to follow his lead in wiping out all treaty stipulations which have been erected as barriers to the prevalence of the doctrine we both desire to see carried into effect. Let him so modify his resolution as to provide for the discontinuance of the Bay Island colony and the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, as the first and es. sential step towards the establishment of the Monroe doctrine, and we will stand upon a common

Mr. DOUGLAS. 1 give it up.

Mr. BADGER. Mr. Monroe did not undertake to interfere with any past transactions in his day. He only said "henceforth" we lay down the line beyond which you shall not go. Now, the Senator from Michigan, instead of being liable to reproach, has shown himself to be a true and loyal subject of Mr. Monroe's doctrine, for he takes it up from "henceforth." All that has happened in the intervening time between Mr. Monroe's promulgation of this doctrine and the present hour is, as to our proceedings, what had happened up to the time when Mr. Monroe promulgated his doctrine in the times then past—it all belongs to by-gones, which a generous and liberalminded nation never seeks to disturb.

[ocr errors]

Now do you not see, Mr. President, how ad-
mirably we are following out the course laid down
and the policy of the Monroe doctrine from
henceforth" Very well, sir; suppose we pass
the resolution. We do not interfere with any set-
tlements that the British have made in the Bay
Islands, or the Bay of Islands, or whatever name
this strange and out-of-the-way place may bear;
we do not interfere with the Balize; we do not in-
terfere with Jamaica; we interfere with nothing
that is past, but we say, beware "henceforth.
(Laughter.] Well, sir, nineteen or twenty years
hence, if this Government holds together so long,
as I trust it will for many a successive period of
twenty years, a presidential election will be com-
ing on, or just be over, and we can then repro-
duce the Monroe doctrine with the same identical
word "henceforth," touching nothing that has
taken place in the twenty years which will have
elapsed between now and that time. Thus we
see how admirably it works.

upon him that he should give it up, he went over I believe that is the way of it, for I do not pretend to be very well learned in my recollection of these old things; I have not heard anything about them for thirty years and going upon the land, or as close to it as his adversary would allow, he put in the claim to that land, and did nothing further. But when another year had rolled round, he went and put in another claim, and that they called making a continual claim. This was for the purpose of keeping alive his rights in the premises. Now, do you not see, sir, that this admirable process is accomplished by the reproduction of the Monroe doctrine once in every ten, fifteen, or twenty years, with the word "henceforth," which the Senator from Illinois is so invidious and unjust as to desire to strike out, and that by this we keep ourselves exactly in that position? We let European innovations, if you please to call them so, or colonizations, or something or other, go on quietly upon this continent, while we accompany them not with a "continual claim,' but a continual notification, protest, and expression of deep concern. That is what we do.

39

A few words as to the Monroe doctrine, which the Senator from Illinois says he is prepared to go for and support at all hazards. I am not exactly inclined to say that I agree with him. I have yet to learn that Mr. Monroe was anything more than a President of the United States. Mr. Monroe was not what Louis XIV. or Napoleon claimed for themselves with regard to France-the State. He was not the embodiment or representative of the whole powers of the American people; he was not the nation. I know of no authority that he had, by any declaration of his, to bind us and our posterity to maintain a particular course of policy forever, or for any length of time. I will go for the Monroe doctrine just so far as I think it is right. I do not say that I will not go for it altogether; but if I do, it will not be because it is the Monroe doctrine, but because, upon an examination of it, I believe it right, proper, expedient, and beneficial to the nation to go for it. Why, is not this monstrous? We have had lately superinduced upon the Constitution of the United States the Virginia resolutions of 1798. I thought that was going far enough; but those were resolutions adopted by the Virginia Legislature-by the Ancient Dominion-patronized and promoted by Mr. Jefferson, the father of Democracy. But shall we say now that we are have another appendage put to the Constitution, in the shape of a fundamental amendment, upon the authority of Mr. Monroe, a President of the United States, and that we are not at liberty to debate, to consider, to examine, to decide for ourselves, how far it is right to follow out that resolution? I shall take the liberty, whenever the question comes up, of deciding for myself upon that point, not considering myself as bound by any bonds or links, either of iron or of brass.

