The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-06-25

arising out Of the pretenson SO srenuousy urged that
prospective in its operation So is like all other
treaties that is operates the future and not the
past. As soon il ratified its obligations COM
menced and neither could do act leave undone
required or prohibited ey y under the the pTetence that
do not know that there is a public man in England
do think has stood up in the House OF Lords
Commons and disavowed this construction. hold In
my hand very liberal paper called the Econ0mia, GER
ay without any unrendy feelings 10 us but this point
it is decided as Lord Clarendon This what says
We sincerely believe that the dsrsnses Of opinion
with Mr. Buchanan viii be found that with his departure
ne
United states and might therefore be fairly supposed 70 sS
med those best with the opinions Of Mr. Mar
& % s H sna by MOI Mr. but
did not hesitate when opportunity occurred 10 Intimate a
disposed 70 think account fer the fact that since
m p has been BY the American
even at the risk Of being charged with want o. seu
That such should have been the views of Marcy
one who correspondence laid before Para
ment win be surprised for If there be thing more clear
Mr. Buchanan by his Interpretation Of the treaty had never
much entered into the heads of the nego'a'ors who
As Mr.. Marcy, this dogmatc assertion or rather con-
clusion purely iarcica for the whole country knows
the expression that never entered into his
head that any other Interpretation than that occupation
occupation and not acquisition had entered into
the heads Of the negotiaors
Here Is one of the most liberal papers England say
ing that construction, namely: that occupation" as
the honorable Senator from Delaware says correctly
means possession,n entered into the head Of a
man in this country until Mr. buchanan went TO England
1t species Of national monomana which should be
astonished 10 find in any other country in the world
If Mr. Buchanan was the first teach his coIntrymen
their rights under that treaty was another good act for
the treaty promulgated there was not an American
who thought Of any other construction but the true one
and would not have got vote in the Senate under any
other impression.
This treaty provides in its that Central America
shall not be occupied by either party. We all know
was sent back from England TO Mr. Buwer with nstruc
tons not exchange the Publications unless accompanied
with declaration that IL provisions did not include the
British uossessions AZ the Belize and its dependencies
Now desire 70 know what need there was OF such
exemption If the terms Of the treaty did not include these
possessions and how could they include them, If this
tangled Interpretation is the true one tina the treaty
only operated upon the future 70 prevent the occupation
future acquisitions IN other words, to prevent the
acquisition ofnew territory anu inis aecarauon was
made, and then the Publications were exchanged. J
should ike to have Lord Clarendon or any other man,
tell how be reconcilcs his pretensions now with
tie course of the British government. That govern
ment then thought that the terms of the treaty en-
braced these possessions, and secured their exemption
by special act Now the treaty did not touch
them all operated only the future, and they
would thus have been protected without any additional
act II difficult lind in the whole history of national
intercourse example OF similar inconsistency not in
deed tocall it by harsher, but as true an epthet
But this is al to show that the construction now
contended for by the British government was then even
Three years after the formation Of this treaty, Lord
Clarendon sent Mr. Champion, TO be laid before orr 60
vernmcnt the copy Of letter dated April IT, 1853 from
the British Advocate General high law oicer consult
cd by the government III cases involving international law
points In that letter is the following paragraph
understand Mr. Clayton also that by the treaty
Britain has Abandoned all dominion in the whole Of
Central America which assertion Is in my opinion ncor-
and variance with the fact at least regards Belize
and It's dependencies If indeed this exception was not intend
Now sir the Judge Advocate in considering the ques-
ton whether his government " has abandoned all do
minon in the whole of Central America" says, in his
opinion inconsistent with the fact, far respects
Belize and its dependencies which are the very posses
excepted by the declaration rider, and waich he
evidently considers, by his aluson to Mr. Clayton as the
tenure by which Great Britain holds those possessions
He claimed exemption on this prospective ground
But sir, have the testimony of Lord Clarendon him
self 10 construction OF the treaty.
In letter, dated May y, 1858, TO Mr.. Champion, he
says
But Great Britain where in the treaty of April 1880
and absolute right which possesses lawful
territories IN Central America such as their designation was
distinctly understood and declared by the negoators OF the
treaty.
ago II which he claims that the lawful territories OF Great
Britain IN Central America include only such that desig
patton Was declared ~ the negos.ors, Now, defy him
5r any nsr man 10 md One Word In that treaty designat
ing the British possessions in Central americas and the
only reference to Is found in the rider declaration ac
olared tiat the Belize and its dependencies were
emped from the treaty. And lord Clarendon, IN this
letter claims 10 hold those possessions not by viz
tue Of any prospective construction but oy virtue OF TINS
express declaration.
lord Clarendon has now discovered that Mr.. Buchanan
was the first TO that the terms of the treaty
took from the ratification and TO operate upon
everything included within the words of the treaty. and
specially exempted When he expressed this astonsh
ment he have forgotten that his government and
himself had previously put the natural Interpretation upon
the treatysas did read with surprise, this account
Of the debate in the House Of PEERS in which he said =
When Mr.. Buchanan TO this country, we heard
for the first there entirely new Interpretation
10 be the treaty TWAS no onge to be looked upon
prospective arrangement but one for the evacuation OF
British territory and we were told that we were 10 blame ana
b ~ irritation and eompant on the part Of the
United States because fulfilled the engagements of
h s Gy 3 M
reon pu mon the treaty He replied that in his country
there no doubt upon the subject
Now, sir listen to Mr.. Buchanan. In his letter to Mr.
Marcy dated January 10 1854 he says"After that we
had Giscursive and rambling conversation embracing
the Ruatan and Belize questions and Clayton and Buwer
treaty and several other matters which do not propose
to detail In the of he stated distinctly that this
treaty was in their opinion entirely prospective IN its
operation and cid not require them to abandon any Of
their possessions in Central America Al this expressed
my establishment, and discussed the point in an ear
nest but good natured manner"
However surprised Lord Clarendon may have been
have no doubt but Mr.. Buchanan will be much more So
both the declaration itself and at the strange nconsis
tency Of which il is the proof.
But sir, besides the two grounds for holding posses
sons in Central America-the declaration Of the nego
and the prospective nature OF the treaty-Lord Ca
rendon has recently discovered another by which
his government justified in holding ON, showing concu
svey that they determined to adhere TO their claim
while they will not be found wanting III reasons 10 oier
for H. IN Lord Clarendon's letter to Nr Buchanan
dated September 2s 1886, ancr maintaining that the
treaty did nterfere wh the state Of things existing
at the time Of It's conclusion he says
II had Intended TO do THAT is, give up their pos
session there can be no question but that conformity with
gard instruments this would have contained in
specific remuneration, the part of Great Britain
the possessions and which up the conclusion Of the
Convention she had claimed onantan and suoh renuncia
would have been left as mere matter OF Inference
! know nothing Of any such rule Lord Clarendon, in
the entucatOn OF his cXl,Ost0r oil the law OF
nations and reject the authority The rule with honest
men and with honest nations is, that II they EN- into
stipulation do act not TO do one, they are to con
duct themselves accordingly, without trying to get rid q
their engagements by saying did not undertake TO do
something else Apoor code a ethics this for the foreign
affairs OF a nation
was pleased the other day "A the gentle (gcnteel,
might say) hint to France and England which the Presi
dent gave in his message the subject of acquisition OF
territory The governments Of both Of those COUNTLESS
and especially Of England, haU been good deal exer-
csed at graspng propensity ana the English journals
see the recognition OF the existing government OF Mica
ragua another proof OF extension They arc almost
disposed to make 1t question Of war and yet, SIR,