The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-07-07 00:00:00

world, rprohibiting any encroachment on the part of the
United States and Great Britaii, which were the contracting
and guranteeing parties ; but all its provisions were prospec-
tive ; arid there is certainly nothing in it which implies that
We were to give up Honduras and Ruatan, or to evacuate or

alter our position in any respect from what it was before the
conclusion of the aeaty. It is impossible that the very able
man—Sir Henry Bulwer—who negociated the treaty on the
part of Great Britain, could have taken upon, himself; withciut
instructions—even without the knowledge of hir% government
—to abandon any portion of British territory or British
interests.

Here we have, for the first time, a new argument to
show that the treaty did not give up any existing British
interest in Central America, bee fuse Sir Henry Bulwer
was so able a man that he could not have done it without
the knowledge or instruction of his government, Then he
says

And so far from having done anything of the sort, he made a
stringent provisoiwhich was acknowledged by Mr. Clayton, that
the treaty should not touch Itondurasi or affect any of its depen-
dencies. When Mr. Buchanan came over to this country we
heard, for the first time, that there was an entirely
new interpretation to be put upon the treaty. It was
no longer to be looked upon as a prospective arrange-
ment, but one for the evacuation of British terri-
tory; and we were told we were to blame, and were
the cause—l will not say of a quarrel between the
two countries—but of irritation and complaint on the
part of the United States, because he had not fulfilled
the engagements of the treaty by evacuating all the terri-
tory we possessed in Central America. I told Mr. Buchanan
—what was the perfect truth—that that was the first time I
had heard such an interpretation put upan the treaty. He re-
pli d that, in his country, there was no doubt upon the
subject.

The new reason now given for the British interpretation
that Sir Henry L. Bulwer was too able a man to have
violated his instructions, requires of me the proof of a fact
which is incontrovertible, that Sir Henry, who was indeed
a very able man, was fully apprised by me during the
negotiation, and before the treaty was signed, that the word
occupy" meant not only to " take," bat to " keep
possession," and, of course, that when Great Britain bound
herself not to occupy any part of Central America she was
distinctly understood by us to bind herself not to keep any
existing possessions she had then, as well as not to make
new acquisitions. I' bold in nay hand the original draft of
a private note, addressed by me to Sir Henry, on the 11th
day of February, 1850, more than two months before the
signature of the convention, on the 19th of April, and a week
after the first experimental projet, which was signed by us
both, but abandoned because we could not then agree about
this protectorate. In this note, referring to the clause in'
that projet which bound both parties not to occupy, &c., t
informed him, "cur projet, signed by us on the 3rd, which
is to he considered as having never been made,' in case our
governments do not approve it, did, in my opinion, bind
both parties not to occupy—that is, take, or keep possession."
The extraordinary precaution which induced me thus to
define an English word of so plain a meaning—a meaning
acknowledged by every English author—now enables me
to prove conclusively that the British plenipotentiary per-
fectly well understood the meaning we attached
to the treaty, and he acquiesed in that in-
terpretation
by not attempting to deny it. Sir
Henry L. Bulwer will readily acknowledge this fact,
the proof of which I now adduce, because this is the first
time Lord Clarendon has thus appealed to the weight of
his name to sustain himtelf. Here, sir, I say, is the
draft in my handwriting of the letter which contains
that definition. And here is the certificate, on the back
of it, by as honourable a man as there is in the United
States, the present Attorney-General of the State of Dela-
ware, who was then a clerk in the State Department,
that this is the true original draft of the very letter which
was placed in the hands of the British Minister. He