All of us understand that these resolutions are not intended to operate exteriorly to the Govern- But I am sorry to have been diverted to this ment of the United States; they are not intended matter of the Monroe doctrine. I rose merely for to affect foreign Powers, but they are for home the purpose of interposing against what I thought operation and home consumption. [Laughter.] was a very unfair proceeding on the part of the Then do you not see how admirably we work the Senator from Illinois, and of insisting that the only problem out? Let Great Britain come on; let her word in the resolution which should make it esmake colonies; let her extend her dominions on pecially palatable and practically useful and valuthis continent, and from time to time we will no- able now and for all time to come, was that very tify her not that she shall discontinue what she word in two syllables which he wishes to strike has done; not that she shall forego or give up any-out, to wit, the word "henceforth." (Laughter.] thing that she has acquired-but ever and anon we

Mr. HOUSTON. I move to postpone the fur

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

ther consideration of the resolution until Saturday next, as that will be a leisure day, and I do not wish to take up much of the precious time of the Senate.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would ask the indulgence of my friend from Texas to allow me to make a very brief statement.

Mr. HOUSTON. Very well, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I rise, Mr. President, "to vindicate the truth of history." I wish to correct my friend from Illinois in one respect. He has charged the Administration of General Taylor with making war upon the Monroe doctrine, by entering into the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. He is utterly mistaken in regard to the origin of this war upon the Monroe doctrine, if he supposes it originated with that treaty. When the saddle is put upon the right horse, it will be found upon the back of his own party.

No reason for such mistakes can be assigned in behalf of the gentleman from Illinois, no excure can be made for him, except that he belongs to "Young America," and his recollection does not go back far enough to enable him to know the facts. Here they are: In 1835, Mr. Clayton, the Secretary of State during the Taylor Administration-then a member of the Senate-offered the following resolution. Let me read from the Journal:

"The following motion, submitted by Mr. Clayton, was considered and agreed to:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to consider the expediency of opening negotiations with the Governments of other nations, and particularly with the Governments of Central America and New Granada, for the purpose of effectually protecting, by suitable treaty stipulations with them, such individuals or companies as may undertake to open a communication between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, by the construction of a ship canal across the Isthmus which connects North and South America, and of securing forever, by such stipulations, the free and equal right of navigating such canal to all other nations, on the payment of such reasonable tolls as may be established to compensate the capitalists who may engage in such undertaking, and proceed to work." Ordered, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the President of the United States."

Andrew Jackson was President of the United States when this resolution was adopted; and my information is, that when it was laid before him, he approved it; but I have not the official evidence of the fact before me. If I had, I would read it to the Senate. This resolution was adopted by the Senate, and there was not even objection enough to call for the yeas and nays. It was adopted in 1835, requiring negotiations to be opened with all nations in favor of this interoceanic communication, giving to all equal privileges, and asking the President to enter into stipulations to that effect. It is true it was offered by Mr. Clayton, but it was subsequently carried out and approved, as I am informed, by the then President of the United States, and it was adopted not by a Whig Senate, but by a Senate with a majority composed of members of the Democratic party; so that what I stated at the commencement is literally true, that the foundation of the policy belongs to the Democracy, was sanctioned by them, and put afloat by them.

Now, what subsequent facts transpired? Mr. Bidlack, appointed by Mr. Polk, Chargé d'Affaires in Bogota, actually made a treaty with New Granada, which I have before me, and a part of which I will read. He was sent out in 1846, I think, and he made this treaty with New Granada, by which he secured to the United States at all times during the existence of that treaty, the right of a free passage across the Isthmus of Darien; and in consideration of the cessions made by the Government of New Granada in that treaty, the Government of the United States stipulated and agreed as follows, (I read from the treaty:)

"And in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and as an especial compensation for the said advantages, and for the favors they have acquired by the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles of this treaty, the United States guaranty, positively and efficaciously, to New Granada, by the present stipulations, the perfect neutrality of the beforementioned isthmus, with the view that the free transit from the one to the other sea may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while this treaty exists."

If, therefore, Great Britain or France, or any other powerful nation on the earth, should desire to secure by hostile measures a transit across that isthmus, our Government is bound by this treaty to take up arms and defend New Granada against NEW SERIES.-No. 12.

Railroad to the Pacific-Mr. Butler.

that nation; and all that is done in Democratic days, and under Democratic rule.

