The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-02-16

though shey would NOT in such case fr any oart Of
trail America and thus within the strict engagements
OF the treaty. yer that any colonies other permanent
establishments than by Great Britain any European
power must necessarily anxious concern OF
ms government and would If persisted lead conse-
qaences OF most unpleasant character"
Another question submitted 10 the committee was, TO
determine the effect of the DECLARATION agreed 10 by the
negotiations before the ratification of The treaty of
Ile Judgment OF the committee given in the following
resolution
Resolved tas the opinion OF the commitse) That the
declaration on the part OF the British government and The
reply thereo oy the Secretary OF State preliminary the
exchange oil Publications OF the treaty concluded Wash
nsoh between The governments OF Great Britain and the
United STATES on the 18th April 1850, import nothing
than an admission on the part OF the governments
he uhcuSharies at the time OF such exchange, that
nothing contained In the treaty be considered al
rcuns ihe tue or existing rights of Great Britain the
English settlements in Honduras Bay.
And consequently, in the opinion OF the COMMITTEES,
no are necessary the part OF the Senate be
taken because Of such declaration and reply"
From THIS conclusion forced to dissent 1t
appears to US that the private agreement between Mr.
Clayton and Sir Henry Bulwer imports something more
than The " admission" suggested by the committee II
seems TO US that this arbitrarily determines tho
fact that the Belize settlements are not within the limits
OF Central America, and consequently escape the opera
ton OF that clause OF the treaty of 1850 which for bids
Great Britain to "occupy colonize, fory any part of
Central America" The language OF Secretary Clayton
in his note to the British minister, aud in the memoran
dun attached to the treaty, is perhaps designedly
obscure and ambiguous; yet with all due respect
TO the able committee, unhesitaingy assert that
the continued OCCUPATION OF the Belize by the Brit
sh is incompatible with that article of the treaty
which prohibits Great Britain from OCCUPYING, for-
or cnOnizinV NJ Central tba
Belize be embraced within the limits Of CENTRAL AmERl
CA. If the Belize settlements be in Central America it
was not competent for Mr. Clayton 10 exclude them from
the operation OF treaty which forbds Great Britain to
occupy coonize ANY PART OF CENTRAL AMERICA II
cannot be denied that the agreement that the British
settlements at the Belize, assuming them to be in Central
America, shall not be affected by treaty which excludes
Great Britain from EVERY Of Central America is con-
Trajectory and absurd. No proposition be clearer
and hence, in order to exculpae Mr. Clayton from the
censuTe TO which hls conduct is justly obnoxioHs his
apoogists in the Senate Messrs Pearce and Seward,
for lnsance-drew distinction between GEOGRAPHICAL
and Central America. contendng that the treaty
means POLITICAL Central America, which, they aege,
does not embrace the settlements at Belize. careful
study OF Mr. Claytons language will show beyond
dispute that he intended 10 concede that the British
settlements of the Belize are not within the limits OF
Central America. Entertaining this opinion, we can
not acquit Mr.. Clayton OF blame in attaching 10 the
treaty. subsequent to its ratification by the Senate,
condition in conflict with the manifest meaning of pro-
visions.
In conclusion, we must coahmend this report 10 the
careful attention OF those who wish 10 comprehend the
vexed and complicated question which il discusses Lie
historical narrative of British colonization in Central
America is clear and succnc and its treatment OF the
points in discussion is in the general full and satsfac-
/ tory