The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-15

1t was an alliance with Great Britain, in which all
the nations of Europe were invited to participate.
1t surrenders the exclusive right which might have
| been secured to the United States had the Hise
treaty been sent to the Senate by yton, and sub
stitutes for it a partnership with AL Europe.
| The partnership was not confined to Nicaragua;
extended to any canal or railway to be construct
| ed from Mexico to New Grenada. placing that
whole coast under the Joint control of Great Rrifain
and the United States, and such European nations
as may unite in it. The treaty. also provided Chat
neither nation should annex. coonize, or exercise
dominion over any part of Central America He
was unwilling to pledge this nation to- Europe that
we would not do at any time any act which our
rights and interests might demand at our hands.
he was not then, nor was he now, in favor of an
nexing any part of Central America. Great Brit
could never have colonized any part of it. twas
not long since when Senators would have declared
they did not desire the acquisition of California.
How long will it be before those States of Central
America, now the halfway post to California, will
be FLIED up with active American population,
who for their interests and protection, well
Tor our benefit. may render their being incorpo-
rated into this Union highly desirable to both. He
was opposed to.this part of the treaty. because he
did not feel disposed to bind the United States not
to do any thing with respect to this continent with
out the consent of any nation in Europe.
The treaty forbid the United States certifying
any place commanding the canal, thus leaving to
Jamaica the only point fortifed-the exclusive
command of'that canal. 1t amounted to an ex
press stipulation that Great Britain alone should
bave any fertilization near that canal. He was
opposed TO that treaty in all its Objects purposes
principles, provisions, and details. No matter
which construction was placed on the treaty it
was an onmitigated evil, which could not be RENE.
died till that treaty was swept from the statute
book. He did not believe there was hairs breadth
of difference in the understanding of the treaty
| between Mr. King and Mr.. Clayton. Why talk
about the construction of it? If the United States
attempt to extend its exclusion to the Belize the
letters of Clayton and others will be cited. and
| II w ko md
That was not the point which to make the ia
sue for the protection Of Great Britain was to ex
| tend from Mexico to New Grenada. If an issue
| was desired there was a better one Under M
pretext could it be said that the Bay Islands were
| In the Belize settlement; they were in and be
longed to the State of Honduras, and they accord
ing TO the express terms of the treaty. were not to
be colonized. The colonization Of those islands
presented plainly and directly a violation of the
treaty as we'll the Monroe doctrine On this
issue we have not only the right of the case but
have the treaty, the Monroe doctrine to sustain u.s.
NOW, are we prepared to stand by it
Ii the resolution said, whereas Great Britain ha "a
seized and colonized, in violation of the Monroe
doctrine and the treaty of 1850, the islands of the
bay OF Honduras, in derogation of the honor rights
and interests of the United States it would express
his ideas of what the occasion demanded, He was
opposed to equlvocal expressions in dealings with
foreign nations. In all questions arising out of
disputes as to their meaning, the weaker power
was compelled to submit to the stronger We do
not think we the weaker power and Great
Britain from long association would perhaps say
she was not. This treaty has it's difficulties and
its equivocal phrases. 1t was not bond of peace,
but source of evil to the two countries The treaty.
is equvocal to the protectorate on the Mosquito
coast. One provision seems to abolish it, and an
Their does not. We say it does abolish it, Great
Britain says it does not.
But has the President of the United States as
serted that that protectorate has been abolished
or has it been discontinued? They keep it up now
just as they did before that treaty. How long are
we to wait before they discontinue it? Are we to
let Great Britain continue the protecorate of that
Mosquito King until the world shall say that by
our acquiescence have admitted it was not
| abolished by the treaty? He desired to see our
opinions that that protectorate has been abolished,
practically carried out The whole history of that
affair singular. Great Britain never seized
the San Juan till within six days after the date
of the treaty of peace with Mexico, by which we
had acquired California, and passage to the Pa
cifc became desirable to the United States This
fact alone sufficient show that the seizure of
that place was from feelings of jealousy, and mo-
tives of hostility to the United States and not from
any desire to protect the Mosquito King
He believed the first step which ought to be
taken to relieve ourselves from that treaty.
| and place ourselves in the position we occupied
before it was concluded The next was to put an
end to this colony in the Bay of Islands. He
cared not for the forms but perhaps it should first
be the dutNof the Executive to apply to Great
Britain on the subject. Fhe present Administra
ton, if it had done its duty, had already moved in
the matter If the protest of the Executive be not
sufficient, he could inform Congress, and ask for
the authority and means to preserve the honor and
| rights of the nation.
| He opposed to declaring in advance what we
would or would not do. or for binding the nation
in any way as to events which might arise in the
future. For that reason he had voted against the
treaty of peace with Mexico. By that treaty the
hands Of the United States forever tied from
doing that which at soma day hereafter we will
have to do and when we do it we will be reproach-
ed wi q hat
Mexico prescribes the boundaries between the two
nations, and provides that they shall be religiously
respected by both nations, that no change shall
ever be made in them except by the free consent
does this stipulation mean? 1t provides against the
recurrenceof case like Texas The Sabine was
cnce the boundary of Mexico. Texas became set
tied by Americans, revolted became independent,
was incorporated iItG the United States. BY that
act the boundary was changed TO the Rio Grande
without the free and expressed consent of Mexico
War followed, she was conquered, we acquired
some of her possessions; and this provision means
that we acted wrong in that case. and bound our
selves not to repeat the dshonorable deed
This degrading acknowledgment of our wrong
to MEXICO stands in the statute-book. By that
treaty we were also bound never to annex any
more territory In the m amer we did Texas. Chi
huahua and Sonoma, no matter how SOON or how
much our honor, our rights, our interests, may de-
mand it; no matter what may be their condition,
or that OF Mexico; no matter if they are about to
come to US, for honor and our faith are SOL
emnly pledged not to annex them. The opponents
of this provision strongly endeavored to exclude it
from the treaty. Jefferson Davis moved to strikeit
out, and, after a long and warm debate, they were
left in minority ofII to 4a.
Thus, by treaties with Great Britain and Mexico
we are bound forever to submit to violations of the
Monroe doctrine. After all this. where was the
virtue Of procialming anew the Monroe doctrine?
he would like to know the effect to be produced by
the proclamation of that doctrine now-of pro-
claiming to the world that we will submit quietly
to all ls past violations but that we will do terri
BILE things from this time henceforth Submission
to wrong and threats to resist its repetition for the
future. produce but little fear in men, and much
less in powerful nations = =
These resolutions referred also to Cuba. That
We will resist by all the means in our power the
transfer OF Cpba to any European power, with or
without the consent of Spain, is matter too well
settled to be questioned or doubted by any Ameri-
can. This is we'll known to all Europe WHY.
then, under cover of this declaration Of the Mon.
roe doctrine, make disclaimer of any possible
perhdy, of interfering with the rights Of spains
Why disclaim any Intention to wrong her! In
what act in our past relations with Spain have we
ever shown any want of faith or disposition to act
uniustly towards her? If any thing, we have for
borne with her. Our President has overlooked the
denial TO American citizens, in her possessions,
rights guaranteed to them by treaty. Why, then,
anticipate suspicion of wrong BY us, by dis.
claimer Of any such intention?