The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-03-19

We copy the following important letter by Hon A. g.
Brown from the National Iatszigsaee, and indulge the
hope that may result In clearing away much Of the su.
thrown around the true meaning of the Clay
ton-Buwer treaty; @
SENATE CHAMBER UNITED SrATEs
March IL, 1866,
To the Editors Of he National Iateaigencp
correspondent of yours in this mornings Integencer
takes the ground that the words not "to occupy in the
ClayonBuRe treaty, under discussion in the Sem
ate and in the diplomatic correspondence between the
Uuited States and Great Britain may mean according
Ainsworth and Andrews, "to take hold Of" "to get into
ones power" TO lay hold Of" to get the Of &C.
The same writer admits that according to Webster 1.-THE
session Of" to keep in possession &c He therefore in
ers that both the British and American dplomatsB may
have plausible grounds for their respective interpretations
oil the words that neither party shall ever occupy any
part OF Central America.
II is well known that the British government has taken
the position that this language prospective in its opera
ton that is that Britain having got the start of the
United States she 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 not
TO occupy" it meant that Great Britain should not
take possession OF the country and she had possession
she should not keep" it,
1t therefore becomes matter of consequence to know
precisely in what the words mot occupy" were
used by the parties who negotiated the treaty.
In speech commenced by me in the Senate the 18th
and concluded on the 18th instant stated my firm
vlchon that the words in question used synony
with the words mot take and 10 keep pos
session" then stated that did not speak lightly My
conviction was then well settled and repeat it, that
Mr.. Clayton did define the words mot to occupy" any
part OF Central America 10 mean not to take and not TO
keep possession of any part of that country
did not speak in the Senate do now, on the au-
thoriy of Mr. Clayton but now say that if Sir Henry
Bulwer Lord Clarendon Mr.. Champion, any 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 understood to that
Great Britain to be left in possession of such parts of
Central America as she had in possession at the date of
the treaty the evidence be produced that the words
not to occupy defined by the American negotator
to mean not to take and not to keep possession of the
country If the British negotiator the British cabinet
British minister any authorized to speak for the
British government denies that the words de-
fined country should ask that every injunction of
secrecy be removed and that all the facts be laid before
the world.
iii shall be shown, confidently predict that Mr.
Clay ton did define the words have stated them there
be occasion for consulting Ainsworth, Andrews,
Webster, or any else. The judgment of the world
will be that If you agreed not 10 take and not keep posses
of any part of Central America you cannot go there
and if you there you must go away.
A. G. BROWN.