TV 
 
 u/\ 
 
 M-2S 
 0*70?. 
 
 B 
 
X 
 GlCi 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. LEWIS PASS, OF MICHIGAN, 
 
 OUR RELATIONS WITH GREAT BRITAIN 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE JANUARY 28, 1856. 
 
 Mr.CASSsaid: Mr. PRESIDENT: No man, who 
 has read the President s annual message, can fail 
 to see that our relations with England a^e in a 
 critical condition. In that able and statesmanlike 
 paper, the Chief Magistrate has spread before 
 the country and the world, a statement of our 
 affairs with various nations, and especially of 
 our affairs with England. The whole exposition 
 is plain and comprehensive; but it is with the 
 latter, only, that I have any concern upon the 
 present occasion. And there I find the facts true 
 and clearly stated, the principles urged with force 
 and justice; and, ^hilc the indefensible preten 
 sions of England are exposed with a power of 
 truth and reason, which will carry conviction to 
 every unprejudiced mind, there is a tone of firm 
 ness pervading the document, and within the 
 limits of a proper national comity, which be 
 comes the constitutional representative of this 
 great Republic in its intercourse with the other 
 Powers of the earth. 
 
 And I have read, with much gratification, the 
 dispatches which have issued from the State 
 Department in relation to this controversy; and I 
 find them marked with signal ability. It must 
 be a satisfaction to the country to see, that its 
 important interests are committed to such able 
 management; and I will add, as a mere act of 
 justice, that the papers, which have found their 
 way to the public from that Department, during 
 the administration of the present Secretary, may 
 favorably compare with the official papers of the 
 most eminent of his predecessors. 
 
 And I fully concur in the encomium pro 
 nounced the other day by the honorable Senator 
 from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON,] himself a com 
 petent judge, upon the distinguished Minister, 
 who has conducted our negotiations at the Court 
 of London. His letters to Lord Clarendon, and 
 especially his statements, first explaining our 
 cJfee, and next examining the co.se "of England, 
 are models of diplomatic correspondence, clear, 
 cogent, conclusive, and I believe have been read 
 
 1 with pride and pleasure through the whole coun 
 try. And I trust, sir, that the public press has 
 already conveyed to Mr. Buchanan evidence of 
 the warm appreciation of his fellow-citizens. An 
 ^American Representative abroad is often placed 
 *n positions of difficulty and responsibility, where 
 the support of his countrymen is not only his best 
 reward, but his best encouragement. I have 
 found myself surrounded with such circumstances ; 
 and one of the proudest days of my life was the 
 day, when information reached me, that upon a 
 memorable occasion I had been weighed in the 
 balance by my fellow-citizens, and found not 
 wanting. 
 
 Entertaining the views I have expressed of the 
 President s message, I regretted to see, in a highly 
 esteemed and intelligent journal of this city, which 
 I have read with interest for almosthalfa century, 
 the National Intelligencer, and for whose editors 
 I have a warm personal regard, comments upon 
 the tone and temper of portions of that document 5 
 which seemed to me marked with an undue scve 
 rity of criticism. I do not propose to examine 
 them, and refer to the article principally for the 
 purpose of quoting a single paragraph. Before 
 doing so, however, I ask attention to an expres 
 sion, which conveys a forcible image, but one,! 
 consider wholly inapplicable toourposition. That 
 expression which contains much in little is, that 
 " we are drifting into difficulties." Sir, I do not 
 thus understand the circumstances, with which we 
 arc surrounded. In my opinion, our noble ship 
 is upon her true course, and our pilot is doing his 
 duty. If difficulties arc before us and I believe 
 they are we are neither drifting towards them, 
 nor they towards us. They are designedly placing 
 themselves in our way, and it would ill become our 
 self-respect, or our honor, to change our course 
 with a view to avoid them. The maneuver, even 
 if resorted to, would be but a temporary escape, 
 and we should find, that, while we had lost our 
 character, we had not gained the poor recom 
 pense of safety for dishonor. 
 
 252 
 
 
The Intelligencer, speaking of warnings it had ; 
 given, says they were " warnings prompted by j 
 observation of the increasing prevalence of a war 
 spirit amongst the politicians of the day, against : 
 indulging this martial propensity to the extent of 
 giving countenance, much less confidence, to any | 
 Administration, or to any party, now or here- i 
 after, which may show a disposition to make ! 
 capital by fomenting national jars into national 
 
 the population so in;- , as to exert no 
 
 influence upon our national cburse. Almost no 
 body wants war. But war is not to be aroided 
 by shutting our eyes to the signs of the times, 
 and crying, "all s well," when danger is upon us. 
 The ostrich, which roams the desert, and hides 
 its head in the sand, fearing it knows not what, 
 and believing that it cannot be seen, because it 
 cannot itself see, is as wise as those politicians, 
 
 hates, o/ nursing into causes "of war every ad- 1! who think to avert or avoid danger by affecting to 
 vcntitious dispute or controversy, great or smpll, be utterly ignorant of its existence. The true way 
 such as are of every-day occurrence in the family jj is to look it in the face, and to be prepared for it. 
 of nations, and from which the United States This is equally the dictate of prudence and of 
 
 " 
 
 would in vain hope for any exemption. 
 
 Sir, I am sorry to see these remarks in such a j 
 justly influential journal, not so much on account I 
 of the language, for it is guarded, but on account j 
 of the spirit, which pervades the article. Should J 
 trouble come, that paper will be a faithful co- 1 
 
 laborer in its country s cause; but, in the mean ! the loss of the respect of the world. If, in addition 
 time, such intimations are unfortunate, for they to our own experience, we wanted any other 
 
 patriotism. 
 
 Sir, war has its evils, and great, indeed, they 
 are. Many of us know them by personal observ 
 ation, and all know them by history and tradi 
 tion. But there arc evils still greater, and among 
 those is the forfeiture of our own self-respect and 
 
 tend to cast doubts upon the motives of public : 
 men, and to render them distrusted. During j 
 many years, I have observed that every one has j 
 been" exposed to similar imputations, who looked | 
 steadily at the proceedings of other nations, and ; 
 
 was prompt to observe and denounce injurious 
 or insulting conduct towards us. It seems to be 
 thought, with some, to be the dictate of caution, 
 if not of wisdom, that the public eve and car 
 should be kept almost closed, lest the country 
 should become too sensitive, and something worse 
 might happen, as though there could be anything 
 
 proof of the dire calamities, which war brings in 
 its train , we should find it in the great contest now 
 going on upon the shores of the old Euxinc, tho 
 early seats of civilization, where three of the 
 greatest nations of the world arc engaged in tho 
 
 deadliest conflict, recorded in the long annals of 
 human warfare, from the first battle described in 
 sacred history, when the four Kings went out 
 against the five Kings in the vale of Siddim, down 
 to our day. How this mighty struggle is to end, 
 1 1 or when, or with what consequences to the com- 
 ^ II batants themselves, or to the old hemisphere, it 
 
 worse than national disgrace. I do not recollcc^l would be presumptuous even to endeavor to pre- 
 
 a single controversy we have had with a foreign diet. 
 
 Power, since I have been on the stage of action, 
 
 when these ungracious charges have not come to 
 
 weaken, if not to deaden, .the inspirations of 
 
 patriotism. Certainly, sir, to observe vigilantly 
 
 the conduct of foreign nations towards our coun 
 try, and to cxposo their injustice, is not to desire 
 or to demand a war upon all occasions. The idea 
 
 A singular commentary upon the little danger 
 of war, " while statesmen keep their senses," to 
 use an expression of the Intelligencer, is furnished 
 by an event, that recently occurred in England. 
 War, indeed, did not result from it, but it is ob 
 vious that, in the public opinion there, a critical 
 state of things exists, which requires but a slight 
 
 rly unfounded/ Grave events, the gravest, ! incident to produce hostilities; and the cireurn- 
 only can justify hostilities, but far short of such ; stance to which I allude is any thing but honorable 
 x:v, nts may there be others calling for examina- | to the boasted intelligence of this middle of the 
 tion and exposure. It seems to me, sir, that the nineteenth century. It is but a few days since 
 prop-risky to doubt the justice of our own cause | the people of Engknd, with wonderful unanimity, 
 is almost an American idiosyncrasy, for I do not believed that a war with the United States was 
 believe it is equally prevalent among any other J imminent not imminent merely, but that it had 
 people on the face of the globe. I have more than ! ! actually broken out. They heard, as they sup- 
 once before been, and shall now again be, exposed posed, the guns of the hostile parties, while, m 
 to similar obloquy. But neither its advent nor tUc.t, it was the peals of their own "Thunderer, 
 "-ension has deterred me, at mu-.h < arUer now facetiously called " Blunderer, \vuen it 
 
 expression 01 an earnest iiupu umt u= i*.i,v^ j ..*>,-_ 
 
 name and the American fame will be maintained jj Olympu... 
 
 by the American people with the brightness of wfiUi the English ruler of the clouds has to limit 
 
 true glory, undiminished by the commission of a : his powers of alarm to his own nation Bi 
 
 gingle deed, or th e omission of a single deed, sent his voice to every nook of Great ,n an, 
 
 which national duty may forbid or require. 1 from Johnny Groat s house to the I 
 
 have the consolation, however, of Ivliovn^g that, currying troul* e to every loyal heait A fleet 
 
 
 of llle -Gv_t toro the pubhtsand 
 
 engage ihe country in war. There is no such 
 desire, dr, if there be, it is confined to a portion of jj each 
 
 its advocates. 
 
 v, 
 . 
 Oiie "was, that the 
 
3 
 
 naval expedition was destined to intercept a new 
 armada, more terrible t^ian its Spanish predeces 
 sor, which had left, or was about to leave, our j 
 shores, in order to wrest Ireland from English j 
 domination; and the other, that this display of a 
 
 characterize this pretension. It characterizes 
 itself. 
 
 That high officers of the English Government, 
 both in the United States and upon their borders, 
 were engaged in superintending" and directing this 
 
 nation s power was for the purpose of avenging |l business, is not denied either by them or by the 
 the insult cast upon the realm of Gtuecn Victoria, j I home authorities. It was an unfortunate moment 
 by our Attorney General, in a communication to ; to make this experiment upon our forbearance, 
 the District Attorney of New York, in which that I A great war was going on, and the nations of the 
 high functionary had, to the great offense of Eng- II earth were watching with anxiety every incident 
 lish delicacy, stated a plain case in plain language, j connected with it. We could not submit to the 
 And this national burst of indignation is another ! violation of our neutrality laws, without the nmst 
 illustration of the truth of the poetic exclama- !i serious imputations upon our honor and good 
 
 j! faith. When this interference with them became 
 1 1 known and known, too , by judicial investigation 
 
 tion 
 
 " What great effects from little causes spring !" 
 I leave to the future historian to pass judgment 
 upon the disputed point. 
 
 It is difficult, sir, to believe that any extent of 
 national credulity could suffice to enable a people 
 to swallow such humbuggei y as this; it deserves 
 no better name. And yet the humiliating fact 
 is true, beyond the reach of doubt. The whole 
 English press confirms it. I have myself seen a 
 letter from a most distinguished English gentle 
 man, who says, frankly, that he was one of the 
 "dupes"- this is the word he iises, upon that 
 occasion the dupe of an arrogant, unprincipled 
 journal, which has acquired and exercises an 
 influence over the English public mind, equally 
 strange and humiliating. Unfortunate is it for 
 any people, where the journals of the day guide, 
 instead of indicating, tne national opinion, and, 
 especially, where one of them reigns supreme, 
 and constitutes itself a new estate of the realm, j 
 
 The President, in his message, refers to another i 
 incident, which lias come to complicate our diffi- j 
 culties with England, and that is, the effort to pro- ! 
 cure recruits in the United States for the British j 
 army, and the developments which have attended i 
 it. As the President well remarks, our traditional j 
 policy has been to avoid all connection v/ith Eu- 1 
 ropean wars, and to prevent cither party from ; 
 receiving aid from this country. For this pur- 1 
 pose, laws have been passed, which form a per- 
 manent portion of our system of national inter- i 
 communication. Those laws have been violated ! 
 by persons, acting in the name of the British Gov 
 ernment. The existence of the offense has been 
 