When the Taylor Administration came into power, with Mr. Clayton as Secretary of State; when they saw by the resolution of 1835 that this plan of treating with all nations, and getting the whole of them to come into treaty stipulations guaranteeing the opening of an interoceanic communication across the Isthmus, and making it a neutral thoroughfare for the world; and then, when they saw that by the Bidlack treaty of December, 1846, with New Granada, we were bound to guarantee the neutrality of the Isthmus of Darien against all nations who might undertake to force a passage through it, was it not very natural that they should ask Great Britain and France, and other Powers, to unite in these same guarantees, and thereby make the obligation less burdensome upon us in case war became necessary, in order to fulfill our guarantee of the neutrality of that Isthmus?

Sir, the thing is too plain. It cannot be gainsayed. But these facts seem to have been overlooked entirely by the gentleman from Illinois in his attack upon the Taylor Administration. Thus a Democratic Senate adopts a resolution inviting all nations to enter into treaty stipulations for the protection of individuals and companies who may engage to construct a ship canal across the Isthmus, with an assurance that every nation which enters into the measure shall have equal privileges upon the payment of the same rates of toll; the father of modern Democracy, Jackson, not Jefferson, approves it; Polk, "Young Hickory," binds us by treaty to fight all nations which may disturb the neutrality of the Isthmus; and then, when the Taylor Administration does no more than act in conformitỷ to this Democratic policy, the Senator from Illinois denounces and charges that Administration with surrendering the Monroe doctrine! Why, sir, it proves that the Whigs cannot possibly escape Democratic censure. If they do precisely what the Democrats recommend, they are blamed for obedience! The Democrats make a feast, invite all nations, ask the Whigs to wait on their guests, and then turn around and denounce them for doing it! Such is modern Democracy! Besides, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, consisting of a large Democratic majority, and if the Monroe doctrine, which is now so precious, has been overturned by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, who is it that has overturned it? It has been done by Democrats themselves.

Thus I have shown you that this policy originated with Democrats, was sanctioned by the head of the Democratic church, General Jackson himself, and has been continued by them in the formation of a treaty with New Granada in 1846, and by the ratification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Having stated these facts, allow me to say

that I am like the Senator from North Carolina. I

think the best part of the resolution of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CASS] consists in the word "henceforth;" and I agree with the Senator from Illinois in one particular, and that is: I am not willing to act upon abstractions until the facts of the case are presented.

Mr. BADGER. Then they cease to be abstractions.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir; they cease then to be abstractions; but I will not upon any occasion now or "henceforth"-using that term, which the speech of the Senator from North Carolina has dignified with undying celebrity-begin to endorse abstractions of any kind. It is time enough for us to act when called upon to act upon facts. When facts are presented, it is then time enough for us to do what the dignity and the honor and the interests of our country require. It is useless to say beforehand what we will do. When individuals bluster and make threats, I have no faith that they will ever execute them; nor have I any more faith in blustering nations than I have in blustering individuals. My doctrine is to wait until the time for action comes. If any of our treaties have been violated, let us make a serious inquiry into the facts of the case, and then act with promptness and decision. Long talks under injuries are ridiculous, if not contemptible.

A word more with regard to taking Cuba, or seizing Cuba, or buying Cuba, and that for pur

SENATE.

poses of defense. It presents the strangest question, sir, for the consideration of an "Old Fogy" like myself that ever was presented to a deliberative body. My recollection goes back to the war of 1812; it even goes a little beyond that period. And when we were weak, when we were really imbecile compared with what we are at present, nobody ever thought of acquiring Cuba for defense. When we wanted defense, no one thought of seizing or purchasing Cuba for defensive purposes. But now, when we have grown strong, when we can defend ourselves against all the world without Cuba, everybody wants Cuba as a necessary element of defense! It is so inconsistent, it is so preposterous, when we compare it with the history of the past, with the times which I myself have seen, that it is the most wonderful thing I have ever known to be deliberated upon us gravely as this has been. The only argument that anybody has attempted to advance here is, that its acquisition is necessary for national defense. Just as we have grown in strength and in power, and can do without any acquisition of that sort, just in proportion to the enlargement of our means and power, is the clamor increased that it is necessary, to get Cuba for purposes of defense!

Mr. President, I fear that under the plausible pretence of self-defense, a right which equally pertains to nations as individuals, we are fomenting a spirit of aggression.

