Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1857-03-28

the United States viii henceforth object to any of
the Powers of Europe establishing colonies on
either of the continents of America. If had in
structions ke wished me to state the precise nature
and extent of this principle. He had not before
been apare of IT. Suppose, for instance, that Can't
Parry's expedition had ended or that any new Bri-
fish expedition were to end in the discovery of
land proximate to either part of the American con-
tinent north or south, would the United States OBJ
ject to Britain's planting colony there ?"
The opposition of Mr.. CANNING to the principle
in question was also repeatedly evinced Cas- Mr..
SrApLEToN recites) by the conduct of the British
Plenpotentiaries acting under his instructions and
direction during the entire tendency of the nego-
tiations with reference to the territory in the
Northwest.
1t will thus be perceived that the writer for the
Edinburgh Review mistook the historical bearings
and relations of the Monroe doctrine" when he
asserted that the declaration, originally suggested
by Mr. Canning as a bulwark against the interven-
ton of the Holy Alliance in American affairs" is
the same as that which has been g converted into
a menace against all the Powers whose territories
fringe the States of the American Union" 1t is
the latter of the two declarations which in subse-
quent times has been sometimes made, through
miseonstructon or perversion, to bear the signif-
canoe he ascrbes to it, but which, if it shall always
prove harmless it is unhistorica may be safely
left to confi,te itself
Before we dismiss the subject of this article we
may venture to remark that the reviewer has pro-
badly also mistaken the personal opinions of Mr..
BUCHANAN when he undertakes to affirm that he
Mr.. B. is "a strenuous supporter" of the "Mon-
roe doctrine In the modern acceptation of that DO
itical dogma. 1t is quite true that while conduct
ing the late negotiations upon the Central Ameri-
can question he, in his capacity as Minister of the
United States, defended the current view of the
declaration made by Mr. MONROE In this, how
ever, he acted under the instructions of the late
distinguished Secretary of State; and, without
intending to intimate that there was upon this
point any contrariety of opinion between the late
Administration and the REPRESENTATIVE Of our Gov
eminent at the Court of St. James, we may be per-
mitted to suggest that a diplomatist is some
times called to sustain, the official organ of his
Government, positions which may not always coin
eide with his individual convictions. Certain at
least it is that Mr.. BUCHANAN, acting as an indie
pendent legislator in the National Councils, is un
derstood, at memorable period in our political an
nails to have given little countenance to the as
sumptions which at an early day were set up under
the auspices of this declaration made by Mr. Mon.
ROE with reference to future colonization on the
American continents. We allude to the celebrated
debate on the Panama Mission, when, the Govern
ment of the United States having been called upon
By the Spanish-American States to enter into COM
pact for the purpose of redeeming what they con-
sidered the promise and pledge of Mr. Monroe
Mr.. BUCHANAN entered his protest against any
such pretensions in the, of that declaration,
and, while yielding his aanttc the proposition that
the United States should be represented in the
Congress at Panama, was careful to provide that
our Government should in no way be pledged to as
sumo the protectorate of the whole boundess con-
tinent" His views definitely stated in the fol-
lowing resolution, rather modification of certain
resolutions which were before Congress in the
year 1926, during the discussion Of motion to ap
point Ministers Penipoentiary participate in the
deliberations of the Panama Congress
"The House, however, in expressing this opinion,
do not intend to sanction any departure from the
settled policy of this Government that, in extend
ing our commercial relations with foreign nations.
We should have with them little political connex-
ION as posslble and that we should preserve peace
commerce, and friendship with all nations. and
form entangEng alliances with none. 1t is, there
fore, the opinion of this House that the Govern
ment OF the United States ought not to be repre-
sented at the Congress of Panama, except in Dip
omatc character, nor ought they to form any alli-
ance, offensive or defensive or negotiate respecting
such an alliance with all or any of the Spanish
American Republics; nor ought they to become
parties with them, or either of them to any Joint
declaration for the purpose of preventing the inter-
ference of any of the European Powers with their in
dependence or form of government, or to any COM
pact for the purpose Of preventing colonization upon
the continent Of america bit that the people of the
United States should be left free to act, in any
crisis, IN such their feelings of friend
ship toacards these Republics and as their o,ca honor
and policy may at the time dictate."r
That the restrictions thus laid upon the American
Ministers to be appointed under the resolution were
plainly directed against the assumptions advanced
under color of the declaration made by Mr. Monroe
viii be apparent all but that they were equally
intended to fulfil the legitimate scope and applica
ton of that declaration as it was understood at the
time of its PRONUNCIATION will be equally obvious from
the following comments made by Mr. BUCHANAN in
defence of his modification:
The gentleman from Kentucky lMr. TRIMBLE)
did me no more than justice when he stated that
my amendment had been drawn with much care,
and every expression had been deliberately consid-