says :
I do hereby certify that the within is the original draft of a
private note addressed by Mr. Clayton, Secretary of State, on
the 11th day of February, 1850, to Sir Henry L. Bulwer,
from which I copied the letter which I know was sent to Sir
Henry on the same day, and further, that the within draft was
copied verbatim, and the word "draft" at the top of the first
pare, and the concluding paragraph, are in my own hand-
writing.
GEORGE P. FiSHER.
Then we have the fact, incontrovertibly, that when the
British government bound themselves that they would
not occupy any part of Central America, I had given them
to understand, distinctly, that they bound themselves, not
only that they would not take, but that they would not
keep possession of the country which they already had.
Now, after all that, and certainly with the perfect means
of knowing these things, the Earl of Clarendon, while
professing to throw the whole blame on our government of
the controversy between the two, tells us that he is
astonished at the " new interpretation" which he says Mr.
Buchanan attempted to put on the treaty when be contended
that the treaty bound them not to keep possession of the
country after they had agreed they would not occupy it.
This treaty was exchanged on the two papers which have
been published long since, and sent here—the first a decla-
ration on the part of the British minister, and the second
my counter declaration. In order to secure the evidence
of that fact at the time, and immediately after the treaty
had been finally exchanged between us (we had been up all
night) before I slept I made a memorandum which appears
endorsed on the declaration as published that,
" thereon, [that is, on those two papers,) without
any further or other act," the treaty was exchanged.
Now, let any man take these two notes—their declaration
and my counter declaration —and then see how far they
jnstify the unqualified assertion in the speech of the Earl of
Clarendon in the British House of Loris, that the British
plenipotentiary " made a stringent nroviso, which was
acknowledged by Mr. Clayton, that the treaty should not
touch Honduras, or affect. any of its dependencies." But,
sir, Ido not propose to discuss this subject. I have, on a
former occasion, fully shown that the declarations of the
negotiators, at the time of the exchange, were understood
on both sides as not in any degree altering or affecting the
construction of the treaty, and that no one knew better
than the able minister of Great Britain ; because he was by
me distinctly apprised of it at the time, that, if his declara•
tion was intended to effect any such purpose, it was of no
avail without the consent of the Senate, which he did not
des;re should be obtained or asked for;
Mr. CAss : If the senate will hear me for a moment, I
wish to say a word or two on the matter mentioned by the
honourable senator from Delaware. I read with great
amazement the statement made by Lord Clarendon, and I
brought it with me this morning to submit it to the senate
on some proper occasion. I did not intend to introduce it,
but the honourable senator from Delaware has introduced it,
and I shall now, in addition to what he has said,
ask the attention of the senate for a very short time.
The senator has correctly stated what we all know, and
what has been reiterated here time and again, that this
treaty contained a provision that neither party should
accupy any part of Central America. That was the stipula-
tion—the object, indeed, of the convention. Now every
Englishman, from one end of the land to the other, thinks
that that engagement does not mean occupation at all, but
means acquisition, that when England says, in a treaty
with us, she will not occupy any part of Central America,
she means that she will hold on to what she has got but will
not acquire any more. Such is the universal opinion of the
treaty in that country, arising out of the pretension, so
strenuously urged, that it is prospective in its operation.
So it is like all other treaties, that is, it operates on the
future and not on the past. As soon as it was ratified its
obligations commenced, and neither could do an act or leave
one undonce required or prohibited by it, under the pre-
tence that it did not apply to the state of things then
existing. Ido not know that there is a public man in
England—l do not think one man has stood up is the
House of Lords or Commons and disavowed this construc-
tion. I hold in my hand a very liberal paper, called the
Economist, certainly without any unfriendly feelings to us,
but on this point it is as decided as Lord Clarendon. This
is what it says :
We sincerely believe that, as the differences of opinion
regarding the construction of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty began
with Mr Buchanan, it will be found that with is departure
from England they have practically vanished. No doubt Mr.
Buchanan always wrote in the name of the President of the
United States, and might, therefore, be fairly supposed to
express the views df his government; but it is nevertheless
admitted by those best acquainted with the opinions of Mr.
Marcy, the Secretary of State, that he not only never identified
himself with the disputes raised by Mr. Buchanan, but even
(lid not hesitate, when opportunity occurred, to intimate that
that was rather Mr. Buchanan's question than his ; and this,
we are disposed to think, may account for the fact that, since
Mr. Buchanan's departure from England was decided upon, no
further step has been taken by the American government,
even at the risk of being charged with want of ordinary cour-
tesy to a friendly state, by omitting to reply to an important
communication. That such should have been the views of Mr.
Marry, no one who has read the correspondence as laid before
Parliament will be surprised ; for if there be one thing more
clear than another, it is that the concessions sought to be
exacted by Mr. Buchanan by his interpretation of the treaty
had never so much as entered into the heads of the negociators
who signed it.
As to Mr. Marcy, this dogmatic assertion, or rather con-
clusion, is purely farcical ; for the whole country knows, to
reverse the expression, that it never entered into his head
that any other interpretation than that occupation meant
occupation, and not acquisition, had entered into the heads
of the negotiators. Here is one of the most liberal papers
in England, saying that our construction, namely : that
"occupation," as the honourable senator from Delaware
says correctly means " possession," never entered into the
bead of a man in this country until Mr. Buchanan went to
England. It is a species of national monomania which I
should be astonished to find in any other country in the
world. if Mr. Buchanan was the first to teach his coun'ry-
men their rights under that treaty, it was another good act
for which he deserves their confidence ; but, from the
moment the treaty was promulgated there was not an
American who thought of any other construction but the
true one, and it would not have got a vote in the senate
under any other impression. This treaty provides in its
terms that Central America shall not b 3 occupied by either
party. We all know it was sent back from England to Mr.
Bulwer, with instructions not to exchange the ratifications
unless accompanied with a declaration that its provisions did

