32D CONG.....3D SESS. to establish one tier of States west of the Mississippi; but in order to prevent the sad calamity of an undue expansion of our territory, the policy was adopted of establishing an Indian Territory, with titles in perpetuity, all along the western border of those States, so that no more new States could possibly be created in that direction. That barrier could not arrest the onward progress of our people. They burst through it, and passed the Rocky Mountains, and were only arrested by the waters of the Pacific. Who, then, is prepared to say that in the progress of events, having met with the barrier of the ocean in our western course, we may not be compelled to turn to the north and to the south for an outlet? How long is it since the gentleman from Delaware himself thought that a time would never arrive when we would want California? I am aware that he was of that opinion at the time we ratified the treaty, and annexed it. Mr. DOUGLAS. By his voting for Mr. Crittenden's resolutions declaring that we did not want any portion of Mexican territory. You will find your vote in this volume which I hold in my hand. I am aware that he belonged to that school of politicians who thought we had territory enough. I have not forgotten that a respectable portion of this body, but a few years ago thought it would be preposterous to bring a country so far distant as California, and so little known, into the Union. But it has been done, and now since California has become a member of the Confederacy, with her immense commerce and inexhaustible resources, we are told that the time will never come when the territory lying half way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions will be desirable. Central America is too far off, because it is half way to California, and on the main, direct route, on the very route upon which you pay your Senators and Representatives in Congress their mileage in coming to the capital of the nation. The usual route of travel, the public highway, the half-way house from one portion of the country to the other, is so far distant that the man who thinks the time will ever come when we will want it is deemed a madman. Mr. CLAYTON. Does the Senator apply those sentiments to me? I did not think so. Mr. DOUGLAS. I simply say that such an opinion was indicated by the vote of the gentleman on the resolution of Mr. Crittenden. Mr. CLAYTON. The Senator is entirely mistaken on that point. Mr. DOUGLAS. In order to save time I waive the point as to the Senator's vote, although it is recorded in the volume before me, and he can read it at his leisure. But I am not mistaken in saying that the Senator on yesterday did ridicule the idea that we were ever to want any portion of Central America. He was utterly amazed, and in his amazement inquired where were these boundaries ever to cease? He wanted to know how far we were going, and if we were going to spread over the entire continent. I do not think we will do it in our day, but I am not prepared to prescribe limits to the area over which Democratic principles may safely spread. I know not what our destiny may be. I try to keep up with the spirit of the age, to keep in view the history of the country, see what we have done, whither we are going, and with what velocity we are moving, in order to be prepared for those events which it is not in the power of man to thwart. You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limits of this giant Republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will be onward to a limit which I will not venture to prescribe. Why the necessity of pledging your faith that you will never annex any more of Mexico? Do you not know that you will be compelled to do it; that you cannot help it; that your treaty will not prevent it, and that the only effect it will have will be to enable European Powers to accuse us of bad faith when the act is done, and associate American faith and Punic faith as synonymous terms? What is the use of your guarantee that you will never erect any fortifications in Central America; never annex, occupy, or colonize any portion of that country? How do you know that you can avoid doing it? If you make the canal, Í ask you if American citizens will not settle along Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. its line; whether they will not build up towns at each terminus; whether they will not spread over that country, and convert it into an American State; whether American principles and American institutions will not be firmly planted there? And I ask you how many years you think will pass away before you will find the same necessity to extend your laws over your own kindred that you found in the case of Texas? How long will it be before that day arrives? It may not occur in the Senator's day, nor mine. But so certain as this Republic exists, so certain as we remain a united people, so certain as the laws of progress which have raised us from a mere handful to a mighty nation, shall continue to govern our action, just so certain are these events to be worked out, and you will be compelled to extend your protection in that direction. Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day.I am not impatient of the time when it shall be realized. I do not wish to give any additional impulse to our progress. We are going fast enough. But I wish our public policy, our laws, our institutions, should keep up with the advance in science, in the mechanic arts, in agriculture, and in everything that tends to make us a great and powerful nation. Let us look the future in the face, and let us prepare to meet that which cannot be avoided. Hence I was unwilling to adopt that clause in the treaty guraranteeing that neither party would ever annex, colonize, or occupy any portion of Central America. I was opposed to it for another reason. It was not reciprocal. Great Britain had possession of the Island of Jamaica. Jamaica was the nearest armed and fortified point to the terminus of the canal. Jamaica at present commands the entrance of that canal; and all that Great Britain desired was, inasmuch as she had possession of the only place commanding the canal, to procure a stipulation that no other Power would ever erect a fortification nearer its terminus. That stipulation is equivalent to an agreement that England may fortify, but that we never shall. Sir, when you look at the whole history of that question, you will see that England, with her farseeing, sagacious policy, has attempted to circumscribe and restrict and restrain the free action of this Government. When was it that Great Britain seized the possession of the terminus of this canal Just six days after the signing of the treaty which secured to us California! The moment that England saw that by the pending negotiations with Mexico, California was to be acquired, she collected her fleets, and made preparations for the seizure of the port of San Juan, in order that she might be gate-keeper on the public highway to our own possessions on the Pacific. Within six days from the time we signed the treaty, England seized by force and violence the very point now n controversy. Is