The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-03-06
CENTRAL AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

January 3lst in the British House of Lords,
Lord Clarendon said, in relation to Central
American affairs:
In such a case, correspondence is useless,
and l lost no time in Offering to refer the whole
question to the arbitration of any third Power,
both sides agreeing to be bound by the decis-
ion. That offer has not yet been accepted. Ii
has been renewed, and l hope that, upon fur
ther consideration, the Government of the Uni.
ted States will agree to it."
This revelation awakened surprise on both
sides the Atlantic, for not an intimation had
emanated from the, President or any member of
his Administration, that such proposal had
been made by the British Government. In re-
ply to call from the Senate, copies of cores
pondence in relation to it were laid before that
body last Friday, from which it appears that
Lord Clarendon had often, in conversation with
Mr.. Buchanan, suggested arbitration, as the
best mode of settling the difficulty-that Mr.. B.
had treated it rather jocularly, dissented from
1t, and had not seen proper to regard it as a
formal proposition-that formal proposition
had been sent to Mr.. Champion, dated Novem-
Der 10th, received by him in December, and
ry 27th-(last Wednesday,
Nocensber 81, 1854, Mr.. Buchanan writes to
Mr.. Marcy that Lord Clarendon eliminated
that it might be desirable to have the opinion
of third Power"
November Q, 1856, he writes to Mr.. Marcy:
ain the course of the conversation, 1 observ
ed to him that the most serious difficulty be-
tween the Governments might arise out of the
Central American questions. He said that
when two Governments disagreed about the
construction of treaty, the best and most nat
ural mode was to refer the question to third
Power. At an early period of the negotiation,
he had made this suggestion, but had ocular
ly replied that the Emperor of Russia was the
only Power sufficiently independent to act as
an impartial umpire in the case, and they had
gone to war with him."
November, 9, 1855, he again writes:
"He then said, about these Central Ameri.
can questions, the best mode of settling them
is by arbitration. / replied, there was nothing
to arbitrate. He said the true construction of
the treaty was proper subject for arbitration.
/ told him l did not consider it question for
construction at all. The language was plain
and explicit, and thought this would be the
almost unanimous opinion of the American
ton what he had now said, as l had done what
he had said at our former interview"
February 8, 1856, Mr.. Buchanan writes that
he had an interview with Lord Clarendon, who
told him that he considered he had proposed
reference of the question to arbitration, in the
various conversations he had held with Mr.. B.. 4:
He then, for the first time, informed me
that he had addressed despatch to Mr. Cramp-
ton on the subject, with instructions to him to
read it to you. He then sent for it, and read it
to mo. believe it is dated in November; but,
copy being doubtless in your possession, it
will speak for itself; and he informed me that
all you had said about it to Mr.. Champion was
that the matter was in Mr.. Buchanan's hands.
He proceeded to express decided opinion
In favor of arbitration, and said that when two
friendly Governments disagreed upon the con-
struction of a treaty, the natural and appropri-
ate course was to refer the question to third
friendly Power. He had ever firmly believed
their construction of the treaty to be correct.
He then requested me to communicate to you
their proposals for an arbitration, and how
anxious they were that the question might be
settled in this manner. / told him should
cheerfnlly comply with his request, but repeat
ed that nv own individual opinions remained
unchanged. considered the language of the
treaty too clear for serious doubt; and such /
believed was the opinion of public men of all
parties in the United States. This had been
evinced by the recent debate in the Senate on
the Presidents message. Besides, the Difficult.
ty of selecting suitable Sovereign as an arbi-
traitor seemed insurmountable. But said this
was question for my Government and not for
myself"