not include the British possessions at the Belize and its de
pendencies, Now, I desire to know what need there was of
such an exemption, if the terms of the treaty did not include
these possessions ? and how could they include them,if this
new fangled intrepretation is the true one, that the tr Ittv only
operated upon the future to prevent the occupation of future
acquisitions ; or, in other words, t prevent the acquisition
of new territory ? And this declaration was made, and
then the ratifications were exchanged. I should like to
have Lord Clarendon; or any other man, tell me how he
reconciles his pretensions now with the course of the British
government. That govermiient then thought that the
terms of the treaty'embraced these possessions; and secured
their exemption by a special act. Now, the treaty did not
touch them at all, for it operated only on the future, and
they would thus have been protected without any additional
act. It is difficult to find in the whole history of national
intercourse an example of a similar inconsistency, not indeed
to call it by a harsher, but as true an epithet. But this
is not all, to show that the construction now contended
for by the British government was then even thought
of. Three years after the formation of this treaty,
Lord Clarendun sent to Mr. Crampton, to be laid b3fore
our government, the copy of a letter dated April 15,
1853, from the British Advocate General, a high law
officer, consulted by the government in cases involving
international law points.: ln that letter is the following
paragraph :
I understand Mr. Clayton, also, to assert that, by the treaty,
Great Britain " has abandoned all dominion in the whole of
Central America," which assertion is, in my opinion, incorrect
and at variance with the fact, at least as regards Belize and its
dependencies, if, indeed, this exception was not intended by
hitn.

Now, sir, the judge advocate, in considering the question
whether his government " has abandoned all dominion in
the whole of Central America," says, in his opinion it is
inconsistent with the fact, so far as respects Belize and its
dependencies, Nthich are the very possessi ms excepted by
the declaration or rider, and which he evidently considers,
by his allusion to Mr. Clayton, as the tenure by which
Great Britain' holds those possessions. He claimed no
exemptio❑ on this prospective ground. But, sir, we have
the testimony of Lord Clarendon himself to our construction
of the treaty. In a letter, dated May 27, 1853, to Mr.
Crampton, he says :
But Great Britain has no where, in the treaty of April,
1850, renounced, nor ever had any intention to renounce, the
full and absolute right which she possesses over her own
lawful territories in Central America, such as their designation
was distinctly understood and declared by the negotiations of

