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

States had granted to the Netherlands the privilege of making a canal. Others had already secured the privilege, and in that point of view it was reasonable to suppose that the most we could do was to get an equal privilege with European nations. That was not the case presented when the exclusive privilege was offered to us, and the offer declined by the Senator from Delaware, without consulting the Senate.

But there is no evidence that General Jackson entertained even the opinions attributed to him. Colonel Biddle, who was appointed by General Jackson to explore the routes and collect and report information, availed himself of his official position to obtain from New Granada an exclusive privilege to himself and his associates on private account. When the existence of this private contract came to the knowledge of the Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, he reprimanded our chargé at New Granada, for having given any countenance to it. And why? Not because it contained an exclusive privilege to the United States, for it did not give us any privilege. Mr. Biddle had been sent out there to get information to be laid before the Administration. He had no power to negotiate-no authority to open diplomatic relations. He had no power to take any one step in procuring the privilege. He made use of his official position, and, in the opinion of the Administration, abused it, by securing a private grant to himself, without the authority, protection, or sanction of the Government of his own country.

Mr. Forsyth was indignant because his agent bad disobeyed his authority, and turned the public employment into a private speculation. That is not the question presented here. That contract did not give the United States the privilege at all. It gave it to Colonel Biddle and his associates. But I find nothing in that transaction, and in all the public documents relating to it, to show that General Jackson would have refused the exclusive privilege to his own country if it had been tendered to him.

How is it, then, with Mr. Polk? According to my recollection of the facts, New Granada had granted the privilege of making a canal to a Frenchman by the name of Du Quesne-I will not be certain of his name-and it was desirable to get permission to carry the mails across there. The grant had gone into the possession of a citizen of a foreign Power, and the most that our Government could ask, was to be put upon an equal footing with that other Power. It did not present the question of the privilege being tendered to us, and we refusing to accept it.

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

ence of that power he has proved the right of the
Government to do the same thing for the benefit
of American citizens, omitting England and British
subjects.

Sir, as I before said, I have no special fondness
for this special pleading about the peculiar provis-
ions of a treaty, when the real point was the ex-
tent of the privilege which we should accept.
Now, sir, I was in favor of an exclusive privilege,
and I will tell you why. I desired to see a canal
made; and when made, I desired to see it under
the control of a Power enabled to protect it. I
desired to see it open to the commerce of the
whole world, under a sound and sage protection.
How was that to be done, except by an exclusive
privilege to ourselves? Then, let us open it to the
commerce of the world on such terms and condi-
tions as we should deem wise, just, and politic.
Could we not open it to the commerce of the
world as well by our volition as England could in
conjunction with us? Would it not be as credit-
able to us as a nation to have acquired it our-
selves, and then opened it freely, as to have gone
into a partnership by which we should have no
control in prescribing the terms upon which it
should be opened? And besides, if the grant had
been made to us, and we had accepted it, and then
thrown it open to the commerce of all nations on
our own terms and conditions, we held in our hands
a right which would have been ample security for
every nation under heaven to keep the peace with
the United States. The moment England abused
the privilege by seizing any more islands, by es-
tablishing any more colonies, by invading any
more rights, or by violating any more treaties, we
would use our privilege, shut up the canal, and
exclude her commerce from the Pacific. We
would hold a power in our hands which might be|
exercised at any moment to preserve peace and
prevent injustice. Peace and progress being our
aim, we should still have continued to be the only
Government on earth whose public policy from
the beginning has been justly and honestly to en-
force the laws of nations with fidelity towards all
the nations on earth. Sir, when you surrendered
that exclusive right, you surrendered a great ele-
ment of power which in our hands would have been
wielded in the cause of justice for the benefit of
mankind.

I was not for such a restrictive policy as would exclude British vessels from going through the canal, or the vessels of any other nation which should respect our rights. I would let them all pass freely, as long as they did not abuse the privilege; close it against them when they did. I insist that the American people occupy a position on this continent which rendered it natural and proper that we should exercise that power. I had no fear of a war with England. I have none now. War should be avoided as long as possible. But, sir, you need have no apprehension of a war with her, for the reason that if we keep in the right, she dare not fight us, and she will not, especially for anything relating to American affairs. She knows she has given a bond to keep the peace, with a mortgage on all her real estate in America as collateral security, and she knows she forfeits her title to the whole, without hope of redemption, if she commits a breach of the bond. She will not fight unless compelled. We could have fortified that canal at each end, and in time of war could have closed it against our enemies, and opened it at our own pleasure. We had the power of doing it; for the Hise treaty contained provisions for the construction of fortifications at each terminus and at such points along the line of the canal as we thought proper. We had the priviIlege of fortifying it, and we had the right to close it against any Power which should abuse the privilege which we conferred.

