Page images
PDF
EPUB

32D CONG....3D SESS.

way of commissions $160,000; and the Government will have to pay besides, by way of exchange, more than $160,000. This is benefiting foreigners at the expense of our own citizens, who, as I am informed, offered to supply the Government at $15 per ton, delivered where the article was needed. I do not intend, in what I have said, to reflect upon the Secretary of the Navy at all. The late Secretary of the Navy, as I understand, had nothing to do with it. Nor had his predecessor in office. I wish to be understood here, and that I do not intend to reflect upon either of those officers in the slightest degree. I believe both of them are men of the purest integrity, and eminently qualified for the discharge of the duties of their high position. I understand these contracts are made by the Bureau of Construction and Supply, at the instance of the commander of the squadron, who probably preferred English to American coal. All I desire is the facts, and for that purpose I have offered the resolution; and I hope, as it is a matter of inquiry merely, that it may be considered now.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Mr. SEBASTIAN. I submit the following resolution, and ask for its consideration now:

Resolved, That all business heretofore referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs and not reported on, or otherwise definitively disposed of, be again referred to said committee, with like power and authority possessed by them at the late session.

Mr. MASON. I submit to the Senator from Arkansas that the Senate at this session is not competent to enter upon any business of a legislative character, which, of course, requires the concurrence of the House of Representatives. The scope of the resolution would appear to confer on the committee the same powers which it had during the late session. If there are any special matters which should be referred to the committee, and which would not require the concurrence of the House, I have no objection to it.

Mr. SEBASTIAN. I am aware of the fact suggested by the Senator. This resolution is to extend to the committee the powers in reference to special subjects which it had during the late Bession. I allude particularly to the matter of the inquiry into the conduct of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Minnesota.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to the Senator to modify his resolution so as to make it refer to that subject.

Mr. WELLER. There is another committee which I should like to have continued with the same powers that it had at the late session. I allude to the Committee in relation to the Mexican Boundary Commission. It has been unable to report; and for the purpose of giving it an opportunity to report, I should like to have that resolution so modified as to include it.

The PRESIDENT. The Senator from California can move to amend the resolution.

Mr. WELLER. After it is disposed of, I can offer one providing for the committee to which I allude.

Mr. SEBASTIAN. I will modify the resolution by inserting in itafter" Committee on Indian Affairs," the words "and pertaining to the business of the Executive session.

[ocr errors]

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will suggest to the Senator that it had better be offered in Executive session.

Mr. SEBASTIAN. The object of the resolution is to continue the duties of the committee in reference to the investigation of the charges against the Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Minnesota; and that was brought before us in open session.

The resolution was then adopted.

INDIAN ANNUITIES.

Mr. SEBASTIAN submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to furnish a statement of the amounts paid as annuities under the different treaties with the Choctaw tribe of Indians, specifying the amount and date of each payment, and including the interest on investments under the treaty of 1837; together with a statement in detail of the expenditures under the various treaty provisions for education. NEW SERIES.-No. 17.

Special Session-Clayton Bulwer Treaty.

COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS.

SENATE.

ation of the Senate. The first is, that it was conMr. BRODHEAD. I submit the following cluded by Mr. Hise without the authority of this resolution:

Resolved, That the clerk to the Committee on Claims be continued as heretofore, until otherwise ordered by the Senate, to be employed in completing and keeping up the index and digest of the reports of the committee authorized by the resolution of March, 1851, and in such other duties as the committee may require.

I presume there can be no objection to the resolution. In 1850, the Senate, on the motion of the Senator from New Hampshire, adopted a resolution continuing this clerk for the purpose of making a classified index of the proceedings of the Senate on claims. The index will be completed by the meeting of the next Congress. I understand it is about three fourths done. The Committee on Claims has unanimously instructed me to submit this resolution to the Senate, and ask for its consideration now.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

Government. That may be true, but it is the first time I have ever heard it urged as a valid reason for withholding from the consideration of the Senate a treaty the objects and provisions of which were desirable. The treaty with New Granada, which he so warmly commends in his speech, was made by Mr. Bidlack without authority. President Polk stated this fact in his message communicating the treaty to the Senate, and the Senator from Delaware has read that message and incorporated it into his speech. He therefore knew that fact when he gave as a reason for withholding the Hise treaty, that it was made without authority.

The treaty of peace with Mexico, to the provisions of which the Senator has also referred on another point, was entered into by Mr. Trist, not only without authority, but in bold defiance of the instructions of our Government to the contrary. The administration of President Polk did not feel at liberty to withhold these two treaties from the Mr. BADGER submitted the following resolu- Senate, merely because they were made without tion for consideration:

DEBATES IN THE SENATE.

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate have pub lished in the Daily National Intelligencer, the full debates and proceedings of the Senate for the late legislative session, and pay the same compensation therefor as is allowed to the Union and Globe, and pro rata for what has been reported and published in the Intelligencer during the present Congress.

CAPTAIN MARCY'S REPORT.

authority or in defiance of instructions, for the reason that the objects intended to be accomplished by the treaty were desirable, and the provisions could be so modified by the Senate as to make the details conform to the objects in view. It may not be amiss for me to remind the Senator from Delaware, that he was a member of the Senate at the time the Mexican treaty was submitted for ratifica

Mr. CHASE submitted the following resolution; and that he voted for it, notwithstanding it

tion for consideration; which was referred to the Committee on Printing:

Resolved, That two thousand additional copies of the report of Captain R. B. Marcy, of his exploration of the waters of the Red river, ordered to be printed by the resolution of the Senate of the 4th of February last, be printed for the use of the Senate; two hundred copies of which to be furnished to Captain Marcy; and that two hundred copies of the report of Captain Sitgreaves, ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate, be furnished to Captain Sitgreaves.