Sir, I have not a particle of credence in the position that the possession of Cuba is essential to our national defense. We can defend ourselves without it, and if we had it it would only give us more to defend, in case we were attacked. If the nations attacking us were more powerful, on land and on sea, than we are, they could land an army on any part of the coast of Cuba, if it was ours, blockade Havana and the other ports, and unless we had them very strongly fortified and garrisoned, they might capture the strong places and conquer the whole island. Instead of being an assisting element in the defense of the country, the acquisition of Cuba would only weaken us by increasing the territory we should be called on to defend. To do it, we should have to enlarge our armaments and take troops from healthy temperate climates, to die of disease within the tropics. If, after all our exertions, our enemy was stronger than we, the probability is we should lose in the contest what we now seem so desirous to acquire, upon the delusive calculation that it would strengthen our hands. If we are strong enough to keep Cuba, were it now ours, against any enemy capable of giving us serious annoyance, we are able to defend ourselves against that enemy without it.

Mr. DOWNS. I have heretofore taken no part in the discussion of this resolution, and I did not design to do so, but the discussion has taken a range so wide to-day, that I think some reply is required to some of the positions which have been advanced. It is now too late to go on with the debate.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would suggest to the gentleman that I forgot to renew the motion of the Senator from Texas, which I promised to renew. It is, that the further consideration of the resolution be postponed until Saturday next.

Mr. DOWNS. I am indifferent as to the time. The motion to postpone was agreed to, and, on motion, The Senate adjourned.

[blocks in formation]

32D CONG....2D Sess.

I listened, as I usually do, with profound attention, to the able and interesting remarks of the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS;] but I must confess that when he announced that this was an enterprise without a parallel in the history of the world, and that therefore we were to disregard all the lights of example, experience, usage, and precedent, I felt somewhat astonished at the attitude in which the American Senate was likely to be placed, by being forced to adopt a foregone conclusion without the advantage of examination or the security of deliberation; in other words, to run all the hazards of a legislative experiment in reference to the greatest measure of the kind the world has ever known. To borrow the language of the Senator from Illinois, "a measure without a-parallel."

The reason given by the friends of this bill, why we should not have such lights before us as are usually consulted in such cases is, because this is a measure whose magnificence puts at defiance everything that has preceded it, either in the Congress of the United States, or in any other deliberative body of the world. A measure, the success of which must therefore depend, more upon the chances of blind fortune, than upon the counsels of wisdom, or lights of experience.

Mr. President, I have been referred to more than once, and I appreciate the compliment, as one of the gentlemen who might have some constitutional difficulties in relation to this measure. I shall not indulge in a homily upon the Constitution. No, sir. I shall go directly to the merits of this bill; for, independent of all my constitutional objections, I shall be bound to oppose it on other grounds, such as have no doubt been well indicated by several other gentlemen. Then, sir, I come directly to the question, What is the bill? It is the boldest proposition that has ever been brought before this Legislature for a system of internal improvements. I give my friend from Texas [Mr. RUSK] credit for his intrepidity. I say it is the most undisguised proposition which has ever been brought before the Congress of the United States, looking to a system of internal improvements. What, then, are the provisions of the bill upon which this proposition is founded? Let me analyze them.

The bill proposes to construct a road from the Mississippi valley to some point on the Pacific ocean; and how? The President, as I understand it, is to indicate the termini at the Mississippi and the Pacific, and also the mountain passes through which the road is to go; and then he is to employ engineers to fill up the intermediate space by reconnoissances, or to make such examinations as may be satisfactory to him. What next? After the President shall have performed this function of saying where this great chanrel of commerce shall run-of having imposed upon him powers so extraordinary, and such as, in my opinion, do not belong to the Executive branch of the Government, or ever was before conferred upon any American President-we are required to divest ourselves of all legislative jurisdiction and control over a measure involving the abiding destinies of this Confederacy, and perhaps of the world. It is to be taken from the sphere of our legislative judgment, and to be transferred to the exclusive will and discretion of the Executive-a proposition heretofore entirely unknown in the history of federal legislation. It is, Mr. President, in my opinion, a precedent of fearful import.