But I shall take no time in going into a vindication of those Administrations. In the remarks that I made the other day, I chose to vindicate my own course without reference to past Administrations or present party associations; and I will pursue the same line of debate now. One word upon the point, made by the Senator, that the Hise treaty was unconstitutional. Was it not constitutional to accept the exclusive privilege to the United States? If it was not, and his constitutional objection is valid, it goes a little too far. If you have no right to accept an exclusive privilege to us under the Constitution, what right had you to take a partnership privilege in company with Great Britain? If you have no right to take the privilege for the benefit of American citizens alone, what right have you to take one for the benefit of Englishmen and Americans jointly? If you have no right to make a treaty by which you will protect an American company in making that canal, what right had you to make a treaty by which you pledged yourselves to protect a British company in making that canal? choose to put the Senator upon the defensive, and let him demonstrate his right to do this thing jointly with England, and then I will draw from his argument my right to do it for the benefit of America alone. I choose to put him in the position of demonstrating the existence of the constitutional power. He, in his treaty, exercised the power. I have not. And he, having exercised the power, having pledged the faith of the nation to do an act, I have a right to call upon him to show the authority, under the Constitution of the United States, to make a guarantee jointly with England for the benefit of English subjects as well as American citizens; and when he proves the exist

Then, sir, what was the objection to the acceptance of that exclusive privilege? I do not see it, sir. I know what were the private arguments urged in times which have gone by, and which I trust never will return; and that is, that England and other European Powers never would consent that the United States should have an exclusive right to the canal. Well, sir, I do not know that they would have consented; butof one thing I am certain, I would never have asked their consent. When Nicaragua desired to confer the privilege, and when we were willing to accept it, it was purely

SENATE.

an American question with which England had no right to interfere. It was an American question about which Europe had no right to be consulted. Are we under any more obligation to consult European Powers about an American question than the allied Powers were, in their Congress, to consult us, when establishing the equilibrium of Europe by the agency of the Holy Alliance? America was not consulted then. Our name does not appear in all the proceedings. It was a European question, about which it was presumed America had nothing to say. This question of a canal in Nicaragua, when negotiations were pending to give it to us, was so much an American question that the English Government was not entitled to be consulted. England not consent! She will consent to allow you to do that just so long as you consent to allow her to hold Canada, the Bermudas, Jamaica, and her other American possessions. I hope the time has arrived when we will not be told any more that Europe will not consent to this, and England will not consent to that. I heard that argument till I got tired of it when we were discussing the resolutions for the annexation of Texas. I heard it again on the Oregon question, and I heard it on the California question. It has been said on every occasion whenever we have had an issue about foreign relations, that England would not consent; yet she has acquiesced in whatever we have had the courage and the justice to do. And why? Because we kept ourselves in the right. England was so situated with her possessions on this continent, that she dare not fight in an unjust We would have been in the right to have accepted the privilege of making this canal, and England would never have dared to provoke a controversy with us. I think the time has come when America should perform her duty according to our own judgment, and our own sense of justice, without regard to what European Powers might say with respect to it. I think this nation is about of age. I think we have a right to judge for ourselves. Let us always do right, and put the consequences behind us.

cause.

But, sir, I do not wish to detain the Senate upon this point, or to prolong the discussion. I have a word or two to say in reply to the remarks of the Senator from Delaware upon so much of my speech as related to the pledge in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, never to annex any portion of that country. I objected to that clause in the treaty, upon the ground that I was unwilling to enter into a treaty stipulation with any European Powers in respect to this continent, that we would not do, in the future, whatever our duty, interest, honor, and safety, might require in the course of events. The Senator infers that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwilling to give a pledge that we never would do it. He reminded me that there was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the stipulation, that in certain contingencies we would never annex any portion of Mexico. Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me of that provision. He has not forgotten how hard I struggled to get that clause out of the treaty where it was retained in opposition to my vote. Had the Senator given me his aid then to defeat that provision in the Mexican treaty, I would be better satisfied now with his excuse for having inserted a still stronger pledge in his treaty. But having advocated that pledge then, he should not attempt to avoid the responsibility of his own act by citing that as a precedent. I was unwilling to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to come never to annex any more territory. I am content for the present with the territory we have. I do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico now. I did not wish to annex any part of Central America then, nor do I at this time.

