The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-08-30

conduct pursues him beyond the grave. Mr. Clifford is
still alive. He was until recently our minister to Mex
ico where he represented the interests Of his country
with signal ability He has been lately recalled and we
cannot but attribute tie revival OF the questions growing
out Of the Mexican Protocol, and the charges which
have been preferred at this late day against the commits
sioners who signed it, to the desire Of the administration
to convince the country that the recall of Mr. Clifford
not occasioned byviews OF party expediency or
desire give his place to another the reward Of party
services
The author Of the article in the National Iategener
endeavors to establish the charge against commits
sioners OF violating their instructions. and usupng pow
ers which had not been con6ded to them by effort TO
prove that Protocol is moi memorandum Of converse
lions. but paper Of greater dignity and Importance His
definition is as follows
Protocol is thus serieus and substantial record-a
provisional convention treay-fxing the promises, OIL
es demands, and explanations advanced by each party
Ia the negotiation.
The author OF this definition cites, in support OF the
official value attached Protocol, the refusal OF Mr.
Galatn during the negotiation at London in 1927, rela-
tive Oregon, to insert in the Protocol containing the
minute of the agreement, extending the period OF the
Joint occupancy Of that territory the views entertained
by the British plenipoentaries OF the nature OF that
occupation. Mr. Gallatn right, and yet the def
milton which we have quoted above is clearly wrong
There is technical meaning attached to the term "Pro
tocol" which give to paper binding force that il
would not have, if called by another The charac
ter of any Protocol depends upon its contents and the
circumstances which attended its execution. Protocol
is nothing more than conference between commission
ers or ministers reduced writing for greater certainty,
and its character depends entirely the nature OF the
conference which il records. conference NAV be sim
pie conversation it may result in provisional
ton treaty But when It results in provisional
venon or treaty, it is not regular to record it in Pro-
ocol The departure from this rule in the Oregon nego
ation of 1927 made because definite treaty could
be agreed upon and the questions issue between the
governmeof the United States and that Of Great Britain
could not be then decided. and they accordingly ad
journed to favorable time. Had the negoaiors
been able dispose of those questions in 1927 treaty
and not Protocol would have been drawn up and sub
mitted by them to their respective governments Each
separate conference is recorded in PROTOCOL and but
one OF them contain any definite agreements and the
writer in the National Intelgeneer evidently wished to
mislead the public mind when he mentioned the last Pro-
ocol the Oregon negotiation alone, and failed to aude
to those which preceded it. But to place this matter be-
yond question: and to show the true nature of Protocols
drawn up by ministers, we extract from the Oregon
goation of 1884, conducted by the Hon j. c, Calhoun
on the part Of the United States and Sir Richard Paken
ham on the part Of Great Britain the three first Protocols
drawn up by those eminent men.
PROTOCOLS.
On the Esd of August 1884, conference was held by APP
pontment at office the Secretary of STATE in the city
of between the Hon. John c. Calhoun Score
ary of the United States, and the Right Honorable
u ID Pal ham her Rr
ordinary and Minister Piepipotentary both duly authorized
BY their ~ 20 treat T te %
view establish permanent boundary between the
countries westward Of tile Rocky mountains to the Pa
The conference was opened by both sides
the n saesoe with an DESIRE and in the spirit
compromise 10 effect adjustment consistent with the
aIes then proceeded to examine actual OF the
question stood at the last unsuccessful attempt 10 ad
This DONE the American plenpotentary desired
oeve from the British plenipotentay any fresh proposal he
might be instructed TO offer on the part oil his
The British penipoteniiary said he would be ready
offer proposal their next conferences, hoping thst
the American potentary would be ready 10 present
proposal the part OF his government The conference
adjourned, to meet on Monday, the 26th instant o,
II. PAkENHAM
On the 18th of August 1884, the second conferences was
held between the respective penpotentaries al the ONCE
The British plenpoenary offered paper containing
The American poentary declined the pro.
posai Some remarks followed In reference TO the claims
the countries the territory, when became APP
parent that full understanding OF their respective
In reference to them was necessary at this stage IN
order facilitate future proceedings IL was accordingly
agreed that written statements containing their v eve
should be presented before any further attempt should be
made adjust II also agreed that the Amer.
can plenpoentary should present statement at the next
COME nee and shoud inform the British plenipo.
Tertiary when he was prepared 10 hold u.
X. PAKENHAM.
On the I'd OF September, 1884, the third conference was
held nj the office Secretary of State according TO APP
pointment The American plenipoteniiay presented
the portion OF territory drained by the waters OF
the Columbia river (marked A. and containing ms rea
for declining accept the proposal onred py the
British penpoten afy ut their second conference
X. PAKENIAM.
We do not think IL necessary TO do more than to direct
attention TO the contents OF the three Protocols above to
prove that Protocol is not provisional convention or
treaty but minute OF the conversations explanations
or other transactions had between commissioners min
isters II is evident that the commissioners OF the United
States and the Mexican minister for foreign affairs re-
garded the Protocol drawn up at Queretaro as nothing
more than the explanations which Messrs Clifford and
Sewer were authorized to make, reduced TO writing Tor
greater certainty OF this fact there be question
and no doubts would have been raised with regard TO 1t
by any one who considers the circumstances with the
least degree Of candor General Herrera the President
OF Mexico knew, and Don Luis de la Rosa, the Mexi
can Minister for Foreign Affairs knew, that they had
authority under the constitution and laws Of Mexico to
Il - . n