The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-18

sagas M Hasassssa Treaty.
One Of the most striking objections against the late
treaty negotiated by Mr. Clayton and Sir Henry Bulwer,
IN relation 10 the ship across the State Of Nicaragua
Is TO be found in the iact. that actually Applies the Non
roe doctrine 10 h country instead OF using it to defeat
further colonization on this continent by foreign nations
This single feature In the treaty. we do not hesitate
say. should cause its condemnation BY the American peo
pie, and its rejection by the Senate. Mr. Clayton him
self feels that il is the weak point, the ugly feature in
the treaty, which shou, Of ITSELF Independent Of the
many other strong and sufficient objections to it its
rejection And hence, through the National Iategen
Ger Ohe authorized cabinet organ) of yesterday, an
attempt is made, with the usual jesury which charac
terze both the organ and the Secretary to forify this
vulnerable point in the treaty And in order to do this
the more efecualy or. correctly speaking. in order
to mlsead and deceive the American people as to the
real ground OF objection to the Nicaragua treaty. the
Intsligsnosr cites clause from the late treaty with
Mexico. which isin the following wordsi
Tho boundary line established by this article shall BIO re-
gouy respected by each Of the two republics and change
shall EVER THEREIN, except by the express and
free NATIONS, lawfully given by the general
government Of each. Conformity Nth its comsiit
lion.
And this clause. the Iatsgenesr, with adroitness
than TRUTH attempts to show, binds this republic against
any further annexation south Of the present boundary
between this country and Mexico; and therefore, mas
much the treaty with Great Britain respecting Mica
ragua binds this government never 10 acquire any ter
ritory political jurisdiction in Central America, il is a
reiieraon Of the substance Of the Mexican treaty
In other words the restraining stipulations Of the
British treaty merely require this government to do what
has stipulated to do in the Mexican treaty. and that
is territory to the republic south Of the
present boundary with Mexico. The InteLigencer in
substance, contends that the Mexican treaty binds this
government not TO acquire any territory in other
countries than Merco, south Of the northern boundary Of
the last named republics and this false and absurd
ground the Intelligencer and Mr.. Clayton justify the
stipuations in the new British treaty, by which this
government is restrained from making any territorial
acquisitions in ahnexng any of the States Of Central
America in all future tme il those States should desire to
come into the Union at any future time. The Latei-
gencer says
The present administration, having thus learned from
their predece there be
south Of the ella river, assaed by the or
gans which proclaimed the virtues of the treaty with Mex
leo, for having agreed with the government Of Great,
Britain. which, in right ofthe Mosquito King held one
of Central America occupy that distant country
which than fifteen hundred miles south OF the UIti
ma Thule of Enumeration" which they themselves have
prescribed.
Now, let examine the force OF this brilliant argu-
ment, based as il is upon unquesonable untruth.
The treaty from which the clause is quoted by the Intel
Hgsncer is the late treaty of peace with Mexico OF
course it relates alone to the affairs Of the two republics
making it. and no others. It argues that the boundary
line beticesn them .haI be regiousy respected, and
that no change shall be made therein, except by the
express and free consent OF both nations. Now what
application has this to any other country except Mex
ico Does it stpulaie that shall not acquire territory
south of Mexico' 1t is true we cannot acquire any
more Of territory of Merso, as long this treaty
lists except by her consent But do the Iateigencer
and the Secretary OF State contend that we cannot,
while the Mexican treaty exists, acquire territory else
where, even in South America, If we can agree with
those powers which possess sovereignty over it, II
such be the true construction in the Mexican treaty. why
put restraining clauses in the British treaty According
to the Idi,geneers reasoning. not sufficiently
bound by the Mexican treaty The absurdity OF such
an argument is too transparent to deceive anybody
And such s the sub,erfuge put forth to justify the
Notifying and gnominous surrender Of the Monroe doc
,rne which Mr. Clayton has made in his late treaty
win OH henry DulWef lie mas IN tnat ueaty permit
ted Great Britain, our formidable maritime and CONNER
cal rival to fr boundaries for US IN short, 10 apply
The Monroe principle 10 ourselves. Does he imagine he
can, by any preiext sophism reconcile the American
people 10 this Notifying and dsgraeeful surrender OF
their rights and honor II so. we think he will find
himself greatly mistaken. t,
But, in order 10 give its argument show OF force,
the Iniegencer feels under the necessity Of admitting
the right of Great Britain under the Mosquito King
hold half Of Central America. Great Britain has no such
right. Her interference the Mosquito shore s found
ed pretext, without shadow Of right-upon ar
chcanery discreditabe 10 respectable government
as we have shown in previous articles on the
Nicaragua question. Neither Mr.. Clayton nor the In.
tdiigenoer should have acknowledged the right OF
Great Britain 10 possess control foot OF the Mosquito
coast nor to interfere in the arrangements between this
country and Nicaragua respecting the shipcansl tits
another Of the bungng achievements Of Mr. Clayton in
diplomacy.
The Gsiphiu Case.
The curtain was lifted Yesterday which had concealed
the proceedings OF the select committee and the House
OF Representatives occupied about three hours in
listening to the reports tina, made by the committee
- -. A q