But I cannot close my eyes to the history of this country for the last half century. Fifty years ago the question was being debated in this Senate whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on the west bank of the Mississippi river, and it was then contended that we could never, with safety, extend beyond that river. It was at that time seriously considered whether the Alleghany mountains should not be the barrier beyond which we should never pass. At a subsequent date, after we had acquired Louisiana and Florida, more liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that perhaps we might venture

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

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

its line; whether they will not build up towns at
each terminus; whether they will not spread over
that country, and convert it into an American
State; whether American principles and American
institutions will not be firmly planted there? And
I ask you how many years you think will pass
away before you will find the same necessity to
extend your laws over your own kindred that you
found in the case of Texas? How long will it be
before that day arrives? It may not occur in the
Senator's day, nor mine. But so certain as this
Republic exists, so certain as we remain a united
people, so certain as the laws of progress which
have raised us from a mere handful to a mighty
nation, shall continue to govern our action, just
so certain are these events to be worked out, and
you will be compelled to extend your protection
that direction.

to establish one tier of States west of the Missis-
sippi, but in order to prevent the sad calamity of
an undue expansion of our territory, the policy
was adopted of establishing an Indian Territory,
with titles in perpetuity, all along the western bor-
der of those States, so that no more new States
could possibly be created in that direction. That
barrier could not arrest the onward progress of our
people. They burst through it, and passed the
Rocky Mountains, and were only arrested by the
waters of the Pacific. Who, then, is prepared to
say that in the progress of events, having met
with the barrier of the ocean in our western course,
we may not be compelled to turn to the north and
to the south for an outlet? How long is it since
the gentleman from Delaware himself thought that
a time would never arrive when we would want
California? I am aware that he was of that opin-in
ion at the time we ratified the treaty, and an-
nexed it.

How?

Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day. I am not impatient of the time when it shall be Mr. CLAYTON. realized. I do not wish to give any additional imMr. DOUGLAS. By his voting for Mr. Crit-pulse to our progress. We are going fast enough. tenden's resolutions declaring that we did not want any portion of Mexican territory. You will find your vote in this volume which I hold in my hand. I am aware that he belonged to that school of politicians who thought we had territory enough. I have not forgotten that a respectable portion of this body, but a few years ago thought it would be preposterous to bring a country so far distant as California, and so little known, into the Union. But it has been done, and now since California has become a member of the Confederacy, with her immense commerce and inexhaustible resources, we are told that the time will never come when the territory lying half way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions will be desirable. Central America is too far off, because it is half way to California, and on the main, direct route, on the very route upon which you pay your Senators and Representatives in Congress their mileage in coming to the capital of the nation. The usual route of travel, the public highway, the half-way house from one portion of the country to the other, is so far distant that the man who thinks the time will ever come when we will want it is deemed a madman.

Mr. CLAYTON. Does the Senator apply those sentiments to me? I did not think so.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I simply say that such an opinion was indicated by the vote of the gentleman on the resolution of Mr. Crittenden.

Mr. CLAYTON. The Senator is entirely mistaken on that point.

Mr. DOUGLAS. In order to save time I waive the point as to the Senator's vote, although it is recorded in the volume before me, and he can read it at his leisure. But I am not mistaken in saying that the Senator on yesterday did ridicule the idea that we were ever to want any portion of Central America. He was utterly amazed, and in his amazement inquired where were these boundaries ever to cease? He wanted to know how far we were going, and if we were going to spread over the entire continent. I do not think we will do it in our day, but I am not prepared to prescribe limits to the area over which Democratic principles may safely spread. I know not what our destiny may be. I try to keep up with the spirit of the age, to keep in view the history of the country, see what we have done, whither we are going, and with what velocity we are moving, in order to be prepared for those events which it is not in the power of man to thwart.