 : there were two courses for the Government to 
 pursue in vindication of the honor of the country. 
 One was, to dismiss the British Minister, a prin 
 cipal agent in these obnoxious affairs; and the 
 other, to lay the case before the British Govern 
 ment, and to demand his recall. For myself, sir, 
 I think the former should have been instantly 
 adopted. I think the nature and the publicity of 
 the transactions, and, especially, looking to the 
 time and the condition of the world, and recalling 
 the thousand-and-one charges made against us by 
 the English press, and people, and Cabinet, ot 
 filibustering, and of permissive if not of author 
 ized, armaments in the United States, in violation 
 of our solemn duties I think this act of vigorous 
 policy was demanded by the highest considera 
 tions, and I also think it would have redounded 
 to our credit through the world. At the same 
 time, sir, I do not conceal from myself, that there 
 were very grave considerations in favor of adopt 
 ing the second course: that is, giving to the British 
 Government the opportunity of doing justice to 
 the occasion and to us by its own act. I trust a 
 demand has been made, and that it will be listened 
 to; and, if not listened to, that we shall do for 
 ourselves what, in that event, will be most ungra 
 ciously refused, and ought to have been done for 
 us elsewhere. The British Government, had it 
 been actuated by a proper spirit of friendly inter 
 course, would have recalled its Minister as soon 
 as it ascertained the awkward position in which 
 he had placed himself. It owed a prompt disa 
 vowal not less to itself than to us. 
 
 one or the other; and, least of all, has the British th 
 
 he esteem and regard of all, who arc acquainted 
 
 Government the right to say, your laws are to be ;] with him. Upon such a subject I shall take- 
 construed so and so, and we have not interfered ! counsel from my own feelings only, and not 
 with them, agreeably to our construction. Our from a lesson which I find in British parliament- 
 own judicial tribunals constitute the department \[ ary history, and which was written their, I 
 appointed to interpret our own laws. The act suppose, for my special benefit. 
 of engaging men within the United States to leave ! When I had the honor to represent my coun- 
 our territory, with a view to enlist into the. Brit- ij try abroad, my official conduct became the sub- 
 ish army, when within the British dominions, i! jcct of animadversion of censure, rather in the 
 is not denied; but we learn, from the President s ,- British House of Peers. I had, unfortunately 
 message, that it has been urged, in defense of the ! for the good opinion of the English public, done 
 act, that < f stringent instructions" were given so > what I could to counteract a scheme of their 
 to conduct the affair, as not to violate our laws, j! Government, which, if successful, would have 
 Well may the President express his surprise at : given to them the maritime supremacy of the 
 such an excuse as this! Well may he ask, how j world. Upon thatoccasion, 1 was assailed by one 
 could the British Government, with our law i who had held the highest office known to the 
 
 statute as comprehensive as ours? I will not ij has been remarkable for his versatility, having 
 
performed many parts; but while he has been 
 able in all, he has particularly excelled in vituper 
 ation. In that high assemblage, Lord Brougham 
 said, speaking of me, that "he had no more 
 conception of questions of international law, than 
 he had of the languages spoken in the moon." 
 [Here, the record says, their lordships laughed, 
 
 E leased, no doubt, with such a delicate, sarcastic 
 it; but I trust, for the honor of the aristocracy, 
 that it was not a hearty, Democratic laugh, but ; 
 rather a gentle relaxation of high-born muscles.] 
 Lord Brougham added, that " he (meaning my- | 
 self) had no more capacity for argument, or rea 
 son, than he had for understanding legal points 
 and differences;" "that he was the very imper 
 sonation of mob hostility to England;" and " that 
 he pandered to a groveling, groundling set of 
 
 Eoliticians," meaning the people of the United 
 talcs. 
 
 But the conduct of the English representative, 
 so far as it affects the honor and interests of our 
 country, is a proper subject of examination. ,j 
 Whether he. acted with or without authority, is 
 a question between himself and his Government. " 
 if without it, his course was indefensible, and 
 liis punishment should be exemplary. If with 
 it, the greater is our cause of complaint, and the 
 clearer right have we to expect reparation. 
 
 The dismissal of a Minister is no cause of war. 
 It has been often done. It is a measure, AVC have 
 more than once taken, and England many times. 
 On one occasion, she sent home a foreign embas- 
 fiador under guard. Spain, fallen as she is from 
 her former high estate, quite recently testified her 
 dissatisfaction with a British Minister, by order 
 ing him out of the country. 1 repeat, sir. this 
 act of national sovereignty is no just cause of 
 war; and if it be made the pretext for one, why 
 so be it we will meet it as we may. The pros 
 ecution and conviction of an English consular 
 agent in a Prussian Court, for a similar offense, 
 seems to have excited in England neither sur 
 prise nor complaint. Both were reserved for us. 
 He, who believes that England would have per 
 mitted such a breach of her laws to pass unnoticed , 
 under such circumstances, has read her history 
 to little purpose. 
 
 One of the recent arrivals from England has 
 brought an article in the London Morning Herald , 
 of December 20, 1855, which is not unworthy of 
 notice in this connection. This article says that, 
 notwithstanding the "bluster" here, no doubt but 
 the foreign enlistment affair was a "plot," got 
 up by tae "American press" at "the instance, it 
 v/oufd seem, at all events, with the knowledge, of 
 the American Secretary of State." The Herald 
 asserts it was proposed to the Government through i 
 Mr. Crampton,and not objected to. It also states j 
 that, at the trial in Philadelphia, an attempt was j 
 made to implicate Mr. Crampton, " too gross even | 
 1 or a Yankee court of justice." The Attorney j 
 General is charged with "grossncss,"^" vulgar- i 
 ity," " daring assertion," " inconclusiveness;" 
 and certain members of the Government arc 
 charged with laying " this plot to implicate our 
 officials." 
 
 Notwithstanding " struggles for notoriety, ma 
 lignancy of tiic southern and the inextinguishable 
 hatred of the Irish," and though " the Yankee 
 may bluster and rave," the Herald predicts, that 
 it will all end in nothing. 
 
 Now, sir, this precious diatribe is only im 
 portant, as an indication of the popular feeling in 
 England . Here is one of the great London newspa 
 pers, printed within sound of Bow-bells, abound 
 ing in the most ridiculous specimens of nonsense 
 and malignity, it is possible to compress within 
 such a space, issued, and read, and believed, and 
 enjoyed in the land of all the DECENCY. There is 
 nothing too gross for the English palate, in rela 
 tion to our country. I must confess, as a western 
 man, who crossed the Ohio when a lad, and spent 
 a large portion of his life contending with the ob 
 stacles of a new country, and upon the very verge 
 of civilization, that my self-love is a little wounded 
 at the classification, by the writer in the Herald, of 
 the people of the United States; recognizing none 
 but Southerners, and Irishmen, and Yankees- 
 thus ignoring the great West, with its six mil 
 lions of people, exceeding in population more 
 than half of the kingdoms of Europe. However, 
 I console myself with the reflection, that we shall 
 be heard of by-and-by, and that in the mean time, 
 this ignorance is not strange in a region where, 
 it is said, that wonder is often expressed at find 
 ing, that an American is white, and speaks the 
 English language. The same arrival, that brought 
 the Morning Herald, brought also this most ac 
 ceptable piece of information, that "the report 
 which recently prevailed, that the United States 
 had made a treaty with the Shah of Persia, guar 
 antying the territory on the Persian Gulf, had 
 proved" erroneous." Great relief this must have 
 afforded in England ! " How little wisdom "said 
 a Swedish statesman to his son "\Aoii little wisdom 
 does it take to govern the world!" How little common 
 sense, we may exclaim, is exhibited in Europe 
 on the subjct of American affairs! 
 
 We have had many difficulties with England, 
 from the time she refused to sur^nder the^ west 
 ern posts, under the treaty of peace of 1783, to 
 this day; and I will not say all, but almost all, of 
 them resulted from her conduct towards us, and 
 were causes of complaint on our part. 
 
 Why this never-ceasing injustice? Why seek, 
 not only to injure, but to degrade us, in the eyes 
 of the world? I have often sought the reason, 
 and can only find it in hostility to our institutions, 
 and jealousy of the advance, we have made in all 
 the elements of power and prosperity, and still 
 more at the wonderful career before us. Time 
 brings no relaxation of this unfriendly feeling. It* 
 brings professions enough, but little correspond- 
 in"- action. And the operation of the feeling is as 
 evident at this day, as at any former period of our 
 intercourse. So far as we know, the conduct of 
 the Ministry has called forth no token of public 
 disapprobation. 
 
 Mr. President, we had a short discussion the 
 other day upon the subject of the oft-debated 
 Monroe doctrine. I propose very briefly to re- 
 examine it; and I shall do so with the more con 
 fidence, because I have just refreshed my recol 
 lection by a conversation with the person, who, 
 of all living men, has the most right to speak 
 authoritatively upon this matter. I refer to Mr. 
 Rush, whose name is well and favorably known 
 to the whole country, which he has served with 
 honor and ability in various high capacities, at 
 home and abroad, and who was our Minister in 
 England, when this doctrine was first broached. 
 I have already expreeeed the pleasure I felt at the 
 
progress this great American principle had made, 
 and at the hold, it had obtained upon the public 
 mind, and especially at the adhesion to it, which 
 had been pronounced here by two able and dis 
 tinguished Senators. It has grown in favor, 
 rapidty but firmly; for the tenth year has not yet 
 passed away, since I addressed the Senate upon 
 the subject, and they refused even to refer it to 
 the Committee on Foreign Relations for examin 
 ation. Mr. Buchanan said well and truly, in 
 one of his notes to Lord Clarendon, that, "when 
 first announced, more than thirty years ago, it 
 was hailed with enthusiastic approbation by the 
 American people; and since that period, different 
 Presidents of the United States have repeated it 
 in their messages to Congress, and always with 
 unmistakable indications of public approbation." 
 
 When this subject was before us, in one of its 
 almost periodical visits, some years since, I said: 
 " Rut these resolutions, (resolutions recognizing 
 the doctrine,) or equivalent ones, embodying the 
 same principles, will pass the Legislature of the 
 United States. Their passage is but a question 
 of time. They may fail to-day, and they may 
 fail again. Timidity, or imbecility, may overrule 
 that firm sagacity which befits our condition. It 
 is just as certain, that these principles themselves 
 will be permanently engrafted into the American 
 policy, and in the most imposing form, as that 
 they are now engrafted in the hearts of the 
 American people." 
 
 What, sir, is the Monroe doctrine ? Let Mr. 
 Monroe answer the question. In his annual 
 message to Congress, in 1823, he announced his 
 views upon two important subjects. They are 
 as follows, and are to be found in different parts 
 of the message: 
 
 " 1. That it was impossible for the Allied 
 Powers to extc.nd their political system to any 
 part of America, without endangering our peace 
 and happiness, and equally impossible, therefore, 
 that we should behold such interference with in 
 difference." 
 
 " 2. That the occasion had been judged proper 
 for asserting, as a principle, in which the rights 
 and interests of the United States were involved, 
 that the American continents, by the free and in 
 dependent condition, which they had assumed 
 and maintained, were henceforth not to be con 
 sidered as subjects for future-colonization by any 
 European Power." 
 
 It is extraordinary, sir, that any one could sup 
 pose, that these declarations had reference, only, 
 to the peculiar position of the Spanish colonies. 
 The first had, but the second was addressed to 
 all nations, and was intended to operate during 
 all time. It was the annunciation of -a new line 
 of policy. On what was it founded? On the 
 situation of our country, and of the various States 
 of this continent, which demanded a system as 
 Mr. Jefferson said, " separate and apart from 
 that of Europe." For ages after the discovery, 
 the colonies, planted in this hemisphere, were the 
 mere appendages of the mother countries; used 
 for the purposes of trade, and without the slight 
 est view to the establishment of any enlarged pol 
 icy for their prosperity or increase. They were 
 useful in peace for the purposes of commerce; 
 and in war, to aid in its prosecution. When the 
 successful result of our Revolution established an 
 independent power on this side of the Atlantic, 
 
 it began to be perceived, that new interests had 
 arisen, which would necessarily lead to great 
 changes. And when the Spanish colonies took 
 the same position, as sovereign States, it became 
 evident, that the^time had arrived for some deci 
 sive action upon the subject. It was impossible 
 jj for the United States to permit, if they could 
 ! prevent it, the recolonization of those countries, 
 or the establishment of new colonies. They could 
 not suffer a state of things, which would forever 
 connect those vast regions with European Powers, 
 making them parties to distant wars dynastic, 
 ambitious, and what not in which they had no 
 concern; and thus endangering cur safety and our 
 interests placed as they were on our very bor 
 ders, keeping us in perpetual alarm. The great 
 code of public law is not a rigid, unbending one. 
 It accommodates itself to the advancing condition 
 of the world; of which power of adaptation 
 many examples are on record, as in the case of 
 the principle of the right of occupation, resulting 
 from discovery, and the abrogation of the claim 
 of dominion over what was called the narrow 
 seas. Many other instances arc to be found, but 
 I shall not stop to seek them. The question is 
 well touched by Mr. Canning, who said to Mr. 
 Rush: 
 
 " It concerned the United State?, under aspects and in 
 terests, as immediate and commanding, as it did or could 
 any of the States of Europe. They were the first Power 
 on that continent, and confessedly the leading Power. They 
 were connected with Spanish America by their position, as 
 with Europe by their .relations; and thoy also stood con 
 nected with those new States by political relations. Was 
 it possible they could see with indifference their fate de 
 cided only by Europe? Could Europe expect such indiffer 
 ence ? H ad not a new epoch arrived in the relative position 
 of the United States towards Europe, which Europe must 
 acknowledge? Were the great political and commercial 
 interests, which hung upon the destinies of the new conti 
 nent, to be canvassed and adjusted in this hemisphere, (Eu 
 rope,) without the cooperation, or even knowledge, of the 
 United States?" 
 
