The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1857-12-12

have been employed in negotiating treaties
with that power, and afterwards in discuss
! ing their true intent and meaning. In this
| respect, the convention Of April 10, lsoo,
commonly called the Clayton and Bulwer
treaty, has been the.most unfortunate OF an;
! because the two governments place direc'iy
! opposite and contradictory constructions
upon its first and most important article.
| Whilst, in the U. s., we believed that TINS
treaty would place both powers upon an ex-
act equality by the stipulation that neither
will ever 4" occupy or iortifg, or COLOMBO. or
assume or exercise any dominion over,
any part cf Central America, il is contended
By the British government that the true
COZ. struction of TINS language has left tn IN
in the rightf,il possession Of al. that portion
of Central America which was in their oc-
| cupancy at the date of the treaty; IN TACT
that the treaty is a virtual recognition on
the part of the u. S. Of the right of Great
F, Britain, either as owner or protector, to the
whole extensive coast of Central America,
sweeping round from the Ria Hondo to the
port and harbor of San Suan de Nicaragua,
together with the adjacent Bay Islands, ex-
cept the comparatively small portion oil tins
between the Sarstoon and the Cape Hondu-
ras. According to thoir construction, the
them from extending their possessions in
Central America beyond the present limits
\ Ii is not too much to assert, that If in the
L. States the treaty had been considered
susceptible Of such construction, II never
would have been negotiated under the au'
thority of the President, nor wonld 1t have
received the appreciation Of the Senate. The
universal conviction of the United States
! was that when our Government consented
to violate its traditional and timehcnored
policy, and to stipulate with a foreign gov
eminent never to occupy or acquire terrific
I nv i'm the Central American portion OF our
own continent, the consideration for this
I sacrifice was that Great Britain should, IN
/ this respect at least, be placed IN the same
position with ourselves. Whilst we have
I no right to doubt the sincerity Of the Bri-
| fish Government in their constr OF the
treaty. it is at the same time my deliberate
I conviction that this construction is in oppo-
/ sition both to its letter and its spirit.
| Under the late administration negotiations
were instituted between the two governments
! for the purpose, If possible, Of removing
/ these difficulties; and 4 treaty having this
| laudable object in view was signed al Lon
don on the 18th October 1856, and was sub
mitted nv the Presiden; 10 the Senate Oh the
: following 10Th of December. Whether this
treaty. either in is original or amended form,
would have accomplished The object intend
ed without giving birth 10 new and embar-
RAISING COMPLICATIONS between the two go
vernments, may perhaps be well questioned.
Certain il is, however, it was rendered much
! less Objectionable by the different amend
ments made to it hy the Senate. The treaty,
/ as amended, was ratified by me on the 18th
/ March. 1877 and was transmitted TO London
! for ratification by the British government.
That government expressed its willingness to
/ concur in all the amendments made by the
Senate with the single exception of the
: clause relating TO Ruatan and the other isl
ands in the Bay Of Honduras. The article in
+ the original treaty, as submitted TO The Sen
: ate. after rociting that these islands and
their inhabitants having Leen by conven-
. ven;ion bearing date the 9th day of August,
! 1856, between her Britannia Majesty and the
/ Kepublic of Honduras, constituted and de-
/ clared free territory under the sovereignty
! of the said republic of Honduras" stipulat-
! ed that "thc two contrUctog parties DO here
! bv mutually engage TO recognize and respect
| in all future time the INDEPENDENCE and
/ rights of the said free territory as part Of
! the Republic Of Honduras"
Upon an examination of this convention
between Great Britain and Honduras Of the
+ 9th August, 1856. it was found that, while
I declaring the Bay Islands to be "a free ter
( ritory under the sovereignty Of the republic
of Honduras" it deprived that republic Of
, rights without which its sovereignty over
J them could scarcely be said to exist. II d.
/ yiGed them from the remainder Of Honduras,
; and gave to their inhabitants a separate CO.
/ veynnent of their own, with legislative, exc
/ cutive, and judicial officers, elected by them
! selves 1t deprived the government Of Hon
duras of the taxing power IN every form, and
/ exempted the people of the islands from the
performance of military duty except for their
own exclusive defence. l. also prohibited
/ that republic from erecting Notifications up
on them for their protcction-thus leaving
them open to invasion from any quarter;
and finally, it provided that slavery shall
not at any time hereafter be permitted to
exist therein.
Had Honduras ratified this convention, she
would have ratified the establishment Of
State substantially Independent within her
own limits, and a state ut all times subject
to British influence and control. Moreover,
had the United States ratified the treaty with
Great Britain in its original form, we should
have been bound 'to recognize and respect
in all future lime these stiPulations TO the
prejudice of Honduras. Being IN direct OPP
position to the spirit and meaning o! the
Clayton and Bulwer treaty as understood in
the United States, the Senate rejected the
entire clause, and substituted in its stead
simple recognition OF the sovereign right of
Honduras to these islands in the following
language The two contracting parties do
hereby mutually engage to recognize and re-
spect the islands OF Ruatan, Eonaco, Utila,
Barbaretta, Helena, and Norat, situate IN the
Bay of Honduras, and off the coast OF the
republic of Honduras, as under the sovcr-
eighty and as part Of the said Republic ef
Honduras"
Great Britain rejected this amendment. as
signing as the only reason, that the ratiiica-
tons Of the convention of the 9th August,
1856, between her and Honduras, had not
been exchanged. OWING to the hesitation of
that government" Had this been done, il is
stated that ''IIer Majesty's Government
would have had lit,ls difficulty in agreeing
to the modification proposed by the Senate,
which then would have had in effect the same
Specification as the original wording" Whe-
Their this would have been the effect; whe-
Their the mere circumstance Of the exchange
of the ratificatons of the British convention I
with Honduras prior in point of time TO the
ratification OF our treaty with Great Britain !
would. '.in effect" have had "the same sig 4
rification as the original wording" and thus !
nulitied the amendment Of the Senate, may I
well be doubted. 1t is, perhaps, fortunate .
that the question has never arisen.
The British Government, Immediately az !
ter rejecting the treaty as amended, propo- 4
scd to enter into new treaty with the /
United States, similar in ali respects to the |
treaty which they had just refused to ratify,
if the United States would consent to add to |
the Senates clear and unqualified recogni-
ton of the sovereignty Of Honduras over the
Bay Islands the following conditional stipu-
lation: "Whenever and as soon as the Re-
public of Honduras shall have concluded and
ratified treaty with Great Britain, by which