You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limits of this giant Republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will be onward to a limit which I will not venture to presaribe. Why the necessity of pledging your faith that you will never annex any more of Mexico? Do you not know that you will be compelled to do it; that you cannot help it; that your treaty will not prevent it, and that the only effect it will have will be to enable European Powers to accuse us of bad faith when the act is done, and associate American faith and Punic faith as synonymous terms? What is the use of your guarantee that you will never erect any fortifications in Central America; never annex, occupy, or colonize any portion of that country? How do you know that you can avoid doing it? If you make the canal, I ask you if American citizens will not settle along

But I wish our public policy, our laws, our insti-
tutions, should keep up with the advance in sci-
ence, in the mechanic arts, in agriculture, and in
everything that tends to make us a great and pow-
erful nation. Let us look the future in the face,
and let us prepare to meet that which cannot be
avoided. Hence I was unwilling to adopt that
clause in the treaty guraranteeing that neither
party would ever annex, colonize, or occupy any
portion of Central America. I was opposed to it
for another reason. It was not reciprocal. Great
Britain had possession of the Island of Jamaica.
Jamaica was the nearest armed and fortified point
to the terminus of the canal. Jamaica at present
commands the entrance of that canal; and all that
Great Britain desired was, inasmuch as she had
possession of the only place commanding the
canal, to procure a stipulation that no other Power
would ever erect a fortification nearer its terminus.
That stipulation is equivalent to an agreement
that England may fortify, but that we never shall.
Sir, when you look at the whole history of that
question, you will see that England, with her far-
seeing, sagacious policy, has attempted to circum-
scribe and restrict and restrain the free action of
this Government. When was it that Great Bri-
tain seized the possession of the terminus of this
canal? Just six days after the signing of the treaty
which secured to us California! The moment
that England saw that by the pending negotiations
with Mexico, California was to be acquired, she
collected her fleets, and made preparations for the
seizure of the port of San Juan, in order that she
might be gate-keeper on the public highway to
our own possessions on the Pacific. Within six
days from the time we signed the treaty, England
seized by force and violence the very point now.n
controversy. Is not this fact conclusive as to her
motives? Is it not clear that her object was to
obstruct our passage to our new possessions?
Hence I do not sympathize with that feeling which
the Senator expressed yesterday, that it was a
pity to have a difference with a nation so FRIEND-
LY TO US AS ENGLAND. Sir, I do not see the evi-
dence of her friendship. It is not in the nature of
things that she can be our friend. It is impossible
she can love us. I do not blame her for not loving
us. Sir, we have wounded her vanity and hum-
bled her pride. She can never forgive us. But
for us, she would be the first Power on the face of
the earth. But for us, she would have the pros-
pect of maintaining that proud position which she
held for so long a period. We are in her way.
She is jealous of us, and jealousy forbids the idea
of friendship. England does not love us; she
cannot love us, and we do not love her either.
We have some things in the past to remember
that are not agreeable. She has more in the pres-
ent to humiliate her that she cannot forgive.

SENATE.

post at Gibraltar, except to keep it " in terrorem" over the commerce of the Mediterranean? Why her enormous expense to maintain a garrison at the Cape of Good Hope, except to command the great passage on the way to the Indies? Why is she at the expense to keep her position on that little barren island Bermuda, and the miserable Bahamas, and all the other islands along our coast, except as sentinels upon our actions? Does England hold Bermuda because of any profit it is to her? Has she any other motive for retaining it except jealousy which stimulates hostility to us? Is it not the case with all of her possessions along our coast? Why, then, talk about the friendly bearing of England towards us when she is extending that policy every day? New treaties of friendship, seizure of islands, and erection of new colonies in violation of her treaties, seem to be the order of the day. In view of this state of things, I am in favor of meeting England as we meet a rival; meet her boldly, treat her justly and fairly, but make no humiliating concession even for the sake of peace. She has as much reason to make concessions to us as we have to make them to her. I would not willingly disturb the peace of the world; but, sir, the Bay Island colony must be discontinued. It violates the treaty.

Now, Mr. President, it is not my purpose to say another word upon our foreign relations. I have only occupied so much time as was necessary to put myself right in respect to the speech made by the Senator from Delaware. He advocates one line of policy in regard to our foreign relations, and I have deemed it my duty to advocate another. It has been my object to put the two systems by the side of each other that the public || might judge between us.