the treaty.
Here is Lord Clarendon's own declaration, made years
ago, in which he claims that the lawful territories of Great
Britain in Central America inolude only such as that desig-
nation was declared by the negotiators. Now, I defy him
or any other man to find one word in the treaty designating
the British possessions iu Central America ; and the only
reference to it is found in the rider or declaration accompa-
nying the ratification. In that the negotiators declared
" That the Belize and its dependendies were exempted from
the treaty." And Lord Clarendon, in this letter, claims to
hold those possessions, not by virtue of any prospective
construction, but by virtue of this express declaration.
Lord Clarendon has now discovered that Mr. Buchanan was
the first to announce that the terms of the treaty took effect
from the ratification, and were to operate upon everything
included within the words of the treaty, and not specially
exempted. When he expressed this astonishment he must
have forgotten that his government and himself had previ-
ously put the natural interpretation upon the treaty as We
did. I read, with surprise, this account of the debate in the
House of Peers, in which he said :
When Mr. Buchanan came over to this country, we heard
for the first time that there was an entirely new interpretation
to be put upon the treaty. It was no longer to be looked upon
as a prospective arrangement, but one for the evacuation of
British territory, and we were told that we were to blame, and
were the cause—l will not say of a quarrel between the two
countries, but of irritation and complaint on the part of the
United States ; because we had not fulfilled the engagement of
the treaty by evacuating all the territory we possessed in
Central America. I told Mr. Buchanan—what was the perfect
trtith —that that was the first time I had heard such an
interpretation put upon the treaty, He replied that in his
couutry there was no doubt upon the subj-et.
Now, sir, listen to Mr. Buchanan. In his letter to Mr.
Marcy, dated January 10, 1854, he says :—" After that we
had a discursive and rambling conversation, embracing the
Ruatan and Belize questions, and Clayton and Bulwer
treaty, and several other matters which I do not propose to
detail. In the course of it he stated distinctly that this
treaty was, in their opinion, entirely prospective
in its operation, and did not require them to abandon
any of their possessions in Central America. At this
I expressed my astonishment, and we discussed the
point in an earnest but good natured manner."
However surprised Lord Clarendon may have been, I
have no doubt but Mr. Buchanan will be much more so, both
at the declaration itself and at the strange inconsistency of
which it is the proof. But, sir, besides the two grounds for
holding possessions in Central America—the declaration of
the negotiators and the 'prospective nature of the treaty—
Lord Clarendon has more recently discovered another, by
which his government is justified in holding on, showing
conclusively that they are determined to adhere to their
claim, while they will not be found wanting in reasons to
offer for it. In Lord Clarendon's letter to Mr. Buchanan,
dated September 28, 1855, after maintaining that the treaty
did not " interfere with the state of things existing at the
time of its conclusion," he says:

,
If it had been intended to do so, [that is to give up their
possession.] there can be no question but that, in conformity
with what the undersigned believes to be the universal rule in
r,,gard to instruments of this nature, it would have contained,
in specific terms, a renunciation, on the part of Great Britain,
if the possessions and rights which, up to the conclusion of the
convention, she had claimed to maintain, and such renuncia-
tion would not have been left as a mere matter of inference.
I know nothing of any such rule. Lord Clarendon, in
the enuncia'ion of it, is his own expositor of the law of
nations, and I reject the authority. The rule with honest
men and with honest nations is, that if they enter into a
stipulation to do an act, or not to do one, they are to conduct
themselves accordingly, without trying to get rid of their en-
gagements by saying I did not undertake to do something else.
A poor code of ethics, this, for the foreign affairs of a
nation. I was pleased the other day at the gentle (genteel,
I might say) hint to France and England which the Presi-
dent gave in his message on the subject of acquisition of
territory. The governments of both of those countries, and
especially of England, have been a good deal exercised at
our grasping propensity, and the English journals see, in
the recognition of the existing government of Nicaragua,
another proof of our extension. They are almost disposed
to make it a question of war ; and yet, sir, it was but in
conformity with the principle upon which we have acted
since the time of General Washington, and which guided
him, as shown not only by his proceedings, but by his deela.
ration made to Mr. Adet, the French minister. This principle
is, to recognise every de facto government which is recognised
in its own country. By virtue of this rule, Mr. Rush was
justified in his recognition of the new government in France
after the overthrow of Louis Phillippe. The president
might well remind both France and England of their love
of acquisition, and of their continued practice of it, the
empire of the one approaching the Great Desert of Africa,
and of the other reaching the confines of Hindostan. But
it is a continued subject of reproach in the English journals
that we have acquired territory, and, like the Pharisee, they
say, we are more virtuous than our neighbours, and not
like tbat great grasping democracy across the Atlantic,
which seizes all that it can get. There are three or four
ways of acquiring territory—by conquest, by purchase, and
by mutual arrangement. We have never acquired a foot we
did not pay for. Even with respect to Mexico, she drove
us to war, and though we conquered first, we purchased
afterwards. But there is another method of annexation,
which is by fraud—by forgery, indeed; and by such a pro-
cess England held her first title to the great kingdom of
Bengal. The fact is a historical one, and well known ; but
this is not a bad time to advert to it when professions of
extraordinary virtue are made before the world. History is
written for example—for examples to be followed or to be
shunned. The episode to which! advert belongs to the latter
class, and not to the former. Lord Clive was at the head
of the infant British establishment in India. A war broke
out with the Nabob of Bengal. Clive made a treaty with
the general of his army for the deposition of his master,
and for putting him on the throne as the tool of the
English. There was an engagement entered into which
Clive disliked, and did not want to pet into the treaty ; but
his arrangements could not be carried into effect unless the
opposite party thought it was there. He, therefore, had
two papers prepared—one white and one red—and he so
contrived it that the one leaving out this engagement was
signed, and the other left unsigned ; and by that deceit
the promise was violated, but the object was attained.
Lord Clive's colleague in the negoeiation, Admiral
Watson, refused to be a party to the arrangement,
and Clive forged his name to the treaty. This mode of
acquisition has been condemned time and again in England,
and the transaction characterised as it deserved. But I never
heard that it was proposed by anybody, moralist or states..
man, to redress the wrong by giving up the country or by
any other compensation.