 And to the same purport speaks Mr. Everett 
 in one of the most admirable letters to be found 
 in the whole history of diplomacy. He said, 
 speaking of the influence of the United States: 
 
 " But a new element of incalculable importance in ref 
 erence to territorial arrangements is henceforth to be recog 
 nized in America." 
 
 This principle of European non-interference in 
 the affairs of this continent has been advocated, 
 and brought before Congress and the country, by 
 three Presidents of the United States at different 
 intervals, and under circumstances, calling for 
 action. In Europe, such a HIIQ of policy might 
 well be marked out by the executive authority, 
 as that department of the Government possesses 
 the power to enforce it, being vested with the 
 right to make war. But here the Executive oc 
 cupies a very different position, and he can estab 
 lish authoritatively no such principle, without the 
 cooperation of Congress. He may recommend, 
 but the Legislature alone can sanction and en 
 force his views. We ought, sir, years ago, by 
 congressional interposition, to have made this 
 system of policy an American system by a solemn 
 declaration; and, if we had done so, we should 
 have spared ourselves much trouble, and no little 
 
 mortification. But we let the time pass by, with 
 out appreciating our high responsibilities, leaving 
 important interests to be the sport of circum 
 stances. And why this indifference to a measure, 
 | urged upon us by so many grave considerations? 
 
G 
 
 The honorable Senator from New York [Mr. 
 SEWARD] said, the other day, that this doctrine 
 v. r as an abstraction, and had therefore found no 
 favor with Congress. Sir, it was never an ab 
 straction. There never was a moment, when its j 
 res >lute confirmation by Congress would not jj 
 have been of the highest importance to the honor, 
 the interest, and the safety of our country. The 
 ! itive confirmation would have been no more 
 an abstract declaration, than the executive rec 
 ommendation. Both the one and the other were 
 demanded by the gravest considerations. No, jj 
 sir, it was not the fear of abstractions, which in- |i 
 terfercd between Congress and this good work. L 
 It was some undefined apprehension, that, if we ii 
 spoke the words, we must adhere to them; and !| 
 that, if we adhered to them, they would be words 
 of terrible import to our country. I am happy 
 to believe, that timidity is giving way to a wise 
 firmness. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. Will the honorable Senator 
 allow me to ask him a question at this point by 
 way of elucidating this matter? 
 
 Mr. CASS. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. I desire to avail myself of j 
 the honorable Senator s recollection about the oc 
 casion when the debate, to which he alludes, took 
 place. Was there at that time before Congress a 
 practical question of conflict, or apprehended con 
 flict, in regard to any portion of the territory of 
 Central America? 1 ask the question, because I 
 have quite forgotten the occasion on which the 
 debate to which he refers took place. 
 
 Mr. CASS. I beg pardon; I referred to the 
 honorable Senator s declaration on the introduc 
 tion of the President s message. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. I spoke then of the reason 
 why it failed upon the occasions when it had been 
 brought forward, referring especially to an occa 
 sion since I had been a member of this House, 
 when the honorable Senator from Pvlichigan him 
 self brought it forward, and I thought then it was 
 presented without an occasion. 
 
 Mr. CASS. Mr. President, so far as I know, 
 the first attempt to procure the cooperation of the 
 American Legislature in this doctrine was on its 
 redeclaration by Mr. Polk. He certainly intro 
 duced it in reference, to the then pending di 
 ties in regard to Oregon. There was a plain, 
 practical point. We refused to say a word, and, 
 I repeat, we refused then even to take it (the 
 subject) into consideration. On the other occa 
 sion fo which the honorable Senator refers, there 
 was a resolution, I think, introduced by myself; 
 but I do not recollect, what particular hearing it 
 had, except its general bearing, on the welfare, of 
 the country. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. That is what I understood, \ 
 and therefore 1 asked the question. 
 
 Mr. CASQ. Tlie circumstances connected with j 
 Mr. Monroe *s communication are well known, and i 
 properly called for the consideration and action of j 
 Congress; but it found neither. When Mr. Polk 
 adopted and renewed the declaration, the Oregon 
 controversy wa.s pending, and it was a peculiarly 
 fitting occasion for a union of the legislative and 
 executive powers, in order to bring this great 
 work to its consummation. Still, nothing was 
 done. And, now, this subject is again brought 
 before us by another President, and with a view 
 to its direct bearing upon the discussion, in which 
 
 we find ourselves engaged with England. Some 
 years since, as I have stated, the debate in the 
 Senate was brought on by resolutions intro 
 duced by myself, affirming the concurrence of 
 Congress in the anti-colonial doctrine. It was 
 fruitless in any useful result, and thus this Amer 
 ican principle has been but a barren diet ;;.>/;, as 
 Lord Clarendon calls it, and will never fructify 
 until it receives the sanction of the Federal Legis 
 lature. 
 
 The honorable Senator from New Hampshire, 
 [Mr. HALE,] in the remarks he made upon this 
 subject a few days ago, referred to the \ i> -\\ s ex 
 pressed by Mr. Calhoun, in the Senate, in relation 
 to this doctrine, and maintained, that no general 
 principle of action was laid down by Mr. Monroe, 
 but that his efforts were limited to the preserva 
 tion of the independent States of Spanish origin 
 from the grasp of the Holy Alliance, as the union 
 of various despotic powers to put down popular 
 demonstrations was called. The unholy alliance 
 would have been its proper designation. 
 
 There is no doubt, sir, but that the threatening 
 aspect of affairs in relation to these Spanish 
 States, and the known project to bring them under 
 the dominion of some Bourbon prince, was the. 
 prominent cause, which led Mr. Monroe to inter 
 pose upon that occasion. Circumstances do not 
 create principles. They call them into action. 
 Circumstances occurred, which directed the atten 
 tion of the American Government to an approach 
 ing crisis, and it then investigated, not only its 
 line of action, but the ground upon which that ac 
 tion could be justified, and the result was this well- 
 known declaration. In our position, it is one of 
 the great elements of our strength, and of our 
 means of self-defense. It is perpetual, as well in 
 its obligations, as in the security, it brings with it. 
 It interfered with no existing rights, but looked 
 to the future, with a view to guard that from 
 danger. 
 
 Mr. Monroe promulgated, what is known 
 through the world as his doctrine the American 
 doctrine of American self-preservation. It is now 
 sought to degrade it to a mere temporary expe 
 dient, living while the Holy Alliance lived, and 
 dying with the death of that unprincipled league. 
 Now, sir, Mr. Monroe is the best expositor of 
 his own views. Hear him. In his annual mes- 
 ;f 182-i, when the danger from the Holy Al 
 liance had passed away, he said, renewing his 
 iiuendation, that we had no concern with 
 European wars, but " with regard to our neigh 
 bors our situation is different. It is impo. 
 for the Euro]- can Governments to interfere in their 
 ally iii those alluded to, which 
 are vital, without aiiecting us." 
 
 Halt, sir, we have another witness to introduce, 
 whom no American can hear without respect and 
 gratitude, the writer of the Declaration of Indc- 
 riiuvh of the Democratic faith, 
 the statesman and patriot, second only to Wash 
 ington in the estimation of his countrymen. Mr. 
 Monroe, during his whole Presidency, was in 
 the habit of the most confidential communication 
 with Mr. Jefl erson upon all questions of serious 
 concern. He consulted him upon this subject, 
 and here follows the answer, dated October 24, 
 1823. Never were sentiments sounder in them 
 selves, or more beautifully expressed: 
 
 " The question presented by the letters you have sent me 
 
Is the most momentous, which has ever been offered to my 
 contemplation, since that of Independence. That made us 
 a nation ; this sets our compass, and points the course, which 
 tve are to steer through the ocean of time. And never coukl 
 we ombark on it under circumstances more auspicious. 
 Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to en- 
 tiiiiL N 1 ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never 
 to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Jiilantic affairs. 
 America, North and South, has a set of interests, distinct 
 from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own. She should, 
 therefore, have a system of her own, separate and apart 
 from that of Europe ; the last is laboring to become the 
 dornicil of .despotism our endeavor should surely be to 
 make our hemisphere that of freedom." 
 
 And now there are those, who would mar the 
 magnificent figure of Mr. Jefferson, by converting 
 his ocean of time into a mere duck pond, and his 
 fundamental maxim, never " to suffer Europe to 
 intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs, into the his 
 torical recollection of a temporary project to save 
 our neighboring States from a blow aimed at that 
 time .at their safety, and all danger from which 
 passed away, as suddenly as it had arisen. 
 
 And there is another voice from the tomb, which 
 speaks the same confirmatory language, respect- 
 in this doctrine the voice of one whose memory 
 will live upon the pages of our history, and in the 
 hearts of our countrymen, as long as true genius 
 and elevated patriotism shall find admirers. 
 
 In 1825, Mr. Clay, then Secretary of State, in 
 a Jpttcr to Mr. Poinsett, says, "that the then 
 President, Mr. Adams, who was Secretary of 
 State when Mr. Monroe advanced his doctrine, 
 coincides in both principles, (non-interference 
 and anti-colonization ,) which were laid down after 
 much and anxious deliberation on the part of the 
 late Administration. The President, (Mr. Adams,) 
 who then formed a part of it, continues to coin 
 cide wj^h both, and you will urge upon the Gov 
 ernment of Mexico the utility and expediency of 
 asserting the same principles on all proper occa 
 sions." 
 
 It, is obviouTs, sir, that Mr. Calhoun was under 
 a misapprehension in relation to the views of Mr. 
 Monroe upon this subject. He himself stated, 
 that his recollection of it was imperfect, and that 
 it was so,isbeyoTid all contradiction. He con 
 sidered that the " declaration of Mr. Monroe had 
 reference to a specific case, (the Holy Alliance,) 
 and stopped there." " Mr. Monroe," he added, 
 " was a wise man, and had no design of burdening 
 the country with a task it could not perform. He 
 knew there was a broader declaration made by the 
 gentleman, then Secretarjr of State, " &c. What 
 Mr. Calhoun here alluded to, I profess my in 
 ability to comprehend. No declaration could well 
 be broader, than that^of Mr. Monroe; and what 
 ever agency or advice ?Ir. Adams may have had, 
 or given in the matter, its responsible paternity 
 rests upon the Chief Magistrate. I have reason 
 to believe, that Mr. Adams was anxious for the 
 measure, though his precise share in it I do not 
 know. Indeed, Mr. Clay, by his authority, as I 
 have shown, avowed his concurrence in it. But, 
 sir, those who knew Mr. Monroe well know that 
 he was entitled to the character cf wisdom, here 
 given to him by Mr. Calhoun He was a safe 
 and sagacious statesman, cautious in his investi 
 gations, looking narrowly into every question 
 presenting itself, hearing all that could be said, 
 and then deciding for himself, and adhering with 
 unshaken firmness to his decisions. I knew him 
 well, and hold him in remembrance as a true 
 patriot and a pure one, and the worthy successor 
 
 |1 of his personal and political friends, Jefferson 
 
 I and Madison. The declaration of Mr. Monroe 
 
 il contained the enunciation of a general principle, 
 
 I arid its application to a particular case, while Mr. 
 
 Calhoun has confined it to the latter, divesting it 
 
 thus of all claim to the establishment of a great 
 
 line of policy. 
 
 It has been said here more than once, and I 
 think, though I am not certain, that it was said 
 by Mr. Calhoun, that the course of action of 
 Mr. Monroe upon this subject, was the result of 
 a suggestion made by Mr. Canning to Mr. Rush. 
 This is another, among the many errors, which 
 seem to have clustered around this whole matter. 
 It is easy to show this. 
 