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions submitted on Monday by Mr. CLAY

ΤΟΝ.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have nothing to do with the controversy which has arisen between the Senator from Delaware [Mr. CLAYTON] and my venerable friend from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] who is now absent in consequence of the severe illness of one nearest and dearest to him. We all know enough of that Senator to be assured that when he shall be in his place, he will be prompt to respond to any calls that may be made upon him. Neither have I anything to do with the dispute which has grown up among Senators in respect to the boundary of Central America, and the position of the British settlement at the Balize. I leave that in the hands of those who have made themselves parties to the controversy. Nor shall I become a party to the discussion upon the issue between the Senator from Delaware and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in their report on that question. Not having been present when the committee made their report, and not yet having had the opportunity of reading it, I leave the chairman of the committee to vindicate his positions, as I doubt not he will prove himself abundantly able to do. I have, therefore, only to ask the attention of the Senate to such points as the Senator from Delaware has chosen to make against a speech delivered by me a few weeks ago in this Chamber.

The Senator seems to complain that I should have questioned the propriety of withholding from

the consideration of the Senate what is known as the Hise treaty, and the substitution of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty in its place. Those two treaties presented a distinct issue of great public concern to the country; and it was a difference of opinion between him and me as to which system of policy should prevail. I advocated that system which would secure to the United States the sole and exclusive privilege of controlling the communication between the two oceans. He substituted that other policy which opened the privilege to a partnership between the United States and Great Britain. The Senator has assigned various reasons for withholding the Hise treaty from the consider

was concluded in opposition to the instructions of our Government. If, therefore, the Senator has any respect for the practice of the Government heretofore, or for his own votes recorded upon the very point in controversy, he is not at liberty to object to the treaty upon the ground that it was concluded by our diplomatic agent without authority.

I understand the rule to be this: whenever the treaty is made in pursuance of instructions, the Executive is under an implied obligation to submit it to the Senate for ratification. But if it be entered into without authority, or in violation of instructions, the Administration are at liberty to reject it unconditionally, or to send it to the Senate for advice, amendment, ratification, or rejection, according to their judgment of its merits. Whether the Hise treaty was perfect in all its provisions, or contained obnoxious features, is not the question. It furnished conclusive evidence that the Government of Nicaragua was willing and anxious to confer upon the United States the exclusive and perpetual privilege of controlling the canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, instead of a partnership between us and the European Powers. The Senator from Delaware (then Secretary of State) had the opportunity of securing to his own country that inestimable privilege, either by submitting the Hise treaty to the Sena, with the recommendation that it be so modified as to obviate all the objections which he deemed to exist to some of its provisions, or by

principle of an exclusive and perpetual privilege without any of the obnoxious provisions. He did not do either. He suppressed the treaty-refused to accept of an exclusive privilege to his own country-and caused a new treaty to be made, which should lay the foundation of a partnership between the United States and Great Britain and the other European Powers.

The next reason assigned for withholding the Hise treaty from the Senate is, that it has not been approved by Nicaragua. It is true that Nicaragua did not ratify that treaty; but why did she fail to do so? I showed conclusively in the speech to which the Senator was replying that the non-approval was in consequence of his instructions, as Secretary of State, to Mr. Squier, our chargé d'affaires to Nicaragua. It required the whole influence of the representative of our Government in that country to prevent the ratification and approval of the Hise treaty by the State of Nicaragua. Sir, it is not a satisfactory reason for suppressing the treaty, therefore, that it had not been ratified by the other party, when the non-ratification was produced by the action of the agent of this Government in pursuance of instructions.

Mr. CLAYTON. I desire distinctly to understand the Senator. If I understood him, he said

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

that Mr. Hise's treaty was rejected in consequence of Mr. Squier's interference.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLAYTON.

And then I understand him to say that Mr. Squier did it by instruction. Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLAYTON. Now will the Senator submit the proof to substantiate that assertion? I know of no such instruction.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will do that with a great deal of pleasure. Mr. Hise was sent to the Central American States by Mr. Polk. He negotiated a treaty with the State of Nicaragua-the treaty in question on the 21st of June, 1849. Prior to that time he had been recalled, and Mr. Squier had been appointed by the Administration which succeeded that of President Polk. Mr. Hise had received no knowledge of his removal; no instructions from the new Administration at the time when he made the treaty. In the instructions which the Secretary of State gave to Mr. Squier on the 2d of May, 1849, when he was about to proceed to Central America to supersede Mr. Hise, you will find that he was directed to "claim no peculiar privilege; no exclusive right; no monopoly of commercial intercourse" for the United States. I will read from the letter of instructions:

"We should naturally be proud of such an achievement as an American work; but if European aid be necessary to accomplish it, why should we repudiate it, seeing that our object is as honest as it is openly avowed, TO CLAIM NO PECULIAR PRIVILEGE; NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT; NO MONOPOLY OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE, but to see that the work is dedicated to the benefit of mankind, to be used by all on the same terms with us, and consecrated to the enjoyment and diffusion of the unnumbered and inestimable blessings which must flow from it to all the civilized world?"

Then, sir, after having instructed Mr. Squier as to the character of the treaty which he was to form-a treaty which was to open the canal to the world-a treaty which was to give us no peculiar privilege, and secure to us no exclusive right,-after giving that instruction, the Secretary in the concluding paragraph says:

"If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been INCAUTIOUSLY OR INCONSIDERATELY made before your arrival in that country, SEEK TO HAVE IT PROPERLY MODIFIED TO ANSWER THE ENDS WE HAVE IN VIEW."

Mr. CLAYTON. Is that the passage? Mr. DOUGLAS. That and the other together. Mr. CLAYTON. I endeavored to correct the misapprehension of the honorable Senator yesterday in reference to that. That is not an instruction to the minister to Central America in regard to the treaty made by Mr. Hise, or any other treaty. It is a direction to the minister to Central America to see that any contract which had been made by the local government should be so made as not to be assignable. If the gentleman will read the context, he will see at once that that does not allude to a treaty. It is merely, I say again, an instruction to the minister in that country to look to it, that the capitalists who were about to construct the canal should not speculate upon the work. There is nothing there touching a treaty; nothing whatever. The gentleman is entirely mistaken. The whole instruction is in reference to the character of the contract or charter.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will read the preceding sentence, and we will see then who is mistaken:

"If they do not agree to GRANT US PASSAGE on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua"

Mr. CLAYTON. If the gentleman will look at the context which goes before, he will see that the word "they" refers to the capitalists. Mr. DOUGLAS. I will read what goes before:

"See that it is not assignable to others; that no exclusive privileges are granted to ANY NATION that will not agree to the same treaty stipulations with Nicaragua; that the tolls to be demanded by the owners are not unreasonable or oppressive; that no power be reserved to the proprietors of the canal or their successors to extort at any time hereafter, or unjustly to obstruct or embarrass the right of passage. This will require all your vigilance and skill. If they do not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua. If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view."