So much as to the mode of locating the road. Now as to the means and agencies to be employed for its accomplishment. They, in my opinion, as I shall show, are equally unprecedented, dangerous, and unwise. What are they? Why, sr. $20,000,000 are to be supplied directly from the Treasury, to be paid out under the terms and conditions of the bill, which in practice would be mere parchment provisions, to be dispensed with, if need be, by an appeal to legislative liberality. Besides this amount, small as it is in comparison with what it will be in the progress of the work, we are to give alternate sections of public land, equal in amount to about twenty millions of acres, and much more as many believe. Thus we shall have contributed, at the very cOMMENCEMENT of the enterprise, means equivalent to $50,000,000 or $60,000,000, and this is but a small index of what may be the future demands upon the Treasury,

Railroad to the Pacific-Mr. Butler.

under the auspices and favorable indulgence of an interested majority.

The next question is, what agencies are to be employed in the enjoyment, direction, and appropriation of these funds?

[ocr errors]

Why, it is to be a CORPORATION, to be invested with a franchise that may be of immense value, and certainly, in its exercise will it be one of great power. It is to be a body-corporate that may wield the influence of enormous wealth and acquire a title to a tract of country that may be regarded as an isthmus through the great West to the Pacific ocean, and thus unite under the influence of capital, two of the greatest sections of this vast continent, having the elements to increase and perpetuate its own power. It will wield the lever of modern times-money, money-and like the East India Company in the exercise of its immense monopoly of pecuniary power, may usurp the attributes of sovereignty. What security have we in the future against such a result? This corporation will have every temptation and inducement to comply with all the conditions of its charter, to enable it to assume the imposing condition which its wealth and political influence may give it, to become an "imperium in imperio. But it is contended by the friends of the bill, that by its provisions, it is subject to forfeiture for a noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the grant. Depend upon it, Mr. President, there will be no forfeiture if the franchise should prove successful and profitable, and it is evident that $50,000,000 will be first expended, before any contingency for a forfeiture can arise. After that, the corporation will still be under legislative favor, if they have acted in good faith. Recent precedents go strongly to show the facility with which Congress will bestow bounties to indemnify capitalists for any losses they have sustained, or may sustain. Yes, Mr. President, I have long seen that the Federal Treasury has become an insurance office," “ to afford indemnity for the past and security for the future." In the event of the enterprise becoming wholly worthless, there will be no occasion for any forfeiture, for the corporators would then be willing to throw the enterprise upon the Government, to be carried on to completion by the contribution of unforeseen sums from the Federal Treasury, for which they, or new swarms of speculators, would be applicants. So that with a bonus of $50,000,000 or $60,000,000, or perhaps more, this chartered company, may embark in this undertaking, with more confidence of advantage, than of hazard, to themselves. They will begin with the contributions of the Government, and may well rely upon its guarantees in their future operations.

Since I have been referred to, as one that may have constitutional objections to this measure, I will present, by way of illustration, a proposition involving principles the same as those of this bill which many of the gentlemen, now advocating it, have condemned as opposed to party creed, upon the ground that it was subject to the same objections which I might well urge to it now. Suppose the proposition, once made, to construct a Federal road from Buffalo to this city, and hence on to New Orleans, were now to be revived, what would gentlemen say? Why, that it was opposed to the constitutional doctrines laid down in the Baltimore platform. Or, to make the proposition more germane to the subject, suppose the scheme was to be to extend the construction of this road from the valley of the Mississippi to the Atlantic. Gentlemen would then take party alarm, and cry out, that this savors of a general system of INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT, and violates the cardinal doctrines of the Democratic creed. In principle, the cases supposed cannot be distinguished from the measure under consideration, for this bill proposes, to make a railroad to run through two or more of the States, west of the Mississippi, by the direct appropriation of money from the Federal Treasury. The other cases referred to would propose to run a road of a similar kind through two or more States, lying east of the same river, having an Atlantic, instead of a Pacific termination. The difference, then, between these systems of internal improvement, is simply the difference between the words Atlantic and Pacific, unless the difference can be qualified, by the fact, that part of the Pacific road runs over territory, and that a desert,

SENATE.

belonging to all the United States-a distinction that cannot avail gentlemen, unless they are prepared to give up conviction, or party professions, to the force of interest, and the temptations of sectional aggrandizement; to this complexion it must come at last. They cannot even lay the flattering unction to their souls, which seems to have sustained Mr. Jefferson, in his disregard of the Constitution, by the purchase of Louisiana, upon the broad doctrine of State necessity. Such a doctrine might afford a place of refuge for a virtuous and wise magistrate, acting under the duress of necessity, whilst it might become a dangerous hidingplace for selfish expediency or criminal ambition. Gentlemen do not pretend to plead this necessity: indeed, they cannot, for a communication with California can be now had, within thirty days, by the ocean and Panama route. And when a railroad shall be completed, at some one of the many points in contemplation across the Isthmus, it is very doubtful whether this one will have any advantages over it. In a commercial point of view, it is a common opinion that there will be none. These natural facilities of communication seem to have been pointed out by the finger of God, whilst this road to be indicated, without reconnoissance or survey, will be the work of guessing man.

