The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1850-05-22
The Nicaragua Treaty.

net for the part they took in negotiating the late
treaty with England in relation to the canal a.
cross the isthmus of Panama. They pretend to
be in ecstaces of delight at the idea that the Ca.
binet has done something, no matter what, to
transmit to posterity the names and deeds Of
Gen. Taylor and Mr.. Clayton; and their delight
is increased to the highest pitch of mental capa-
city, when they consider that this great treaty
has been made with England. ....
Now, there arc many who believe that very
little advantage is gained over England by trea-
ty. The whole world knows that England is
match for any nation at making good bargain;
and when the whole transaction and accompany
ing circumstances connected with the making of
the late treaty become visible to the public eye,
then will it be seen that Mr.. Clayton will in
deed hand his name down to posterity, but with
the unenviable notoriety offending the influence
of his position to curtal and set bounds to liber-
ty-to the liberty which is mans right in every
nation of the globe.
And what have we gained by this treaty with
England Nothing! absolutely nothing; and We
defy the whole Wing press and Wing party to
prove, that we have gained single point which
we did not already possess without trcaty-with-
out humiliation, and without disgrace; for, dis
graced and humbled mvst we appear in the eyes
of all honorable nations.
That we may not be accused Of unfairness in
the estimate which we put upon this negotiated
law, we shall quote few of its principal provi-
sions IN proof Of our position. The first impor-
tant article provides, that 'neither the United
States nor Great Britain shall ever exercise any
dominion over any part Of Central America"
Now, what has the United States gained by this
provision? or, why bind themselves over to keep
the peace towards Central America? The Uni
ted States never attempted, never desired to ex-
ercise sovereignty over territory not her own,
and hence the binding of her over in the terms
used in this treaty, was wholly gratuitous-
wholly unnccessary-and therefore humiliating
in her to submit to bound and shackled cri-
minal at the bar of nations.
But, say the Wing press, "England submit
ted to the same conditions. Well, so she did,
and so she ought to have done, for she was gull
ty of breach Of the law of nations, in exercis-
ing sovereignty and jurisdiction over a territory
within the limits of an acknowledged sovereign
State.
gained nothing, and lost that which both nations
and individuals hold most dear-reputation We
have submitted to be treated as guilty culprits,
Just because we must needs mike a treaty with
England. A treaty with England! and what
for9 To purchase something from her that she
had right to sell? No: To sell her something
of ours that she wished to buy? No. What then?
Oh, nothing more than to make solemn bargain
with England, that she should share with us in
all the advantages which may accrue from the
construction of a ship canal across the isthmus
of Panama. How very generous Mr.. Clayton
makes this country act towards our old and in
veterate enemy. And this is called great trea-
ty. Oh, yes, it is UNANIMOUSLY great. The 3rd
article of the treaty says:
"Each government pledges itself to respect,
and to use its best Offices to cause to be respect
ed by other nations, the complete and perpetual
neutrality of the ports on the Atlantic and Paci-
fc oceans, which shall be the termni respect
lively of the proposed ship canal through Cen
trail America
Now, we should like to be told, by what right
in law or equity, do the United States and Great
Britain enter into such stipulation as this in
one particular instance. They propose to use
their best offices-i. e., the strong arms of their
power, to secure the neutrality of the ports of a
civilized and independent nation. Why, this
ri oil ic in hiatt and
with the first article in which the same parties
pledged themselves most solcmnly that they
would leave Central America alone; that they
would interfere with the sovereignty in no way
and here, before they get done the
they pledge themselves that they
ers those privileges which none can get from an
Independent nation, but by brute force Sup
pose that England and France should make such
l treaty as we have made with England, and
that our rights and privileges were the subject
Of the bargain as those of Central America are
now, what would ace think of the matter? What
wculd the 1corld Think
We pass on to the seventh article, which is as
follows:
eff the company now holding contract with
the State of Nicaragua, for the construction of
the ship canal uniting the two oceans, shall,
within twelve months, demonstrate to the salts
faction OF the two governments its ability to con-
struct said canal, the foregoing stpulations shall
enure to its benefit; but if not, then any other
duly authorized by Nicaragua, and
who can satisfy the two governments Of its abb
lily to make the canal, shall enjoy all the benc.
fits which this treaty is intended to guaranty to
the constructors of the canal
Now, pray, what right have the United States
or England to dictate terms to company which
has received all its rights and privileges from an
other, and independent nation? In this article
the U. S. become party to an infamous outrage,
and the sharing in the crime with England, is
no justification for our conduct. If England
was determined to interfere with this canal COM
pany, instead of backing her up as we have done,
we should have protested against her intcrfer-
ence, and if necessary, have resisted her agrees
sions by force. Had we done this, if we gained