Washington sentinel., 1856-03-20

DG- We publish the following able letter
from the Hon. A. G.. Brown, Senator of tile
United States from Mississippi
We hope soon to give his very mastery
speech on the Central American question to
our readers.
SENATE CHAMBER UNITED STATES,
March II, 1856.
TO the Editors Of the National Iatelliqeacer.
A correspondent Of yours in this mornings
Lntelhgencer takes the ground that the words
net ito occupy" in the Clayton Bulwer treaty.
now under discussion in the Senate, aud in the
diplomatic correspondence between the United
States and Great Britain may mean, according
to Ainsworth and Andrews, Ito take hold off,
ITO get into ones power" "to lay hold Of" "to
get the start Of &c. The same writer admits
that, according to Webster, (the best American
authority the words mean ITO take possession
OF, ITO keep in possession" &c. He therefore
infers that both the British and American di
plomatlsts may have plausible grounds for their
respective interpretations Of The words that
neither party shall ever occupy" any part of
Central America
Ii is well known that the British Govern
ment has taken the position that this language
Is prospective in its operation; that is. that
Britain, having got "the start of the United
States, she means to keep it, and that this is
the true intent and meaning of the treaty;
whereas the United States, on the other hand.
insists that by the words snot to occupyn It
was meant, that Great Britain should not atake
possession OF the country, and if she had pos
session she should mot keep it.
1t therefore becomes matter of consennence
know lu ,LoN N
"not to occupy" we're used by the parties who
negotiated the treaty.
In a speech commenced by me in the Senata
on the llth and concluded on the 18th instant.
| stated my firm conviction that the words in
question were used as synonymous with the
words mot to take and not TO keep possession" ]"
| then stated that did not speak lightly. Nv
conviction was then well settled, and 1 now repeat
it, that Mr.. Clayton did define the words anot
to occupy any part of Central America to
mean :" not to take and not to keep +" possession
of any part Of that country.
did not speak in the Senate, nor do now,
on the authority of Mr.. Clayton but now say
that if Sir Henry Bulwer, Lord Clarendon, Mr..
CHAMPION, or any one else in position to know
the facts, and who is authorized to speak for
the British Government, shall take the ground
that the words in the treaty we're understood to
mean that Great Britain was to be left in pos.
session of such parts of Central America as she
had in possession at the date of the treaty, the
evidence can be produced that the words =" not
to occupy" were defined by the American
negotiator 10 mean not to take and not to
keep possession of the country. If the British
negotiator, the British cabinet, or British
minister, or any one authorized to speak for the
British Government denies that the words
were so defined, our country should ask that
every injunction OF secrecy be removed, and that
all the facts be laid before the world.
If II shall be shown, as ! confidently predict,
that Mr.. Clayton did define the words as have
stated them, there can be no occasion for con.
sulting Ainsworth, Andrews, Webster, or any
one else. The judgment Of the world will be
that II you agreed not TO take and MOTTO keep
possession OF any part Of Central America, you
cannot go there, and ifyou are there you must
go away.
A. G. BROWN.