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

was a contract between the local government and the capitalists. Not a treaty at all.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator's explanation is doubtless satisfactory to himself. He may imagine that it will suit his present purposes to place upon his instructions the construction for which he now contends; but it is wholly unwarranted by the language he employed. His instructions speak of securing the right of way to "us." To whom did he allude in the word "us?" Did he refer to the capitalists, proprietors, and speculators, who should become the owners of the charter? Was he one of the company, and therefore authorized to use the word "us," when speaking of the rights and privileges to be acquired of a foreign nation through his agency as Secretary of State? I have supposed that Mr. Squier was sent to Central America to represent the United States and to protect our rights and interests as a nation. I have always done the Senator from Delaware the justice to believe that when he gave those instructions to Mr. Squier he was acting on behalf of his country to secure the right of way for a canal to the UNITED STATES, and not to a few capitalists and speculators under the title of "us." For the honor of our country I will still do him that justice, notwithstanding his disclaimer. His instructions also speak of the right of way to "nations," and caution Mr. Squier to see "that no exclusive privileges are granted to any nation," &c. It is plain, therefore, that in the instructions relative to the securing the right of way for a canal to the nations of the earth, Mr. Squier was directed to see that no exclusive privilege was granted to any other nation, and not to claim any peculiar advantages for our own. Then follows the concluding paragraph which has been read:

"If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in the country, seek to have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view."

Modified how? If before the arrival of Mr. Squier in the country, Mr. Hise shall have acquired a charter or grant which shall secure peculiar privileges or exclusive rights for this country, he was to seek to have it so modified as to open the same rights and privileges to all other nations on equal terms. This is what I understand to be the meaning of those instructions, and it is clear that Mr. Squier understood them in the same way, for when Mr. Squier arrived in Nicaragua, and discovered by a statement in a newspaper of the Isthmus that Mr. Hise was about making a treaty for a canal, without knowing what its terms were, without waiting to ascertain its provisions, he sent at once a notice to the Government of Nicaragua, that Mr. Hise was not authorized to treat-that he did not understand the policy and views of the new Administration-that he had been recalled, and that any treaty he might make must be considered and treated as an unofficial act. He communicated this protest to the Secretary of State on the same day, and then proceeded to his point of destination, where he made a treaty for the right of way for a canal to all nations on the partnership plan in pursuance of his instructions. These two treaties-the Hise treaty and the Squier treaty-were in the Department of State at the same time-the one having arrived about the middle of September, and the other about the first of October. It then became the duty of the Senator from Delaware, as Secretary of State, to decide between them: in other words, to determine whether he would accept of an exclusive privilege to his own country, or enter into partnership with the monarchies of Europe. He did determine that question, and his decision was in favor of the partnership, and against his own country having the exclusive control of the canal.

Then, sir, I think I was authorized to say what I did say, that the non-ratification of the Hise treaty by the Government of Nicaragua was procured by the agent of General Taylor's administration in that country, and that the agent acted under the authority of this Government. He certainly acted in obedience to what he understood to be his instruction, and that is, the instruction, that if such a charter had been incautiously granted to seek to have it modified to conform to the ends Mr. CLAYTON. The honorable Senator will had in view, as stated in the instruction. observe that that does not refer to a treaty. The Mr. CLAYTON. Will the Senator allow me grant of the right of way was a different thing. It to interrupt him? It is not a very material point,

SENATE.

still it is better to have it right than wrong. If the Senator will only read the last paragraph, he will see that the charter or grant of the right of way which Mr. Squier was instructed to see was not incautiously made, was a very different thing, indeed, from the treaty; and he will see that that is the thing which I directed the minister to look to, as I stated, and endeavored to be understood yesterday, and as I was anxious to be understood by the gentleman on this point-what I instructed the minister to look to was that the contract of these capitalists should not be such as would enable them to extort from persons using the canal. The last sentence of the instruction applies, if he will look at it, exclusively to the case of the contract, and not to that of the treaty.

One remark more: How is it possible for the gentleman to reconcile the fact, that the State Department could know or imagine that Mr. Hise had made a treaty on the 2d of May, 1850, when those instructions were given, when, in point of fact, Mr. Hise was not heard from until June afterwards? How could I imagine any such thing? And again: how could I possibly suppose that Mr. Hise had made a treaty, or was going to make a treaty, when the records of the State Department showed me the instructions given to him by Mr. Buchanan, in which he tells Mr. Hise to make no treaty whatever with Nicaragua? If the gentleman can reconcile these things, I should be happy to hear him.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will have less difficulty in reconciling these things with my views of his instructions than he will with his construction of them. I have already shown that the instructions related to the right of way to nations and not to individuals; that they were in favor of equal rights to all nations, and opposed to any peculiar privileges to our own country. Is it not as reasonable to suppose that the instructions meant what they said, as it is to conceive that our minister was directed to procure the modification of contracts previously entered into with individuals, and for the observance of which Nicaragua was supposed to have pledged her faith as a nation? Was our minister sent there to represent individuals in their schemes of procuring charters and contracts on private account, or to interfere with and prevent the faithful observance of such contracts as that Government might previously have made with our own citizens or others? While this supposition might extricate the Senator from his present difficulty on this point, it would not tend to elevate the character of our diplomacy during his administration of the State Department. I think I do the Senator more justice by the construction I have put upon his conduct than he does by his own explanation.

But, sir, I wish to know whether I understand the Senator now? Does he wish now to be understood as saying that he preferred an exclusive privilege to his own country to a partnership with England?

