The true Democrat., 1856-02-05

the ministry were sustained. It will be m less Instructive and amusing to read from th. Parliamentary Registcr' of that day the speecl of Lord Chancellor Thurlow, delivered in v,p. dlcatlon of the ministry, in which he demon. Strated, by recurring to the whole history ol the past, that Great Britain never had q nar. ,lcie oi tltie or interest in any portion of the moSqtuto coast. How was it in the otbe, nouse, the House of Commons? Mir. Pitt sh"rtiy afterwards introduced into that House oiil to Indemnify the British settlers who were drlven out of the Mosquito coast by the treaty ol ll86, and the House of Commons passed the bill, thus paying those who by the Seductlons ot the British ministry had been lured into that country in violation of the trea- ties of 1763 and of l783.
 Alter all this would any man suppose that the Govefnment of Great Britain would acain have set up title to this country? She did SO. When and under what circumstances? As I I have said within six days of the date of inc treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, acouirino Cali. fornia and New Mexico, the British government sent an armed expedition to that country. and took possession of it again; and has now the face to declare, in a public dispatch, that she had the undlsturbed possession of the Mosouito coast for two hundred years If arrogance and bold and reckless assertion could carry it. we could make no successful controversy with them But IS it not astonishing that a nation which challenges the respect of tbe civilized world should suffer ministry to exist there 1 claiming that they have held the undsturbed possession of that region of country for two hundred years, in the face of the facts which 1 have now stated to the Senate, and which no man can with truth contradict?
 This possession oistrubed us Why? What interests had whe in it? you may inquire. Sir the route through the isthmus is paIpablv the man route from the whole of our Atlantic coast to our Territories on the Pacific. We have talked about railroad to the Pacific but we have not made it yet and God only knows when 1t will be made. Many think it will be finished about the ingathering of the Jews: but when 1t shall be made twill not supercede the necessity of apassage through the sthmus for us. We must go through there or we may have to give up California and the rest of our Faclhc possessions at some future day to form Tor themselves separate Republic on the other side Of the Rocky Mountains. No men unher- stand 1t better than the British Ministry.
 MT. Seward. l observed that the British Government IS now stated by the President to assume the ground that the stipulation not to coonlze or to occupy was prospective only, and not present and actual. take this occasion to ask the honorable Senator, if he feels at liber- ty to state, what was the view taken of that article of the treaty by the Executive of the United States in making it?
 Mir. Clayton. Prospective in its operation! never dreamed of such thing Merely pros pecuve! Does any man suppose that l. in the possession of my senses, could have entered into treaty with Great Britain to allow her to re- mann In possession of this sthmus and to pro- hlblt my own countrymen from taking posses sion of 1t, leaving her there undisturbed?- w hat would we gain by 1t? What inducement could there have been on our part to enter into such treaty? What motive could an Ame- rlcan statesman have in making such treaty? What motive could an American senator have had Tn voting for the ratification of such an instrument? Is 1t possible that any man on earth can have his understanding so perverted as to believe for single moment that view was Ill the contemplation of the negotiations? ?- What Is the language of the treaty? Both parties agreed that neither of them would oc- cnpy, colonize, fortify-
 Mr. Cass. Or exercise dominion over.
 Mr. Clayton. Yes, sir; or assume or exercise dominion over any part of Central America
 W hat IS the meaning of the word "occupy?' This IS the first word "Occupv," according to every dictionary you can lay your hands on, means, first, to take possession; second, to keep possession. He Is said to occupy who either takes possession originally, or retains possession which he formerly took. They agreed by this treaty to do neither. They agreed that they would not occupy, and they agreed further that they would not exercise dominion there Now they say that is a stipulation which was to be prospective In its operation. Well, sir, suppose we consider It prospective, how Is it then?- They were not to exercise dominion thereafter but they were to exercise the dominion they had before. How can that be? The language of the treaty was that they should thereafter exercise no dominion, and, no matter what do- minion they might have had before, they were compelled, by the plain terms of the treaty to abandon 1t.
 The President of the United Statas, in my l judgment has very wisely resolved to stand by the treaty Independently of the message, we i know from some recent occurrences, which have taken place within few days, that the executive has strictly enforced the treaty, and has prevented American colonization in Gen. tral America, and has avowed the object of stopping ship in the harbor of New York to DN CO 0iAS OiN1Cy. Oi, olCdG having denied the plain meaning of the treaty, as she has done, we should be perfectly justified in breaking up the treaty on our part if that would place us in any better condition. Now, ask the attention of the Senate for but few moments to consider that point We have the right in for0 c0nscieati0, to annul the treaty and we should be justified before the civilized world for annuling it, if it be to our interest to do so. We have not been charged by Great Britain with attempting to violate it heretofore; and, as an American citizen, thank God that we have maintained such a ground that we cannot be charged with want of faith in this matter at any period. But is it to be endured that we shall abandon the treaty, if our posi- ton is to be made worse by abandoning it?-- Suppose we do abandon and annul it, where shall we be then? The British say they are in possession, and have kept possession, through the Mosquito King, but if they are not now, they would undoubtedly then take possession and keep it. Gan we tolerate that? American Senators, I ask, would you toerateit? In such contingency they would control every pas sage through the isthmus, in the event of a future rupture between tbis country and Great Britain. Yes, sir, they would be at hand, with their colonists, and seize any and every canal or railroad between Tehuantepec and Panama
 The question forces itself upon us, if we break up the treaty now, what will be onr posi- ton? We shall have given up the whole con- troversy, or we must assert that ancient doctrine which my ancient friend from Michigan (Mr. Cass) and others here have been deSrous very often to assert, called the "Monroe doctrine" In reference to this particular territory, l would not hesitate at al as one Senator, to as- sert the Monroe doctrine, and maintain it by my votes; but do 1 expect to be sustained in that, or does any other man here expect to be sustained in such vote by both branches of Congress? Whenever the attempt has been made to assert the Monroe doctrine in either branch of Congress it has failed. The present democratic party came into power after the de- bate on the Panama mission, on the utter ab- negation of the whole doctrine, and stood upon Washington's doctrine of non-interventlon.
 Mir. Cass Mir. President 1 rise principally to express my entire concurrence with what has | fallnn from tbo b,pb,,bIo from Dpla-