 As early as July, 3823, Mr. Rush received 
 from the Department of State a dispatch, contain 
 ing the views of the President upon the Spanish- 
 American question, corresponding, substantially, 
 with the ground, subsequently taken in the mes 
 sage. They were transmitted to him, not for any 
 immediate diplomatic action, but to put him in 
 possession of the opinions of the Government, 
 as circumstances might arise, rendering it neces 
 sary for him to be acquainted with them. Mr. 
 Rush, I understand, had his first conversation 
 with Mr. Canning, at the request of the latter, 
 towards the end of August in that year; and his 
 dispatches, announcing the result of that, and of 
 other subsequent interviews, did not reach Wash 
 ington until about the middle of November, just 
 before the opening of Congress, as Mr. Rush says, 
 in his interesting narrative of this diplomatic epi 
 sode. Now, I have already read an extract of a 
 letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Monroe, dated 
 October 23, 1823, by which it appears, that the 
 President had communicated to the retired Patri 
 arch his impressions, and probably his inten 
 tions, in relation to this whole subject, which 
 met, as we havc^seen, the most cordial approba 
 tion; and I have no doubt but that a similar cor 
 respondence, with a like approval, took place 
 with Mr. Madison. It is obvious, that a course, 
 involving such important principles, and fraught, 
 it might be, with startling consequences, must 
 have been some time under the consideration of 
 a cautious statesman, like Mr. Monroe, before it 
 could assume a shape, proper to be submitted for 
 the opinion of Mr. Jefferson. It is clearly im 
 possible, that the suggestions of Mr. Canning 
 could have led to the establishment of this doc 
 trine, or to its promulgation. Why, sir, it is a 
 well-known historical fact, that when the massage 
 of Mr. Monroe reached Europe, it excited a great 
 sensation among the politicians, and nowhere a 
 greater one than in England. Mr. Canning had 
 proposed to Mr.Rush that the United States should 
 take ground against the extension of the schemes 
 of the Holy Alliance -to the Spanish-American 
 States, and promised the cooperation of England. 
 The proposition reached here, when, as we have 
 seen, Mr. Monroe was about to submit his doctrine, 
 to Congress. He accepted the suggestion of Mr. 
 Canning, as to the particular case, which wag 
 all the British Government wanted, but he also 
 accompanied his action with a declaration of the 
 principles, which he thought should guide his 
 country thereafter. Now, sir, Mr. Canning did 
 not partake of the mistake, which prevails here. 
 He saw that the special interposition was tempo 
 rary, but that the doctrine itself was perpetual. 
 
8 
 
 I am informed by one who knows, that no man 
 in Europe was more surprised than was Mr. 
 Canning, when he found that the American Gov 
 ernment had gone so far beyond his wishes and 
 expectations. And we see, sir, to this day, that 
 the point is perfectly understood in England; for 
 Lord Clarendon, in his statement, said to Mr. 
 Buchanan, but the other day, that the anti-colo 
 nization declaration of Mr. Monroe was " but the 
 dictum of the distinguished person, who declared 
 it, but her Majesty s Government cannot admit 
 that doctrine, as an international axiom, which 
 ought to regulate the conduct of European States. " 
 Here is no attempt to avoid the principle, nor is 
 there any in the answer of Mr. Buchanan, who 
 frankly avows his adhesion to the "dictum," 
 and adds, with true American spirit, that " if the 
 occasion required, he would cheerfully undertake 
 the task of justifying tf?fe wisdom and sound policy 
 of the Monroe doctrine, in reference to the nations 
 of Europe, as well as those of the American 
 Continent." I wish our Minister had been called 
 upon to do this work. He would have done it 
 well and conclusively, and in a manner, which. I 
 doubt not, would have been satisfactory to his own 
 countrymen, if not to European politicians, and 
 which might have silenced objections at home.. 
 
 Mr. Canning, sir, arrogated the credit of one 
 great measure to himself, .to which he had no 
 just claim. Let him not have the merit of an 
 other, to which he advanced no pretensions. He 
 said, in quite a grandiloquent vein, in the British 
 House of Commons, that he had called the Span 
 ish-American Republics into being, and his words 
 fell with proud assent upon English cars. But, 
 sir, the boast had no foundation. At the very 
 time he made it, those Republics had achieved 
 thoir own independence, and were beyond the 
 reach of Spanish resubjugation, and that inde 
 pendence had been formally acknowledged by the 
 United States. I think 1 am correct in the state 
 ment of this fact. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER, (in his seat.) It is so. 
 
 Mr. CASS. I believe, sir, that to Mr. Clay, 
 more than to any other statesman, American or 
 European, was due the entrance of those States 
 into the family of nations. 
 
 But, after all, sir, this inquiry into the origin of 
 the Monroe doctrine has but a speculative inter 
 est. To adopt an expression, familiar to the 
 ears of Senators, it is well " to vindicate the truth 
 of history," and to vindicate it upon this point; 
 but tiiis great c.is-Atlantic principle does not now 
 derive its strength from its origin or its author; 
 it rests upon a surer foundation, upon the cordial 
 concurrence of the American people, and is des 
 tined to be a broad line upon the chart of their 
 policy. One motive with some of us perhaps 
 with many of us in the Senate, for supporting the 
 Clayton-Bulwer treaty was, that, if carried out in 
 good faith, it would peaceably do the work of the 
 Monroe doctrine, and free an important portion 
 of our continent from European interference. 
 That it has so far signally failed is no fault on our 
 side. Whether it is to be a triumph as well as a 
 fault, on the other, will depend on the firmness 
 and self-respect, which may direct and accompany 
 our course. I am well aware, that, during the 
 premiership of Lord Palmerston, an amicable ar 
 rangement, or rather a fair fulfillment of the treaty, 
 agreeably to its obvious import, and the avowed 
 
 object of the parties, is an event hardly to be 
 hoped for. I have nothing to say of that distin 
 guished English statesman, incompatible with his 
 own high position, or this high place, where cir 
 cumstances have given to his views, to his tem 
 perament perhaps, an importance rarely attached 
 to a public man out of his own country. But he 
 is not only the official head of the British admin 
 istration; he is also its guiding spirit; and his 
 probable course is no matter of indifference to the 
 people of the United States. Some time since, 
 sir, in this Chamber, I took occasion to say that, 
 of all the active public men of England, I con 
 sidered Lord Palmerston the most unfriendly to 
 our country, and that his exertions would never 
 be wanting in any effort to oppose us. This opin 
 ion was received with some surprise, and a good 
 deal of incredulity, but I believe his sentiments 
 are now pretty well understood here, and nothing 
 favorable is expected from him. Sir , he un doubt- 
 cdly nourishes the strongest prejudices against 
 our institutions, our progress, and our prospects; 
 and there is hardly a well-informed American, 
 returning from Europe, who will not confirm this 
 i-epresentation. His observation to Mr. Castel- 
 lon, the Nicaraguan Minister, is indicative, not 
 only of his sentiments towards us, but of his 
 estimate of our firmness. He said: 
 
 " We have been disposed to treat the United States with 
 so;ne degree of consideration; but, in reference to this 
 question, it is a matter of total indillenMico to her Ma 
 jesty s Government what ehe may say or do." 
 
 Very complimentary, this, to our national pride. 
 His lordship may yet be disappointed. From 
 the beginning, he has been no friend of this treaty; 
 nor do I believe it would have been formed, had 
 he directed the Government at the time.* And I 
 believe, now, sir, that these difficulties would be 
 adjusted by an honest interpretation being put 
 upon this convention, within oA month after 
 the accession of a liberal statesman to the station 
 now held by Lord Palmerston. Till that event 
 takes place, it will be the dictate of true wisdom 
 not to anticipate, though we will still hope for, 
 an amicable arrangement but to take counsel 
 from the duty we owe to ourselves. The treaty, 
 from its commencement, has been set at naught 
 ujym the most flimsy pretexts. 
 
 /ft is evident that Lord Clarendon has adopted 
 the views, and participates in the feelings of Lord 
 Palmerston upon this whole subject, as also that 
 the pretensions they have advanced will be tena 
 ciously adhered to. For myself, I do not sro 
 how they are to.be abandoned without self-stulti 
 fication by tho se, who have thus far so strenu 
 ously maintained them. The attempt to torture 
 language to the accommodation of preconceived 
 purposes was never more palpable than in this 
 case. Let any one compare the able and frank 
 opinion of Mr. Johnson, who was our Attorney 
 General, when this treaty was negotiated, with the 
 opinion given by the Gluecn s Advocate, the la\y 
 officer of the British Government in its communi 
 cation with other Powers, and he cannot but bo 
 struck with the contrast. Before I sit down, 1 
 shall ask to have Mr. Johnson s opinion read at the 
 Clerk s table. It is entitled to high commendation 
 for its clearness and ability; and I am happy to 
 have this opportunity of testifying my respect and 
 regard for that able and accomplished gentleman. 
 And what says the Queen s Advocate, that high 
 
9 
 
 legal counselor? Why, that the treaty provides 
 that neither party shall occupy, or fortify, tor 
 colonize, or assume, or exercise any dominion 
 [Mr. CLAYTON. iny dominion meaning ,any 
 dominion whatever.] over Central America; yet 
 that either party may, at its pleasure, send a fleet 
 or army into any part of that vast region, if it abstains 
 from occupying, or fortifying, or assuming, or exer 
 cising dominon therein. Now, sir, all this, I repeat, 
 is not less an insult to common sense, than to 
 the position of our country before the world. It is 
 equally in defiance of the spirit, and of the text of 
 the arrangement. Here is a mutual convention, 
 entered into, for the purpose of securing an im 
 portant region from the control and influence of 
 the contracting parties, professing to leave it to 
 its own management and its own fate ; and now 
 it is maintained that fleets and armies may invade 
 that country, (I do not speak of a just war; that 
 is without the treaty; but of armaments sent for 
 protection, as it is called,) provided they exercise 
 no dominion. I desire to know how a British army 
 could encamp upon the soil of Nicaragua "with out 
 occupation and the assumption of dominion ? 
 They might not choose to interfere with the inter 
 nal administration of the country; but that volun 
 tary forbearance would not affect their power or 
 influence in the slightest degree. You might as 
 well say, that the Austrians exercise no dominion 
 at Ancona, nor the French at Rome, because the 
 local police at both places is left to do its own 
 ungracious work. "Dominion," says the great 
 English lexicographer, "is power;" and to con 
 tend that an English army, with the panoply of icar, 
 could traverse one of those feeble Central Ameri 
 can States without power powerless indeed ! 
 is to say that language has lost its force, and that 
 conventions for the accommodation of national 
 differences are but waste paper, to be read, as the 
 purposes of interest or ambition may dictate. 
 
 It was not difficult, it appears to me, to antici 
 pate the present state of things. Certainly, I 
 thought I foresaw it, and I predicted it three years 
 ago. Lord "Clarendon kindly wrote a dispatch 
 to Mr. Crampton, dated May 27, 1853, a gratu 
 itous one for our benefit, designed upon its face 
 for publication, in which he said: " As great mis 
 conception appears to prevail, not only among 
 the people of the United States, but also among 
 persons placed in high and responsible situations 
 in the governments of that country, respecting" 
 the "engagements of Great Britan under tiie Ciay- 
 ton-Buhver treaty," he thought it desirable to put 
 it on its right footing. He does so by his conclu 
 sions, fortified by the opinion of the dueen s 
 Advocate, to which I have already referred, and 
 which proves, that a weak country may be tra 
 versed by an unresisted army exercising no power, 
 and occupying no space; and that such a warlike 
 expedition is the fair fulfillment of a treaty, which 
 sought; with jealous vigilance, to exclude both 
 parties from the exercise of any influence by one, 
 which might be turned to the injury of the other. 
 Lord Clarendon, in this letter to Mr. Crampton, 
 went over the whole matter, and this was my con 
 clusion as to the course of the British Government: 
 * They will hold on to all their pretensions, and 
 will not sacrifice their interest to our misconceptions. 
 That is Lord Clarendon s term for our construc 
 tion of the treaty." The fulfillment has come. 
 
 I referred, a few days since, to the anxiety of 
 the British Government to obtain an ascendency 
 in the South American country, in order to con 
 trol the great highway across the Isthmus, ren 
 dered of incalculable importance by our acquisi 
 tions upon the Pacific coast. Accident has brought 
 to light a document confirmatory of these views. 
 It is a letter from the British vice consul at Gre 
 nada to Lord Palmerston, dated April 4, 1849, in 
 which that functionary, speaking of the projects 
 of citizens of the United States to establish a 
 communication with, the Pacific by the route of the 
 San Juan, says, that this, and other circumstances, 
 had injured the British interests, and that the 
 country " will be overrun by North American 
 adventurers, unless an arrangement is made by 
 negotiation for a protectorate and transit favor 
 able to British interests," &c. 
 
 But the gist of the correspondence is in the 
 concluding paragraph, where the writer says: 
 
 " The welfare of rny country, and desire of its obtaining 
 tlic control of so desirable a spot in the commercial world, 
 and tree it from the competition of aoad venturesome a race 
 as. the North American.*, impel me to address your lord 
 ship with such i reedoni." 
 
