"In December, 1823, the then President of the United States, in his annual message upon the opening of Congress, announced, as a principle applicable to this continent, what ought hereafter to be insisted upon, that no European nation ought to be allowed to plant upon it new colonies. It was not proposed, by that principle, to disturb pre-existing European colonies already established in America; the principle looked forward, not backward."

Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Anderson and Sergeant, envoys to the
Panama Congress, May 8, 1826.

The full instructions from which the foregoing extract is taken are
printed in 15 Brit. & For. State Papers, 832; in the appendix to 5
Congressional Debates 38, and in the Proceedings of the Int. Am.
Conference, IV. 113.

The commissions of Messrs. Anderson and Sergeant, dated March 14,
1826, are given in Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 383.

Only four of the Spanish-
Of these states only one,

The congress met at Panama on June 22, 1826, and adjourned July 15, to meet again at Tacubaya, Mexico. American states sent representatives. Colombia, ratified any part of the treaties that were formulated. The congress adjourned before the American plenipotentiaries, Messrs. Anderson and Sergeant, reached their destination. In reality, it was decided in May, 1826, to delay Mr. Sergeant's departure from the United States till the autumn. Mr. Anderson left Bogotà for Cartagena, on his way to Panama, about the 10th of June. When the report was received at Washington that the congress had met and adjourned, preparations were made to send Mr. Sergeant on a sloopof-war from Philadelphia to Vera Cruz, in order that he might attend the sessions which it was expected would be held at Tacubaya. Meanwhile, Mr. Anderson had died. His place as special plenipotentiary was filled by the appointment of Mr. Poinsett, then minister to Mexico. The general instructions of the American plenipotentiaries were not changed, but, in a communication to Mr. Sergeant of Nov. 14, 1826, Mr. Clay said: "Since they [the general instructions] were prepared the meeting has taken place, and it is understood that they concluded several treaties and conventions among themselves, relating principally to the prosecution of the existing war with Spain. You will signify to the congress, when it shall be reorganized, our expectation to be put in possession of copies of those treaties and conventions, and to be fully informed of all the transactions at Panama. This expectation is founded not only upon its own reasonableness in the general, but on the consideration that every power represented in the congress ought to know what has been proposed or transacted in a conference either of the whole body or of any less portion of its members."

The congress did not reassemble. Mr. Clay, in supplementary instructions, observed that the "ambitious projects and views of Bolivar" had dampened the hopes of a favorable result of the congress.

Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. William B. Rochester (of Rochester,
N. Y.), sec. to the Panama mission, May 10, 1826, MS. Inst. U. States
Ministers, XI. 67; Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sergeant, May
11, 1826, id. 69; Mr. Brent, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Rochester,
May 25, 1826, id. 80; Mr. Brent, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Anderson,
July 17, 1826, id. 146; Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sergeant,
Nov. 14, 1826, id. 211; Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Poinsett, Feb.
28, 1827, id. 256.

For the printed correspondence respecting the mission, see Am. State
Papers, For. Rel. V. 834-905; for debates, see Cong. Debates (1826),
vol. 2, part 2.

"The congress of Panama, in 1826, was planned by Bolivar to secure
the union of Spanish America against Spain. It had originally
military as well as political purposes. In the military objects the
United States could take no part; and indeed the necessity for such
objects ceased when the full effects of Mr. Monroe's declarations
were felt. But the specific objects of the congress, the establishment
of close and cordial relations of amity, the creation of commercial
intercourse, of interchange of political thought, and of habits of
good understanding between the new Republics and the United
States and their respective citizens, might perhaps have been at-
tained had the administration of that day received the united sup-
port of the country. Unhappily they were lost; the new states were
removed from the sympathetic and protecting influence of our ex-
ample, and their commerce, which we might then have secured,
passed into other hands, unfriendly to the United States.
"In looking back upon the Panama Congress from this length of time,
it is easy to understand why the earnest and patriotic men who
endeavored to crystallize an American system for this continent
failed. .
One of the questions proposed for discussion in the
conference was "the consideration of the means to be adopted for
the entire abolition of the African slave trade," to which proposition
the committee of the United States Senate of that day replied:
"The United States have not certainly the right, and ought never to
feel the inclination, to dictate to others who may differ with them
upon this subject; nor do the committee see the expediency of
insulting other states with whom we are maintaining relations of
perfect amity by ascending the moral chair and proclaiming from
thence mere abstract principles, of the rectitude of which each nation
enjoys the perfect right of deciding for itself." The same committee
also alluded to the possibility that the condition of the islands of
Cuba and Porto Rico, still the possessions of Spain and still slave-
holding, might be made the subject of discussion and of contemplated
action by the Panama Congress. "If ever the United States (they
said) permit themselves to be associated with these nations in any
general congress assembled for the discussion of common plans in any
way affecting European interests, they will, by such act, not only
deprive themselves of the ability they now possess of rendering useful

assistance to the other American States, but also produce other effects prejudicial to their interests." (Davis, Notes, Treaty Volume (1776-1887) 1273.)

See, to the same effect, as to the failure of the Panama Congress and the slavery question, Report of Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to the President, July 14, 1870, S. Ex. Doc. 112, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 6-9.

During the debates on the Panama Congress, the following resolution, April 18, 1826, on motion of Mr. Buchanan, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 99 to 95:

"It is, therefore, the opinion of this House, that the Government of the United States ought not to be represented at the congress of Panama, except in a diplomatic character, nor ought they to form any alliance, 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 interference of any of the European powers with their independence or form of government, or to any compact for the purpose of preventing colonization upon the continent of America; but that the people of the United States should be left free to act, in any crisis, in such a manner as their feelings of friendship towards these republics, and as their own honor and policy may at the time dictate."