Mr. MASON obtained the floor, and on his motion the further consideration of the subject was postponed until to-morrow.

MONDAY, March 14, 1853.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Post Office Department, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of February 17, calling for copies of contracts entered into for the transportation of the mails from New York, via New Orleans and Vera Cruz, to San Francisco; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, and ordered to be printed.

AMERICAN CITIZENS IN CUBA.

Mr. JAMES submitted some documentary evidence in relation to the imprisonment of James H. West, an American citizen, in the Island of Cuba; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.

OFFICERS OF THE SENATE.
Mr. ADAMS submitted the following resolu-
tion for consideration:
Resolved, That the Senate will, at this session, elect a
Secretary and Sergeant-at arms.

CAPTAIN MARCY'S REPORT.
The following resolution, submitted by Mr.
CHASE on Thursday last, was agreed to:

Resolved, That two thousand additional copies of the report of Captain R. B. Marcy of his exploration of the waters of the Red river, ordered to be printed by the resolution of the Senate of the 4th of February last, be printed for the use of the Senate; two hundred copies of which to be fur jeal-nished to Captain Marcy; and that two hundred copies of the report of Captain Sitgreaves, ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate, be furnished to Captain Sitgreaves.

I do not wish to administer to the feeling of
jealousy and rivalry that exists between us and
England. I wish to soften and smooth it down
as much as possible; but why close our eyes to
the fact that friendship is impossible while
ousy exists? Hence England seizes every island
in the sea and rock upon our coast where she
can plant a gun to intimidate us or to annoy our
commerce. Her policy has been to seize every
military and naval station the world over. Why
does she pay such enormous sums to keep her

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions submitted by Mr. CLAYTON on Monday, the 7th instant.

32D CONG....3D SESS.

Mr. MASON said: Mr. President, it is my desire to make a few remarks in reply to some of the views expressed by the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON,] in reference to the subject of debate before the Senate at the last session, connected with the affairs of Central America and the treaty between the United States and Great Britain in 1850.

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

tions. I did not participate in the debate. I did
not do it for two reasons: first, because I had not
sufficient information to enable me to form a judg-
ment satisfactory to myself; and secondly, because
the whole subject-matter being before the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations, of which I was a
member, I thought the matter ought to be inquired
into further before any opinion should be ex-
pressed upon it. The committee made its report
near the close of the late session. That report
was directed to three points. The first was as to
the alleged colony of the "Bay Islands;" and the
report informed the Senate, from the best inform-
ation within reach of the committee, that these
Bay Islands, five in number, formed part of the
dominion of the Republic of Honduras, and that
the Republic of Honduras, being undoubtedly a
part of Central America, any attempt to colonize
those islands would be in contravention of the
treaty. The second point to which the report of
the committee was directed was upon the ques-
tions connected with the British settlements at the
Balize; and the report informed the Senate, as the
judgment of the committee, that Great Britain
held no dominion at the Balize whatsoever; that
her possessions there were mere settlements, in
the character of "useful domain," as was fully

The treaty of 19th April, 1850, negotiated at Washington and ratified by the Senate of the United States, came back from England in the month of June following, having received there the ratification of the British Government, and on the 4th of July it was formally published under the proclamation of the President, thus becoming the supreme law of the land. We are all aware that when the treaty came before the Senate, there was some objection made to it, because it seemed to involve a departure from the well-established policy of this Government to avoid all foreign alliance, or any alliance that might commit or entangle us in the management of our external relations. There was found in that treaty a mutual engagement between the two Governments-England and the United States-stipulating for the mutual protection and security, and to that extent a mutual intervention in the affairs of foreign Powers connected with a projected canal through the Re-established by the treaties between Great Britain public of Nicaragua. I say that this provision of the treaty caused some difference of opinion in the Senate when it came before us, as to the propriety of departing even to that extent from the existing and well-established policy of the Government. But these objections were waived, and ultimately the treaty conciliated a large vote, because there was further in it, what I believe was considered at the time a final extinction of all claims and all pretensions to claim on the part of the British Government within the country termed by the treaty "Central America." I think I am right in saying that those provisions in the treaty conciliated objection, and the result was that it was ratified by a large vote.

