Weekly national intelligencer., 1853-04-02

N IINY
and Bulwer treaty appeal to the Senate If mentioned
tho name Of any Senator stated how any on man had
voted. did not disclose how the vote TODD. No
citizen in America would have known the vote Of any
Senator on this floor from my speech, from any par
cipaton in the recent discussion and have vet to learn
that yndication Of my course involves an assault
upon those who chose TO differ with me- hare not un
derstood the speeches of the Senator from Michigan Mr.
CAssl and of the Senator from Virginia (Mr MASON,
and of other Senators who have spoken this question
in opposition to some ofmy views attack Ia myself
1t was their duty vindcae their courses and give
the which prompted them and il wasmy right
and my duty to give the reasons which indueedand
/ PEELED me to pursue the course that did
do not choose TO occupy the time Of the SInate in
matter that partakes so much of personal character
But the Senator cannot avail himself of that in
vindicaton of his course IN suppressng the treaty
lie is not supported by that array of names he has
produced for that act No of the Senators ever did
sustain him. so far as know, in suppressing the ise
treaty That treaty was never submitted to tie Senate
for ratification. The Senate permitted TO ex
anime it, The treaty, to this day has been from
the Senate You will have to go elsewhere than TO the
files of this body to find that treaty How can lit be said
that Senator's have sustained him in his recc ion of the
/ se treaty. when he had deprived the Senateof an op
portunity Of showing whether they for anst it
Sir, he cannot have the benefit of those which he
| has quoted to shelter him upon that point
Again, sir, he has quoted all the eminent ma mes from
Gen. Jackson down to the present time to support him in
his refusal to accept of the exclusive control othe canal
for his own country. Sir he has authority thus to
1
Of those eminent statesmen opposed to such priy
lege the Hise treaty showed that coul have ac
qured 1t is true that when Central Americ granted
privilege TO company in the Netherlands toinake this
canal the administration of General Jackson pnder that
state of facts content with asserting Sight
equal participation 1t is also true that whenb French
man had procured charter for railroad tross the
lshmus of Panama. and thus it had gone into The hands
OF foreigners the administration of President Polk
content to assert claim to equal right But 1t Is
not true that either Of them refused accept an
exclusive privilege for this cannt when voluntarily ten
| dered 10 them.
/ not going to occupy the attention of the Senate
with array ofname for against this proposition.
quoted no names in my first argument addressed my
self to the merits of the question and chose to decide it
by arguments upon its merits and not by the authority
of great would rather see tie Senator sustain
his position by arguments upon themers of his
official action and not by appeal to the action of great
men who lived different PERIOD and whose were
dependant upon entirely different circumstances.
! One word more, and / proceed to the main point at
ISSUE The Senator has accused of layng atem pied
| to make this party question How did attempt it /?
| In my speech Of February last to which he replied he
cannot find the term Whg Democrat II political al
| fusion, or a partisan argument | explained my own
| principle Of action evinced in my ytes; and ex-
pressly stated that they not sanctioned by either
Whg or Democratic Administrations up)n some of the
points did not invoke the aid the sympathy Of party
willing to stand upon the truth the soundness
of my record, and leave the future to determine
whether was right or wrong on the question Sir, par
tsan politics have been introduced by the Senator and
not by The Senator, in his speech il reply me,
endeavored to show that Democratic Administrations have
done this and Democratic Administrations have done
that and appealed to partisan authority to sustain him
SELF admit his ght to introduce party qlestions and
to appeal to party names authority Ind not done
it, and deny his right to charge it upon Sir in
voked the aid Of partisan feeling party organization
for the support of the position maintained But when
the Senator showed that majority of my party,
the ratification Of the Clayton and Bulwer rety had
corded their names in opposition to mine he ought to have
been content, without charging that was making it
party question. 1t not very agreeable ting to
to be compelled to differ with threefourh Of the Senate
including majority of my political friend and no.
thing but sense of duty to my own characer would
have compelled me to take the responsibility ,f such
course
Now; let go back to the real point. Why I'll these
attempts avoid the main issue? In the first pace the
Senator denied that he responsible for sending
the Ise treaty to the Senate inasmuch it had been
rejected by Central America. Then, when showed that
the rejection Of that treaty procured by his own
agent in obedience to his instructions he denied the
stence Of the instructions. When produced the insuc
TONS and showed that the agent acted in obedience TO
what he believed to be their meaning the Senator
acknowledged his opposition TO the treaty and justfes
upon the ground that guaranteed the independence
Nicaragua. When showed that he could not have OBJ
ected to it that ground, for the that that
very time he proposed guarantee in connexion with
Great Britain of the independence Of Nicaragua he aba
dons that position and is driven the extremity Of seek
ing refuge under what he chooses to consider obnoxious
details When showed that his objections to the details
could not avail him, because it for With
holding the treaty. according to the usages Of the Senate
he then comes to the point that il better to have
partnership privilege than exclusive That brings
to the real question. Why could have to
it at once If he right in his preference for Euro
pean partnership exclusive privilege to his own
country why did he not the fact and justify
his conduct instead Of wasting the time Of the Senate
requiring me to prove facts which ought to have been
confessed and which have been proven by his writ
| ten testimony, in opposition to his own denial?
his last speech the Senator chose
presenting the advocate of canal to be made
through Central America with funds from the Treasury
OF the United States need not remind the Senator that
he had authority, from any thing have said attri-
butte to me such purpose. certainly did not assume
any such position while my remarks calculated to
negative such idea My position this that while
negotiating for the right of way for canal from the At
lantic to the Pacific should have accepted the offer
our own Government of the exclusive right to control it,
instead OF partnership with England and the other Pow
ers OF the earth The Hse treaty granted the privilege
either to the United States an American company
under our protection, at option. insisted that
had the same right to take it ourselves that had to
take 1t Jointly with other Powers 1t required further
exerien OF the constitutional power execute and main
tain and regulate exclusive privilege to America than
II dld 10 execute and maintain a partnership privilege
with European Powers Hence his objections upon that
score must fall to the ground The simple question was
whether would have been wise accept that privilege
Sir, think It would have BEEN not going to repeat
the argument made the other day upon that point II
1t had been given to could have opened the canal
to the world upon such terms we deemed proper We
could have Withdrawn the Of il whenever nation
failed to respect our rights II would have been bond
Of peace instead of being apple Of dscord between
and other nations because when you bring all the great
Powers OF the earth into partnership, constant disputes
arise to the nature and Of the rights Of the
he ynct.