Cong. Debates, 1825-1826, II. part 2, pp. 2369, 2457; 82 N. Am. Rev. (Apr., 1856), 507.

See Tucker's Monroe Doctrine, 56.

For the proceedings of the Panama Congress, see Proceedings of the Int.
Am. Conf. IV.

The Panama Congress is discussed in Calvo, Droit Int., 3d ed. 255; Law-
rence, Com. sur. Droit Int. II. 310 et seq. Lawrence argues (id. 312)
that Monroe's doctrine as to foreign interposition is substantially
the same as that advanced by the French Government against the
Prussian movement of 1830 to interfere in Belgium.

For further discussion of the Monroe doctrine, see 1 Phillimore Int. Law, 3d ed. 590; W. H. Trescot, 9 South. Quar. Rev., N. S., Apr., 1854, 429; D. Urquhart, 13 Free Press, Lib. Dept. of State.

3. PRESIDENT POLK'S MESSAGE, 1845.

$941.

"It is well known to the American people and to all nations, that this Government has never interfered with the relations subsisting between other governments. We have never made ourselves parties to their wars or their alliances; we have not sought their territories by conquest; we have not mingled with parties in their domestic struggles; and, believing our own form of government to be the best, we have never attempted to propagate it by intrigues, by diplomacy,

or by force. We may claim on this continent a like exemption from European interference. The nations of America are equally sovereign and independent with those of Europe. They possess the same rights, independent of all foreign interposition, to make war, to conclude peace, and to regulate their internal affairs. The people of the United States can not, therefore, view with indifference attempts of European powers to interfere with the independent action of the nations on this continent. The American system of government is entirely different from that of Europe. Jealousy among the different sovereigns of Europe, lest any one of them might become too powerful for the rest, has caused them anxiously to desire the establishment of what they term the 'balance of power.' It can not be permitted to have any application on the North American continent, and especially to the United States. We must ever maintain the principle, that the people of this continent alone have the right to decide their own destiny. Should any portion of them, constituting an independent state, propose to unite themselves with our confederacy, this will be a question for them and us to determine, without any foreign interposition. We can never consent that European powers shall interfere to prevent such a union, because it might disturb the 'balance of power' which they may desire to maintain upon this continent. Near a quarter of a century ago the principle was distinctly announced to the world, in the annual message of one of my predecessors, that 'the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power.' This principle will apply with greatly increased force, should any European power attempt to establish any new colony in North America. In the existing circumstances of the world, the present is deemed a proper occasion to reiterate and reaffirm the principle avowed by Mr. Monroe, and to state my cordial concurrence in its wisdom and sound policy. The reassertion of this principle, especially in reference to North America, is, at this day, but the promulgation of a policy which no European power should cherish the disposition to resist. Existing rights of every European nation should be respected; but it is due alike to our safety and our interests, that the efficient protection of our laws should be extended over our whole territorial limits, and that it should be distinctly announced to the world as our settled policy, that no future European colony or dominion shall, with our consent, be planted or established on any part of the North American continent."

President Polk, annual message, Dec. 2, 1845, S. Doc. 1, 29 Cong. 1 sess. 14.
See resolution offered by Senator Allen, Jan. 14, 1846, Cong. Globe, 29
Cong. 1 sess. 197 et seq.

See, also, 1 Curtis's Buchanan, 619 et seq.; Dix's Memoirs of John A.
Dix, I. 217; Wharton's Com. on Am. Law, § 175.

Mr. J. Q. Adams, narrating in his diary, under date of December 6, 1845, a conversation with Mr. Bancroft, then in Mr. Polk's Cabinet, thus speaks: "I said that I approved entirely of Mr. Polk's repeated assertion of the principle first announced by President James Monroe, in a message to Congress, that the continents of North and South America were no longer to be considered as scenes for their future European colonization. He said he had heard that this part of the message of Mr. Monroe had been inserted by him at my suggestion. I told him that was true; that I had been authorized by him to assert the principle in a letter of instruction to Mr. Rush, then minister in England, and had written the paragraph in the very words inserted by Mr. Monroe in his message."

Memoirs of J. Q. Adams, XII. 218.

See, as to the Oregon question, Benton's Thirty Years' View, II. chaps. clviii., clix.

"The late annual message of the President to Congress has so clearly presented the great American doctrine in opposition to the interference of European governments in the internal concerns of the nations of this continent, that it is deemed unnecessary to add another word upon this subject. That Great Britain and France have flagrantly violated this principle by their armed intervention on the La Plata is manifest to the whole world. Whilst existing circumstances render it impossible for the United States to take part in the present war; yet the President desires that the whole moral influence of this Republic should be cast into the scale of the injured party. We cordially wish the Argentine Republic success in its struggle against foreign interference. It is for these reasons that although the Government of the United States never did authorize your predecessor Mr. Brent to offer his mediation in the affairs of Great Britain, France and the Argentine Republic, this act has not been publicly disavowed. His example, however, is not to be followed by you without express instructions. An offer of mediation by one nation in the disputes of other nations is an act of too much importance and may involve consequences too serious to be undertaken by a diplomatic agent on his own responsibility.

"Mr. Pakenham on the 7th of November last, placed in my hands the copy of a despatch from Lord Aberdeen to himself under date the 3d of October last, with which you shall be furnished. From this it would appear that Great Britain and France in their armed intervention have no view to territorial aggrandisement on the La Plata. It will be your duty closely to watch the movements of these two powers in that region; and should either of them in violation of this declaration attempt to make territorial acquisitions, you will immediately communicate the fact to this Government."