Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-03-26

the Monroe doctrine in future.
But, sir, this depression The point that was
coming ut this: that while it has been matter Of
boast for years that the Clayton and Buwer treaty drove
Great Britain out Of Central America she has not
rendered inch and what is more, she is propos
ing negotiations with with view to arrangements
by which she shall hereafter give up her protectorate
Yes sir, your late Secretary of State and President Eve
rett and Fillmore, have communicated to Congress the
fact that the British Minister proposing new negota
tons, arrangements by which Great Britain shall
hereafter give up that which the Senator makes it mat
ter pride that he had secured by his treaty That is
little curious do not understand this congratulaton
of having accomplished great and wonderful object by
the expeing of the British lion from the place where Mr.
Polk allowed him to and abide and still new ne
gotiaon new arrangement is deemed necessary to
that which the Senator from Delaware boasts of
having accomplished long since
England processes to be DESTROYS of surrenderng her
protectorae Then why does she not do it The British
minister proposes to open negotiations by which England
shall withdraw her authority from Central America and
the late Secretary of State Mr. Evcre entertains the
proposition avoraby while the Senator from Delaware
congatulates the country upon his having attained the
desired end in his treaty three years ago.
III Messrs Everett and Fillmore correct in enter
tanning Mr. Champions proposition for a arrange
men certainly the Senator from Delaware is at fault in
saying that his treaty expelled the British from Central
America. My opinion, MS to whether it did expelthem
not is matter Of not much consequence. have al
thought the language of the treaty so equivocal
that could say with certainty whether it did
abolish the protectorate not One clause seemed TO
restrain its exercises and you could make good
argument one side the other But gave notice at
the time the treaty ratified that would take the
American side stand by the Senator from Delaware
in claiming that England bound quit but late
Secretary of State and the President Everett and Fill
more, think otherwise and it becomes question
whether negotiations to accomplish that very desra
bic object necessary not
Mr. President return to the point which was dis
cussng when the Senator interrupted me- and led me OF
in this dgresson to wit: That the simple question pre-
-. xu,a ~ oil ncnna
circumstances was this: Should have accepted when
rendered an exclusive right of way forever from one
ocean the other The Senator from Delaware thought
not and the Administration of General Taylor sustained
him in his view Of the question. thought ought to
have embraced the offer which rendered the exclusive
control forever this great nteroceanc canal.
The Senator attempts to sustain his position by quoting
the authority of Gen. jackson and Mr. Polk Sir, he is
unfortunate his quotation. do think that fairly
considered, he has any such authority am aware that
in 1885 that Senator offered resolution in this body
which adopted, recommending negotiation to open
the sthmus to all nations and that Gen. jackson sent out
COL Bidde collect and report information on the
subjects but when the resolution adopted the ques
ton then presented under circumstances very differ
from those which existed when the Senator suppressed
the Hse treaty AT that time the Central American States
had granted the Netherlands the privilege of making
canal Others had already secured the privilege and
in that point of view was reasonable to suppose that
the most could do was to get equal privilege with
European nations That not the presented when
the exclusive privilege offered to and the offer de-
cned by the Senator from Delaware, without consulting
the Senate
But there is no evidence that Gen Jackson entertained
the opinions attributed to him. Col Bidde, who was
appointed by Gen. Jacksonto explore the routes collect
and report information awaited himself of his official posi-
ton to obtain from New Granada an exclusive privilege 10
himself and his associates private account When the
existence Of this private contract to the knowledge
of the Secretary Of State Mr. Forsyth he reprmanded
our charge New Granada for having given any coun
tenance to it. And why? Not because it contained an
exclusive privilege the United States for it did not give
any privilege. Mr. Bdde had been sent out there to
get information to be laid before the Administration lie
had power to negotiate authority to open dipo-
matte relations He had power to take any step in
procuring the privilege He made Of his official po
sition and in the opinion Of the Administration abused
it. by securing private grant t. himself without the
protection sanction of the Government of
his own country
Mr. Forsyth was idgnant because his agent had diso-
beyed his authority, and turned the public empoyment
into private speculation. That is not the question
presented here That contract did not give the United
States the privilege at all. II gave it to COL Bidde
and his associates. But find nothing in that trans
action, and in all the public documents relating to
it. show that General Jackson would have refused the
exclusive privilege to his own country it had been ten
dered to him.
How is IL then with Mr. Polk According to my re-
collection Of the facts New Granada had granted the
privilege Of making railroad canal to Frenchman by
the of Du QuesneI will not be certain of his name
and desirable TO get permission to carry the mails
there The grant had gone into the possession of
citizen of foreign Power and the most that Govern
could ask be put upon equal footing with
that other Power Ii did not present the question Of the
privilege being rendered u.s. and werefusing to accept
But shall take time in going into vindication of
those Administrations La the remarks that made the
other day chose to yindcate my course without
reference to past Administrations present party
Citations, and will pursue the line Of debate now
One word upon the point made by the Senator, that the
Hise treaty unconstitutional Was it not constitu
tiona accept the exclusive privilege to the United
States? If not and his constitutional objection
valid il goes little far If you have right to
accept exclusive privilege to under the Constitution
what right had you take partnership privilege in
company with Great Britain? If you have right to
take the privilege for the benefit Of American citizens
alone what right have you TO take for the benefit Of
Englishmen and Americans jointly? IL you have no
right to make a treaty by which you will protect an
American company in making that canal what right had
you to make treaty by which you pledged yourselves
put the Senator upon the defensive him demon
strate his right to do this thing jointly with England and
then will draw from his argument my right to do for
the benefit of America alone choose put him in the
position Of demonstrating the existence of the constu
tiona power He, in his treaty, exercised the power
have not And he, having exercised the power, having
pledged the faith Of the nation TO do have right
call upon him to show the authority under the Const
tuition OF the United States to make guarantee jointly
with England for the benefit of English subjects well
American citizens and when he proves the existence Of
power he has proved the right of the Government TO
do the thing for the benefit Of American citrens
emitting England and British subjects.
Sir, as | before said l have no fondness for this
special pleading about the peculiar provisions Of treaty
when the real point the extent Of the privilege which
we should accept Now sir, was in favor of exclu-
sive privilege and will tell you why desired to see
canal made; and when made desired to see 1t under
the control of Power enabled to protect IT, desired to