The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-01-25
CONGRESSIONAL.
SPEECH OF HON. ). M. CLAYTON,

SPEECH OF HON. J. M CLAYTON,
OF DELAWARE;
Delivered n the Senate January 10 and 10, 1854, on the
Clayton. Bulwer treaty
Monday Janumy 10, 1851.
The Senate having the same subject uhder consdesa-
Mr. CLAYTON said: Mr.. President, feel that owe
an apologv 10 the Senate for venurng in my present
az health 10 address in continuation OF this debate
Since The period OF the last adjournment OF the Senate,
have steadily occupied sick room; but The ieogh OF
time which has elapsed that has been 80 great tha
do moi think proper 10 postpone the consideration aod
d;sc,ssion of this subject any longer At that time was
to show the truth of the statement made 10
me BY the late Vice President King that the Senate un
destood al the lime OF the ratification OF the treaty Of
1885, that British Honduras and lis dependencies were
moi included in it, Pursuing this examination, IN addition
10 the testimony VIII ch have already advered, 10
ahow that the statement made to me by MI kng al Inc
lime of The exchange Of ra6calions Was correct would
now refer 10 the statement oi Mr. Mangum, late senator
from North Carolina In the debate which was origin.
,sd nv ,he senator IRON Michigan, and IN reply to that
ssra,or on the 10Th day OF January, 1853, Mr. Mangua
said;
.Imerey wish say in order tha, it may before the
country ha as n,a ~ m nv hsaa or ,ba, Of sv
other member OF the committee, according 70 my reeolec-
ize no matter under what pretence il held, be
affected by treaty called the Cayton-Buwer treaty.
Eere then. have the testimony Of the chairman Of
the committee, aud of another distinguished member OF
the committee 10 the iact that the whole committee
understood the subject in the same way as their chai-
man and vet the senator from Michigan still contends,
in the face OF all this evidence that the Senate OF the
United States did not so understand II.
Sir, there another distinguished member OF that
committee, my in the Office OF Secretary OF
State. (Nr Webster He voted for the treaty. and no
doubt understood il. Ii what is now contended Tor by
the honorable senator from Michigan be rue-that Be-
ze or Honduras was included in the treay-and he 80
understood il il would have been bis duty when he be-
came Secretary of Stae above that of all other men, 10
look into that matter and not only TO protest and remon-
strate against the continuance Of the British occupation
OF that place. but TO have communicated TO The Congress
of the United States the fact that the treaty had been
lated by the British government Did he do any such
thing! No, sir; he remained perfectly content with the
British occupation at Belize and It's dependencies This
fact OF itself showed concusvey that that distinguished
member of the Senate and it's Committee on foelgn Re-
aons understood the treaty precisely as Colcae King
understood il. and as understood It, But, Sir, kno
of nv knowledge that that gentleman understood
When he entered upon the discharge OF The duties OF
the Office OF Secretary OF State he called at my house al
time appointed Tor the purpose, to gain information
from me in regard the foreign relations OF the country
generally and in long interview touching this treaty,
and many other subjects, explained TO him everything
connected with the exchange OF ratifcatons did mol
discover that he had entertained the thought thai
the treaty included British Honduras, or that there was
anything exceponaole IN the notes whch accompanied
the exchange Of Publications.
Then | think may tarn 10 the senator from Michigan
himself and ask him why it was, that during the Whole
period which elapsed alter The formation OF his treaty
IRON the 4h OF July, 1850, 10 the 9Th of January. 1883
period OF more tlan yesrsif he believed that Be-
ze, OF British Honduras, was included In The treaty, be
himself made motion on the subject ~ the Senate OF
the United States and sought TO call the attention
of the country 10 matter until he commenced The de-
bate upon the declarations Of the negoaiors IN January
1882 Is the senator resolved to accuse himself oil
want OF patriotism, activity in maintaining his patri
oisc opinions aud intentions Is not wonderful, II he
believed during all this period that this territory was oc
cupied By Great Britain IN violation OF solemn treaty
for which he voted, that be never made single motion
in regard 10 H. and uttered word oil complaint or
the SUBJECT leave him 10 reconcile his conduct if
reference 10 the matter with what he declares 10 hny'
beea his opinion II such then, or is now, h'
opnien be stands alone for do not believe he has nov
another senator who coneurs with him.
The senator has ssid tina, MIR. Kings note TO me, 0
the 4lh OF July. authorizing me TO state what dd In IN
reply TO Mr.. Bulwer, "was hasty, and was 10 De use
in con versaon merely" Just the was The fact
and the senator certainly ought 10 have known ~ M
note to MIR. King expressly informed him that wa
writing The reply; "tbai wished 10 leave no room 10
charge OF dupliciiy against our government, such
that we now pretend ina. een,a 10 ane ~ hin
in effect, that such a construction was mol ia the con
temptation OF the Degouaors or the Senate al me un
Of confirmation" THIS folly apprzed M, Mig Of VIVA "a
credit OF the which he had before gwen m
in verbal conversation on the same subject may nav
your permission 10 add that the true qnders,ana'g wa
explained by you, chairman OF the Foreign Relations
TO the Senate before the vote taken on The treaty
think IL due TO frankness on our part How Is pos
sble iba, letter written 10 reply 10 suen note as lha
to be used "in conversation mefelyS Mr. Kim
frankly replied as follows
Tbr Senate perfectly understood that the treaty did no
include BRUSH Honduras Ffaukness becomes our govern
but you shoud be careful MOTTO use any expression
which vJnld recognise the rsht OF England 70 an
portion OF Honduras"
The senator calls such note from MIR King hast
note There bad been, perhaps, dozen conversation
between myself and MIR King reierenee to this treaty
know not how many IN reference to this very point a
70 lhs exclusion OF British Hopduras-and we had
thorough understanding on the subject Nellher oi "a
ever imagined after inspecting the msps, that Belize ba
anything 10 do with the treaty and therefore he wa
which have read within few hours after my note wa
cent 10 him as he could have been after years.
DESIRE before proceed 10 another and more import
ant point 10 correct another ~ the speech OF III
senator from Michigan Ia quoting from my remarks
The sh o March last his speech u printed, pefcelv
that he cites having sad that "the BRUSH protee
ton in Central America oi course disarored by tb
treaty" said no such thing Was that an error OF To
press. or potl perceive II has gone iorth IN all ~
copies of the senator's speech which have Inc, with
and they are very hume ous The speech seems TO hav
been printed in several other places before y was de
lyered and tho s IN all The editions bay
seen.
Whatf did say was that The treaty disarmsd the pro
leetotaie do not know that the honorable senator
OF the difference between what dad say and wba
he qnotes me as having said but II seems TO me ina
there as much difference There between the eas
and the west never thought Of saying that the treaty
dsayoTed the proecorate. merely wish 10 ASCERTAIN
shether that may not have been msprnt The sena'o
can inform
sept the senator 4 may have used the term fdsavow
Cd" know perfectly well, however, hs idea, whci
hs stated thai the proecorate remained bns 'ha' o'
Treaty disarmed IL of its obnoxious features
Mt CLAYTON. Then. the senator did not intend tt
Do me that injustice but it has been done. The senator