Mr. Pearce : Mr. President, I do not desire at present
to renew the general discussion, but to make a brief state-
ment relative to the most important point, if not the only
really difficult question, in our negotiations with England
respecting the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. It will be recol-
lected that Lord Clarendon, in one of his letters to Mr.
Buchanan, claims for Great Britain the Island of Ruatan
as one of the dependencies of her Belize settlement. Now,
I have seen, in a work of authority, reference to an official
letter from a British minister quite inconsistent with that
claim. In November, 1836, Sir George Grey, then the
Secretary of State for the Colonies, addressed an official
letter to S. Co xe, Esq., who was connected in some
capacity, I believe with a great corporatioc, called the
" Central America Commercial and Agricultural Com-
pany," tc which important grants had been made by the
State of Guatemala—in which letter the limits of the
Be!ize settlements and their island dependencies, as
claimed
by Great Britain, are definitely stated. These limits are
thus stated :

From the Rio Hondo on the north to the river Saratoon on
the south, and u far West as Garbotts Falls, on the river

Belite, and a line on the same parallel to strike on the river
Hondo on the north, and on the river Sarstoon on the south.
The British crown claims also the waters, islands, and quays,
lying between the coast above defined and the meridian of the
cap ermost point of lighthouse reef.
Be an inspection of the map of Central America, prepared
by order of the senate at the coast survey office, it will at
or c 3 be seen that Ruatan, and all the colony of the Bay
islaeds establi!le d by Great Britain in 1850, lie to the east
of the meridian, thus declared by Sir George Grey to be the
eastern limit of the dependencies of the Belize, and that,
therefore, as late as last November, 1836, these island*
were not claimed by the British crown. Indeed, beside"
the disclaimer necessarily implied in Sir G. Grey's letter,
may be mentioned the fact, as stated by the same author,
that when, in
.1.§30, this island was seized by the com-
mandant at Belite, and remonstrances were presented on the
part of the federal authorities of Central America to the
British government the seizure was " disallowed." Not-
withstanding these disclaimers, the authorities of the Belize .
again seized Ruatan 1.841 ; and that ad has not been
disavowed, though the seizure was made by hauling down
the Honduras flag, and intimidatiefe into submission thil
single sergeant and four or five Indian eeldiers who main]
tained the possession for Honduras. Great Britain cannot
pretend any title, founded in an act of merely superior
power, without right. And, indeed, Lord Clarendon
seems to have changed his ground by averring, as he did in
a later letter or statement, that Great Britain had acquired
a right to those islands by the voluntary settlement of some
of her subjects in Ruatan. These voluntary settlements by
British subjects, would not give even a shadow of
sovereignty to the British crown. As well might it be said
that a settlement made by Bahama fishermen, or turtle
catchers, on one of our Florida Keys, would transfer the
sovereignty from the United States to Great Britain. The
facts I have mentioned not having found a place in the
various statements of the negotiators, I have desired to
place them on the records of our debates.
Mr. Clayton : I intended, when I first rose to-day, to
make some comment on the remarks of the Earl of Oa•
rendon, in regard to his proposition of arbitration. He tells
the House of Peers that he has offered to refer the whole
Central American question to some impartial government of
Europe ; and of course he expected to throw on ue, if Mr:
Marcy refused to arbitrate, the responsibility of refusing
pacific adjustment of the controversy. Now, sir, when Gni
secretary of state has such heavy responsibility as is devolved
on him in reference to this question, and acts as ably and
fairly as I think he has, I hold it to be my duty to sustain
him. I fully approve of the course which he has adopted
in reference to this matter, and especially his refusal to
arbitrate that part of the controversy which relates to the
construction of the treaty. I know very well, sir, that a
nation which, under ordinary circumstances, refuses to Fre
sent to arbitration, takes upon itself a great responsibility.
-Under such circunutances, in order to avoid this last fearful
extremity, it is the duty pf nations to refer controversies. I am
willing to concede that, but ii: re the terms are not equal.
We would do better to fight at ors": for what is 93 plainly
ours, and so indispensable to our existence:—far better than
to refer the propriety of that existence to others., and espe-
cially to such as might be glad to get rid of us. A EureTean
monarch has no great love for our form of government, nor
has he any great desire to preserve us anything we may
deem indispensable to our integrity and union as a nation.
I have another objection to arbitration of this description.
It is impossible to enforce the award unless the losing party
voluntarily submits to it. If a decision should be made
against England in reference to this controversy, she might
take the very same course which she has adopted in
order to retain possession of the Bay Islands—miscon-
struing the agreement, and say the award is not bitid
ing. We ourselves did not consider the award of
the King of the Netherlands binding upon us when the
submission was made of the question as to our north-eastern
boundary. I say, therefore, that I do cordially concur with
the secretary of state in the course he has adopted. I aell
perfectly willing to refer the geographical question, whether
the islands, called the Bay Islands, are, or are not, depen*
dencies of Belize, or whether they are or are not adjacent to
ancient Guatemala, now called Central America, if that is
their wish; but I understand Lord Clarendon, in his corres-
pondence, distinctly to concede that these islands are Central
American islands; and when he concedes that, in my judge
ment, he gives up the whole question. As to the President's
recognition of Walker's piratical government in Nicaragua,
I utterly condemn it, as I deprecated such a costae before
he adopted it. I predicted fully the disgrace which stoma
attend such an act, and I have not been disappointed.
Mr. Cass quoted from the Edinburgh Review an article,
on Sir John Malcom'e life of Lord Clive, in relation to the
acquisition of Bengal, as directly bearing on the question
now before the Senate.

Mr. Toombs: There is nothing in this case, absolutely
nothing which excludes it from any general rule for refering
to arbitration international difficulties. If it concerned
the sovereignty or independence of the country—if it
was a right which we could not afford to surrender at and
hazard— I would not refer it ; but it is by no means
true thai the Nicaragua route is a matter of that impor-
tance to the country which would warrant us in going
and taking it by force. We have the Panama route now
guaranteed by treaty. There is another which the senate
have declined, but which the country can probably
get at any time, still more convenient. Besides,
we have a continuous territory from here to
the Pacific ocean, by which we are able to
reach our dominions on the Pacific at pleasure. I very much
regret that the senator from Michigan, in the present con=
dition of our relations with England, departing from the
real controversy on which he has so frequently enlightened
the senate and the conntry, should make charges that
England committed frauds fifty years ago in her acquisitions
in the East Indies. Ido not think the time appropriate—
Ido not think the case good. It is mere crimination and
recrimination. That she is a government of bad character
—I mean with reference to her acquisitions of territory—
I heartily admit; but I think this a very bad time and bad
occasion to say so. I trust the government has not taken
the steps which he supposes ; or, if it has taken them. I
hope it will retrace them, My objection to the treaty had
been immovable from the beginning. I consider it much
more worthy of abrogation, at the risk of war, than of non-
reference.

Mr. Cass : Mr. President, I have great respect for the
honourable senator from Georgia, but I entirely dissent
from him as to the propriety of receiving the reproaches
of the English people and press a ithout defending the
conduct of our own country or examining that of England.
There is not a ship which reaches here from Europe that
does not bring us an account of unfriendly discussions in
the English press and Parliament, and amongst the
English people, reproaching us for what they consider
our everlasting and inordinate desire for annexation.
The very last arrival conveys the information that our
recognition of the government of Nicaragua is attributed
to a determination to acquire that country, and also Costs
Rica, and, in fact, I believe, all Central America. No*s
sir, I do not believe in the propriety o f sitting still,
shutting our ears and our mouth to bitter reproaches,
and when one cheek is struck, turning the other to
undergo the same humiliation. I think that these matters
involved in our foreign intercourse constitute proper
subjects to be discussed in the American Congress,
before the American people.

Mr. Clayton : Six years ago the senate decided in
favour of the treaty of 1850, by a vote of 44 to 10, or more
than four to one. The very ablest men at that time in the
country, including the Committee on Foreign Relations.
with Mr. King as their chairman, besides Henry Clay,
Daniel Webster, and other very considerable gentlemen
like them, voted for that treaty upon full consideration
and discussion of its bearings. lam perfectly content to
abide by the decision of the public, when that public shall
know the high standing and great ability of those gentle.
men who approved and sustained that instrument. But.
with regard to a matter more important for us now to con-
sider—the abrogation of the treaty. Why, sir, we have
it not in our power to abrogate it. We have it in our
power, if we choose, to declare by a solemn act of con-
gress, or in some other way, that Great Britain has
violated the treaty; and then we may, at our peril, take
upon ourselves to refuse to comply with it on our part.
That would probably lead to a war. Are we ready for
it ? I have said repeatedly that the British government
has violated this treaty, and grossly violated it. That is
my opinion now ; but, sir, I have studiously enquired what
benefit we should gain by abrogation. If I could see any
I would consent to abide the consequences of declaring it
null to-morrow, though a war might, and probably would.
be the consequence of it. What benefit can we gain by
such a course? How will it place us in any better posi-
tion ? What would be our position if we could and
should abrogate the treaty ? The British would then,
without any question, be in possession of the whole of
Central America, or as much of it as they desire. -If the
treaty were abrogated they would claim all they claim
now, and a great deal more. I have said again
and again, and incurred some censure for having
Said
it, as it appears from some newspapers, that if I
could be satisfied a decided majority of both branches of
congress would agree to enforce what is called the Mon-
roe
doctrine in regard to this territory—if they would
really determine that Great Britain should not remain in
possession of this country, I would be very willing to join
them. As to the Panama route, Great Britain is not
bound to protect it by anything but the very treaty which
he would get rid of. The only treaty which makes that
neutral, is the treaty with the insignificant State of
New Granada ; and the neutrality under that treaty
extends only as far as the narrow strip embraced in
the province of Panama, which Great Britain, were
she in possession of the adjoining Central American
State of Costa Rica, as she would be coul 1 she
be free from the treaty. of 1850, would, in time of war with
us, seize after less than a three days' march. The secre-
tary of state says he will arbitrate the question of geo.
graphy, but not any question so plain as that which the
Earl of Clarendon proposes to him, whether the word
"occupy " means what they themselves understood it to
mean, as I have shown, and what every dictionary of the
English language says it means. The British ministry
have undertaken to put a construction on an English
word which no one dictionary in their own language will
sustain. When the proof is overwhelming as to whit was
the meaning of the parties at the time, as it is here, it
does appear to me that it would he an insult to us to ask
us to arbitrate before a Europen prince such a question
as that. I could not have any confidence that they would
abide by the award, if made against them, as they refuse
to abide by an honest and fair interpretation of the
treaty. I take leave of the question, perfectly satisfied
with the wisdom of the policy of Mr. Marcy and the President, in relation to this subject of referenced