Now, Mr. President, let gentlemen look at it. Is not this a measure of internal improvements, to be constructed by the direction and the means of the Federal Government?-not by the direction of the Federal Government, in its full meaning, but by one of its Departments-the Executive. It is but an illustration of many of the lessons of history, that doctrine, and principle, melt and crumble under the temptations of interest. Creeds and party platforms, are but as barriers of sand against the tide of power, and the force of local combina

tions.

Allow me to say, sir, that if we are to have a system of internal improvements to be commenced now, in disregard of all our party professions, I greatly prefer that it shall be devised by the Congress of the United States, looking to the general welfare and commercial regulation of all the States of the Confederacy, rather than to such a partial system of improvements, and commercial regula tion, as have in many instances been committed to several of the States. Here, sir, I allude to the donation of public lands to several of the western and northwestern States, for the construction of railroads, and cutting of canals. The mere donation of such lands as gratuities, would be objectionable, as a partial mode of disposing of the public domain. But that is not my main objection to this policy. My objection is, it allows the States receiving such donations to make selfish regulations of commerce, not only for their own benefit, but for such as may operate to the prejudice of other States. To illustrate: I might consent to place a staff in the hands of another, under certain circumstances; but not when I know it is his design use it against myself. Self-protection is the first law of nature.

For

A single State, or one or two States acting in combination, under the influence of local and sectional interest, might yield to the temptation of making adversary diversions of commerce. instance, the lake States, to make communication through the lakes, to the great sea-ports on the north Atlantic, whilst Congress, representing all the States, would have every inducement to make commercial regulation to subserve the interests and preserve the equality of all the parts. I do not admit, however, that in such regulations of commerce by Congress, that I could expect equality in the appropriations of money for such purposes. All that I mean to say is, that a general system of internal improvements, emanating from the common council of the Confederacy, would be preferable to partial and disjointed regulations of a few of the States, frequently having inducements to make their channels of commerce adversary to others.

Mr. President, we are standing on the threshold of an eventful future. We are about to embark upon a system that will swallow up all others, and will increase the tendency of this Government, once a free confederacy of Republican States, to become a consolidated empire. We are departing from old landmarks, and entering upon a boundless wilderness of unknown powers, without chart

[ocr errors]

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

and without compass. We are committing our destinies to the discretion of irresponsible legislation, instead of allowing it to be controlled and protected by the obligations and the guarantees of a written and once-respected Constitution.

Railroad to the Pacific-Mr. Butler.

from the dangers of acceleration, and the consequences of transgression.

And now, so far from my suffering the Constitution of the United States to restrain this great law of progress, I say that it ought to have been consulted, and its expansibility ought to have been developed, in order to embrace everything that would accommodate it to this law of progress. Sir, the Constitution within itself contains the very element of self-existence-the provision of amendment. Have you amended it? Have you not practically disregarded that provision which allowed the Constitution to expand with the progress of events? Let this be answered; there stands the Constitution a dead letter, in many respects, I will not say in all. You have not expanded it by the wise interposition of the Legislature, allowed by the instrument itself, to amend it according to the exigencies of the change of human affairs. But what have you done? I intend to speak boldly, and freely, and fearlessly, before the Senate upon that subject. If I had the eloquence of Cicero, I might pay a decent tribute to the memory of the Constitution; but I could not restore it, no more than he could restore the life and virtue of the Roman Senate, over which he wept in such strains of eloquence as have survived Rome itself, and given immortality to the memory of the violated institutions of the Commonwealth, as it existed in the days of its primitive purity and simplicity, and before they were tarnished by Augustan casuistry, or imperial pollution. The Constitution has not been amended and expanded to accommodate itself to the progress of events. But what has been resorted to to supply that wise provision? CONSTRUCTION-a construction like India-rubber, that accommodates itself to the interests of those who choose to avail themselves