Mr. CLAYTON. No, sir.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Ah! then as he did not prefer the exclusive privilege to a partnership with the European Powers, does he wish the Senate to understand that he did not mean to convey his true idea in his instructions? If he preferred the partnership to the exclusive privilege, was it not his duty to make known that wish in his instructions? Why should he complain when I show that by his instruction he said precisely what he now avows to be his policy upon that subject? Why, sir, I am defending the consistency of his own opinions, according to his present views, by showing that his instructions embraced what he says now was his true policy-in favor of a partnership with other nations, instead of an exclusive privilege to our own country.

But, sir, whatever may have been his meaning in those instructions, it is undeniable that Mr. Squier understood them as I now do, and acted upon them accordingly. Hence, as I have already remarked, before he arrived upon the theater of his operations, and upon the mere authority of a newspaper paragraph, that Mr. Hise was about making such a treaty, he sent ahead a messenger to inform the Government of Nicaragua that Mr. Hise had no authority to treat upon the subjectthat he had been recalled-that he was not informed of the views and purposes of the new Ad

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

ministration-and that whatever treaty he made must be regarded and treated as an unofficial act and requesting that "new negotiations may be entered upon at the seat of Government."

The new negotiations were immediately opened accordingly, and on the 3d of September terminated in a treaty, which was a substitute for that which Mr. Hise had previously made. I do not understand that the Hise treaty was formally rejected or disavowed by the Government of Nicaragua. It was treated as an unofficial act-a mere nullity-upon the authority of Mr. Squier's protest. I again submit the question to the Senate, therefore, whether I am not fully justified in the statement that the non-approval of the Hise treaty by the Government of Nicaragua was in consequence of the action of the agent of this Government in that country, under the instructions of the Senator from Delaware as Secretary of State? I am only surprised that he should attempt to avoid the responsibility of the act, since, when hard pressed in this discussion, he has been driven into the admission that he preferred a partnership with the monarchies of the Old World to an exclusive privilege for his own country. If such were his opinions and preferences, he was bound by every consideration of duty and patriotism to have given the instructions, and produced the result which I have attributed to him. Why not avow that which he now acknowledges to have been his purpose, in obedience to what he conceived to be his duty? I only ask him to assume the responsibility and consequences of his own conduct, and then to assign such reasons as he may be able in justification.

The next reason which he gives for suppressing the Hise treaty is totally inconsistent with the first. He alleges that the clause guaranteeing the independence of Nicaragua was wholly inadmissible, and could never receive his sanction. In a report which was communicated to the House of Representatives in 1850, he assigned the same reason, and stated that such a guarantee was a departure from our uniform policy, and had no precedent in our history except in the one case of the French

colonies in America.

Of course courtesy requires me to acknowledge that the Senator really believes that this was one of the reasons which induced him to withhold the Hise treaty from the Senate. I must be permitted, however, to inform him that he is entirely mistaken; that the clause in question did not constitute an objection in his mind at that time; that it is an afterthought which he has since seized hold of to justify an act which he had previously performed upon totally different grounds. The evidence of these facts will be found recorded in a dispatch written by the Senator from Delaware, as Secretary of State, on the 20th of October, 1849, to Mr. Lawrence, our Minister to England. The document containing this dispatch was printed and laid upon our tables a few days since, and is entitled Senate Ex. Doc. No. 27. It will be remembered, that the Hise treaty was communicated to the Department of State on the 15th of September, and the Squier treaty about the first of October of the same year. On the 20th of October, Mr. Clayton (in the dispatch to which I refer) discussed our relations with the Central American States at great length-among other things communicated to Mr. Lawrence the substance of these two treaties and directed him to make the same known to Lord Palmerston:

"If, however, the British Government shall reject these overtures on our part, and shall refuse to cooperate with us in the generous and philanthropic scheme of rendering the interoceanic communication by the way of the port and river San Juan free to all nations upon the same terms, we shall deem ourselves justified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and despite her opposition or hostility. With a view to this alternative, we have a treaty with the State of Nicaragua, a copy of which has been sent to you, and the stipulations of which you should unreservedly impart to Lord Palmerston. You will inform him, however, that this treaty was concluded without a power or instruction from this Government; that the President had no knowledge of its existence, or of the intention to form it, until it was presented to him by Mr. Hise, our late chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, about the 1st of September last; and that, consequently, we are not bound to ratify it, and will take no step for that purpose, if we can, by arrangements with the British Government, place our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation. But, if our effort for this end should be abortive, the President will not hesitate to submit this or some other treaty which may be concluded by the present chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, to the Senate of the United States for their advice and consent,

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

with a view to its ratification; and, if that enlightened body
should approve it, he also will give it his hearty sanction,
and will exert all his constitutional power to execute its
provisions in good faith—a determination in which he may
confidently count upon the good will of the people of the
United States."

Here we find the true reason assigned for with-
holding the Hise treaty from the Senate. It was
to induce Great Britain to enter into partnership
with us. Lord Palmerston is informed that if
Great Britain refuses our offer of a partnership,
that we shall deem ourselves justified in protect-
ing our interests independently of her aid, and in
despite of her opposition or hostility," and that
"with a view to this alternative," we held the Hise
treaty in reserve, to be submitted to the Senate for
ratification or not, dependent upon the decision of
Great Britain in relation to the partnership. This
is the only reason assigned for withholding the
treaty from the Senate. The pretext that it was
made without authority is expressly negatived by
the threat to accept the exclusive privilege, in the
event that England refuses to enter into the part-
nership. Not a word of objection that it guaran-
tees the independence of Nicaragua! But the tes-
timony does not stop here. This same dispatch
furnishes affirmative evidence-conclusive and un-
deniable-that the "guarantee "constituted no
portion of his objection to the Hise treaty-was
not deemed objectionable by him at that time-but,
on the contrary, was looked upon with favor, and
actually proposed by Mr. Clayton himself as a
desirable provision which might be incorporated
into a treaty for the protection of the canal! I
read from the same dispatch:

"YOU MAY SUGGEST, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN SHOULD ENTER INTO A TREATY GUARANTEEING THE INDEPENDENCE OF NICARAGUA, Honduras, and Costa Rica, which treaty may also guarantee to British subjects the privileges acquired in those States by the treaties between Great Britain and Spain, provided that the limits of those States on the east be acknowledged to be the Caribbean Sea."

