Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-01-11
CONGRESS-.
Senate, January, IL, 1854.
THrRTY-THrRD coNGREss-FIRsT SESSION

Senate, January, IL, 1854.
After the presentation Of two petitions by
Mr.. Seward, all prior orders were postponed,
and the Senate proceeded to the consideration
of the motion made by Mr.. Cass, to refer to the
Committee on Foreign Relations the message
of the President communicating the correspond
ence relative to the Clayton Bulwer treaty.
Mr.. Cass then addressed the Senate. He
said that last spring he was called suddenly to
his home from the Senate, and while he was
absent his views in relation to the subject, ex-
pressed openly in the Senate some time pre-
viously, had been 80 much misunderstood and
misreprescnted, that he would take this oppor-
tunity ofrcplying to the honorable Senator from
Delaware.
He said that the documents laid before the
Senate during the past session disclosed the
construction placed on the treaty, by the qaas
ratification of it by the British Minister, ac-
guessed in by the American Secretary Of State.
He had taken occasion to state that he never
would have voted for the treaty, had he so I'M
derstood il. In so doing, he had used no re-
mark of a discourteous or offensive character
towards the Senator from Delaware.
He voted for that treaty, because he thought
it was the nearest approach to the Monroe
doctrine that no could at that time get. While
he was in favor Of the Monroe doctrine on all
occasions, If he could not get ii, he would &C
quiesce in the nearest approach to it practi-
cable. :.
He quoted various paragraphs from the
speech Of Mr.. Clayton, and held that he was
right in saying that the Central America"
az meant by the treaty, was not the geograph-
ical Central America supposed to he meant
by those who voted for it, The American Sec.
rotary acknowledges to the British Minister
that the treaty does not include British Hon
duras, and il was TO be regretted that this
declaration was not placed in the treaty in
which case the Senate would have known for
what they were voting. He again contended
that when the British Government sent the
treaty back TO the United States with quasi
ratification to it the treaty with that condi-
tional ratification, ought to have been again
laid before the Senate.
He compared the present to the case where,
surprising the British Government by treaty,
should cede "Canada" TO the United States,
and in the exchange Of notifications the British
Government should say that Western Canada
was not included. Would not such an import
ant change Of the obvious meaning Of the treaty
require that the Senate should be advised Of
the matter, before ii was acceded TO?
He said he would throw down the gauntlet
to the Senator on two propositions: that Great
Britain, in examining tho treaty, saw that its
terms did include oil the British settlements,
and therefore il was necessary to expressly ex-
clude that Interpretation; or that the treaty
raised 80 strong presumption that such was
the case, that IL was necessary, in writing, be.
fore ratifying II, 10 exclude that presumption.
Mr.. Clayton will take up your gauntlet.
MIR. Cass quoted several sentences from Mr..
Clayton's speech, in which he referred slight
ingly and disparagingly Of the geographical
learning of himself and some Of his friends, and