The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-29

any part Of the North American continent"
To show that none Of the propositions contained
in the above passage are in the slightest degree con-
Mr. Polk in 1927, on the question Of the Panama
mission, is the work of moment.
The general purposes with which the misaion was
instituted and recommended to Congress, are set
forth as follows in the report of Mr. Clay, then Sec
rotary of State
! ."The President believed that such Congress (st
Psnama) as was contemplated might be highly use
fu IN settling several important disputed questions
OF public law IN arranging other matters Of deep inter
est 10 The .amsTiean continent and in strengthening
the friendship and amicabe intercourse between the
American powers"
i One of the matters Of "deep interest" thus pro-
posed to be arranged" by the Congress of Panama,
4 was, in the language Of Mr., Adams, then the Pres
ident, GAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALL THE PAR
TIES represented at the meeting, that each will guard
by its own means, AeAMsr THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
ANY FUTURE EUROPEAN colony within its borders"
The opposition to the mission, ss the grounds Of
Of it developed in debate, and in the report Of
the Committee on Foreign Relations Of the Senate,
rested in the main upon two general reasons;
First, the course of the President in thus insut-
ings new mission Of so general and SO important
a character, without previous sanction Of Congress-
was deemed unconstitutional and dangerous as
precedent.
Secondly, the opponents Of the mission al
!eged that such measure would be a manifest de-
Parture from the policy Of neutrality, the immemo
rial policy Of the country enforced DO strongly by
the example and the advice Of Washington and
that such mission would be likely to entangle US
in dangerous and inexpedient alliances with other
countries.
Apart from the constitutional objection which was
urged with great force, and upon all OCCASIONS and
every variety Of form, the nexpediency of enter
ing inio alliance nth the South american states on
matters Of European policy was mainly insisted on.
How clearly the solidity Of this objection has
been demonstrated by the subsequent history Of
the South American states, need not now stop TO
prove. How strongly the objection was emphasized
by the fact that those states-their independence
just then acknowledged by us-s0us then actually at
pT Ioih Spain, and remained at war for ten years
afterwards, we need not say. II is evident enough
that the question Of the eorStitonaliiy and the sr-
psditney Of participating in congress Of siaes 50 stu
aisd in order 10 take measure, in common against E,-
bic from The prop'i,y Of making knOten, for ourselves,
10 Europe uhat policy, IN respect 10 such eoonisa-
lion, trOuld be. However important the end he
means by ,Ohieh thus sought 10 be accomplished
were clearly open to the gravest objections.
This idea is distinctly embodied in the resolutions
Of MIR. McLane, as quoted in the extract we have
, given above from Mr.. Clayton's speech.
, The same idea is stated with greater force and
dsinctness in the following resolutions on the sub
ject moved by Mr.. Polk, in the House of Repre-
sentatives, on the 18th of April, 1927:
'Re,oped, That it is the constitutional right and
S duty Of the House Of Representatives, when called
for appropriations TO defay the expenses Of for
eign Missions to deliberate on the expediency or in
expedency Of such missions, and to determine and
; duciye to the public good.
. "Resoiped That 1t is the sense Of this House that
the sending Of ministers, on the part Of the United
tntes to take part in the deliberations Of the South
American nations at Panama, would be a total de-
parture from the uniform course of policy pursued
by this government from the adoption of the feder-
al constitution TO the present period, and might and
in all probability would, have tendency involve
the nation in 'entangng alliances and endanger
the neutrality and relations of amity and peace
which at present happily subsist between the Uni
r ted States and the belligerent powers-old SPAIN
e and the southern republics on this continent
RESOLVED THEREFORE, That II is nexpedient to send
, ministers, on the part Of the United States to take
c part in the deliberations Of the said Congress of
Q South American nations at Panama. and that il is
inexpedient to grant any appropriations 10 defray
\. the expenses Of the said mission.
"These resolutions were, on Mr.. Folks notion
referred to the Committee Of the Whole on the
c state of the Union"
|, In the few remarks by which he introduced these
resolutions, Mr. Polk distinctly stated that he had
been induced to offer them for the purpose Of call
!, ing the attention of the House more directly
to poy important principle in relation to
the constitutional powers of the House, which had
: been incidentally noticed during the debate"
7 In the subsequent speech made by Mr. Polk
some ten days afterwards, the general subject of
the mission, almost the whole course of his argu-
ment was devoted to the development of the const-
tuona doctrine stated in his first resolution He
disclamed in TERMS towards the close of his speech
any intention to discuss in general the expedency
or inexpediency of the proposed missien TO Pa
mama"
4 We have carefully examined the whole Of the
! speech, from beginning to end. We deny that it
contains single Uord in opposition 10 the doctrines
.ohich zoe hare quoted ADORE from the message. 1t says
nothing about European colonization this con-
tinent still less does it say anything about such
colonization on the North American continent
and least of all does it say one word to show that
this country ought to permit such colonization.
The attempt to make out an inconsistency between
the message and the speech on these points, is, to
say the least Of il, most unredeemed and absolute
failure We shall be glad, hereafter to publish
the whole speech in proof of what assert. The
resolutions given above the ,chole platform of
Mr.. Folks opposition to the mission to Panama.
! And now let us say that we hope soon to hear
from those statesmen fthere be any such who intend
to oppose the doctrine Of the message on the sub
iect of the colonization Of this North American
continent by foreign powers, what is their doctrine
on the matter. Are they prepared to take the OPP
posite view' Are they prepared to say that this
government permit, ought to permit, such col
,ba,t taLe tbat otand nj.