Now, sir, let me ask the Senator from Delaware what becomes of his pretext that he deemed the guarantee of the independence of Nicaragua an insuperable objection to the Hise treaty? Have I not proven by his own dispatches, written at the time, that such an idea could never have entered his brain when he determined to withhold the treaty from the Senate?-that it was an afterthought upon which he has since seized as an excuse for an act which had been previously done with a view to another object, and for different reasons?

SENATE.

vote to strike out the obnoxious features in the treaty was unanimous. Not one man in the body, not even the Senator from Delaware, dared to affirm those clauses or vote to keep them in the treaty. Having perfected it so as to suit the views of about four fifths of the Senate, it was ratified with the vote of the Senator recorded in the affirmative, according to my recollection.

If, therefore, the Senator from Delaware had followed the practice which he sanctioned by his own vote in the case of the Mexican treaty, he would have sent the Hise treaty to the Senate for amendment and ratification, even if the details had been obnoxious to all the objections he now urges to them. For this reason I do not deem it necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reply to his objections relative to making a canal outside the limits of the United States, or the creation of a company either by Congress or the President for that purpose. I care not whether these provisions were admissible or inadmissible. It is not material to the argument. It can have no bearing upon the question. The Hise treaty was evidence of one great fact, which should never be forgotten, and that fact is that Nicaragua was willing and anxious to grant to the United States forever the exclusive right and control over a ship canal between the two oceans. The Secretary of State [Mr. CLAYTON] knew that fact. If the details were not acceptable to him, he could have availed himself of the main provision and made the details to suit himself; I confine myself, therefore, to the great point, that you might have had the exclusive privilege if you had desired it. You refused it with your eyes open, and took a partnership in lieu of it. All about the details is a matter of moonshine. You could have modified them to suit yourself before sending the treaty to the Senate, or you could have followed the example of Mr. Polk, in the case of the Mexican treaty, and sent it to the Senate with the recommendation that the details be thus modified.

All this talk about obnoxious features and objectionable provisions-about guarantees of independence and want of authority to make the treatymust be regarded as miserable attempts to avoid the main point at issue. Why this pitiful equivocation, if the Senator was really in favor of the European partnership in preference to the exclusive privilege for the United States, as all his acts prove -the whole tenor of his correspondence clearly and conclusively prove-was the case? If he thinks his policy was right, why not frankly avow the truth, and justify upon the merits? I am not to be diverted from my purpose by his assaults upon the administration of President Polk, nor by his array of great names in opposition to the views I entertain. History will do justice to Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan upon this as well as all other questions connected with their administration of the Government. In the speech to which the Senator professed to reply, I did not make an allusion to party politics. I do not think the term Whig or Democrat can be found in the whole speech. I I am sure that it does not contain a partisan reference to the state of political parties in the country during the period to which my remarks applied. I attempted to discuss the question upon its merits, independent of the fact whether my views might come in conflict with those professed by either of the great parties, or entertained by the great men of our country at some former period. I should have been better satisfied if the Senator had pursued the same course, instead of calling upon Jackson, Polk, and Buchanan, and sheltering himself behind their great names, while attempting to detract from their fame by representing them as having sacrificed the interests and honor of their country.

I will now proceed to consider the fourth objection made by the Senator to the Hise treaty. He goes on to criticise its various provisions, denounces them as ridiculous, as absurd, as unconstitutional, and he puts the question with an air of triumph whether there was a man in this body who would have voted for all the provisions of that treaty. Sir, I have no fancy for that species of special pleading which attempts to avoid the real issue by a criticism upon mere details which are subject to modification at pleasure. Does not the Senator know that when a treaty is made, the objects of which are desirable, while the details are inadmissible, the practice has been to send it to the Senate, that the object may be secured and the details so modified as to conform to the ends in view? Whoever supposed before that a treaty, desirable in its leading features, was to be rejected by the Department, merely because there was an obnoxious provision in it. I could turn upon the Senator with an air of as much triumph, if I had practiced it as well, and ask him if there was a man in this body who would have voted for the Mexican treaty of peace as it was sent to us by the Executive? Do we not all know that the treaty which was ratified by about four fifths of the Senate came to us in a shape in which it could not receive one solitary vote upon either side of the Chamber? Do we not know that Mr. Polk in his message communicating the treaty intimated that fact, and called the attention of the Senate to the obnoxious provisions? While it contained provisions which would exclude the President from the possibility of ever ratifying it, which would have prevented every Senator from giving his sanction to it, yet inasmuch as the main objects of the treaty met the approval of the President, and it was only matters of detail that were obnoxious and inadmissi-Monroe doctrine had never been carried out-that ble, he sent it to the Senate that its details might be made to harmonize with its objects. Sir, the

Mr. CLAYTON. I deny it. There was not one word in my speech which went to arraign Mr. Polk or General Jackson, or any body. There was nothing like a party spirit in the speech. If the gentleman so understood me, he entirely misunderstood me. I stated the fact that Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan had been applied to by the local government of Nicaragua for the intervention of this Government to protect it from the aggressions of the British. I stated, and proved the fact, that the

Mr. Polk on that occasion had declined to interfere; but I disclaimed entirely assailing him, and

32D CONG....3D Sess.

endeavored to reconcile his whole course of conduct as being consistent with what he stated in the House of Representatives on the Panama mission.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I accept the explanation. It is perfectly satisfactory, but I am very unfortunate in apprehending the meaning of language. He said that Mr. Polk had avowed himself in favor of asserting the Monroe doctrine. He then said that Mr. Polk had abandoned and refused to carry it out when this question arose. He said the President of Nicaragua, to use his own language, "poked that declaration into Mr. Polk's own teeth."

Mr. CLAYTON. I used no such word. Mr. DOUGLAS. At least, that he thrust it into his teeth.

