Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-01-11

5upulAtlon5 OF the OODVcnIiOn OF loOU.
The British government having been furnished
with the views entertained by the President in
gard to the obligation imposed by that Convention,
he expects it will be equally explicit on its part.
/ Hedoes not doubt that the interest of the two
countries, and the mutual desire to maintain exist
ing amcao'e relations will alike inspire each party
with conciliatory spirit which viii enable them to
overcome all obstacles a satisfactory adjustment.
| aIn, sir, respectfully, your ob't ser't,
w. L. MARCY
Agreeahly TO these instructions, MF. Buchanan
addressed note Lord Clarendon, (Her Majesiy's
Secretary for Foreign Afl.irs.l embod,ing the SUBJ
stance o! Mr. Marcy despatch and desiring an ex.
plicit reply.
LoRD oLARENnoN's REJoiybEg
bears date Oct. 4lh, 1855 and after aeknowiedg
ing courteousy. Mr Buchanan's note, proceeds at
once to the point thus;-
In answer to the questions putby Mr.. Buchanan,
the undersigned has the honor 10 state him that
her asiesiy's government adhere TO the opinion
which they have uniformly held that the conven
! ton OF April 10, 1850, was merely prospective in
its operation, aud did ia any way interfere with
the al things existing at the time Of its con
/ clusion. II il had been intended TO DO so, there
can be no question bot that in conformity with
what the Undersigned believes 70 be the universal
rule in regard to instruments Of tits nature, it
would have contained, in specific terms, a renunca
ton the part OF Great Britain of the possessions
and rights which, up 10 the conclusion of the con-
vention, she had claimed to maintain, such renun-
! cation would Dot have been left a mere matter
/ of inference.
! Neither can her Maestys government subscribe
to the position that il the convention did not bear
! the IN. aiming attached to it by the government of
! United States, it would have imposed upon the
! government Of the United States a self denying
obligation which not equally contracted BY
Great Britain, and that such state of things could
! not have been in the intention cf the contracting
| parties; because if the convention did bear the
meaning attached to it by the United States, it
would then have imposed upon Great Britain the
obligation to possessions and rights with
out any equivalent remuneration the part of the
| United States. If the government of the United
States can complain in the case of the conven-
ton as presenting unilatera character uniavor
able to the United States with much greater reason
! might the government Of Great Britain, in the
other case if the assumption of the United States
we-e to be acted upon in the construction of the
convention, complain OF it as prejudcial TO England
But looking at the object the contracting parties
/ had 10 view st the conclusion Of the convention,
namely, the security OF the proposed ship canal
! the British government considered that the design
Of the contracting parties not to disturb any
state of things then existing but TO guard against
any future creation of a state of things which
might by possibility interfere with the security of
the proposed canal That was the true design OF
the convention is obivous from the provision in the
sixth article by which the contracting parties en-
gaged to invite every State TO into stiputons
with them similar TO those contained in the con.
vention. But if the positions of the United States
! government were sound, aud the convention was
intended to interfere with the state of things ex-
- i
upon Great Britain to withdraw from portions Of
| territory occupied by it, similar obligation would
be contracted by other States accedng to the con-
ventiOn, and the governments of the Central
American States would, by the mere act OF acces
sion, sign away their rights to the territories in
which they are situated.
The British government share the conviction of
the President OF the United States that the interest
/ OF the two countries and their mutual desire to
maintain existing friendly relations, will alike in
spire each party with cOnCiliatOry spirit and en-
be them to overcome all obstacles to a satisfactory
ju,tment OF Central American questions. The
British government reasons why it should
! be otherwise The British government neither
! lave the wish to extend the limits OF their pos
sessions or the sphere Of their influence in that
/ quarter, nor would any British interest be pro-
NOTED by doing so; but the British government are
not prepared to contract either the or the other
! a
/ TO which Interpretation they cannot subscribe.
The undersigned requests Mr. Buchanan to accept
assurance of his highest consideration.
CLARENDON.
FOREIGN OFFICE, Sept. %, 1885.
The correspondence closes with an answer TO the
! foregoing from Mr.. Buchanan. As this is suppos-
ed to be the last shot fred from the American
side, We give it without abridgement:
Mr.. BUCHANAN TO LORD CLARENDON.
The Undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Min
/ lister Pen;potentary OF the United States has the
honor to acknowledge the receipt of t. note Of
the Earl of Clarendon, her Majesty's principal Sc
cretdry OF State for Foreig N Affairs dated on the
29Jh ult in reply TO the note OF the undersigned
of the llth ult, in reference to the Central Amer
can questions between the two governments; and
! he will not fail TO transmit copy of the same by
the next steamerto the Secretary of State at Wash
ington.
! Whilst far from intending to renew the general
discussion of these questions, which has already
been exhausted the undersigned, in passing, woul
make single observation in regard 10 the Earl of
Carendons remarks that il tine convention OF 3th
A pril, OF 1850, had intended that Great Britain
should withdraw from her possessions ia Central
America. at would have contained in specific terms
a remuneration" to that effect land such renuucia-
ton would not have been left as d mere matter OF
OF inference"
Now, it appears to the undersigned that an en-
gasement by party not ito occupy or exercise
dominion" over territory of which that party is in
actual possession at the date Of the engagement Is
/ equivalent in all respects to agreement 10 with
draw from such territory. Under these cucum,.
stances, this is not "a mere matter of inference,
because the one proposition is necessarily and nse
parabiy involved in the other and they are merely
alternative modes Of expressing the same idea In
such a case, TO withdraw is not 10 occupy not TO
! occupy is necessarily to withdraw.
Tue undersigned needs no apology for briefly al
vertng 10 another argument Of the Earl Of Claren
don, because il has now for the first time been ad
vanced. He states that if the proposition Of The
/ United States government were sound, aud Ia,
convention was intended to interfere with the state
of things eXistipga the time Of its conclusion, ana
! to impose upon Great Britain 10 withdraw from
7 portions of territory occupied by it, similar obli
CATION would be contracted by the other States,
cediEg to the convention, (under the 9th article,
aud the government OF the Central American States
would by the mere act Of accession sign away
their rights in the territories in which they are sit
uated.
Confning himself strictly to this view Of the SUBJ
ect, the undersigned would observe, that, notwih-
! standing the general terms employed by the con
veniion, an examination Of lis provisions, aud
pecialiy Of the sixth article ITSELF will prove il
intended that the Central American States should
become joint parties TO this treaty with the United
! States Great Britan and other governments exter-
I Tor TO Central America. These States are the sub
/ jccts on which the guaraatees of the convention
were 10 act, and the exclusion of all o:her powers
/ from the occupancy OF Central America, ith a
view not only to the security Of this canal but all
other canals and railroads scross the Isthmus was
one OF the main objects to be accomplished by the
/ treaty.
J The Earl of Clarendon has himself intimated how