Washington sentinel., 1854-01-04
town between the commander Of United States

town between the commander Of United States
| ship Of war Cyane
Lord Clarendon to Mr.. Champion, given below .
Mr.. Marcy 10 MIR. Ingersol, dated 9th of June
1898, in reply TO the communication of Lord Clar.
endon OF April 90.
Lord Clarendonto Mr. Champion, in reply there
to, dated July %, 1853
We give those Of the papers showing the con-
structlon placed on the treaty by Great Britain.
Mr. Harding to The Earl Of Clarendon.
DocToRs Commons, April Is, 1853
MY LORD: ! am honored with your lordship's
commands, signifed in Mr.. Addingtons letter OF
the 7th instant, stating that he was directed IN
transmit to me dispatch from Mr.. Champion,
her MaJesty's minister at Washington, enclosing
a report OF speech made in the Senate of the
United States by Mr.. Clayton by whom, when
Secretary OF Staefor the United States the treaty
for the construction of interoceanic ship canal
between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans across
the lsthmus of Nicaragua was signed with Sir
Henry Bulwer, at that time her Maiesty's minister
at Washington, and with reference to the con-
struction put by Mr.. Clayton upon the 1st article
of that treaty, namely: that Great Britain is there.
by prohibited from protecting by force Of arms
any State in Central America, notwithstanding
any alliance between her Majesty and either OF
those States. Mr.. Addington is pleased TO re-
quest, that would report to your ordship my
opinion upon the Interpretation given by Mr.
Clayton 10 the provision of that article.
In obedience to your lordship's commands,
have taken the matter into consideration, and
have the honor TO report that am of opinion that
the Interpretation given by Mr. Clayton 10 the pro-
visions OF the lst article of the enclosed treaty
convention signed at Washington April 10, 1850
is, in some respects, incorrect
| His statement, that Great Britain cannot place
"an armed soldier on the territory without vio-
lating the treaty." is, in my opinion, incorrect
and can see nothing in the treaty which affords
any foundation or color for such statement. The
1st article expressly recognizes the fact that Great
Britain has, and may have, alliances with, and
| affords, and may afford, protection 10 States and
people in Central America, and only stpuates
that neither shall be made of for the particu-
lar purposes therein forbidden, and the maxim of
constructions, @ezpressio nniuse est ercnsio aterias
applies 10 this article.
Great Britain may, therefore, in my opinion,
protect any State or people Gncluding Indian
trbes) in Central America, even by force Of arms,
if needfu without violating the treaty provided
only that she, in affording such protection wholly
abstains from occupying, terrifying, colonizng, or
assuming, or exercising any dominion beyond her
own territory in Central America. Neither does
there appear TO me TO be anything in the treaty
which would necessarily prevent Great Britain
from sending fleet or army, if necessary into any
part of Central America, or from conducting any
naval or military operations, either aggressive or
defensive and either alone in alliance with any
other nations or States, in any part of Central
America. She may certainly do So if she abstains
from & occupying or "fortifying or assuming or
exercising dominion therein, beyond her own terri
tory.
There is not in the treaty any stipulation 0or
instance) that Great Britain shall abstain from pre-
venting by force Of arms, other nations from occu-
pyng or tortifying, or assuming dominion over any
portion Of Central America, or that she shall not
destroy such Notifications, or subvert such do
minion if once established therein.
understand Mr.. Clayton also 10 assert that by
the treaty Great Britain has abandoned all do
minion in the whole of Central America which
assertion is in my opinion, incorrect, and at va
rance with the fact, at least regards Belize and
its dependencies, if, indeed, this exception was
| not intended by him.
have, &C., ]. ID. HARDING.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON,
&c., &C., &c.