Mr. CLAYTON. I did not.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, never mind about the precise word. At all events, he went on to show that Mr. Polk was pledged to the Monroe doctrine, that he failed to carry it out, that no Administration ever carried it out, that it had been abandoned whenever a question arose which gave an opportunity for carrying it into effect. When he chose to put Mr. Polk into the position of making declarations and violating them, making protests and abandoning them, making threats and never executing them, I very naturally supposed, according to the notion of a western man, that he was attacking him. [Laughter.]

Mr. CLAYTON. I endeavored to show that Mr. Polk had made his recommendation to the Congress of the United States that he was perfectly justifiable in not considering that as the established doctrine of the country, because the Congress of the United States had never adopted it. On that principle I endeavored to reconcile the course of Mr. Polk with itself. The gentleman has undertaken to represent me as assailing Mr. Polk, when if he had paid attention to what I said-unfortunately he was out during the greater portion of the time I was discussing the subject he would have seen that I was endeavoring to prove that the course of that President of the United States, in this particular, was not liable to the exception which is taken to it; that he was not bound by the declaration of the Monroe doctrine unless Congress adopted it, because he was not the Government.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Of course I accept the explanation of the Senator with a great deal of pleasure, and I am gratified to know that I misapprehended him; but it really did appear to me that I was justified in putting that construction upon what he said, inasmuch as he went on to show that when he came into the State Department, he found Great Britain with her protectorate over the Mosquito coast, and spreading over more than half of Central America; that during Mr. Polk's administration, and while he was negotiating the treaty of peace with Mexico, Great Britain seized the town of San Juan, at the mouth of the proposed canal, and that Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan remained silent, without even a protest against this unjustifiable aggression; and when he denounced that seizure as an act originating in hostility to this country, to cut off communication with our Pacific possessions; and when he said that it would have been wiser to have closed the door and shut out the British lion, than to allow him to enter unresisted, and then attempt to expel him; and when he boasted of having expelled the British lion after Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan had permitted him to enter the house in contempt of their declaration of the Monroe doctrine, I really thought that he was attempting to censure Mr. Polk for letting the lion come in; but it seems I was mistaken. He did not mean that, and not meaning it, upon my word I do not know what he did mean by it. [Laughter.]

When I heard all this, and much more of the same tenor, it occurred to me that it amounted to a pretty good arraignment of Mr. Polk and his Administration; and that his object was to glorify himself and General Taylor, at the expense of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Polk, by accusing the latter of having tamely submitted to British aggressions of great enormity, which the former promptly rebuked by expelling the British from Central America. Let me ask him the question-did the Clayton and Bulwer treaty expel the British from Central America? Has England abandoned her

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

protectorate? What power has she surrendered? What functionary has she recalled? What portion of the country-what inch of territory has she given up? Will the Senator from Delaware inform me what England has abandoned in pursuance or by virtue of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty? I can show him where she has extended her possessions since the date of that treaty, and in contempt of its stipulations. I can point him to the seizure of the Bay Islands and the erection of them into a colony; to the extension of her jurisdiction in the vicinity of the Balize; to her invasion of the territory of Honduras on the main land; and to the continuance of her protectorate over the Mosquito coast. I can point him to a series of acts designed by Great Britain to increase her power and extend her possessions in that quarter. Will he point me to any one act by which she has reduced her power or curtailed her possessions? He boasts of having expelled the British from Central America. Will he have the kindness to inform the Senate how, when, and where this has been effected? Where is the evidence to sustain this declaration? I called for information on this point in my speech the other day. The Senator replied to all other parts of that speech in detail and at great length. Of course, want of time was the reason for his omission to respond to these pertinent inquiries.

Mr. CLAYTON. No, sir; I replied to it, but the Senator was out of his seat.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I was in my seat the most of the time the Senator was speaking on that part of the subject. Now, sir, in regard to this Bay Island colony, I may be permitted to say, although it is by the way of digression from the line of argument which I was marking out for myself, that it presents a clear case not only in derogation of the Monroe doctrine, but in direct violation and contempt of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I will do the Senator the justice to say, that the Bay Island colony has not been erected in pursuance of the treaty, but in derogation of its provisions. The question arises, Are we going to submit tamely to the establishment of this new colony? If we ac quiesce in it we submit to a double wrong-a contravention of our avowed policy in regard to European colonization on this continent; and secondly, a palpable and open violation of the terms and stipulations of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. If we tamely submit to this twofold wrong, the less we say henceforth in regard to European colonization on the American continent, the better for our own credit.

Here is a case where we must act if we ever intend to act. I do not wish to make an issue with England about the Balize;-she has been in possession there longer than our nation has existed as an independent Republic. I do not wish to make an issue with her in regard to Jamaica, because she cannot surrender it upon our demand without dishonor, and she is bound to fight if driven to an extremity on that point. I do not want to make an issue with her in reference to any colony she has upon the continent or adjacent to it, where she may be said to have had a long and peaceful possession. Sir, if I was going to make the issue on any one of these points, I would pursue a more manly course by declaring war at once instead of resorting to such an expedient. I would make the issue solely and distinctly on the Bay Island colony, for the reason that there she is clearly in the wrong, the act having been done in violation of her plighted faith. It was done in contempt of our avowed policy. She cannot justify it before the civilized world, and therefore, dare not fight upon such an issue. England will fight us when her honor compels her to do it, and she will fight us for no other cause. We can require Great Britain to discontinue the Bay Island colony, and I call upon the friends of the ClaytonBulwer treaty, whose provisions are outraged by that act, to join in the demand that that colony be discontinued. Upon that point we are in the right: England is in the wrong; and she cannot, she dare not fight upon it. And, sir, when England backs out of one colony upon our remonstrance, it will be a long time before she will establish another upon this continent without consulting us. And, sir, when England shall have refrained from interfering in the affairs of the American continent without consulting the wishes of this Government,

SENATE.

what other Power on earth will be willing to stand forward and do that which England concedes it prudent not to attempt? I may be permitted to say, therefore, that the only issue that I desire to see at this time, upon our foreign relations, as they are now presented to me, is upon the Bay Island colony: and let us require that that be discontinued, and that the terms of our treaty stipu lations be obeyed and fulfilled. When that issue shall have been made and decided in our favor, we will not have much need for general resolutions about the Monroe doctrine in future.

