The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-03-20


snguiaTly fortunate Such construction of such con-
tract would be papaby inffaeton o. sense
that honest men everywhere would declare that was
wully attempting 70 eyade and violate the agreement
Here Great Britain admits that she did obge herself
not 10 occupy eolonize exercise dominion over Nj
caragua Costa Rica Honduras or any part of Central
America that IL she agreed that she would not occupy
the rst second third fourth apartment or any other
apartment IN the house and II she to her
contract IN good faith she must do precisely what hon
est man would do under like only re-
fuse 10 occupy the apartments which vacant before
she made the contract bat the che then
pied II the treaty found her in possession Of any part OF
Central America she is obliged 10 abandon H. Her stipa-
ation is that she will not occupy exercise dominion
over any part of Central America. She remain
then without violating the contract She remain
there without occupying the country She cannot main
tain her position without exercising dominion She must
quit the country violate the treaty.
Suppose Mr. President that IL shall turn out in the flu
ure examination of this question: that the British negota-
tor informed that the words mot occupy in the
treaty meant moi TO take or keep possession of the
try suppose shall turn out in the of the nyest
CATION that the American negotiaor told Sir Henry Bull
that when said "You shall occupy the coun-
try we meant you shall not take keep possession of
the country suppose this fact Is not only known TO Sir
Henry Bulwe but to-day and at all times heretofore has
been known to Lord Clarendon and the whole British gov
ernment am not going to assert that il is but am
that declaration lightly. | have what conceive to be
good evidence do not speak by the authority of the
American Secretary Mr. CLAYTON but have what con-
ceve to be good authority for saying TO the Senate and
my counrymen that the British negotator informed
that used the words mot TO occupy" synonymous
with the expression mot 10 take keep possession Of the
country This being so, with what sort of propristy
with what rtof plausiby--does Lord Clarendon take
the ground that the treaty is simply prospective in its OPP
Grafton? If he was forewarned that he was not TO take
and not to keep possession OF the country he was fore
warned that the treaty not to be prospective but that
il to be present and instantaneous in its operation.
After extended and searching analysis of the
pondence, Mr.. BRows proceeds to say
have now, Mr. President hastily through this
Bll-
channn written the lst Of February Of this year,
which need not refer for any purpose connected with
this debate The conclusions to which my mind has
rived are briefly these:
l. That the United States met the proposition of the
British government for strict neutrality in spirit Of gen.
confidence, promising that "no Russian privateer
should be equipped, vicuaed admitted, with its
prizes in ports and the United States has rigidy
kept her faith.
ralitywas the first TO violate laws of neutrality and
while for her safety she quick to place under
pledges not to countenance Russia she just quick
to invade our soil with recruiting force 10 violate our
laws infringe rights of territorial sovereignty and
put at hazard our peace with friendly power
g. When called on for an explanation of her conduct in
this regard she denied through her Secretary for Foreign
Affairs all completely on the part of her officers and SER
wants in these proceedings She undertook to set
laws at defiance by asserting that her Maesys
had an incontestable right 10 FGppoiat place within
her Maasys domnons 10 which recruits might be drawn
from the United States to m her Maestys armies !" know
ing the time she took this position that laws made
beyond tie limits Of the United States nth the intent Of being
enlisted in The service Of any foreign State"
A. That Lord Clarendon undertook the defence and JUS
fcation of her Maestys officers and servants for this
purpose citing authority Judge Kanes opinion the
hearing of Herzs habeas corpus msauotng the
learned Judge and wholly emitting then, at any other
time thereafter TO mention the fact that Hertz had been
convicted before and sentenced by the Judge The
conviction Of Hertz proved that the law had been violated
and the justice of that conviction placed beyond dis
pu,e by the fact that according Lord Clarendon, Judge
Kane rightly expounded the law The completely of her
Maiestys officers and servants is clearly demonstrated
by the evidence in Hers than s the guilt of Hertz
II he violated the law, they hired him to do it.
5. While Lord Clarendon asserts that he gave strict
orders TO British eonsus not 10 violate the laws and
Joined Mr., Champion, above ALL to have conceal
meut from the United States government" be defends
these parties and undertakes 10 justify their conduct after
II is shown that the eonsus at Cincinnati, Philadelphia
aud New York have violated the laws and that Mr.
CHAMPION scrupuously careful to conceal all his
movements from the government and people of the United
States having recourse TO ciphers and cabastc char
aoeF5 for this purpose in his oegraphe communications
with his associates.
G. That having obtained from Mr. Buchanan a guasi
acknowledgment of satisfaction, partial understand
ing OF the he undertook after lis l development TO
plead this acknowledgment in bar OF any further inquiry
and became petuent and irascbe when he failed Of his
purpose
l. WbSn Mr. Marcy, satisfied of Champions connection
with this business charged upon him, he neither attempt
ed to pailae deny H. but sent home for instructions
thus virtually acknowledging that he was acting under
orders and that the home government must take the re-
spOpsibility,
g. Lord Caroudon continued to maintain that our laws
had not been violated asserting that, though had
sorted to despotc 10 obtain evidence nothing had
could be ELECTED 10 establish charge against her Ma
as servants and this after Hertz had been convicted
and the completely OF CHAMPION Barclay Matthew, Rowe
crofl and others, clearly demonstrated
9. All these and other considerations which deve
oed by the testimony and the correspondence force the
mind with irresistible power the conclusion that there
has been either deliberate purpose to infringe rights
and violate ourlans else Insulting indifference shown
to whether they infringed and vio
lated that their professions Of friendship sincere
II they that the British cabinet place low es
mate dignity nation to conclude that II they
friends, they may treat they please Either
position is inRdmssible
TO- And finally that the President and Secretary have
from the commencement, manifested proper American
spirit and have lived up to the maxim of asking for moth
ing but what Is right and submitting TO nothing that is
wrong that apology has been offered that
ought to have been accepted that they right in ask
ing the recall Of the offending officers and the British
cabinet refuse TO recall them they ought to dismiss them
forthwith. Such, sir the conclusions TO which my
mind has arrived.
II TO me sir, this question may be understood by
reducing IL to an issue between private gentlemen Let
for put the two governments aside and sup
pose the controversy 10 exist between Gen. Pierce and Lord
Clarendon His ordshp has personal interests to be looked
after the estate Of Gen Pierce and for that purpose he
sends his private and confidential servant The General
ceves the servant the implied understanding that be
TO commit respags violate in any way the domes-
tic regulations Of the estate In short time he Is found
taking uuwarantabo liberties with the Generals property
and melting his domesics acts Of nsubordinaion
The General complains TO his ordship and is answered
that stringent instructions given to the
TO act improperly and above all things not have
couceament from General Pierce and bis lordship adds
sorry anything has been done by my