Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-05-12

SONS win IL aud treated with 1t in behalf Of the French
King: All that did not make him member of liz nor
connect him at all with the relations which IFS members
bore to each other. As he treated the subject of
carrying on 1e war against England, was doubtless
hostile towards that power but this consequence ollGw
ed from the object and oil the stipulations and
not from the manner of the intercourse. The repre
sentatives of these South American states IL is said
will carry GA begerant councils al this Congress BE
1t so snail not join in such councils, at The mo
ment OF iDvitatton our government informed the min
listers OF those states that could make ourselves
party to the war between them and Spain, nor To
councils for deIibcrating the of its further
prosecution.
IT, 1t is asked. send ministers TO Congress COM
posed altogether of beiligerans, is ii not breach of
neutrality: Certainly not: no man say il is Sup
pose, sir that these ministers from the new states in
stead OF Panama, were to assemble at Boeoa where
we already nave ministers their councils at that place
might be beigeFant, while the war should last with
Spain. But should we on that account recall our mi
mister from Bogc,a. The whole argument rests on This
that because at the same time and place. the agents of
the South American governments NAV negotiate about
ther own relations with each other in regard to their
common war against Spain therefore we cannot at the
same time and place. negotiate with them; or any or
them, upon neutral and commercial relat
Tins proposition, sir, cannot be maintained and there
fore, all the differences from il fail.
But, sir, see no proof that, between themselves
the representatives of the South American states are
topossrss other than diplomatic powers refer 10 The
treaties, which essentially alike, and which have
been often read.
With two exceptions, (which viii notice. the arti.
Giles of these treaties describing the powers of the
Congress, are substantially like those in the treaty of
ParIS III 1914 providing for the Congress of Vienna
Ii was there stipulated That all the powers should send
plenipoen,iaries to Vienna, to regulate in general
Congress- the arrangements TO complete the provisions
OF the present treaty. Now, it might have been here
asked, how regulate How regulate in general Con
gress?-reguate by votes' Sir, nobody asked such
questions: simply because it was TO be CONGRESS- of
plenipotentiaiics The two exceptions which have
mentioned are that this Congress is TO act as conn
CT! and 20 interpret treaties but there nothing in e.
Their of these 10 be done which may not be done diplo
matcaily. What is more common tan diplomatic in.
tercourse, 10 explain and interpret treaties? Or what
more frequent than that nations having a common OBJ
Ject, interchange mutual couDscs aud advice through
the medium of their respective ministers: To bring
this matter sir 10 the test let ask when these min
listers assemble at Panama, they do any thing but
according TO their Instructions Have they any oTran
izaon, any power OF aconsor any rule OF action com
mon 10 them all 30 more. sir, than the respective
ministers at the Congress of Vienna Every tllinor is
settled by The use OF the word Penipotenarv. That
proves the meeting to be diplomatic, and nothing else
Who ever heard of a Plenipotentiary member of the
Legislaure:-a pIenpotentary burgess of a cily2-or
a ple;spotentiary knight of the shire?
" may dismiss all fears SIR arising from the nature
OF this meeting. Our agents will go there, if they go
at all IN the character OF ministers protected by the
public law, negotiating Only for ourselves and not cal
led on Ioate any neutral duty of their own govern
ncnt. If it be so that this meeting has other movers
III consequence of other arrangements between other
states, OF which see no preof still, we are not par
y to these arrangements, can be in any way al
tected by them. As far this government is con-
cerned nothing be done By negotiation, as in other
1t has been affirmed, that this measure, and the SEN
umcnts expressed by the Executive relative 10 its OBJ
Iects acknowledged departure from the neutral
policy OF the United States Sir deny there is an
acknowledged departure any departure at ALL f,om
the neutral policy of the country What do we mean
by our neutral policy? Not, suppose, blind and
stupid indifference to whatever is passing around u.s.
not total disregard to approaching events or approach
ing evils, tiii they meet full in the face. Nor do we
inean by our neutral policy, that intend never to
assert our rights by force. No sir. We mean bv our
policy of neutrality that the great objects Of national
pursuit with are connected With peace We coyci
no rovinces; desire Conquests; we entertain no
ambitious projects of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by war This
IS our policy. But il does not follow, from this that
we rely less than other nations our own power to
vndicate our own rights We know that the last logic
OF kings also our last logic; that own interests
must be defended and maintained by our own arm and
that peace or war may not always be of our own choo
sing Our neutral policy therefore, only ustifes
but requires, our anxious attention TO the political
events which take place in the world a skilful tercep
on OF their relation to our concerns, early an
ucpation OF their consequences and firm and timely
assertion of what we bold 10 be our own rights and
our own interests Our neutrality is not predeler-
Iueu abstinence ether from Inconsistencies from
force. Our neutral policy is policy that protects
neutrality, that defends neutrality that takes up arms
need be, Tor neutrality. When it said therefore
that this measure departs from neutral policy either
that policy or the measure itself is misunderstood
1t implies either that the object the tendency of the
measure is to involve in the war of other states
which think cannot be shown, that the assertion Of
our own sentiments, points affecting deeply our own
interests, may place in hostile altitude with other
states, and that, therefore, depart from neurality
Whereas the truth is, that the decisive assertion and
The firm support of these sentiments may be most es
senal to the maintenance of neutrality.
an honorable member from Pennsylvania thinks this
Congress viii bring dark day the United States
Doubtless sir, it interesting moment in our hsto
Ty but see no great proofs Of thick coming darkness
But the object of the remark seemed to be 10 show that
the President himself difficulties on all sides and
making choice of evils, preferred rather to send min
sers to this Congress, than 10 Tue risk Of exciting
the hostility o: the states by refusing send In other
words tie gentleman wished to prove that the President
intended an alliance although such intention is express
ly disclaitned.
Much commentary has been bestowed on the letters
OF invitation from tie ministers shall not 90 through
WI lO~if i~fer tf IL III