True American. [volume] (Steubenville [Ohio]) 1855-1861, 1857-12-16

recommend its exercise. This would make
it the irrcverSible organic law of each
banks existence, that suspension of spe
Gle payments shall produce its civil death.
The instinct of s'lf preservation would then
compel it to perform its duties in such a
manner as to escape the penalty and pre-
serve its life.
The existence of banks and the circula-
ton of bank paper, are so identified with
the habits of our people, that they cannot
at this day be suddenly abolished without
much immediate injury to the country
If we could cou6ne them to their dppro-
pirate sphere, and prevent them from ad.
ministering to the spirit of wild and reck,
less speculation by extravagant loans and
issues, they might be continued with ad-
vantage to the public.
But this say, after long and much re.
Election: if experience shall prove it to be
impossible to enjoy the facilities which
wellHregulated banks might afford, without
at the same time suffering the calamiies
which the excesses of the banks have hith.
erto inflicted upon the county, it would
then be far the lesser evil to deprive them
altogether of the power to issue a paper
currency and confne them to the functions
of banks of deposit and discount.
Our relations with foreign governments
are upon the whole, in satisfactory con-
dition.
The diplomatic difficulties which existed
between the government of the United
States and that of Great Britain, at the
adjournment of the last Congress, have
been happily terminated by the appoint
ment ola British Minister to this country,
who has been cordially received.
Whilst it is greatly to the interests, as l
am convinced it is the sincere desire, of
the governments and people of the two
countries, to be on terms of intimate
friendship with each other, it has been our
misfortune almost always to have had some
irritating, if not dangerous, outstanding
question with Great Britain.
Since the origin of the government, we
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,
1850, commonly called the Clayton and
Bulwcr treaty, has been the most unfortu-
nate of all J.; because the two governments
place directly opposite and contradictory
constructions upon its first and most i'm
portant article. Whilst, in the United
States, we believed that this treaty would
place both governments upon an exact
equality by the stipulation that neither will
ever " occupy, or fortify, Or colonize, or
exercise dominion /" over tny part of Cen,
tral America, it is contendcd by the British
government that the true construction of
this language has left them in the right.
full possession of all that portion of Central
America which was in their occupancy at
the date of the treaty in fact that the
treaty is virtual recognition on tie part
of the United States, of the right of
Great Britain, either as owner or protector,
to the whole extensive coast Of Central
America, sweeping round from the Rio
Hondo' to the port and harbor of San Juan
de Nicaragua together with the adjacent
Bay Islands, except the comparatively small
portion of this between the Sarstocn and
Cape Honduras. According to their con-
struction, the treaty does no more than
simply prohibit them from extending their
possessions in Central America beyond the
present limits. 1t is not too much to
assert, that if in the United States the
treaty had been considered susceptible of
such construction, it never would have
been negotiated under the authority of the
President, nor would it have received the
appreciation Of the Senate. The universal
conviction in the United States was, that
when our government consented to violate
its traditional and time honored policy, and
to stipulate with foreign government nev.
er to occupy or acquire territory in the
Central American portion Of our CONT.
nent, the consideration for this sacrifice
vas that Great Britain should, in this re.
spect, at least be placed in the same posi-,
ton with ourselves. Whilst we have no
right to doubt the sincerity of the British
government in their construction Of the
treaty, it is at the same time my deliberate
conviction that this construction is in op>
position both to its letter and its spirit
Under the late administration, negotia-
tions were instituted between the two gov
ernments, for the purpose, if possible, Of
removing these difficulties; and treaty
having this laudable object in view, was
signed at London en- the 18th October
1856, and was submitted by the President
to the Senate on the following 10th of De.
comber. Whether this treaty, either in it'
original or amended form, would have &C
cOmplished the object intended, without
giving birth to new and embarrassing
complications between the two govern
ments, may perhaps be well questioned
Certain it is, however, it was rendered
much less Objectionable by the differen
amendments made to it by the Sen ,te.-
The treaty, as amended, was ratified by m
on the 18th March, 1857, and was trans
mitted to London for ratification by tn
British government. That governmen
expressed its willingness to- concur in al
the amendments made by the Senate, witt