 "VVe have here a key to the whole line of policy, 
 which dictated, and yet dictates, the course of 
 England. There was little necessity for the con 
 sul to deprecate the displeasure of Lord Palmer 
 ston. The proposition went, no doubt, to the 
 head and heart of his lordship perhaps it was 
 followed by promotion. The prospect that a 
 route across the continent, bjr canal or railroad, 
 would be undertaken and accomplished by our 
 citizens, unquestionably led the British Govern 
 ment, or such portion of it as favored the meas 
 ure, to enter into this treaty, with a view to in 
 sure a participation in the advantages. The par 
 ties jointly agreed, in the words 1 have already 
 quoted, that neither should " occupy or fortify, or 
 assume, or exercise dominion over Central Amer 
 ica, including Mosquito," &c. I observed, on a 
 former occasion, that I could not conceive why 
 the word " occupy" would not have fulfilled the 
 intention of the parties, and why these pleonasms 
 were introduced into the treaty, rendering it per 
 haps doubtful, by overloading it with words. I 
 arn now enabled to do justice to our negotiator, 
 the honorable Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAY- 
 TOV,] and from information not derived from him, 
 and to say, that this redundancy of language was 
 no fault of his; but that he was placed in a situ 
 ation, which rendered it proper to yield thdugh 
 inclined against it. 
 
 Bat I must also make the amende honorable, and 
 acknowledge, that, in my opinion, formed upon 
 subsequent circumstances, whether the phrase 
 ology of the treaty had been concise or prolix, 
 the construction would have been a foregone con 
 clusion, and just what it now is. We should 
 have had the same prudential interpretation, which 
 is hallowed in English diplomacy, and which, 
 many years since, was applied to a treaty between 
 Spain and England, in relation to this very region 
 of country. This remarkable, or rather remark 
 ably disgraceful, incident was alluded to the other 
 day, but it will bear repetition as a useful lesson 
 in the mazes of a tortuous policy. 
 
 A treaty was concluded in 1783, between Spain 
 and England, the sixth article of which provided 
 
10 
 
 for the abandonment of the Mosquito country, as 
 a portion of the " Continent Espagnol." There 
 was a great reluctance on the part of the British 
 Cabinet to this withdrawal, and, at the same 
 time, a strong desire to terminate the pending 
 war by the conclusion -of a treaty. The King 
 was honestly inclined, and hesitated to give his 
 assent. Mr. Fox, then one of the Ministers, 
 undertook to remove his objections. He urged, 
 that it was in their power to put their own inter- 
 
 have debarred ourselves of the right of acquisi 
 tion. It is an unequal arrangement, rendered such, 
 by prudential considerations, producing apalpablo 
 breach of faith . 
 
 What are the complaints we prefer against 
 England in relation to this treaty ? I will enu 
 merate them as succinctly as I can: 
 
 1. We complain, as a general allegation, that 
 constructions are put upon it so manifestly incon 
 sistent with its purpose and language, that the 
 
 prctation upon the words," Continent Espagnol," jj very assumption is felt by us to be an insult, and 
 and to determine, upon prudential considerations, seen to be such by th 
 
 (that is the term,) " whether the Mosquito shore | 
 came under that description or not." And this | 
 expedient prevailed: and, though Mr. Fox and ; 
 his associates knew full well, to speak in plain j 
 language, that they were cheating the Spaniards, ! 
 who thought, as everybody else thinks, that the 
 5, " Spanish continent," meant that portion i 
 
 the world. 
 
 2. But to come to specific statements, we further 
 complain, that these constructions are destructive 
 of the objects of the treaty. It is now said by Lord 
 Clarendon, that this instrument is prospective in 
 its operation. And so it- is. If it had but a retro 
 active bearing, it would be but of little value. It 
 necessarily operates in the future, like almost al 
 national arrangements. But, by prospective oper 
 ation, Lord Clarendon means that, in some most 
 has no operation at all. 
 
 words, oj 
 
 of the American continent, yet the treaty was con 
 cluded and ratified, and prudential considerations 
 excluded 
 The Kin _ 
 
 hesitation, and considered the "circumstance a| tensions cxisu 
 
 very untoward one." He might have truly qual- ! of its conclusion, and leaves them untouched by 
 ified it by a much harsher epithet. I am under 
 the impression , that the same prudential rule would 
 
 led the Mosquito shore from its operation. | important particulars, it h 
 
 ling, while he gave his consent, did so with He claims, that it passes over the British pre 
 
 don. and considered the " circumstance a tensions existing in Central America at the time 
 
 have been again applied, to retain the same Mos 
 quito country, even if the words of the Clayton- 
 Bulwer treaty had been less equivocal upon this 
 point than they are, if that is possible. 
 
 Mr. President, it is within the recollection of 
 the Senate, that *ome two years since, I had a 
 discussion with the Senator from Delaware upon 
 this treaty, when I took exceptions to a portion 
 of its phraseology, as well as to other circum 
 stances, connected with it. I never doubted, nor 
 did I ever express a doubt of, the patriotic pur 
 pose of the Senator; and I renew an acknowledg 
 ment I then made, that during the progress of the 
 negotiation, he did me the honor to consult me, 
 as well as other Senators, and that I warmly ap- 
 provd his effort. Now, sir, I have nothing to 
 say as to these past differences of opinion; they 
 are gone by. While pending, they embraced 
 questions relating to our internal affairs to the 
 course and conduct of a functionary of our own. | 
 But now we are drawn into a discussion with a j 
 foreign Government, respecting the honest inter 
 
 its provisions. We contend, that it embraces all 
 the country named in it that is not expressly ex- 
 
 cepted; and that its operation commences from 
 the moment of its ratification; and that its obliga 
 tions are perpetual. 
 
 This claim, that the British possessions held at 
 the ratification of the treaty were excepted from 
 iis stipulations, is now heard for the first time, so 
 far as I know, and so says Mr. Buchanan; and 
 this very circumstance is a strong presumption, 
 unfavorable to the assumption, especially consid 
 ering the investigations the treaty hud uudcrgoire, 
 and the many minds that had been at work upon 
 it. Mr. Buchanan takes up thjs point, and dis 
 cusses it with great force and clearness. Before 
 the treaty was ratified, there was an act of the 
 British Government, which is conclusive, as to 
 their opinion upon this pretension. The treaty 
 went to England, without any declaration, except 
 ing the Honduras settlement from its operation. 
 If the construction now contended for, under the 
 term prospective operation, be the correct one, 
 there \. 
 
 of that settlement, 
 British at that time, it would not be affected by 
 
 no need of providing for the exclusion 
 ttlement; because, being held by the 
 
 pretation of the treaty, and the subterfuges I us 
 
 the term advisedly by which it is sought to avoi 
 
 its obligations. And I express my full concui . 
 
 rcnce in the various points taken by the Senator il and required an express declaration, that it did 
 
 from Delaware, and which he has supported with i not extend to their possessions a demand utterly 
 
 that power of intellect and eloquence, which is i| inconsistent with this newly-discovered intorpre- 
 
 known to the whole country, and wkh a full jj tation, that, being prospective, existing claims are 
 
 knowledge of the subject, directed by an active I 1 - A *"*~ r *" "">- 
 
 and enlightened patriotism. 
 
 I have said, that the object of this treaty was to j 
 keep the country from the occupation or influence 
 of the two parties. So far as respects us, the j 
 object has been accomplished; and the proof of that \ 
 fact *s, that no complaint of a failure has been pre- ! 
 ferred against us by our co-contractor. We have j 
 not a foot of land in that region, nor the slightest j 
 influence, except what results from a fair course i 
 of policy; and we are disqualified from ever! 
 
 making an acquisition in that quarter. Not so | ~ L 
 
 wUh England? The advantage is altogether on i sufficiently indicative of the opinion, that all other 
 her side." She retains all she "claimed, while we II portions of Central America came within the 
 
 the arrangement. 
 
 But the British Government returned the treaty, 
 
 LcsLiiJiij i/icuiua 
 
 protected from its provisions. And such, too, 
 was the view of the dueen s Advocate, in tha 
 opinion, to which I have already referred, who 
 said, that the Assumption, which he understood 
 had been maintained, that Great Britain had 
 abandoned all dominion over the whole of Central 
 America, was incorrect, at least in regard to the 
 Belize and its dependencies. The Belize and its 
 dependencies were, as the dueen s Advocate says, 
 expressly excluded from the treaty by a declara 
 tion, accompanying the act of ratification; and the 
 least as regards the Belize, "is. 
 
 expresson" at 
 
11 
 
 treaty, and are not protected by this prospective 
 discovery, operating upon existing claims. And 
 Lord Clarendon himself, in his letter to Mr. 
 Crampton, of May 27, 1853, places the exemp 
 tion of the British possessions meaning the Be 
 lize upon the declaration of the riegotititors, and 
 not upon this recently -announced and prudential 
 canon of interpretation. 
 
 What is the language of the treaty upon this 
 subject? That the parties shall not occupy Cen- 
 tral America. How can this stipulation be com 
 plied with, if one of them continues the occupa 
 tion previously held? To occupy is to do just 
 what the treaty prohibits. And what reason is 
 given for this perversion of language, as plain as 
 words permit? " Because," says Lord Claren 
 don, " the treaty does not contain, in specific 
 terras, a renunciation on the part of Great Brit 
 ain." And in what principle of international 
 law, or of common sense, or of common hon 
 esty, does Lord Clarendon find his justification 
 for such an assumption as this ? I know of none. 
 If a nation, or an individual, contracts, to do an 
 act, they contract the obligation to do all that that 
 act fairly requires. A stipulation not to occupy 
 necessarily includes within itself the duty of aban 
 doning any pretension or possession, inconsistent 
 that obligation. And if one individual con 
 
 tract with another, that he will hold no posses 
 sion in a given district, and that is the equiva 
 lent expression in a private case for a national 
 stipulation of non-occuplation, as no nation can 
 retain a country without occupation, -such indi 
 vidual would forfeit all claim to honesty, if he 
 urged, as a reason for holding possession, that he 
 meant he would not hold what he had not, but 
 that what he had he would keep. Apply the same 
 considerations to the position of England, and 
 the discussion terminates itself. 
 
 3. The third article in our list of grievances is, the 
 indefinite extension of the Belize settlement, antl 
 the exercise of full, unlimited jurisdictton over it. 
 
 This branch of the subject has been so fully 
 presented both here, and by Mr. Buchanan in 
 England, and with marked ability, that I shall 
 pass AVer it, as rapidly as is consistent with its , 
 clear understanding. 
 
 The British Government has, for a century j 
 and a half, held qualified possession of a small 
 region, including the neighborhood of the Belize. , 
 It was originally seized for the purpose of cutting j 
 logwood; and after long and angry contests with j 
 Spain, the latter Power finally recognized the 
 right to hold it for that object alone. So jealous 
 was the Spanish Government, that it insisted j 
 upon the most stringent provisions; that thei-e 
 should be no armed force, no fortress, no agricul 
 ture; expressly providing, that the natural fruits 
 of the soil should be its only produce, to be used 
 as food, and that there should be no manufac 
 tories, but mills for sawing the mahogany into 
 boards. And there are two acts of the British 
 
 of Great Britain over that region are wholly dis 
 regarded, and she has fortified it, and cultivates it, 
 and. exercises as full dominion over it, as over any 
 other part of her territories. She does not merely 
 hold the usufruct and that confined to the log 
 wood trade but the country is exclusively hers, 
 for all the purposes of peace and war. It is a per 
 manent position on the great Bay of Honduras. 
 
 And besides this change of tenure, and the con 
 version of a limited right into an absolute proprie 
 torship, Great Britain has greatly enlarged the 
 extent of the settlement beyond the boundaries 
 assigned to it, to the injury of the State of Gua 
 temala, to which the invaded country belongs, as 
 successor to the rights and possessions of Spain. 
 The most remote southern limit of this settle 
 ment, ever recognized by Spain, was the Siboon 
 river, I suppose twelve or fourteen miles from the 
 Belize; but the British have extended it to the Sar- 
 stoon river, one hundred and fifty or two hundred 
 miles still further south, and as clearty in the State 
 of Guatemala as the James river is in Virginia. 
 Some maps represent her encroachments as having 
 reached the Golfo Dolce, still further down the 
 coast. 
 
 And this progressive invasion has been commit 
 ted, without the slightest title of right or author 
 ity committed by" the strong hand, and main 
 tained by it. Lord Clarendon, in his discussion 
 with Mr. Buchanan, claims this region " by right 
 of conquest." But when it was conquered, and 
 when ceded, he fails to tell us. The fact is, it 
 has been gained by successive acts of encroach 
 ment, sometimes individual and sometimes colo 
 nial, of which, till now, the British Government 
 has not publicly claimed the benefit. These, 
 now, constitute this "right of conquest." I have 
 
 charge delivered, not long 
 
 Parliament, passed in 1817 and, 1819, 
 
 * * - i" r i 
 
 confirming 
 
 and recognizing this very limited jurisdiction. 
 They declared that the settlement at the Bay of 
 Honduras was " a settlement for certain purposes, 
 in the possession, and under the protection, of his 
 Majesty, but not within the territory and domin 
 ions of his Majesty," &c. 
 Now, sir, all these limitations upon the power 
 
 before me a charge delivered, not long since, 
 by Chief Justice Temple, to a grand jury at the 
 Belize. He seemed to consider it necessary to 
 explain by what right the authorities exercised 
 jurisdiction over the country between the Siboon 
 and the Sarstoon rivers; and said " it was neither 
 by grant nor conquest, but by occupation." 
 Occupation is a title resting upon discovery, and 
 is applied to a region, which had belonged to 
 Spain, or her emancipated colony, since the second 
 voyage of Columbus. Doctors often disagree as 
 j to a cure for the patient, but seldom more point 
 edly than in this case. 
 