and Spain; that no political character whatever
was attached to the settlements, nor was there any
government there except for police regulation.
Upon the question whether those British settle-
ments at the Balize were or were not in Central

America, the committee informed the Senate that
they had been unable to obtain information suf-
ficiently precise to determine with certainty their
exact geographic position. But, upon the proofs
before them, the committee entertained a strong
opinion that they were located within the territory
of Guatemala, and in such case, that they also
would constitute a part of Central America, and
come strictly within the renunciations of the treaty
of 1850. The third point taken was in reference to
the construction that should be placed upon the cor-
respondence between the British Minister and the
Secretary of State at the time of the exchange of
the ratifications of the treaty. The result of the
deliberation of the committee, as shown in their
report, was, that the correspondence did nothing
more than to express, as the opinion of the Exec-
utive Department of the Government, that the
treaty of 1850 left unaffected the existing rights
of the British at the Balize whatever they might
be.

The honorable Senator from Delaware, in his
remarks the other day, as I understood him, ac-
quiesced in all the conclusions to which the com-
mittee came in their report except one, and that
was in the opinion expressed by the committee
that the British settlements at the Balize were in
Central America; and the honorable Senator was
pleased to express himself rather in a manner of

"I join issue with the committee upon that point; and am prepared to show to the honorable Senator (the chairman of Foreign Relations) by abundant authority, that these British settlements at the Balize are not in Central Amer

ica, but that they are in Mexico, in the Province of Yuca

tan."

Things remained in that condition, it being the general impression of the country that whatever views or purposes Great Britain might have had upon the extended coast of Central America, they were all renounced and quieted forever by the treaty of 1850. Nor did we know to the contrary until during the last session of Congress, when information came, not in an official form, but in a manner which made a pretty strong impression upon the country, that somehow, in contravention of the provisions of this treaty, Great Britain projected the establishment, if it had not already established, a colony within the limits of Central America upon certain islands called the Bay Islands. On the 30th of December the Senate adopted a resolution calling upon the President to communicate to the Senate, if not incompatible with the public interest, any information in the possession of the Executive in relation to this projected colony. The President replied to that res-anticipated triumph. He said: olution in due time, and informed us substantially that he had no information on the subject, and that we had no diplomatic agent or government functionary of any kind in that quarter from whom information could be derived. But with the message the President communicated a correspondence which had taken place between the British Minister at Washington and the Secretary of State at the time the ratifications of the treaty of 1850 were exchanged. And so far as I am informed, it was then, for the first time, made known that anything had been appended to that treaty, or in any manner connected with it, under the shadow of which the Government of Great Britain might assume the right to continue its intervention or its dominion within the limits of Central America. A communication of such transaction produced a strong sensation in this body. It was made the occasion of an extended debate, and amongst others who participated in it were the honorable Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] whose absence and the cause of that absence we all regret; the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS, and the honorable Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. SOULE.] There were others, I believe, who took part in the debate, with a view to illustrate the character of the correspondence, and its bearing upon the stipulations of the treaty. The subject was referred to the Committee on Foreign Rela

I confess I was somewhat surprised at the very decided tone of the Senator in joining this issue. The committee had not assumed it. The committee presented to the Senate the best opinion they could form upon the state of the information before them, and they presented the question in the alternative, and in the alternative strictly. If these settlements are in Central America, then of course any extension of British dominion there will be in violation of the treaty. If not, then the treaty does not apply. The committee expressed as its opinion, that which I now entertain, but with guarded reference to the state of its information, that these settlements are in the Republic of Guatemala, and therefore in Central America. I was surprised at the very decided tone of the honorable Senator from Delaware in joining issue with the committee. I was surprised at it, because it was utterly inconsistent with the letter which he wrote in reply to the protest of the British Ministerutterly inconsistent. Let us advert to it.

I have said that the treaty of 1850 came back from London with the ratification of the British Government. Sir Henry L. Bulwer, who was

SENATE.

then the representative of England in this country, as a preliminary to the exchange of ratifications, sent to the Secretary of State this note, which is called a "declaration" on the part of Great Britain.

The British Minister says:

"In proceeding to exchange the ratifications of the convention, signed at Washington on the 19th of April, 1850, between her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, relative to the establishment of a communication by a ship canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, the undersigned, her Britannic Majesty's Plenipotentiary, has received her Majesty's instructions to declare that her Majesty does not understand the engagements of that convention to apply to her Majesty's settlements at Honduras or to its dependencies. Her Majesty's ratification ofthe said convention is exchanged under the explicit declaration above mentioned."

It is dated the 29th of June, 1850. The language of the declaration is clear and explicit. No man can misunderstand it. It is made a condition precedent to the exchange of the ratification of the treaty. The exchange was to be made on the part of the British Government, with the understanding "that the engagements of that convention should not apply to her Majesty's settlements at Honduras or its dependencies." What are the engagements of the convention? Why the engagements, were, that Great Britain would not" occupy, fortify, colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion," in any part of Central America. Now, says the British note, it is our express understanding that the engagements of that treaty do not apply to her Majesty's settlement at Honduras, Sir, if her Majesty's settlements at Honduras are within Central America the treaty did apply to themand the object of this note was, in such case, to withdraw them from its operation. The British Government may have been in doubt as to the true position of these settlements; and seeing, if they should be found in Guatemala, they would come under the renunciations of the treaty, their Minister was instructed to exhibit this protest. How was it met? Did the Secretary of State commit his Government to the English declaration, that the engagements of the treaty did not extend to these settlements? He did not. He contends now, and I think contends correctly, that his note went no further than to admit that the treaty was in no manner to affect the British title to those possessions, wherever they might be situated.

If the Secretary of State then thought, as the Senator from Delaware now thinks, that those settlements are not in Central America, why, in his answer, did he not, in two lines, say that clearly the engagements of the treaty did not apply to them, because they were not in Central America? But, Mr. President, did he give that answer? He did not. His letter, if I may be allowed to express it, with entire respect to the Senator from Delaware, is not very explicit; but taking it altogether, we can assign to it but one meaning, and that meaning is: "I dissent from your proposition, and am not prepared to say that the British settlements are not in Central America." The terms of his note are:

"The language of the first article of the Convention, concluded on the 19th day of April last, between the United States and Great Britain, describing the country not to be occupied, &c., by either of the parties, was, as you know, twice approved by your Government; and it was neither understood by them, nor by either of us, (the negotiators,) to include the British settlement in Honduras, (commonly called British Honduras, as distinct from the State of Honduras,) nor the small islands in the neighborhood of that settlement, which may be known as its dependencies. To this settlement, and these islands, the treaty we negotiated was not intended by either of us to apply."

If he had stopped there, it would import precisely what the honorable Senator now says is the geographical fact. It would have imported that the engagement of the treaty did not apply to those settlements, because they were not within the prescribed limits. But it does not stop there. In the very next line the Secretary adds:"

"The title to them, it is now and has been my intention, throughout the whole negotiation, to leave, as the treaty leaves it, without denying, affirming, or in any way meddling with the same, just as it stood previously."

So that when the British Minister called upon the Secretary of State to admit that none of the engagements of the treaty applied to the British settlements at Honduras, the Secretary of State said, in substance, "I will make no such admission, but I will admit that none of the engagements of that treaty are intended to affect the title of

is not the true term and may be calculated to mis-speaking here of the province of Merida or Yucalead. The honorable Senator from Michigan, in tan, and of the British settlements, that he meant debating this subject, at the first impression, when to say they formed a part of Yucatan, yet it is by the message of the President came in, assumed at no means conclusive." once, "Why, who can doubt that they are in Cen- The honorable Senator then refers to a Spanish tral America?-are they not geographically in that writer, Alcedo, on whom he seems to place great portion of America which lies between the two reliance. I have looked also into this work-a continents? Who can fail to see where North large geographical dictionary, a compilation-but Americă terminates, and where South America I think the honorable Senator himself will not begins, and that the intermediate strip of country ascribe much authority to Mr. Alcedo when he is of course Central America?" Geographically finds that Alcedo has been discredited by Humthe Senator from Michigan was right, but politi-boldt, who is certainly far more worthy of reliance. cally he may have been wrong, because the I find that Humboldt complains that the English tion at last is, What is meant by "Central Amer- geographer Pinkerton had pirated and misused his materials. In speaking of that piracy, he refers to Alcedo, and says: