Weekly national intelligencer., 1853-01-15


Good bad it is not made better by the treaty
As to the Bay Of Islands, if 1t in fact dependency
Of British Honduras the 4th Of July 1885, then the
formation OF colony there is not violation Of the
yenton. Ii it not then in fact dependency, then
that transaction is violation of the treaty But in
either has nothing TO do with the present question
The Senator from Louisiana, (Air DowSs in the very
wanonness of censure has supposed that not only the
Senate but the late President Gen. Taylor, kept in
ignorance of the conditions OF ratification and this upon
the ground merely that Gen Taylor sckened the 4th
av died the 9th Of July. But the Committee on For
eign Relations appear have known those cond-
tons the 29h Of june and the President may be pre-
sumed have been entrusted by the Secretary with fact
that officially communicated to the Senate. What
else might have been the misfortunes OF
that Administration want of mutual confidence between
the Secretary Of State and his distinguished chief not
of them They stood together firmly undivided, and
inseparable TO the last.
Storms of factions from within their party, and
from without beset them and combinations and coali
tons in and out of Congress assaed them with degree
of violence that other Administration has encoun
tered But they yielded and never aered for an
hour. They went firmly and firmly united together in
their great work of consolidating the then
ed Republic upon the foundations Of universal liberty,
and establishing its continental power the foundations
Of commercial interests and republican systems The
Administration which they conducted was beaten down.
by human hands, by human words, nor by human
votes but it went down only under proyidenta vista
tion that if it had happened the field Of Monterey or
at Buena VISTA would have either forever lost or long
postponed the extension Oh SuorcS VI
the Pacific ocean Those who have proted by political
changes consequent that sad event. may listen un-
moved to the which for two years past have
howed and still bowling, equally around the Secre
tary of State in his retirement and the veteran and
war-exhausted President in his grave Let on the
other hand who had humble portion Of their conf
dence and knew their fidelity to each other and to their
country perform, though it may be Alone the duty Of
vndicating them against the clamors Of prejudice and
error.
And let me say to the Senator from Louisiana and to
the Senator from Ohio and to the Senator from
Michigan, that long their respectively may be
proracted eyen hope they may the ends of natu
raj lives in rpened age and and devoted know
they are yet that it will be happy for them and for
ALL if then they shall have established claims upon
the affection Of their country and the gratitude OF
kind equal those which perfected in that Admins
traton broken off in its seventeenth month"; but wisely
conducted for that short period by John NJ Clayton the
venerable statesman of Delaware and presided by
Zachary Taylor the hero who indicated and opened the
way of the American armies to the conquest of Mexico
Mr.. CASS. have no sort of idea of following the
Senator from New York in this discussion He has pro-
nounced elegy euogy upon preceding Adminstra-
tonI do not know which you may be pleased to call it,
but certainly with great deal Of warmth and zeal
have nothing to do with that but leave it for those who
supported that Administration But what do want to
say is this The Senator from New York modesty says
he will convince me- among Others that did
Der what said did not remember. The Senator
from New York had right to say any such thing, be-
cause he gets himself into difficulty. He has said what
understand that treaty the Senator supposes did, and
no has any right to deny that. not only remem
Der that but there Senator's around me who remem
Der distinctly what said at the time. The Senator
has right either directly indirectly, by his own as
seron by any process of argument by aluding to
documents which heard of till to-day, to say
that did know that that treaty included what upon the
face of it did not include We do not read every docu
ment which comes here no member does it. After the
treaty ratified dismissed it from my mind, till the
strange conduct in that quarter excited some feelings in
my mind as it did in the minds of the American people;
and began then to look into it, When did SO, and the
subject distinctly brought before as, found
that great encroachments making by the British
Government We all know that it is historical fact that
England is disposed to make such encroachments Then
when came to examine the subject looked back to the
circumstances of the treaty. did here to
ragn Mr. Clayton and there is not word in the speech
which made the other day which does it. What said
was that it was strange diplomatic procedure say
now Notwithstanding the auson of the Senator from
New York the treaty Of Guadalupe Hdalgo Here was
treaty the negotiation of which, he says, did not mean
what intended it should mean That IS the point 1t
was treaty in which the negotator said We employed
the term Central America but that did not mean Gen.
trail America We said that if the American Senate
the American people knew thing upon the subject
the treaty spread before the world did not convey that
impression Notwithstanding the negotiator intended to
convey it. Now, say that it is not only very strange
diplomatic proceeding, but very improper proceeding
But Mr.. President let me ask the Senator one ques-
ton. If Central America" as the term was used,
did it say the States of Central America 1t uses
the geographical term. you to conclude treaty
with Germany, would not diplomasts subsequently con-
strue to include the whole of Germany and not include
Of the States and exclude othersY Or you de-
scribe Italy, would you exclude Milan, Naples or
Rome? No. it would be a fraud upon the face of the
paper fraud before the American people do not say
that fraud designed in this case but speak Of the
operation Of such construction The term Central
America is used and repeat the question: If it was not
intended embrace the WHOLE but to exclude some par
tcuar portion Of it. why did it not say sof Why was
not that done, "neither affirming denying in the
of this quasi negotiation the claims of England to
any portion of it Nothing like that was done. The
treaty perfectly general in its operation
When the letter Of Mr.. Clayton to Mr. Bulwer il
excited my surprise. repeat it, was very much sur
prised. My object then ascertain what were the
facts relation to the matter not for myself for un-
derstood the matter perfecy knew what the meaning
Of the treaty was, and l knew what the gentlemen
around me said. win repeat what the Senator from
Wisconsin has reminded me Of this morning, and which
recolect that he has called my attention to it per-
fecy well and others around will recoect the same
thing said when the treaty before us, in honor OF
Mr. Clayton the negoator Of it, that he deserved credit
for the in which it negotiated for it the
first time that Great Britain had given up any territory
which she had occupied unless compelled to do 1t by the
sword.
Mr. WALKER. IL the Senator will allow me- think
can give near the words which he then made
or He spoke in very complimentary terms of the then
Secretary of State for the position he had taken and he
remarked that the first time in the history of Great
Britain that she had given up territory without strug
gle recoect that distinctly, and presume others do,
Mr.. CASS / am much obliged to the honorable Sena-
tor recollected perfectly my impression say that
upon that routeI do say within mile OF 1t; the
honorable Senator from New York is confnng 1t to one
particular point and in measure did the honor