 4. We object to the occupation of Roatan,and 
 the cluster of islands in its neighborhood, in the 
 Bay of Honduras, and consider it a palpable 
 violation of the treaty. And in the very face of 
 that treaty, and after its ratification, a colonial 
 Government was established there, called the 
 Colony of the Bay Islands, in contempt of the 
 stipulation, that neither party should colonize. 
 
 What are the facts in relation to this aggres 
 sion for it is undeniably such and what are the 
 objections to the claim? 
 
 1. Roatan is said by Lord Clarendon to be one 
 of the group of islands excepted in the note to 
 the treaty, and described as " the small islands 
 in the neighborhood of the Belize settlement, and 
 known as its dependencies." Now, there is 
 a cluster of islands islets, rather about three 
 leagues from the Siboon river, which are depend 
 encies of the Belize, and are beyond all doubt the 
 objects of this provision in the note; while Roatan 
 
12 
 
 is a large, important island, four or five hundred 
 miles from the Belize. A cause must be weak, in 
 deed, which depends upon such support. Roatan 
 is only some thirty miles from the coast of Hon 
 duras, and belongs to it by as just a title, as Long 
 Island belongs to New York. 
 
 2. Anotherground of claim to Roatan is founded 
 on the allegation, that by some maps it is in the 
 West Indies. I do not see, that Lord Clarendon 
 has assumed this position, but others have. I 
 state it only to show, that if a political measure 
 is determined on, reasons will never be wanting 
 for its defense. This geographical elasticity, if it 
 goes on, may rob us of our good old island of 
 Nantuckct, making it tropical for British pur 
 poses, though not for those of nature. 
 
 3. One of the British-^ titles to Roatan is a title 
 by right of occupation; and it is thus stated by 
 Lord Clarendon: 
 
 " Whenever Roatan has been permanently occupied, 
 either in remote or recent Times, by anything more than a 
 military iruard and flagstaff, the occupation has been by 
 Uritish subjects." 
 
 How cautiously is this worded, as the foxmda- 
 tion of such a claim ! When the island has been 
 occupied, formerly or latterly, it has been by Brit 
 ish subjects ! Then, according to this statement, 
 the occupation has been interrupted, and no per 
 manent possession held until the English seized 
 it; and yet a Central American garrison is con 
 ceded to have been stationed there; and we know 
 that the island was wrested from it by force. 
 
 But still more extraordinary is the succeeding 
 declaration: 
 
 " It has been, without the instigation of the British Gov 
 ernment, of late years, spontaneously occupied by British 
 subjects." 
 
 Spontaneous occupation is a new title in Eng 
 lish colonial history. Had the British Govern 
 ment the slightest faith in its title, there would 
 have been no spontaneous action, but an authorized 
 possession of one of the most important positions 
 in Central America. English subjects, according 
 to an English Minister, seized a district belonging, 
 by all the recognized principles of discovery, to 
 Spain and her emancipated colonies, and the Gov 
 ernment steps in and takes advantage of the illegal 
 act. Apply such a case to us, and what horror 
 would be excited in England ? What would she 
 say if we permitted our citizens to wander through 
 the world, occupying regions at their pleasure, 
 where they could gain foothold, and then should 
 step in and convert their spontaneous occupation 
 into our sovereignty? and especially should we 
 
 do so at this time in Central Ai 
 
 In such 
 
 an event, language would fail me to describe her 
 virtuous indignation. 
 
 But what are the prominent facts connected 
 with this occupation? In brief, they are these: 
 In the year 1804, Colonel Henderson, the British 
 commandant at the Belize, who was sent to 
 examine this island, reported that it belonged to 
 Spain. In 1820, it was seized by a British force, 
 and abandoned on the remonstrances of the Cen 
 tral American Government, which was then united 
 and strong. In 1841, it was again seized after 
 that Government was dissolved, and when Hon 
 duras was feeble, and in a time of profound peace , 
 without urging the slightest pretense, so far as 
 appears: a mere act of piracy, to call things by 
 their true names. 
 
 These five-Islands, as I have already said, now 
 constitute a British colony, organized since the 
 ratification of this treaty. They are a most val 
 uable possession, the principal of them, Roatan, 
 being a highly important naval station, abound 
 ing with excellent harbors, easily fortified, and 
 affording the means of commanding the great Bay 
 of Honduras, and the communication along the 
 coast of Central America. And their adaptation 
 to these purposes constitutes at once their value 
 to England, and the motive for the tenacity, with 
 which she holds on to them, her solemn stipula 
 tions to the contrary notwithstanding. I am glad 
 to sec, that the purpose has not escaped the saga 
 city of our Government, nor the knowledge of it, 
 its avowal. Mr. Marcy speaks upon this subject 
 with a frankness, which becomes his position and 
 responsibility. He says, in a letter to Mr. Bu 
 chanan of June 12, 1854: 
 
 ; Roatan can only be desirable to Great Britain as a naval 
 and military station, and for that purpose only, as it would 
 gi\v her great facility in affecting injuriously our interests. 
 Should she refuse to acknowledge it as a part of the Stata 
 of Honduras, and retain possession of it herself, the United 
 States would clearly understand her object. A predeterm 
 ination to interfere with our affairs thus manifested, will 
 render the continuance of our amicable relations with her 
 precarious." 
 
 Roatan is to become the Gibraltar of those seas, 
 and, like that celebrated fortress, like the Capo 
 of Good Hope, and Aden, and Singapore, it is 
 destined by English policy to overlook, and, 
 when the time comes, tg control the commerce of 
 the world. No man can fail to admire the judg 
 ment and precaution with which these and other 
 stations have been selected, girding the globe with 
 seats of power places, at once, of attack and 
 refuge and especially their establishment upon 
 great lines of communication, and where the flag 
 of every maritime nation must pass before their 
 doors. No Power is more interested in all this 
 than we are; and that interest is tenfold increased 
 by our acquisitions upon the Pacific, and by the 
 necessity of an unbroken communication with 
 them. We want no lion in our path, watching, 
 in his lair, till he is ready to spring; but this is 
 just what England wants, ay, and will l^ve, if 
 we do not bring both vigilance and firmness to 
 the task before us. 
 
 5. Our fifth and last principal ground of com 
 plaint is the conduct and pretensions of England 
 with respect to the Mosquito country and pro 
 tectorate. The treaty recognizes the existence 
 of no such relation with that region. This is con 
 ceded by Lord Clarendon, who adds, however, 
 that the treaty does recognize the right of both 
 the United States and England to afford protection 
 to the Central American States, including Mos 
 quito. This phraseology is too indeterminate. 
 The allusion in the convention to this important 
 matter is a mere incidental one. It is, that neither 
 party shall make use of any protection it may 
 afford to either of the said States, for any pur 
 pose inconsistent with the treaty. I think now, 
 as I thought at first, that the introduction of this 
 provision was unfortunate; and I should feel 
 obliged to the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. COL- 
 LAMER,] who was a member of General Taylor s 
 Cabinet, at the time this subject was pending, 
 if he will state to the Senate the reasons for iti 
 introduction. 
 
13 
 
 [Here Mr. COL LAMER stated, that, owing 
 to his peculiar aversion to war, as a means of ad 
 justing national controversies, and seeing that an 
 endeavor was to be made by this treaty to " guar 
 anty the neutrality of some part of God s earth, 
 in peace and war, he felt particularly interested 
 in the subject," and therefore turned his attention 
 to the negotiations. 
 
 He further stated, that the* first projSt of the 
 treaty contained no stipulation as to protection. 
 In considering the matter in the Cabinet, such a 
 clause was deemed necessary, in consequence of 
 the disclaimer, made by Lord Palmcrston to Mr. 
 Lawrence, of any intention to occupy the Mos 
 quito country, though " at that very time (said 
 Mr. C.) they were occupying the whole extent 
 of country which I have mentioned. 
 
 " It will thus be seen (continued Mr. C.) that 
 Great Britain told us she did not intend to occupy 
 or colonize any part of Central America, when 
 she was actually occupying it," &c. It was, 
 therefore, feared, looking to the British connec 
 tion with the Mosquitoes for two hundred years, 
 that, if some such provision were not made, Great 
 Britain " might fall back on the word occupy, 
 and might really occupy the country under the 
 pretense of not doing so in her own right." A 
 man may occupy land in his own right, or in the 
 right and as tenant of another. " It was for the 
 purpose of putting an abnegation of the resort 
 to any such pretense, that the last words of the 
 first article, relating to protection, were inscribed 
 in the treaty."] 
 
 Mr. CASS. Mr. President, I tender my ac 
 knowledgments to the honorable Senator for his 
 clear exposition, which satisfactorily shows the 
 reasons, that influenced the Cabinet of General 
 Taylor in this transaction. That explanation 
 presents the subject in an aspect, which is new to 
 me, and certainly suggests better reasons for the 
 adoption of this course, than I had anticipated, 
 though I still think the treaty would have been 
 safer without thi.s clause. 
 
 I appreciate the reluctance of the Senator to de 
 bate this subject. It is no pleasant task. As he 
 well intimates, it demands strong reprobation, in 
 strong language. I believe I have not, certainly 
 I have not intended, toemploy expressions, which 
 do not fairly belong*to the circumstances. I rec 
 ollect, some years since, that Lord John Russell, 
 in the British House of Commons, called Mr. 
 Folk s Oregon message a " blustering display" 
 I think that was the term. His lordship s dis 
 play was an unfortunate one, for there was noth 
 ing to warrant the aspersion. But there are pre 
 tensions so grossly unjust, that no mild epithets 
 befit their character. One of these we are dealing 
 with to-day. 
 
 Lord Clarendon, in a dispatch to Mr. Cramp- 
 ton, connects the Mosquito protectorate with the 
 honor of England, and distinctly avows that he 
 has no intention to abandon it. He, indeed, tells 
 Mr. Buchanan that the Government " did intend 
 to reduce and limit that right." Mr. Buchanan s 
 retort is a very happy one. He intimates that 
 some proof of this design, more substantial than 
 the mere declaration, might remove this subject 
 from the controversy. It is not denied, on the 
 part of England, that it must be exercised with 
 
 out bringing with it occupation, or fortification, 
 or colonization, or dominion. 
 
 Now, sir, what is this protectorate, which can 
 not be abandoned without leaving a dishonorable 
 stain upon the English escutcheon ? How has 
 it been exercised, and what good has it done ? I 
 need not go over the historical narrative, showing 
 the unjustifiable progress of this assumption of 
 supremacy over these Indians. The story ha^s 
 been often told, and the interference itself has 
 been the principal cause of more than one war 
 between Spain and England. It reduced these 
 Indians, or if it has not actually done that it 
 has aided in reducing them from a numerous band 
 of high-spirited aborigines to a miserable rem 
 nant of a few hundreds I believe not more than 
 five hundred north of the San Juan and the de 
 cadence has not been less rapid or visible in their 
 moral and physical condition, than in their power 
 and numbers. All accounts represent them as in 
 the lowest state of wretchedness., " Degraded," 
 as Mr.tBuchahah says, " even below the common 
 Indian standard" they can hardly sink lower. 
 And the contemptible exhibition of King crown 
 ing lias been enacted at Jamaica, as well as in the 
 Mosquito country, by British officers of the high 
 est authority; and the head of a drunken savage 
 chief has been encircled with a tinsel royal dia 
 dem, and he has been hailed as one of the sov 
 ereigns of the earth. And the title is in happy 
 
 I coincidence with the farce, and must have sounded 
 uphoniously to English ears, when the trumpets 
 
 I blew and I suppose they did, as in the olden 
 time and the people cried, GOD SAVE THE KING 
 OF THE MOSQUITOES ! 
 
 Lord Palmcrston seems to have held a very 
 different estimate of the powers of this monarch, 
 and of the condition of his monarchy, at different 
 times, or, at any rate, to have avowed one. He 
 said, in a letter dated July 16, 1849, to the Min 
 ister of Nkaragua, that " the King of the Mos 
 quitoes had, from an early period of history, been 
 the independent (!) ruler of a separate territory." 
 " E converso," he said to Mr. Rives, " they have 
 what is called a King, but who, by-the-by, is as 
 much a King as you or I." What a jewel is 
 consistency ! Lord John Russell and Lord Palm- 
 erston both denominated this pretension a fiction. 
 It is so, and a gross one, too. I might, indeed, 
 characterize it by a stronger epithet. But, like 
 other members of the same imaginative family, it 
 is undergoing a metamorphosis which is rapidly 
 converting it into grave fact, which, if not now 
 met and resisted, will mark its place in history 
 as having exercised a controlling influence upon 
 the fate of those wide-spread regions. The world 
 is looking on, and doubtless with interest watch 
 ing the course of the disputants, and, regarding 
 the cause of the struggle as an experiment, won 
 dering whether British presumption or American 
 forbearance can be carried furthest or continued 
 longest. While a British Secretary of State is 
 lending his sanction to such an unworthy trans 
 action, referring to the anointing process as one 
 of the foundations of the British claim, in a com 
 munication with an American representative. 
 Lord Clarendon calls the present chief " a decent, 
 well-behaved youth." He may be so; but if ha 
 is, he does not derive his virtues, as he does hi: 
 realm, from hereditary descent, for Lord Claren- 
 
14 
 
 don further says: " his late Majesty, his father, worth the while longer to keep up the shallow disguise of 
 was a bad fellow. " He was a worthless, drunken Mosquito authority. 
 savage; all accounts agree in that. Lord Claren 
 don "said, inadvertently I should think, with 
 purposed frankness it may be, that the present 
 monarch lives in the family of Mr. Green, the 
 consul, denying at the same lime the exercise of 
 any British power over the region by means of 
 
 the royal protege. He adds, however, " that 
 
 This will be found on the 135th page of Exec 
 utive Document, No. 75, of the first session of 
 the Thirty-First Conuv 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. What is the date of the letter? 
 Mr. CLAYTON. July 10, 1849. Ag.ihi: on 
 page 138 of the same document, there is a 
 men of one of these grants, signed by her Eritan- 
 
 the consul may~be often called upon to give his ji nic Majesty s vice consul, James Green; and a 
 advice or opinion to the Mosquito Government." || statement of sums of money paid for a 
 
 survey 
 
 Well, sir, this is cool, if not satisfactory. And !| of the land by Robert Woods, surveyor, an Eng- 
 has Lord Clarendon so low an estimate of man- illishman. Mr. Marcy instructs Mr. Bu 
 kind, as to suppose that a single man, either in |j that there is really no Mosquito Government. It 
 his country or in ours, can be found, who can be j 
 deceived by such representations? It is making 
 a liuivy demand upon human credulity. Here 
 is an immense extent of sea-coast more than 
 
 is as he says, merely a British Govrnn 
 
 Mr. CASS. Now, sir, I have neither time nor 
 patience to examine and expose this ground, as 
 sumed by Lord Clarendon. That the wh<il<> of 
 
 five hundred miles held by the British Govern- j the Mosquito country is just as much under the 
 ment, upon this weakest of all pretenses. Thus ] subjection of England, as the Island of Jr,-. 
 held to-day, but to be held to-morrow in full sov- j is as obvious, as the most palpable fact which is 
 ereignty by the right of possession, andfif need j now passing before the world. 
 be, by the application of power. And all this, A few days ago, sir, when this subject wa3 
 while the wax is hardly dry upon a treaty, whose I before the Senate, I recalled somp reminiscences 
 .0 spirit is incompatible with even the exercise j connected with English philanthropic pro: - 
 
 whole spirit is incompa 
 
 of influence for political purposes by one t 
 
 which might, as I have already said, injuriously 
 
 party, 
 lously 
 
 !V_ V/lIiI- V^LL-U. VVitJ.1 J-UI I^IiCil [7iillC4il till UkUO 1. 1 1 UiCtioiU lift 
 of regard for the Indians, of which we have 
 j heard so much in this country; an;l upon that 
 
 aff.-ct the other in that magnificent region. I occasion, I appealed to the honorable Senator 
 
 But, after all, Lord Clarendon makes the follow- from Kentucky [Mr. CRITTENDEN] as a v. 
 ing striking admission and a strange one it is, I! of the truth of my assertions. I renew the ap- 
 considering his general propositions and preten- peal to-day, because I know him to be a coinpe- 
 sions. He says, though Great Britain never held ! tent one, both traditional and personal ; for having 
 possession of the Mosquito coast, yet "she 1 
 
 undoubtedly exercises a great and powerful in 
 fluence over it as protector of the Musquito 
 king." Who knows, but that this relation may 
 hereafter assume a position in the English heraldic 
 college, and as the sovereign is the DEFENDER OF 
 THE FAITH, the protectorship of the Musquitoes 
 may take its place alongside the boasted motto of 
 the pious Henry VIII. 
 
 I desire to ask the honorable Senator from Del 
 aware, if this professed abstinence from interfer 
 ence has been observed, and whether the British 
 consul has not issued grants of land, without ref 
 erence to the authority of the Mosquito King? 
 
 been born and lived all his life on the DARK AND 
 BLOODY GROUND of Kentucky, as it was called by 
 the Indians, he early heard the tales of horror, 
 which Indian barbarities, urged on by British 
 agents, brought upon that country; and I saw 
 him stand up in battle against a combined Chris 
 tian and barbarian army, where the red man had 
 been subsidized to fight the warfare of the white 
 man. He knew the country knows, indeed 
 that these allies, as they were called by the British 
 commissioners at Ghent, were purchased by a 
 lavish distribution of money, and presents, and 
 whisky, and by the hopes of gaining Indian tro 
 phies in the form of human scalps, to be reaped 
 
 Mr. CLAYTON. " Yes, sir- he undoubtedly ;| m a bloody harvest on our frontiers. Ti- 
 If the Senator will refer to a letter of things was nevermore eloquently 
 
 has done so. 
 of our Minister in Central America, of the 10th 
 day of July, 1849, addressed to this Government, 
 he will see there that the Minister states that fact ! 
 distinctly. He says: 
 
 " Since the seizure of this port by the English, the muni- J 
 cipal and other regulations have been dictated by the i .nu- 
 lish authorities, at the head of which stands her Britannic 
 Majesty s consul general, Mr. W. D. Christy. He has 
 taken up his residence here, and assumed the entire con- | 
 trol of alfairs. No written laws or regulations have bei ,i 
 promulgated ; and this gentleman is, tie facto, a dictator, his j 
 will being the law, beyond which there is no :>;>p:-nl. He 
 lias meil-- him. " If extremely obnoxious to the inhabitants, ; 
 without exception, and his arbitrary conduct is the .- 
 of complaint on every hand. I! is sole adherents are half a 
 do/. -:i officials, one of whom is vice consul, another harbor- 
 ma-KT, others policemen, &c. Although the: so railed 
 Mosquito flag is flying, yet, apart from this, tb.ore seem-: to. 
 be no deference to IMosijuito authority on the pftrtof the 
 consul-general, lie has taken upon himself to disregard 
 all Ica-^-s and grants of land made by the Nicaragi! 
 thoritics before the English conquest, and a suisies to sell 
 t :c nine, not as the ayent of the Mosquito King, but as her 
 Britamric Majesty s vice consul. 
 
 " This assumption may not be deemed of much import 
 ance, but it will tend to show that here it is hardly deemed 
 
 or fr 
 
 depicted than by Fisher Ames, in Jan addivw.s in 
 the House of Representative^, remarkable in our 
 oratorical history for its beauty. It took place 
 during the administration of General Washing 
 ton, on a resolution that it was expedient, to make 
 appropriations for carrying into effect the trrnty 
 with Great Britain. The consequences of the 
 failure to do so formed the principal topic of Mr. 
 Ames s remarks; and amoijg these the Indian hos 
 tilities, to which we should be exposed by English 
 influence over the Indians, were the most promi 
 nent. His thrilling accents yet almost ring in 
 my cars. The eloquent speaker said: 
 
 " On this theme my cmoi.ums arc unutterable. If J conld 
 find words Cor them, if my powers bore any proportion to 
 my v.eal, I would swell my voice to i-nrh a note of remon 
 strance. it should reach every log-house beyond the mount 
 ains. 1 would say to the inhabitants, wake from your false 
 security; your cruel dangers, your appri soon 
 
 to be renewed ! The wounds, yet unhealed, are to bo torn 
 open again, in the day time, your path through the woods 
 will he ambushed ; the darkness of midnight will "litter 
 with the blaze of your dwellings. You are a father the 
 blood of your sous shall fatten jour cora-fioids. You are a 
 
15 
 
 mother the war-hoop sliall wake the sleep of the cra- 
 dle." 
 
 I look with a feeling of loathing upon this 
 interference of one civilized nation with savage 
 tribes living out of its territory, and within the 
 dominions of another Powejr. And the feeling 
 reaches indignation, when the measure is cloaked 
 by hollow professions of philanthropy, while, in 
 fact, it is dictated by the purposes of power. Our 
 experience has been a long and costly one; and I 
 do not believe, that there has since been any 
 ckange in this system of political ethics, which 
 accelerated the downfall of our Indians, and 
 which is producing a similar fate upon the coast 
 of Central America. May our aboriginal inhab- 
 tants be everywhere delivered from the protection 
 of su*i a protector ! 
 
 Let us survey this matter of the treaty from 
 another point of view. A change of position often 
 
 fives increased interest to the same landscape, 
 uppose an arrangement like this had been entered 
 into between the French and English Govern- 
 Rlents, for the purpose of securing a transit across 
 the isthmus of Suez, and a safe communication 
 through* the Red sea, for both parties, to the rich 
 regions of eastern Asia. And suppose the French 
 Government had endeavored, under the claim of 
 
 I article. The object of this was still more especially to dis 
 arm the Mosquito protectorate of Great Britain in "Central 
 America. 
 
 My own opinion was then, and it now is, that tin > pro 
 vision was not at ail neees.-ary. You thought as i did ; but 
 as it could not possibly weaken the force "or effect of the 
 preceding words, and, if effective at all, could only serve to 
 render them more forcible and operative ; we did not object 
 to its insertion. If the former words prohibited, as they 
 clearly did of themselves, the doing any of the particular 
 acts specified, an express stipulation, that such acts should 
 not be done, by or under cover of protectorates or alliances, 
 could only operate still more effectively and absolutely to 
 prohibit them. As one of the advisers of the President, I 
 | unhesitatingly gave him my opinion, that the treaty did 
 effectually, to all intents and purposes, disarm the British 
 I protectorate in Central America and the Mosquito coast, 
 i although it did not abolish the protectorate in terms, nor 
 j was it thought advisable to do so, " in ipsisttimis vcrbis." 
 All that flras desired by us \va?, to extinguish British domin 
 ion over that country, whether held directly or indirectly 
 whether claimed by Great Britain in her own rigl t or in 
 the right of the Indians. But our Government had no j 
 live and no desire to prevent Great Britain f:;.m 
 
 prevent Great Britain fi <-.m performing 
 any of the duties which charity or compassion for a fallen 
 race might dictate to her, or to deprive ourselves of the 
 power to interfere to the same extent in the cause of hu 
 manity. We never designed to do anything which could 
 enable the enemies of this miserable remnant of Indians to 
 butcher or starve them ; and we thought that both Great 
 Britain and the United States owed it to their high charac 
 ter for civilization and humanity, to interfere so far in their 
 behalf as to prevent the extirpation of the race, or the cx- 
 j pulsion of them from the lands they occupied, without 
 
 protection, and by means of money that key to j j extinguishing, by a reasonable Indemnity, the Indian title 
 the heart of an Arab to gain an ascendency over j j Joth by 1 ? he En*foh S " 
 some of the Ishmaelitc tribes on the eastern coast 
 of the Red sea, with Consuls to board and lodge the 
 chiefs, and to give " them advice and opinion" 
 those arc the words upon all important affairs; ! 
 I say, supposing all this, what would be the course I 
 of the British Government ? And the question 
 becomes still more emphatic, if to these supposi 
 tions we join another, that the French should add 
 insult to injury by offering such reasons no, not 
 reasons, but such pretexts for their want of faith, 
 *s arc coolly presented and ur^ed for our satis 
 faction and acquiescence. I will not pursue the 
 inquiry; it cannot be necessary. The answer 
 may be read in the history of England, and he 
 who seeks it there can find it. I now renew the 
 request that the letter of Mr. Johnson may be 
 read . 
 
 The Secretary read the letter, as follows: 
 
 WASHINGTON, Deccmler 3t), 1853. 
 
 MY DF.A.R SIR: 1 cannot hesitate to comply with your 
 
 I Dotii oy 
 
 I (and the treaty contains everything for that purpose that 
 
 1 couid be desired) to prevail t the British Government from 
 using any armed force, without our consent, within thp 
 prohibited region, under pretext or cover of h:r pretended 
 protectorate. And when ROW reviewing what was done, I 
 say, upon my responsibility as a lawyer, and u* the leal 
 adviser of the President at the time, that, in uw judgment, 
 human language could not be more properly and admirably 
 selected for the purpose, than that which you employed 
 when you signed the treaty. 
 