I fear, Mr. President, we are approaching a period in the history of this Government, when we shall have to escape from abuses and dangers by revolution, instead of resorting to reform, under the dictates of justice and the prescription of acknowledged forms of Government. But in all this, I know, sir, I have not the sympathy, much less the support, of the majority of this body. I shall therefore spare it the ungrateful task of listening to any discussion of my constitutional opinions on this great and often-considered subject. I acquit myself to the country by referring it to the opinions of the greatest statesmen who have adorned the Republican school of politics in this country. If the opinions of Jefferson, Madison, Tazewell, Crawford, Randolph, Hayne, Rowan, and other distinguished Democratic Republicans, are to be disregarded, mine may not be expected to have any weight upon your deliberations. No, Mr. President, I have lived too long, and seen too much of the predeterminations upon subjects of this kind, to enter upon discussions that are regarded as the stale notions of our ancestors, under the tide of what is called PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY. Yes, sir, I have seen enough to convince me that the machinery of this Government, in its actual operation is stronger than the Constitution. The law of progress has superseded the law of the Constitution. I was reminded by a friend, no longer than last night, of the futility of resisting what is called the progressive tendency of the age. I was asked the question, Will you continue to think with your ancestors? I will give the same reply to you, that I gave to him: I am willing to obey the law of progress, for we would not fulfill the great designs of Providence, if we were to oppose it. But to conform to that law, as I would have it observed, it must be regulated by wisdom, freedom, and justice; otherwise it becomes rash, slavish, and aggressive-running into the doctrine, that "might makes right." Under the influence of this law, as I have heard it so often interpreted upon this floor, conservative restraint and guidance, are looked upon as stupid impediments, restraining the wisdom and suppress-peal to the spirit of that sacred instrument, allow ing the genius of YOUNG AMERICA.

In looking at all nature, I find there are salutary vetoes upon the unrestrained energies and impulses of progress. No nation, or great people, ever attained security, and greatness, by a disregard of these wise lessons, and a disregard of them, even in our own history, characterized as it is by such wonderful developments, would be like Apollo giving up to Phaeton the reins of the horses of the Sun. It is a law to be conducted very much as the concerns of society are, under the impulsive energy of youth and the restraining, wisdom of age.

I once heard my venerable preceptor, Dr. Maxcy, when I was a young man, preach a sermon that struck me with great force. The occasion was upon the death of a young man, remarkable for his energy, gallantry, and every quality calculated to address itself to the favorable consideration of the youthful. In that sermon he said it was well for young men to die, for if the great machinery of this fife were committed to old age alone, with all its timid wisdom, society would become stagnant. The impulsive motive power of youth, combined with the subdued wisdom of old age, was necessary to carry on the great concerns of society. Yes, sir, one is just as necessary as the other; and he remarked that if you were to commit the whole concerns of the world to youthful energy, without the restraints and the controlling wisdom of age, you would make a great mistake. It would be a profane opposition to the laws of the universe, as regulated by the wisdom of Deity.

|

of the Constitution, whenever an advantage is to be gained by any measure. And COMPROMISES where there is no provision of the Constitution. I say, deceptive and dangerous compromises, to be violated whenever there is a temptation to do so; and platforms, deceptive, fallacious platforms, to whip parties into harness, and to keep them there, and scarcely for any other purpose. These are the miserable expedients that have been resorted to to supply the place of amendments to the Constitution. If I am to be reproached because I ap

me to say that I have been doing more to preserve this Union, and the integrity of the institutions of this Confederacy, than those who blindly obey the aggressive spirit of progress. Progress, left entirely to legislative discretion, is a law without limit or certain direction, and must vary according to the fluctuation of the times and the temptations of men. It is as easy to obey it, as to float with the current, but would be as unwise as to follow that current without knowing over what cataracts it may fall. It would be like committing the vessel to the wind, without rudder or compass. To make it safe in a political point of view, it "must have a right direction, and be kept within constitutional limits."

So much upon that general subject; and I say now, without going into the constitutional discussion, that this bill, in principle, if it be correct, allows you to appropriate money to any extent for a system of internal improvements anywhere and everywhere. Gentlemen cannot get over that proposition. I repeat it, that they may understand it. It is to appropriate money from the Federal Treasury for a system of internal improvements. To be sure, this is an internal improvement through Texas, or lowa, or Arkansas, and California. But if you can go through one State, you can go through ten; and if you can appropriate $20,000,000, you can appropriate $500,000,000. If the principles of this bill be admitted, there is no limit at all to the system of measures, that can be accomplished by the appro

trine, it is but a prelude to other measures of the same kind, such as the establishment of an Agricultural Bureau and a National University, both of which have been made the subject of public meetings and popular declamation.

Shall we trust this law of progress to the judg-priation of money by this Government. In docment, I would rather say the decision, of an unrestrained majority, having no other control than the wisdom of its discretion, and the policy of progression? Those who are for trusting alone to the impulsive energy of progress, may sow the seeds of the storm and reap the whirlwind. I have not more caution than other men, but surely I may be permitted, at least, to appeal to conservative principles and the spirit of the CONSTITUTION to save us

Having made these general observations, I come now to the specific provisions of this bill, and I intend to deal with it with gloves off. I say it is premature, undigested, and experimental; and I

SENATE.

think neither of these three propositions can be very well denied. It is premature, because we do not know where the road is to run. It is undigested, because we have had no survey, no reconnoissance, no means of intelligence to enlighten our legislative judgment, and it is experimental, for the want of these data. I know it is very convenient to transfer a legislative judgment to executive conscience; but I say we have nothing to guide our legislative judgment. Have we any reconnoissance, any survey to enable us to say where the road shall run; how high this or that mountain is which has to be passed? I heard an able engineer, no longer ago than last week, say that the great difficulty in this enterprise was the want of water along the route from which to make steam; and he said that unless Erricsson's discovery of caloric, as a motive power, could be brought into requisition, it would be a doubtful proposition to undertake to carry a steam car from the valley of the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean, · and surely no one will dispute the wisdom of this remark. That is one of the difficulties that may exist. I do not say that it will exist, because I have heard it said that if you will give an engineer money enough he will go anywhere. Only give him money enough, and he will make all obstacles vanish. But when we, within our sphere of legislative judgment, have the option to say which of four or five routes is the best, are we to be deprived of that privilege? Now, suppose three corps of engineers should be required to survey this route, and come in, and not leave it to conjecture, but demonstrate that there would be water upon one route, and that upon it the road could be built for half the money that it would cost by the other routes, should I not have a right to make a choice? Am I to transfer my legislative judgment upon this subject to the Executive? Am I to avoid the responsibility, and throw upon him a duty with which, in my opinion, the Constitution of the United States never intended to invest him? It is, therefore, I say again, premature, because we have not this survey and the knowledge to guide us.

It is undigested, I undertake to say, to the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAVIS,] because its provisions are conflicting in many respects, and because it resorts to agencies heretofore unknown to Federal Legislation. I know it has been said there was no more objection to employing a corporation to carry out the plans and policy of the Federal Government than there was to carry out the policy of the State governments. If gentlemen of the Republican school have a mind to break down all the old defenses, and say that the Federal Government has the plenitude of sovereignty that the States have, then he is entirely right. But if we act under delegated powers, they are inalienable, according to any doctrine of trust, and we have not the right to transfer them to anybody, but must discharge them ourselves.

Again: I have said that this is an experiment. How do I know that this road can be built? Perhaps it can be: But havel such satisfactory information as would authorize me to go on, and lay out a road in the way prescribed by this bill, when I have an option to choose what may prove a better? If it is demonstrated that I can have a better route, will you deprive me of the opportunity of selecting it? What has taken place here? There have been three bills presented-one by the honorable Senator from California, [Mr. GWIN,] who has delivered a speech upon it, which I do not intend again to compliment. Another bill was proposed by the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] and the one now pending has been reported by the honorable Senator from Texas, [Mr. RUSK.] The second bill is said to be better than the first, and the third better than the second; perhaps a fourth may be introduced to-morrow better than all. But it is said that we are not to wait to have one better than this-that we must avail ourselves of the temptations of opportunity; and if we do not come and make the experiment by a trial of this bill, we can have no measure; that is, in other words, we cannot wait ten months for a great enterprise of this kind. I say ten months, because I suppose until the next meeting of Congress there will be no great difficulty in getting to California overland through the different routes at present in use; and I doubt very much whether

« PoprzedniaDalej »