But, sir, this was a digression. The point that I was coming at was this: that while it has been a matter of boast for years that the Clayton and Bulwer treaty drove Great Britain out of Central America, she has not surrendered an inch; and what is more, she is now proposing negotiations with us with a view to new arrangements, by which she shall hereafter give up her protectorate. Yes, sir, your late Secretary of State and Presi dent, Everett and Fillmore, have communicated to Congress the fact that the British Minister was proposing new negotiations, new arrangements, by which Great Britain shall hereafter give up that which the Senator makes it a matter of pride that he had secured by his treaty. That is a little curious. I do not understand this congratulation of having accomplished a great and wonderful object, by the expelling of the British lion from the place where Mr. Polk allowed him to come and abide, and still a new negotiation or a new arrangement is deemed necessary to secure that which the Senator from Delaware boasts of having accomplished long since!

England professes to be desirous of surrendering her protectorate. Then, why does she not do it? The British Minister proposes to open negotiations by which England shall withdraw her authority from Central America, and the late Secretary of State (Mr. Everett) entertains the proposition favorably, while the Senator from Delaware congratulates the country upon his having effected the desired end in his treaty three years ago.

If Messrs. Everett and Fillmore were correct in entertaining Mr. Crampton's proposition for a new arrangement, certainly the Senator from Delaware is at fault in saying that his treaty expelled the British from Central America. My opinion, as to whether it did expel them or not, is a matter of not much consequence. I have always thought the language of the treaty was so equivocal, that no man could say with certainty, whether it did abolish the protectorate or not. One clause seemed to abolish it; another seemed to recognize its existence, and to restrain its exercise; and you could make as good an argument on one side as the other. But I gave notice at the time the treaty was ratified, that I would take the American side, and stand by the Senator from Delaware in claiming that England was bound to quit; but our late Secretary of State and the President, (Everett and Fillmore,) think otherwise; and now it becomes a question whether new negotiations to accomplish that very desirable object are necessary or not.

Mr. President, I return to the point which I was discussing when the Senator interrupted me, and led me off in this digression, to wit: That the simple question presented in this matter, when stripped of all extraneous circumstances, was this: Should we have accepted when tendered, an exclusive right of way forever from one ocean to the other? The Senator from Delaware thought not, and the administration of General Taylor sustained him in his view of the question. I thought we ought to have embraced the offer which tendered us the exclusive control forever over this great interoceanic canal.

The Senator attempts to sustain his position by quoting the authority of General Jackson and Mr. Polk. Sir, he is unfortunate in his quotation. I do not think that, fairly considered, he has any such authority. I am aware that in 1835 that Senator offered a resolution in this body, which was adopted, recommending a negotiation to open the Isthmus to all nations, and that General Jackson sent out a Colonel Biddle to collect and report information on the subject; but when the resolution was adopted, the question was then presented under circumstances very different from those which existed when the Senator suppressed the Hise treaty. At that time the Central American

32D Cong.....3D SESS.

States had granted to the Netherlands the privilege of making a canal. Others had already secured the privilege, and in that point of view it was reasonable to suppose that the most we could do was to get an equal privilege with European nations. That was not the case presented when the exclusive privilege was offered to us, and the offer declined by the Senator from Delaware, without consulting the Senate.

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

ence of that power he has proved the right of the Government to do the same thing for the benefit of American citizens, omitting England and British subjects.

Sir, as I before said, I have no special fondness for this special pleading about the peculiar provisions of a treaty, when the real point was the extent of the privilege which we should accept. Now, sir, I was in favor of an exclusive privilege, and I will tell you why. I desired to see a canal made; and when made, I desired to see it under the control of a Power enabled to protect it. I desired to see it open to the commerce of the whole world, under a sound and sage protection. How was that to be done, except by an exclusive privilege to ourselves? Then, let us open it to the commerce of the world on such terms and conditions as we should deem wise, just, and politic. Could we not open it to the commerce of the world as well by our volition as England could in conjunction with us? Would it not be as creditable to us as a nation to have acquired it ourselves, and then opened it freely, as to have gone into a partnership by which we should have no

But there is no evidence that General Jackson entertained even the opinions attributed to him. Colonel Biddle, who was appointed by General Jackson to explore the routes and collect and report information, availed himself of his official position to obtain from New Granada an exclusive privilege to himself and his associates on private account. When the existence of this private contract came to the knowledge of the Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, he reprimanded our charge at New Granada, for having given any countenance to it. And why? Not because it contained an exclusive privilege to the United States, for it did not give us any privilege. Mr. Biddle had been sent out there to get information to be laid before the Administration. He had no power to nego-control in prescribing the terms upon which it tiate no authority to open diplomatic relations. He had no power to take any one step in procuring the privilege. He made use of his official position, and, in the opinion of the Administration, abused it, by securing a private grant to himself, without the authority, protection, or sanction of the Government of his own country.

Mr. Forsyth was indignant because his agent bad disobeyed his authority, and turned the public employment into a private speculation. That is not the question presented here. That contract did not give the United States the privilege at all. It gave it to Colonel Biddle and his associates. But I find nothing in that transaction, and in all the public documents relating to it, to show that General Jackson would have refused the exclusive privilege to his own country if it had been tendered to him.

How is it, then, with Mr. Polk? According to my recollection of the facts, New Granada had granted the privilege of making a canal to a Frenchman by the name of Du Quesne-I will not be certain of his name-and it was desirable to get permission to carry the mails across there. The grant had gone into the possession of a citizen of a foreign Power, and the most that our Government could ask, was to be put upon an equal footing with that other Power. It did not present the question of the privilege being tendered to us, and we refusing to accept it.

But I shall take no time in going into a vindication of those Administrations. In the remarks that I made the other day, I chose to vindicate my own course without reference to past Administrations or present party associations, and I will pursue the same line of debate now. One word upon the point, made by the Senator, that the Hise treaty was unconstitutional. Was it not constitutional to accept the exclusive privilege to the United States? If it was not, and his constitutional objection is valid, it goes a little too far. If you have no right to accept an exclusive privilege to us under the Constitution, what right had you to take a partnership privilege in company with Great Britain? If you have no right to take the privilege for the benefit of American citizens alone, what right have you to take one for the benefit of Englishmen and Americans jointly? If you have no right to make a treaty by which you will protect an American company in making that canal, what right had you to make a treaty by which you pledged yourselves to protect a British company in making that canal? I choose to put the Senator upon the defensive, and let him demonstrate his right to do this thing jointly with England, and then I will draw from his argument my right to do it for the benefit of America alone. I choose to put him in the position of demonstrating the existence of the constitutional power. He, in his treaty, exercised the power. I have not. And he, having exercised the power, having pledged the faith of the nation to do an act, I have a right to call upon him to show the authority, under the Constitution of the United States, to make a guarantee jointly with England for the benefit of English subjects as well as American citizens; and when he proves the exist

should be opened? And besides, if the grant had been made to us, and we had accepted it, and then thrown it open to the commerce of all nations on our own terms and conditions, we held in our hands a right which would have been ample security for every nation under heaven to keep the peace with the United States. The moment England abused the privilege by seizing any more islands, by establishing any more colonies, by invading any more rights, or by violating any more treaties, we would use our privilege, shut up the canal, and exclude her commerce from the Pacific. We would hold a power in our hands which might be exercised at any moment to preserve peace and prevent injustice. Peace and progress being our aim, we should still have continued to be the only Government on earth whose public policy from the beginning has been justly and honestly to enforce the laws of nations with fidelity towards all the nations on earth. Sir, when you surrendered that exclusive right, you surrendered a great element of power which in our hands would have been wielded in the cause of justice for the benefit of mankind.

I was not for such a restrictive policy as would exclude British vessels from going through the canal, or the vessels of any other nation which should respect our rights. I would let them all pass freely, as long as they did not abuse the privilege; close it against them when they did. I insist that the American people occupy a position on this continent which rendered it natural and proper that we should exercise that power. I had no fear of a war with England. I have none now. War should be avoided as long as possible. But, sir, you need have no apprehension of a war with her, for the reason that if we keep in the right, she dare not fight us, and she will not, especially for anything relating to American affairs. She knows she has given a bond to keep the peace, with a mortgage on all her real estate in America as collateral security, and she knows she forfeits her title to the whole, without hope of redemption, if she commits a breach of the bond. She will not fight unless compelled. We could have fortified that canal at each end, and in time of war could have closed it against our enemies, and opened it at our own pleasure. We had the power of doing it; for the Hise treaty contained provisions for the construction of fortifications at each terminus and at such points along the line of the canal as we thought proper. We had the privilege of fortifying it, and we had the right to close it against any Power which should abuse the privilege which we conferred.

Then, sir, what was the objection to the acceptance of that exclusive privilege? I do not see it, sir. I know what were the private arguments urged in times which have gone by, and which I trust never will return; and that is, that England and other European Powers never would consent that the United States should have an exclusive right to the canal. Well, sir, I do not know that they would have consented; butof one thing I am certain, I would never have asked their consent. When Nicaragua desired to confer the privilege, and when we were willing to accept it, it was purely

SENATE.

an American question with which England had no right to interfere. It was an American question about which Europe had no right to be consulted. Are we under any more obligation to consult European Powers about an American question than the allied Powers were, in their Congress, to consult us, when establishing the equilibrium of Europe by the agency of the Holy Alliance? America was not consulted then. Our name does not appear in all the proceedings. It was a European question, about which it was presumed America had nothing to say. This question of a canal in Nicaragua, when negotiations were pending to give it to us, was so much an American question that the English Government was not entitled to be consulted. England not consent! She will consent to allow you to do that just so long as you consent to allow her to hold Canada, the Bermudas, Jamaica, and her other American possessions. I hope the time has arrived when we will not be told any more that Europe will not consent to this, and England will not consent to that. I heard that argument till I got tired of it when we were discussing the resolutions for the annexation of Texas. I heard it again on the Oregon question, and I heard it on the California question. It has been said on every occasion whenever we have had an issue about foreign relations, that England would not consent; yet she has acquiesced in whatever we have had the courage and the justice to do. And why? Because we kept ourselves in the right. England was so situated with her possessions on this continent, that she dare not fight in an unjust cause. We would have been in the right to have accepted the privilege of making this canal, and England would never have dared to provoke a controversy with us. I think the time has come when America should perform her duty according to our own judgment, and our own sense of justice, without regard to what European Powers might say with respect to it. I think this nation is about of age. I think we have a right to judge for ourselves. Let us always do right, and put the consequences behind us.

But, sir, I do not wish to detain the Senate upon this point, or to prolong the discussion. I have a word or two to say in reply to the remarks of the Senator from Delaware upon so much of my speech as related to the pledge in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, never to annex any portion of that country. I objected to that clause in the treaty, upon the ground that I was unwilling to enter into a treaty stipulation with any European Powers in respect to this continent, that we would not do, in the future, whatever our duty, interest, honor, and safety, might require in the course of events. The Senator infers that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwilling to give a pledge that we never would do it. He reminded me that there was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the stipulation, that in certain contingencies we would never annex any portion of Mexico. Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me of that provision. He has not forgotten how hard I struggled to get that clause out of the treaty where it was retained in opposition to my vote. Had the Senator given me his aid then to defeat that provision in the Mexican treaty, I would be better satisfied now with his excuse for having inserted a still stronger pledge in his treaty. But having advocated that pledge then, he should not attempt to avoid the responsibility of his own act by citing that as a precedent. I was unwilling to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to come never to annex any more territory. I am content for the present with the territory we have. I do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico now. I did not wish to annex any part of Central America then, nor do I at this time.

But I cannot close my eyes to the history of this country for the last half century. Fifty years ago the question was being debated in this Senate whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on the west bank of the Mississippi river, and it was then contended that we could never, with safety, extend beyond that river. It was at that time seriously considered whether the Alleghany mountains should not be the barrier beyond which we should never pass. At a subsequent date, after we had acquired Louisiana and Florida, more liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that perhaps we might venture

« PreviousContinue »