 It has been said, but I can hardly accredit it, that Great 
 Britain now contends, in virtue of the phraseology of the , 
 last part of the first article, incidentally speaking of the 
 protection which either party may use, that the treaty ac- 
 
 i knowledges the protectorate over the Indians. If so, it 
 | j equally acknowledges our protectorate over the same In 
 dians, or over Nicaragua, or any State which we may 
 choose to protect. The same words apply to both parties, 
 and it is a bad rule that docs not work equally for both. The 
 moment Great Britain threatens, with arms," to defend tha 
 Indians, and claims a right to do so in virtue of the treaty, 
 we may claim, by the same instrument, with equal justice, 
 the right to take arms in defense of Honduras and Nicar- 
 
 j agua. But, in my judgment, the treaty, which was meant 
 for peaceful purposes, denies both to Great Britain and the 
 
 rrquot, to give you ray opinion oh the construction of the j | United States tha right to interfere, by force of amis for 
 treaty of Washington, of the 19th of April, 1850. Pending I any such purpose, or for any other purposes, except by mu- 
 Uie negotiation of this treaty, I exerted myself, in personal ! tunl consent. If Great Britain may send an army in 
 with Si* Henry L. Bulwer, to bring about an ! i Nicaragua to defend the Indians without violating the treaty. 
 twflfin vnn ami him : ami. nn B PVPI .ironon i w hi c h binds her not to occupy that country, thn, by the 
 
 same rule of construction, she may also foVtiiy the whole 
 of Central America, or introduce a colony there under the 
 same pretext. Anv adverse possession of Great Britain in 
 Central America, without our consent, is an occupation in 
 violation of her national faith. The construction which 
 would allow her to place an .trine d soldiery on the territory, 
 for the purpose of protecting the Indians, would also allow 
 her to assume absolute dominion therefor the same pur- 
 
 agreement between you and him ; and, on several oceasions, 
 I had the honor to be consulted by you both; particularly 
 in reference to the declarations made on both bides, at or 
 about the time of the exchange of ratifications. 
 
 In the first draft of the first article of the treaty presented 
 oy you for the consideration of the President, the contract- i 
 in 2 parties were obligated not " to occupy, or fortify, or colo- I 
 ni;;c, or assume or exorcise any dominion over Nicaragua, I 
 "osta Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central 
 
 Am;-rie;i." I thought then, as you did, that these words ] pose, and thus annul the whole treaty. 
 
 \yyiv ; : uhK-;entto exclude any nation disposed to observe]! But it may be said that some other nation IJIP.V invade 
 
 Central America, and that this construction would d< privr 
 both the contracting parties of the power to defend it. Not 
 at all. Both p-irtics have bound themselves to protect the 
 canal, and all the canals and all th% railroads that can be 
 made, not only in Central Anerica, but in any part of the 
 Isthmus which separates North from South America. In 
 virtue of this obligation, it would be the duty of both to 
 resist, by the most effective means in their power, ail hiva- 
 
 rtie faith of treaties from occupying, fortifying, colonizing, j Central America, and that this construction won ,} dM>ri" p 
 
 .linger exercising any dominion, under any pretext, i "- * u " - 
 or for any purpose. I still think so; but I remember well 
 
 that other gentlemen, who were consulted at the time, de- 
 sir ..(, from abundant caution, that Great Britain should 
 pledge hesvelf not to make use of any protection which she ! 
 :u:u:-, od or might afford, or any alliance which she had or i 
 , 7 e, to or with any State or people, for the purpose ! 
 
 of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing, or of assuming or i sions and other acts hostile to their great and philanthropic 
 exercising dominion over that country; and, in consequence, I common purpose. So, too, injuries or torts ir-flicteVl either 
 the provision to that effect was introduced as a part of that i by the Indians, or by any Central American State, uuon 
 
16 
 
 either American citizens or British subjects, may be pun 
 ished by thfjr respective Governments without violating 
 th etreaty : and no one of these States, by means of a con 
 vention, which is marked in every line by a devotion to the 
 true principles of commerce, civilization, and equal justice 
 to all men, can escape punishment for her injustice or op 
 pression. This treaty is the first instance, within my knowl 
 edge, in which two great nations of the earth have thus 
 endeavored to combine, peacefully, for the prosecution and 
 accomplishment of an object which, when completed, must 
 advance the happiness and prosperity of all men; audit 
 would he a matter of deep regret, if the philanthropic and 
 noble objects of the negotiators should now be defeated by 
 petty cavils and special pleading on either side of the At 
 lantic. 
 
 AK to the declaration of Sir Henry L. Bulwer, and the 
 counter-declaration made by you at the time of the ex 
 change of the ratifications, 1 probably had a better oppor 
 tunity of understanding the views and objects of both of 
 you, than any other. I assisted, by your request, in the 
 arra n" phraseology of the counter-declaration, 
 
 d:if< ( the -III: of .luly, Is /J, to Sir Henry L. Dulwer s dec 
 laration of the Sflth of June. By your request, also, I ex 
 aminer! Sir . , nry L. I silwi r s powers, and conversed with 
 iml luJly, n;i the whole subject, at the wry mo- 
 laration, you threat 
 en, d to br ;ik off the whole negotiation. 
 
 I remember \vefl, that, after his declaration w:i> received, 
 there \va ;; perl <! when you had resolved to abandon the 
 treaty in consequence of it; but. when Sir Henry consented 
 to receive your counter-declaration of the 4th of July, in 
 which you expressly limited the term, " Her Majesty s set 
 tlement at Honduras," to that country which is known as 
 British Honduras, as contradistinguished or distinct from 
 the State of Honduras, and also confined the word " do- 
 j"ndfj:c:; s" in his declaration to those, "small islands" 
 hnsi -n at the time to be swcA; in which, also, while ad- 
 initting Belize, or British Honduras, not to be included in 
 the treaty, you disavowed all purpose of admitting any 
 Uriti-h title even there; in which, too, you declared that 
 the, treaty did include "all the Central American States 
 within tiieir just limits and proper dependencies," and in 
 which you expressly stated to him tiiat no alteration could 
 be made in the treaty without the consent of the Senate, 
 and that he was understood as not even proposing any 
 such alteration ; you then consented to exchange upon 
 that counter-declaration, Which, in your judgment, and in 
 mine, too, completely annulled every pretext for a 
 that the declarations of the negotiators had altered the con 
 vention, or fixed an interpretation upon it contrary to the 
 meaning of the President and Senate. We both conMd- 
 ered then, and, as a jurist, I now hold it to be perfectly 
 clear, that, the exchange of the ratifications on that coun 
 ter-declaration was, on the part of the British Minister, a 
 complete waiver of every objection that could be taken to 
 any statement contained in it. 
 
 In point of law, the declarations of the negotiator?, not 
 submitted to the Senate, were of no validity, and could riot 
 nfle.ct the treaty. Both understood that. Tiiis Government 
 had decided that question in the case of the Mexican pro 
 tocol, and the British Government was officially informed 
 of tiieir decision. The very power to exchange ratifica 
 tions gave tiiun the same information, and ii i:< absolutely 
 Impossible that the British Minister could have been de 
 ceived on that subject. 
 
 I remember well, that you steadily refused every effort 
 on tin: [Virt of Sir Henry, to induce you to 
 Mosquito ti .le. The treaty left us at lib 
 the l.iii:.- of Nicaragua, or any other Centra! American Staff, 
 and left the Krirish Government the ri&t to recognize the 
 title of the Mosquito King. Ou these points the parties 
 agreed to disagree. But the right to recognize is a very 
 different affair from the right to compel others to recognize. 
 The Bruish protrrtoraie vras, I repeat, entirely dfc 
 by thn treaty. How is it possible for Great Britain to pro- 
 tret, if sh.: cannot " occupy, or fortify, or assume any do 
 minion whatever * in any part of the territory? She i* 
 
 equally prohibited, in my opinion, from occupying for the 
 purpose of protection, or protecting for the purpose of oc 
 cupation, if she observes the treaty, her protectorate 
 " stands" (as you once well said of it, in a diplomatic 
 note) "the shadow of a name." 
 
 With rerrard to the British colony said to have been estab 
 lished on the 17th of July, 18.V3, in the islands of iJ.oatun, 
 Bonacca, Utilla, Barbarat, Helena, and Morat, and i 
 nated as the colony of the Bay of Islands, the qe 
 whether, by establishing such a colony, Great Britain has 
 violated the treaty of 1850, depends entirely upon facts, in 
 retrnrd to which there are different opinions. The only 
 islands known to this Government on the 4th of July. U.~>U, 
 to be dependencies of Bi-iiish Honduras or Belize, were 
 
 a to in the fouthand fifth articles of the treaty ot Loin- 
 don,ofthe llth of July, 1786. The fourth article provides tiiat 
 "the r,nilish shall he permitted To occupy the smail i.-Jand 
 known by the names of Camilla, St. George s Key, or Cayo 
 Cafina," and by the fifth article, they "have the liberty of 
 refitting their merchant ships in the southern triaugle in 
 cluded between the point of Cayo Cafina and the cluster b/" 
 small islands which are situated opposite that part of tha 
 coast occupied by the cutters, at the distance of eight league? 
 from the river Wain s, seven from Cayo Cafina, and three 
 from the river Sibun, a place which has always been found 
 well adapted for that purpose. For which end, the edifice^ 
 md store-houses absolutely necessary for that purpose shall 
 be allowed to be built." 
 
 These aiticl -s in the treaty of 1786 gave us the only 
 knowledge of any small islands which were, on the -Jth o f 
 July, 1850, " dependencies " of British Honduras. I repeat, 
 that the counter-declaration acknowledges no t, ther depend 
 encies of British Honduras but those small islands, which 
 were kno wn to be such at its date. We knew, indeed, that 
 Great Britain, as well as Honduras, had laid claim to Roa- 
 tan, but we had no information as to the ground on which 
 the former rested her claim. Your reply to Sir Henry L. 
 Bulwcr avoided any recognition of the British claim to it, 
 or othei- allusion to it, than could be inferred from the pos 
 itive assertion that the treaty did include all the Central 
 American States, " with their just limits and proper dep -ud- 
 eneies." If these islands were a part of any Central Amer 
 ican State at the time of the treaty, the subsequent coloni 
 zation of them by Great Britain is a clear violation of it. 
 If, on the other hand, they did not then belong to any Cen 
 tral American State, it would be gross injustice on our part 
 to pretend that the treaty did include them. My impression 
 is, that lloatan belongs to the State of Honduras, but my 
 knowledge of the facts is too limited to enable me to e:;presd 
 it without diffidence.. 
 
 During the Administration of President Taylor, there 
 was no new :i<;-, r res.-ion by Great Britain in any part of tire 
 Isthmus which was not promptly met and resisted. He hail 
 firmly resolved, by all constitutional means in his power, 
 to prevent such agcrcssion, if any should be attempted, 
 considering, as he did, that all the passages through the 
 Isthmus should be k<;pt free, to enable us to n-tain our pos 
 sessions on the Pacific. I pretend to know nothing ol" what 
 has occurred there since his day; but neither he nor his 
 advisers could be held responsible if the treaty negotiated 
 by his orders has been at .any time violated since hi-: death. 
 
 1 can scarcely suppose it possible that Great Britain in 
 tends seriously to interpose her prot -ciorale ^;iii to uittain 
 dominion over the Isthmus. I am assured, thsif. w! 
 may in: contained to the contrary in any dispatches emanat 
 ing" from the British. Foreign (Jllice, of which rumor speaks, 
 ; i.- that a !) : half) oftlia 
 
 claim of the Mosquito King lias been l.Uely boiiui t up by 
 . with the concurrence and approbation 
 fd the British Government; and that negotiations are on 
 foot,with a fair pro ; -=, for (he purchase, by the 
 
 same persons, of the residue of that claim. 
 
 I am, dear sir, sincerely your "friend and obedient ser 
 vant, REVEUDV JOHNSON. 
 Hon. JOHN M. CLAYTOX, 
 
 United States Senate, Washington, 
 
 Stereotyped and printed at the Globe Office. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 SSrtrfrfSj 
 
 
 , \$& 
 
 
 r>r"r*T\ I r 
 
 
 KCLV-* LJ L.L 
 
 9- , . 
 
 fk 
 
 ..... 
 
 ^ 
 
 i ^Anr 6?H0 
 
 
 13npi w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EJEC i 2 IS&3 
 
 
 
 MOU -i 2^4 
 
 SS STA 
 
 -^r-^-- , 
 
 CKS * uv <^ OJ 
 
 V 1 ^ O f ^^_ 
 
 LD 21A-50m-9, 58 
 (6889slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley