Thibodaux minerva. [volume] (Thibodaux, La.) 18??-1858, 1856-05-31
=. lFro7s the Times II Nav l..
xhs London Times on the Central, ="
Question. oICAh

respecting Central America" lust puhI;sh n.a'es
principally occupied with the subject ~ H
baltlsh protectorate over the Mosquito naa. ,'e
The exercise Of this protecsorate il tho rsop'e.
pal object Of American jealousy, and t a,;a.a
more than any other less favorable chor. .'e.'s
tics of American diplomacy ~'efls'
The question of the British protectoro,o
the Mosquito people is mainly Question over
Interpretation of particular treaty. and ~. .ne
recent one There are, indeed, obscnrn LUZ
terings of discomfort which take an antao. ua''
ground, and we are reminded of certo;n .as
ty between Spain and Great Britain in ,. 90
by virtue of which, in the opinion of tho ,,' ~
lean diplomatist, Spain had right to obs"s =
our protectorate over Mosquito, which r1ht q 70
adds, is inherited by Mexico rs the succssa ne
Spain in the New World. s''0f OF
But the main ground of objection is co,..:-
recent treaty between ourselves and n. T.;as
States. The small town of San Juan do Nv
ragua, commonly called Gre3tewn, stna,a .a''a.
the mouth of the river San Juan va. 49,: a..
and taken possession Of in 1912 BY the Rr.;su
Government in behalf of the Mosou;so., 'Ssu
asserted their right to the place. The month VINO 10
the river San Juan thus came under tn. R.;..' ~
protectorate. The United States wanted .su
free use of the mouth of this river for Nv. ,so
CANAL which was projected in order to fac;,;.a.p
communication between the Atlantic md d.:
fc, and those portions of the United State, W..
ritory lying on each. The mouth of the ,;...
San Juan thus became, in 1850, the subject ~
treaty between us and the United States co,,
monty called the Clayton Bulwer treaty IN IL.
first article of which the two Governments ao,ss
"That neither will ever erect or mainta;n Nv,
Notifications commanding the same Il. N.
canal, or in the vicinity thereof, or oecuny =,
fortify. or colonize, or assume or exercise INV
dominion over Nicaragua, Costa RIGA, the Mo..
quito Coast, or any part of Central Americ,
nor will either (Government) make use Of An,
protraction which either affords or manv .aorS
to- or any alliance which either has or NAV ba,s
with any State or people, for the purpose Of
erecting or maintaining any such fertilization.
or of occupying, fortifying, or colonizur Nic,.
ragua, Costa Rico, the Mosquito Coast, OF .ny
part of Central America, or of assuming or 81.
ercising dominion over the same"
Here, then, is the diplomatic position on which
the two countries take their stand, and ths
question is, how this first article of the CLAYTON.
Bulwer Treaty is to be interpreted. Mr. Bucb.
anan maintains that this article does away with
our protectorate over Mosquito,-we deny that
it does. -
Now the first remark which the language Of
this article suggests and one which will occur to
everyb body, is that this article, SO far from dis.
allowing the British protectorate over Mosquito
recognizes it, implying its continu.
ance, and prescribing certain line Of action
upon the suppositon of the fact, laying down
certain conditions upon which it is to be exer.
cised, and guarding against the abuse and per-
version of it. This protectorate is not to be
used for the purpose of dominion, or occupation
or fertilization. But it is implied that this pro.
tectorate goes on, and that there is a lawful and
proper use of it, with which the article does not
interfere. We must add that this was the view
which the principal American statesmen ut that
time took of the treaty. 80
Mr. Webster, in conversation with Mr.. Cramp.
ton, stated distinctly, THAT be by 10 means
held that the United States considered that from
The moment OF the conclusion Of the Convention
IF April 10, 1850, Great Britain hnd renowned
Ill title to interfere - affairs Of Greytovn
md Mosquieto.' Mr. kyton expressly denied
n the Senate having made any statement to
he effect that the treaty of 1850 had abolished
he British protcctorate over Mosquito, and de-
Jared that what he did say was, not that the
'rotectorate was disavowed by the treaty, but
hat it was disarmed. These statesmen, that
s, considered that the protectorate was render.
d harmless by the treaty, and that with res.
'ect to one special point it was so tied that no
injury could come from it to American interests
with that point. e. to the project
f the ship canal, which was the occasion of the
realty. But they only considered that prac-
cal Inconvenience from this protectorate was
that the protectorate itself was
one away with.
The next remark is, that even if this article
aid nothing at all implying protectorat, it
ays nothing ut all against; and that if does
OF in the least prohibit it; but here we come to
he term upon which the main dispute hinges.
1t is asserted, then, on the side of the United
tates, that the term ''occupy,'' if it is not
lentical in meaning with 'protect," at any rate
wolves rights and powers which are involved
!, and are necessary for q protectorate; and
,erefore that the article, in disallowing the
ccupation, disallows the protectorate of Mos
uito. The dispute is thus made to hinge upon
,e meaning Of the word ''occupy," a meaning
hich must be ascertained and decided bys
eference to custom and authorities. So
Now, the term occupy" as used of one ma.
on occupying any portion of the territory Of
mother, invariably means occupation by IN
rmed force, and such an occupation as super
edes for the time the jurisdiction of the national
overnment. This is what we mean by the
Hillary occupation of country. Thus tho
rench, under Joseph Bonaparte, occupied
pain; the Allies, in 1914, occupied France;
nd the Austrians at this moment occupy Par
a. But protectorate does not necessarily
volve the exercise of any such powers as these.
protectorate may be Of such nature IS to
Iercise these powers. Some protectorates may
oproach more or less to dominion and the sup
ceding of the national Government; but tins
not essential to the nature of q professionals
hich may exist in full and complete shape
ithout the existence of any such powers, and
ithout any such rights rs those attaching 70
A protectorate, as Lord Clarendon says.
led not do anything more than ''defend ana
'otect rs temporary act of Friendship. III
sistance may come in when the national GOV.
nment calls it, stay as long as the national
overoment likes. and 60 when it is wanted
ne formally recognized right of one State
rform these acts of friendship to another CO..
flutes protectorate; and such . protectofs's
this is not in the slightest degree interisfeo
tn by the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, whiap oo
ously and expressly only expressly excludes
9 assuming OF exercising dominion" =.
In what way, then, does our present position
wards Mosquito violate the Clayton Buisea
eaty? What are we doing which comes inlo
ythine like collision with the terms Of that
ATTY! We do, indeed, profess to MAINTAIN
electorate over thsy ter itory, ana pr
,torate is by the very terms Of the usav
sognized and allowed; but arc We ''ereenDe
maintaining fortifcations, or assuming OF "a.