Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-01-08

~
SELF when voted for the ratification Of that treaty. had
not the slightest doubt that it prevented the British Gov
from establishing any colonial dependency in that
part of the country My friend from Indiana, (Mr.
BmoHr) and think my friend from Ohio, Mr.. CHASE
and know my colleague Mr. FELcH) willrecoect that
distinctly stated that.my object in voting for that treaty
was sweep away all British claim to Central America
must confess that my honorable friend from Indiana
warned against voting for the treaty Whether that
warning was the effect Of instinct Of judgment know
not but he certainly anticipated no good from the treaty,
and voted against it.
In reference to the statement mentioned in the para
graph which last read have called this morning TO
late respected presiding officer whose absence we all
so much lament but who hope will be restored to
us, for happy TO inform the Senate that found him
better. conyersed with COL King and he authorized
say that there Is entire mistake upon this point
He told that after this qaas ratification came from
England the 20 az June. he had an interview with
Mr. Clayton who desired to know if the treaty should be
back the Senate for its action upon this condition
al ratification He told Mr. Clayton that if it there
for that purpose II would not get vote in the Senate
And that till this day he supposed the project OF accept
ing this declaration had been Abandoned and that the
treaty stood upon its own provisions COL hing iurtner
said he had some general idea Of claim Of England to cut
logwood in Honduras but he thought Of its being
up the foundation of pretenson to establish CO.
lony there.
1t will be observed that the very terms of the treaty
seem framed to exclude such effect for not only does
it provide that neither party shall ory colonize, but
that they shall not occupy any part OF the country and
now we have the authentic claim establish colonies in
Central America but to what extent we are not yet told
Now am free to say that this part fur
nishes better for the conduct OF than
had the least idea she possessed Our negotator and
the Executive Department have committed great error
unprecedented do believe, in the history OF diplomacy
and regardless of the constitutional duties Of the Senate
have proclaimed the ratification Of the treaty. with an un
derstanding changing its construction and vital point
without the knowledge of that body. My object, as
stated to sweep Central America clear OF all foreign
ob .tofo fha ~
ably. If it did not effect that object there could not
have been the least motive the part of the United
States to enter into this joint arrangement we did not
effect that, we effected nothing.
Mr.. SEWARD What is the date of the ratification Of
the treaty?
Mr.. CAss. The ratifcations mutually exchanged
on the 4th of July 1885, and the note of Mr. Bulwer is
dated the 29th of June preceding Between the 29th
of June and the 4th of July Mr. Clayton had this inter-
view with MIR. King in which Mr.. King told him that If
the treaty came back the Senate with that quasi rat
cation it would not get vote here, we all know 1t
would not and he supposed it had been abandoned He
had idea whatever that there was any condition at
tached to it.
Mr. DOWNS said rise to express the very great as
tonshment which felt when saw, in the Union Of this
morning. the documents from the Secretary Of States
Office was surprised to the construction which Mr..
Clayton the late Secretary of State, placed upon that
treaty l. sir, as well as the Senator from Michigan
certainly never understood the treaty in that form and
think may venture to further and say that no mem
ber of the Senate understood it.
It will be recollected by yourself Mr. President and
others who were here at that time that the treaty was
entered into with great crcumspecon and caution
Various conversations passed between membersof the
Senate and the Secretary Of State in reference to IT,
There great object to be obtained, and recoect,
for myself that great point with me was to get the
British out of Central America thought that the
whole object of the treaty should have concur
red in it had not supposed that it effected that object
The only doubt had whether the expression, Gen.
10 Han Inrae huf
was assured by the Secretary of State that it was
well understood by both parties that that was the
very object of the "Central America and 1t was
only on that assurance that l, well as many others
who were consulted voted the ratification OF the treaty
Why, sir If the construction of Mr.. Clayton and Sir
Henry Bulwer were TO be allowed IL would in opin-
on exhibit this Government in the strange spectacle OF
making treaty for particular object-to get clear OF
the title and claim of Great Britain in particular Sec
ton-and then, by an explanation, rendering nuli ana
void the object which was in view.
Mr. President it seems to that this exposition ex-
plains mystery whch has hitherto bothered me good
DEAL 1t explains why 1t is that, notwithstanding ,hs
treaty was made for the express purpose of getting clear
Of the title Of Great Britain to any part Of Central Anne
rca she has been setting up that title and acting
ever since That have heretofore been able to
understand but understand 1t now, because we have
the authority of former Secretary Of State, Mr. Clay
TOM which does not to have been conroyerted by
Secretaries Of State ustfyng the construc
ton OF the British Minister that British Honduras with
dependencies was not included WITHIN tne opeaaon
of the treaty BY this construction the whole quetonis
opened and the whole Of Central America is left prey
to the operations Of Great Britain for dependencies
is so vague that il may be extended so as TO IN
cude not only all the islands in the neghborhood Of Hon
duras but the whole Of Central America.
do not intend to discuss the subject now though
may do so hereafter but sir fortunately for the coun-
try suppose that it will be taken for granted by this
body that treaty solemny agreed to- solemnly rathed
and the rafcations Of il exchanged, is the law pf the
land which binds the nation, and that the construction
given by Secretary of State in unauthorized
when the rafcatons about to be exchanged
will not be binding law. And what wide door shall we
open for future controversies If admit the principle
that paper of such character the note Of the Secre
tary of State is to bind the Government.
would ask Senators to look at the date OF the letter
appended to this document written by Mr.. Clayton and
addressed 70 Sir Henry Bulwer. BY examining IT they
will that there is very great probability that hr
Clayton acted in this matter his authority, with
consulting the President or the Cabinet You
will recoect Mr.. President that the 4th OF July,
the day of the exchange Of the rafcatons Of the treaty
the then President Of the United States taken SICK
and died few days afterwards. de was certainly
confined to his bed the fifth Of that month, and infer
from this circumstance that Mr. Clayton exchanged the
ratcatons Of the treaty without the authority of the
Cabinet or the Presidents and without consulting the
Senate although they had been consulted in every prior
stage Of the proceeding.
Why did he not consult with the President or the
Cabinet or the Senate before adopting construction
which he ought to have known would not be approved Of
AS proof Of this would ask any impartial man, on
every side Of the Chamber whether he would have voted
for the confirmation Of the treaty If such construction
had been given TO at the time There are many Sepa
tors here now who were then members Of the body Is
there any Of them who would have voted for the
treaty with that construction think not take II for
granted that would have assened to such con-
structon certainly would not have voted for the treaty
thought there would be any attempt to construe It.