not this fact conclusive as to her motives? Is it not clear that her object was to obstruct our passage to our new possessions? Hence I do not sympathize with that feeling which the Senator expressed yesterday, that it was a pity to have a difference with a nation so FRIENDLY TO US AS ENGLAND. Sir, I do not see the evidence of her friendship. It is not in the nature of things that she can be our friend. It is impossible she can love us. I do not blame her for not loving us. Sir, we have wounded her vanity and humbled her pride. She can never forgive us. for us, she would be the first Power on the face of the earth. But for us, she would have the prospect of maintaining that proud position which she held for so long a period. We are in her way. She is jealous of us, and jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. England does not love us; she cannot love us, and we do not love her either. We have some things in the past to remember that are not agreeable. She has more in the present to humiliate her that she cannot forgive. But I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry that exists between us and England. I wish to soften and smooth it down as much as possible; but why close our eyes to the fact that friendship is impossible while jealousy exists? Hence England seizes every island in the sea and rock upon our coast where she can plant a gun to intimidate us or to annoy our commerce. Her policy has been to seize every military and naval station the world over. Why does she pay such enormous sums to keep her SENATE. post at Gibraltar, except to keep it " in terrorem" over the commerce of the Mediterranean? Why her enormous expense to maintain a garrison at the Cape of Good Hope, except to command the great passage on the way to the Indies? Why is she at the expense to keep her position on that little barren island Bermuda, and the miserable Bahamas, and all the other islands along our coast, except as sentinels upon our actions? Does England hold Bermuda because of any profit it is to her? Has she any other motive for retaining it except jealousy which stimulates hostility to us? Is it not the case with all of her possessions along our coast? Why, then, talk about the friendly bearing of England towards us when she is extending that policy every day? New treaties of friendship, seizure of islands, and erection of new colonies in violation of her treaties, seem to be the order of the day. In view of this state of things, I am in favor of meeting England as we meet a rival; meet her boldly, treat her justly and fairly, but make no humiliating concession even for the sake of peace. She has as much reason to make concessions to us as we have to make them to her. I would not willingly disturb the peace of the world; but, sir, the Bay Island colony must be discontinued. It violates the treaty. Now, Mr. President, it is not my purpose to say another word upon our foreign relations. I have only occupied so much time as was necessary to put myself right in respect to the speech made by the Senator from Delaware. He advocates one line of policy in regard to our foreign relations, and I have deemed it my duty to advocate another. It has been my object to put the two systems by the side of each other that the public might judge between us. Mr. MASON obtained the floor, and on his motion the further consideration of the subject was postponed until to-morrow. MONDAY, March 14, 1853. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. munication from the Post Office Department, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of February 17, calling for copies of contracts entered into for the transportation of the mails from New York, via New Orleans and Vera Cruz, to San Francisco; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, and ordered to be printed. AMERICAN CITIZENS IN CUBA. Mr. JAMES submitted some documentary evidence in relation to the imprisonment of James H. West, an American citizen, in the Island of Cuba; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed. OFFICERS OF THE SENATE. Mr. ADAMS submitted the following resolution for consideration: Resolned, That the Senate will, at this session, elect a Secretary and Sergeant at arms. CAPTAIN MARCY'S REPORT. The following resolution, submitted by Mr. CHASE on Thursday last, was agreed to: Resolved, That two thousand additional copies of the report of Captain R. B. Marcy of his exploration of the waters of the Red river, order d 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 fur nished 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 by Mr. CLAYTON on Monday, the 7th instant. 32D CONG....3D Sess. Mr. MASON said: Mr. President, it is my desire to make a few remarks in reply to some of the views expressed by the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON,] in reference to the subject of debate before the Senate at the last session, connected with the affairs of Central America and the treaty between the United States and Great Britain in 1850. The treaty of 19th April, 1850, negotiated at Washington and ratified by the Senate of the United States, came back from England in the month of June following, having received there the ratification of the British Government, and on the 4th of July it was formally published under the proclamation of the President, thus becoming the supreme law of the land. We are all aware that when the treaty came before the Senate, there was some objection made to it, because it seemed to involve a departure from the well-established policy of this Government to avoid all foreign alliance, or any alliance that might commit or entangle us in the management of our external relations. There was found in that treaty a mutual engagement between the two Governments-England and the United States-stipulating for the mutual protection and security, and to that extent a mutual intervention in the affairs of foreign Powers connected with a projected canal through the Republic of Nicaragua. I say that this provision of the treaty caused some difference of opinion in the Senate when it came before us, as to the propriety of departing even to that extent from the existing and well-established policy of the Government. But these objections were waived, and ultimately the treaty conciliated a large vote, because there was further in it, what I believe was considered at the time a final extinction of all claims and all pretensions to claim on the part of the British Government within the country termed by the treaty "Central America." I think I am right in saying that those provisions in the treaty conciliated objection, and the result was that it was ratified by a large vote. Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. tions. I did not participate in the debate. I did not do it for two reasons: first, because I had not sufficient information to enable me to form a judgment satisfactory to myself; and secondly, because the whole subject-matter being before the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which I was a member, I thought the matter ought to be inquired into further before any opinion should be expressed upon it. The committee made its report near the close of the late session. That report was directed to three points. The first was as to the alleged colony of the "Bay Islands;" and the report informed the Senate, from the best information within reach of the committee, that these Bay Islands, five in number, formed part of the dominion of the Republic of Honduras, and that the Republic of Honduras, being undoubtedly a part of Central America, any attempt to colonize those islands would be in contravention of the treaty. The second point to which the report of the committee was directed was upon the questions connected with the British settlements at the Balize; and the report informed the Senate, as the judgment of the committee, that Great Britain held no dominion at the Balize whatsoever; that her possessions there were mere settlements, in the character of "useful domain," as was fully established by the treaties between Great Britain and Spain; that no political character whatever was attached to the settlements, nor was there any government there except for police regulation. Upon the question whether those British settlements at the Balize were or were not in Central America, the committee informed the Senate that they had been unable to obtain information sufficiently precise to determine with certainty their exact geographic position. But, upon the proofs before them, the committee entertained a strong opinion that they were located within the territory of Guatemala, and in such case, that they also would constitute a part of Central America, and come strictly within the renunciations of the treaty of 1850. The third point taken was in reference to the construction that should be placed upon the correspondence between the British Minister and the Secretary of State at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty. The result of the deliberation of the committee, as shown in their report, was, that the correspondence did nothing more than to express, as the opinion of the Executive Department of the Government, that the treaty of 1850 left unaffected the existing rights of the British at the Balize whatever they might be. The honorable Senator from Delaware, in his remarks the other day, as I understood him, acquiesced in all the conclusions to which the committee came in their report except one, and that was in the opinion expressed by the committee that the British settlements at the Balize were in Central America; and the honorable Senator was pleased to express himself rather in a manner of anticipated triumph. He said: "I join issue with the committee upon that point; and am prepared to show to the honorable Senator (the chairman of Foreign Relations) by abundant authority, that these British settlements at the Balize are not in Central America, but that they are in Mexico, in the Province of Yucatan." Things remained in that condition, it being the general impression of the country that whatever views or purposes Great Britain might have had upon the extended coast of Central America, they were all renounced and quieted forever by the treaty of 1850. Nor did we know to the contrary until during the last session of Congress, when information came, not in an official form, but in a manner which made a pretty strong impression upon the country, that somehow, in contravention of the provisions of this treaty, Great Britain projected the establishment, if it had not already established, a colony within the limits of Central America upon certain islands called the Bay Islands. On the 30th of December the Senate adopted a resolution calling upon the President to communicate to the Senate, if not incompatible with the public interest, any information in the possession of the Executive in relation to this projected colony. The President replied to that resolution in due time, and informed us substantially that he had no information on the subject, and that we had no diplomatic agent or government functionary of any kind in that quarter from whom information could be derived. But with the message the President communicated a correspondence which had taken place between the British Minister at Washington and the Secretary of State at the time the ratifications of the treaty of 1850 were exchanged. And so far as I am informed, it was then, for the first time, made known that anything had been appended to that treaty, or in any manner connected with it, under the shadow of which the Government of Great Britain might assume the right to continue its intervention or its dominion within the limits of Central America. A communication of such transaction produced a strong sensation in this body. It was made the occasion of an extended debate, and amongst others who participated in it were the honorable Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] whose absence and the cause of that absence we all regret; the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] and the honorable Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. SOULE.] There were others, I believe, who took part in the debate, with a view to illustrate the character of the correspondence, and its bearing I have said that the treaty of 1850 came back upon the stipulations of the treaty. The subject from London with the ratification of the British was referred to the Committee on Foreign Rela- | Government. Sir Henry L. Bulwer, who was I confess I was somewhat surprised at the very decided tone of the Senator in joining this issue. The committee had not assumed it. The committee presented to the Senate the best opinion they could form upon the state of the information before them, and they presented the question in the alternative, and in the alternative strictly. If these settlements are in Central America, then of course any extension of British dominion there will be in violation of the treaty. If not, then the treaty does not apply. The committee expressed as its opinion, that which I now entertain, but with guarded reference to the state of its information, that these settlements are in the Republic of Guatemala, and therefore in Central America. I was surprised at the very decided tone of the honorable Senator from Delaware in joining issue with the committee. I was surprised at it, because it was utterly inconsistent with the letter which he wrote in reply to the protest of the British Ministerutterly inconsistent. Let us advert to it. SENATE. then the representative of England in this country, as a preliminary to the exchange of ratifications, sent to the Secretary of State this note, which is called a "declaration" on the part of Great Britain. The British Minister says: "In proceeding to exchange the ratifications of the convention, signed at Washington on the 19th of April, 1850, between her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, relative to the establishment of a communication by a ship canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, the undersigned, her Britannic Majesty's Plenipotentiary, has received her Majesty's instructions to declare that her Majesty does not understand the engagements of that convention to apply to her Majesty's settlements at Honduras or to its dependencies. Her Majesty's ratification of the said convention is exchanged under the explicit declaration above mentioned." It is dated the 29th of June, 1850. The language of the declaration is clear and explicit. No man can misunderstand it. It is made a condition precedent to the exchange of the ratification of the treaty. The exchange was to be made on the part of the British Government, with the understanding "that the engagements of that convention should not apply to her Majesty's settlements at Honduras or its dependencies.' What are the engagements of the convention? Why the engagements were, that Great Britain would not 66 occupy, fortify, colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion," in any part of Central America. Now, says the British note, it is our express understanding that the engagements of that treaty do not apply to her Majesty's settlement at Honduras. Sir, if her Majesty's settlements at Honduras are within Central America the treaty did apply to themand the object of this note was, in such case, to withdraw them from its operation. The British Government may have been in doubt as to the true position of these settlements; and seeing, if they should be found in Guatemala, they would come under the renunciations of the treaty, their Minister was instructed to exhibit this protest. How was it met? Did the Secretary of State commit his Government to the English declaration, that the engagements of the treaty did not extend to these settlements? He did not. He contends now, and I think contends correctly, that his note went no further than to admit that the treaty was in no manner to affect the British title to those possessions, wherever they might be situated. If the Secretary of State then thought, as the Senator from Delaware now thinks, that those settlements are not in Central America, why, in his answer, did he not, in two lines, say that clearly the engagements of the treaty did not apply to them, because they were not in Central America? But, Mr. President, did he give that answer? He did not. His letter, if I may be allowed to express it, with entire respect to the Senator from Delaware, is not very explicit; but taking it altogether, we can assign to it but one meaning, and that meaning is: "I dissent from your proposition, and am not prepared to say that the British settlements are not in Central America." The terms of his note are: "The language of the first article of the Convention, concluded on the 19th day of April last, between the United States and Great Britain, describing the country not to be occupied, &c., by either of the parties, was, as you know, twice approved by your Government; and it was neither understood by them, nor by either of us, (the negotiators,) to include the British settlement in Honduras, (commonly called British Honduras, as distinct from the State of Honduras,) nor the small islands in the neighborhood of that settlement, which may be known as its dependencies. To this settlement, and these islands, the treaty we negotiated was not intended by either of us to apply." If he had stopped there, it would import precisely what the honorable Senator now says is the geographical fact. It would have imported that the engagement of the treaty did not apply to those settlements, because they were not within the prescribed limits. But it does not stop there. In the very next line the Secretary adds: "The title to them, it is now and has been my intention, throughout the whole negotiation, to leave, as the treaty leaves it, without denying, affirming, or in any way meddling with the same, just as it stood previously." So that when the British Minister called upon the Secretary of State to admit that none of the engagements of the treaty applied to the British settlements at Honduras, the Secretary of State said, in substance, "I will make no such admission, but I will admit that none of the engagements of that treaty are intended to affect the title of 32 Cong.....3D Sess. Great Britain to those settlements, let them lie where they may, whether in Central America or not. I say, then, that the honorable Secretary of State was guarded, and properly guarded, in refraining from making the admission asked for in the British "declaration." What the British Minister wanted, was an admission that the treaty did not apply to these settlements, whether in Central America or no. The Secretary of State refused to admit the protest to that extent, but confined it to the single question of the title; and he substantially declared, "I will not agree that the engagements do not apply to the British settlement at Honduras, but I will agree that they do not apply to your title." But, sir, the honorable Secretary of State went further in that note, and fully and clearly developed that he did not mean to commit himself as to the geographical position of the settlements. He goes on to inform the British Minister that the difficulty arises out of the question as to what are the limits of Central America. Now, sir, what difficulty had there arisen out of the question as to the limits of Central America but from the fact that the limits of Central America must be ascertained before he could assent to the extent to which the British protest went? His language is: "The difficulty that now arises seems to spring from the use, in our convention, of the term 'Central America,' which we adopted because Viscount Palmerston had assented to it and used it as the proper term, we naturally supposing that, on this account, it would be satisfactory to your Government; but if your Government now intend to delay the exchange of ratifications until we shall have fixed the precise limits of Central America, we must defer further action until we have further information on both sides, to which at present we have no means of resort, and which it is certain we could not obtain before the term fixed for exchanging the ratifications would expire." And he adds: "But on some future occasion a conventional article, clearly stating what are the limits of Central America, might become advisable." Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. 66 SENATE. is not the true term and may be calculated to mis-speaking here of the province of Merida or Yuca- The terms "Central America" are, so far as I can learn, not known to the country they are intended to designate, and confusion and difficulties not unfrequently arise from the misuse of words. The five separate republics classed under that designation, comprised under the Spanish rule, the captain-generalcy of Guatemala, and were at that time, the provinces of Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. These provinces in the year 1821 threw off their allegiance to Spain, and in 1824 they formed a confederacy modeled very much after the example of the United States, under the name of the "Confederation of the Centre of America." Still, I take for granted we may safely assume what the treaty calls "Central America" to mean those republics which united under the title of the "Centre of America," and to affirm of the latter whatever is predicated of the former. certained that the British settlements on Honduras I do not know how far the archives of the old Spanish dominions upon the southern continent will be found, when examined, clearly to ascertain and fix the boundaries or divisions between the provinces. I am not informed on that subject. I have had some occasion to make inquiry in reference to our disputed boundaries with Mexico, and Now, sir, why that language? Why inform have found that the boundaries between the provthe British minister that if "you make a difficulty inces were generally of an unsettled and indeterabout Central America it will defeat the treaty" minate character. How far the same may be Why inform the British minister if "you insist affirmed of the boundary between Mexico and the upon a committal now as to the limits of Central captain-generalcy of Guatemala, I am uninformed, America we must wait until we get further in- but so far as I can get information, I am strongly formation on both sides?" Why inform the Bri-disposed to believe, when these boundaries are astish minister" that at some future day a conventional article clearly stating what are the limits of Central America might become advisable?" Why not at once have agreed to the terms of the British note, without reference to any necessity for determining by further inquiry the boundaries of Central America, if the fact was clear, as he now assumes, that the British settlements were not within those boundaries? Sir, I appeal from the Senator from Delaware to the Secretary of State; I arraign the Senator from Delaware before the Secretary of State. I say the Secretary of State refused to make the admission which the Senator from Delaware now attempts to establish. Why, sir, the Senator spoke with a tone of triumph, almost scouting the idea that there could be any difference of opinion, and claimed in his speech to show conclusively that the settlements were not in Central America. I say, then, with all the respect which I bear to that gentleman both as a gentleman and a Senator, that I appeal from the Senator from Delaware to the Secretary of State on this question of boundary. The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, with which upon this point the Senator from Delaware has declared he joins issue, does not assume as a fact upon which the action of this Government is to be based, that the British settlements are in Central America. The report of the committee has guardedly avoided, as the Senator when Secretary of State avoided, any committal on this point; but the committee in the report, from the information before it, expressed as its opinion, when the question comes to be accurately ascertained, it will be found that the settlements are in Guatemala; and if they are in Guatemala, they then come under the provisions of the treaty, any declarations subsequent to the treaty to the contrary notwithstanding. It is in that point of view, and in that alone, that the question is one of interest to us. This term Central America, which the honorable Senator says was put into the treaty because it was used by Viscount Palmerston, and approved by the British Government, as it seems "Mr. Pinkerton, in the second edition of his Modern Geography, has endeavored to give a minute description of the Spanish possessions in North America; and he has contrived to mix several exact notions derived from the Viajero Universal with the most vague data furnished by the dictionary of M. Alcedo. This author, who believes himself to possess a singular knowledge of the true territorial divisions of New Spain, considers the Provinces of Sonora, Sinaloa, and La Pimeria, as parts of New Biscay. He divides what he calls the dominions (domaine) of Mexico into the districts of Nueva Galicia, Panuco, Zacatulo, &c., &c. According to this principle we should say that the three great divisions of Europe aré Spain, Languedoc, Catalonia, and the territories of Cadiz and Bordeaux."Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain, by Baron Humboldt, vol. 1, p. 263–4–5. That is the way he introdnces Alcedo to the consideration of all historians and geographers. I say, then, that Alcedo is discredited by Humboldt, and not discredited only, but discredited in a manner to show, in the opinion of Humboldt, that there is no great degree of merit to be ascribed to any of those writers who have attempted to trace, from early records, the boundaries between the Spanish provinces. I would suggest, then, to the Senator from Delaware, that for the future conduct of this question, as it may involve the interests of this country, it would be safer for him to repose on his note, connected with the treaty of 1850, where he guardedly refuses any admission, than to recur to the speech which he made a few days ago, when he presented an argument to establish it as a fact, a geographical fact, that the British settlements at Balize were to be found in Mexico, and not in Central America. One authority cited by the honorable Senator was Arrowsmith, who published a map of Guatemala in 1826. The honorable Senator was kind enough to give me access to it. That map purThe first authority to which the honorable Sen-ports to have been reduced from the survey in the tion that they were not in Central America, was ator referred in his attempt to establish the posiHumboldt, upon whom he relied, and justly relied, as one of the most authentic writers upon the subject of the Spanish possessions in America. I have referred to Humboldt; and although it may be that he meant to describe these British settlements as within the province of Yucatan, yet it is by no means a clear question. On page 170, the page to which the Senator referred, Humboldt, speaking of the intendency of Merida, or the peninsula of Yucatan, after describing the face of the country, climate, &c., says: "The ruins of European edifices discoverable in the Island Cosumel, in the midst of a grove of palm trees, indicate that this island, which is now uninhabited, was, at the commencement of the conquest, peopled by Spanish colonists. Since the settlement of the English between Omo and Rio Hondo, the government, to diminish the contraband trade, concentrated the Spanish and Indian population in the part of the peninsula west from the mountains of Yucatan. Colonists are not permitted to settle on the western coast on the banks of the Rio Bacalar and Rio Hondo."-Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain, by Baron Humboldt, vol. 2, page 160. Now, Humboldt is giving us here information Rio Omoa and the Rio Hondo, they were to be tan. archives of Guatemala-a declaration on the part of Arrowsmith which, in the judgment of the honorable Senator, entitles it to high credit. Now, Mr. President, all geographers are conversant with the maps of Arrowsmith. He is, perhaps, now one of the largest map-makers in the world, and to whom, I believe great credit is generally given for accuracy. But Arrowsmith has this remarkable fact connected with his maps: He does not date them; not one in twenty, so far as my observation goes, will you find dated. But it is a little remarkable that this map of 1826 is dated, and claims to have been compiled from surveys to be found in the archives of Guatemala. The honorable Senator informed us, in introducing the map, that it was one entitled to peculiar confidence, because the British Government was anxious to ascertain where those settlements were, and therefore it sent a deputation to Guatemala to examine the archives. He informed us that the anxiety of the British Government to know where the British settlements were arose from this: that since the dominion of Spain had ended, Great Britain was at a loss to know who was her landlord in regard to these settlements-whether she was to treat with Mexico or Guatemala upon the subject of those possessions; and therefore it became a matter of interest to England to send an agent to Guatemala to learn it, and the result was, said he, this map of Arrowsmith of 1826. I believe I have stated the honorable Senator's position correctly. He further informed us, that by means of that investigation Great Britain found that her settlements at Honduras bay were in the Province of Yucatan, and she proceeded to treat, and did treat, with Mexico accordingly in reference to them. It is a little unfortunate for the Senator's theory that there is a seeming conflict 32D CONG....3D SESS. of dates, because the treaty was made in 1826, and the map was published in England in the same year, and it is hardly to be presumed that the treaty followed so immediately upon the promulgation of the map. I have taken the precaution to look into other maps of Arrowsmith in reference to these British possessions, and have found what any Senator will find who will examine then, that they are made exclusively with reference to British pretension, and without any earthly regard to the existing state of facts-geographical or political. Sir, there is a map of Arrowsmith, a very large map, in the office of the Secretary of the Senate, a map of the West India Islands and the coast of Central America opposite. It has no date, but you will find upon it that the British settlements at Balize are laid down, as they should be, between the Rio Hondo on the north, and the Rio Sipon on the south. These are the treaty limits with Spain as prescribed by the treaty of 1786. And then, if you will extend your walk into the Library, you will find a large atlas, published by Arrowsmith, again without date, in which you will find the British possessions at Balize extended as far down as the river Sarstoon, embracing an extent, it is said, of one hundred and fifty miles below the southern limit of the treaty; so that this author, upon whom the Senator relies to settle this geographical question, on the author's own word that his map is compiled from the archives of Guatemala, lays down the British possessions on his map, not as they are prescribed by the treaty, but as successive encroachments by the settlers have enlarged them, according to the treaty limits in the earlier map, and according to the British trespasses in the later map. I say, then, with all possible respect to the literature of that country and to those who have charge of the geographical portions of it, that when British interests are concerned, there is not the slightest credit to be given to this map-maker, Arrowsmith. Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. England is not territorially interested in the ques- But, sir, we have some further proof on this And thus, sir, although Arrowsmith claims in 1826 to have compiled his map from the archives of Guatemala, and thus to throw those settlements in Mexico, yet in the year 1832, an official map was published by the Republic of Guatemala, in which the whole of these settlements are shown to be comprised within the limits of that Republic. I have that map in the committee room, and in-smith, (the map-maker on whom the Senator retended to have brought it up with me, but it escaped my recollection; any gentleman, however, who is curious on the subject, may examine it for himself. It is an atlas published in Guatemala, entitled "An Atlas of Guatemala, in eight maps, prepared and engraved in Guatemala by order of the Chief of the State, C. D'Mariano Galves." The north and northwestern boundary of Guatemala, although called "line undefined," is there north of the Rio Hondo, which river by the map is altogether within the limits of Guatemala. The author of that map is a certain Allejandro Marure, professor of history and geography in the Academy of Sciences of the State of Guatemala. Here, then, is a map published at Guatemala, by direction of the government of Guatemala, drawn by one of their most eminent literary characters, showing the Rio Hondo, which is the northern boundary of the British settlements, to be altogether within the limits of Guatemala; and yet the honorable Senator says you are to give no credit in the world to the map, because Guatemala was interested in the matter; but you are to ascribe all faith to the British map-maker, because he says his map is compiled from materials in the archives of that State. I say, sir, that in my judgment, I would rely, for the present at least, upon the map of the State of Guatemala, which has the credit and the faith of the State of Guatemala attached to it, because it was published under its authority. I ask the honorable Senator from Delaware, how are we to know the boundaries of any nation but from the declaration or prescription of the nation itself? Every nation has a right to assert its own boundaries as against others who are not territorially interested, and they are to be taken, if not as absolutely, certainly prima facie true. have no territorial interest in the boundary of Guatemala. We have no contiguous territory, and no disputed line between us; and I say to the Senator from Delaware, that England has none. lies,) you will find these British settlements ex- "The authorittes of Balize took upon themselves, in No- This gentleman, who was sent from Guatemala Committee on Foreign Relations upon which the [March 14, the Senator boldly affirms, that he was an impostor to establish which, he avers that he was a mere bearer of dispatches, whilst claiming to be a minister to a foreign court; and again, that whilst he assumed to have been sent by the Federal Government of Central America to England, he was in truth but an emissary of the separate State of Guatemala. These positions of the Senator to discredit the State of Guatemala, and with it all evidence derived from that Republic, I think will furnish no bad exemplar of the mode in which the Senator has dealt with the argument against the English pretensions, and I shall therefore present the facts to the Senate as they appear in the documents to which the report of the committee had reference. In 1834, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the "Confederation of Central America," by letter to Mr. Forsyth, then Secretary of State, introduced to him a certain Colonel John Galindo, who, he informs Mr. Forsyth, had been sent by the Gov. ernment of Central America as a Commissioner "accredited" to the Government of England, to lay before the latter Government the complaints of Central America against the aggressions of the English settlers at Balize-a most unwelcome topic certainly to England; and Mr. Forsyth was further informed that Colonel Galindo was instructed to come first to the United States, and to ask the good offices of this Government to aid him in his mission to England. He was received by Mr. Forsyth in due form as the representative of Central America, but, for reasons satisfactory to our Government doubtless, but which do not appear in the correspondence, interference on our part was declined. Colonel Galindo went on his way to England, and that Government declined receiving him as the representative of Central America, on the ground that he was a British subject, and therefore could not be accredited as the representative of a foreign Power. It was in this manner that England evaded the remonstrance of Central America, shielding herself behind the arrogance of British law, which acknowledges no expatriation-once a subject of England's monarch, always a subject. Colonel Galindo, it seems, was of Irish birth. Such was his mission, and such its termination. Central America was too feeble a Power to enforce a hearing at the haughty Court of St. James; but I demand to know through what sympathy is her accredited minister now to be denounced in our American Senate as an impostor? Mr. Forsyth in a letter to Mr. Murphy, who was the confidential agent of the United States at Central America, speaks of Colonel Galindo in this language: "Colonel Galindo, a distinguished officer in the Central American army, was bearer of the application of his Gov ernment to ours." In the letter quoted, from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Central America to Mr. Forsyth, he says that a grant of land had been made by the State of Guatemala to a certain company for purposes of colonization, and that the colonists had been driven off by the English settlers. This was the cause of Colonel Galindo's mission in England. In the same letter that Secretary says, speaking of the boundaries of Guatemala, "the Rio Hondo forms the boundary between Guatemala and Yucatan." If that be true, it settles the whole question as to whether these possessions are or are not in Central America. Is it true? The honorable Senator from Delaware says it is false, and undertakes to show that it is false; and he makes that assertion upon such authority as the British mapmaker, Arrowsmith, in direct contradiction to the solemn asseveration made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Central America. To give this history, however, correctly, I will quote it at large from the letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as follows: "The Rio Hondo forms the boundary between Guatemala and Yucatan, and consequently the whole of the grant made by her Catholic Majesty to the British cutters is within the sovereignty of Central America: however, the Mexican States, in their treaty with Great Britain, took upon themselves to sanction the said grant of the Spanish monarch; in consequence of which the English settlers again possessed themselves of the southern bank of the Hondo, but never took any measures to disoccupy the country to the west and south, which, in every view, they had only held as an equivalent." It then goes on to say: 32D CONG.....3D Sess. "In consequence of the grants of land made of that territory by the State of Guatemala to certain Central American citizens, and an European colonization company, the authorities of Balize took upon themselves, in November last, to declare their limits to be the Hondo on the north, the Sarstoon on the south, and on the west a line drawn parallel to the coast through Garbutt's Falls, in the river Balize, thus exceeding the old grant by at least fivefold." Here, then, is a complaint made by our sister Republic, the Confederation of the Centre of America, to the United States, upon whose justice and strength it relied against these British aggressions at Honduras bay, in which they state their title, and say that their boundary is the Rio Hondo. The honorable Senator from Delaware says that no earthly credit is to be given to what comes from that quarter, because they are interested; and for what reason does he say it? What is the end to be attained by the honorable Senator, if he could prove his proposition to be true that these settlements are not in Central America, except that he would then show they were withdrawn from the obligations of the treaty of 1850? Sir, there was communicated by that gentleman, Colonel Galindo to Mr. Forsyth, a paper which none can read without seeing that it is the work of a man of ability. It is a remonstrance drawn up by a certain Mr. Annitia, who, Colonel Galindo informed the Secretary, was a member of the Congress of the Confederation from the State of Guatemala. It was published in Guatemala, and was intended to present to the people of Guatemala their true position in reference to the British settlements; and he draws a picture which will show to us, and to any who will read it, that these settlements within the territory of Guatemala, not only caused endless discord and trouble, but would ruin the resources of Guatemala by the cupidity of British merchants. This gentleman, a member of the Congress of Central America; also claims, in direct terms, that the whole of the settlements are within their territory. His language is this: "In the year 1783, the Spanish Government, which, until then, exercised in this country the power which they had acquired by conquest, agreed that the subjects of his Britannic Majesty might cut dye or Campeachy wood within the district prescribed for them, between the rivers Hondo and Balize, or Belese, which are in our territory." He then goes on to depict the mischiefs, the injuries, and the evils under which the Republic of Guatemala was laboring, on account of the contraband trade carried on in the British settlements. He speaks, as I have read, of the aggressions of the settlers extending their limits beyond the proper southern boundary, and he says: "But the transaction of which they ought to be ashamed is, by a strange process, made the ground of a title; for those gentlemen affirm that they have a right to retain all they occupied up to the year 1821. If it were true that they could thus establish a legal claim, to what, with their activity, and our apathy, would they not soon pretend? Besides, by giving the provisional settlement in question the importance of a colony, and making it, with the provinces that composed the ancient kingdom of Guatemala, some of its inhabitants advance other arguments, which, although easy to refute, it is not the object which I have in view." Now, Mr. President, it has never been assumed on the part of the Committee on Foreign Relations, nor have I assumed it in the debate here, as a fact upon which the action of this Government is to be founded in reference to the British treaty, that these possessions are in Central America. I assume only so far as we are informed that the weight of authority is on that side. I say that the Republic of Guatemala claims it-claims it not only through her official documents, to which I have referred, but through her official maps; and that in the present posture of the question, we are bound to take that as prima facie true. Sir, during the last Congress a mission was instituted to these Governments of Central America, and a minister will be sent there doubtless with the instruction to obtain and report to his Government accurate information upon this whole subject, and particularly as to the geographical position of these British settlements. We shall probably know at the next session of Congress whether those settlements are in Central America or not, and when that fact is established the proper action of the Government will follow in respect to the treaty of 1850. The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations on this branch of the inquiry committed to them, submits only that prima facie the title is with Guatemala; and if this be so, the result in regard to England, in reference to the treaty, is, Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. that her settlements there remain und turbed within the limits and under the rights acquired from Spain. But she has not the right to colonize, to fortify, or to assume, or to exercise any dominion or jurisdiction greater than that existing before the treaty of 1850. Mr. President, I do not intend to prosecute this discussion further. Whenever a question shall come up between the two Governments, the Unition of this treaty, the stipulations in regard to ted States and England, as to the proper construcCentral America, or as to the effect, if any, upon the text of the treaty, by the subsequent declaration and correspondence between the Secretary of State and the British minister, we shall be prepared to meet it. Sir, peace in our beloved coun try is to be preferred over everything except national safety and national honor. That statesman into a war carelessly, recklessly, or idly, upon the or that man who would precipitate his country assertion of any abstract opinion, would go down, as he would deserve, to posterity with execration. But that statesman or that man who would jeopard the national honor or the national safety, from any fear of war, would go down with deeper execration still. For one, I am prepared to say, that while a fair, a legitimate, a just construction is to begiven to the treaty, England must be held strictly to its engagements. The governments of Central America are weak and feeble-they are powerless against England. In 1835 she refused to hear their remonstrance against aggressions under British authority. Now, by this treaty of 1850, the honor of this country is sternly committed to preserve the integrity of every part of Central America as essential to our own safety. Sir, the Government of Old England is known ful, and not great, mighty, and powerful alone, -well known. It is great, mighty, and powerbut wise and sagacious. Look at her! Why, it has been truly said that the sun never sets upon her dominion! The world is circled by her "martial airs," as was beautifully and strongly said by the lamented Webster. Look at our own continent ! From the Island of Trinidad, at the mouth of the Orinoco, to the Cape of Florida, you find her entrenched on a cordon of islands. We cannot put her out of them. She commands the southern outlet of the Caribbean sea, and at the Bahamas, the Gulf of Mexico. She is fortified everywhere. Why? To protect her fleets in a state of war, and further her commerce in a state of peace. How is it in the eastern hemisphere? She commands the Mediterranean sea at Gibraltar; the pass between Africa and Sicily, at Malta, and recently, as late as 1839, she has mastered the enterprise of commanding the route to India, by seizing the fortress of Aden at the Straits of Babelmandel, the Arabian "Gate of Tears." I do not complain of that. We have no right to complain. England is wise in her generation. She reposes upon her own strength. If other nations permit her to seize and retain such strongholds on the eastern hemisphere, be it so; but upon this continent she has gone as far as she can go, consistent with the safety and interest of this country. Now, sir, I am prepared to make no charge. I am uninformed upon the subject. We are told that these British settlers at the Balize are constantly trespassing upon Central America; that they have endeavored more than once to seize the Bay Islands, and colonize them. Intelligence in the public journals of this very day tell us of some new aggression committed in Honduras by the British authorities there. Still they are in report and rumor only. I make, therefore, no charge of bad faith or violation of the treaty, because I have not information to justify me in making such a charge. But, sir, just as certain as the seasons return and the earth revolves in its orbit, this continent, so far as it interests the welfare and safety of the United States, must be freed from the aggressions of England. Mr. CLAYTON commenced replying to Mr. DOUGLAS and Mr. MASON, but after speaking nearly an hour without concluding, gave way for a motion to postpone the further consideration of the subject until to-morrow. EXECUTIVE SESSION. On motion by Mr. ADAMS, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business, SENATE. and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned. TUESDAY, March 15, 1853. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Navy, in answer to a resolution of the Senate calling for information in regard to the contract made with Howland & Aspinwall for the supply of coal for the Japan expedition; which was ordered to be printed. On motion by Mr. EVERETT, it was Ordered, That two thousand additional copies of the message of the President of the United States, communicated to the Senate on the 8th instant, transmitting the re port of the Secretary of State in relation to the fisheries on the coasts of the British North American Provinces, be printed for the use of the Senate. PAPERS WITHDRAWN. On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky, it was Ordered, That E. P. Colkins have leave to withdraw his petition and papers from the files of the Senate. On motion by Mr. RUSK, it was Ordered, That Harriet F. Fisher have leave to withdraw her petition and papers from the files of the Senate. EXECUTIVE SESSION. On motion by Mr. MASON, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business; and, after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened. CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. CLAYTON on the 7th instant. Mr. CLAYTON. I have now heard both the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] and the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] and shall reply to both. First, let me notice the remarks of the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations [Mr. MASON] in defense of his report. The Senator from Illinois, who is a member of that committee, says for himself, by way of excuse, I suppose, that he was not present when it was read in committee, and, accordingly, he does not attempt to defend it. The late Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. UNDERWOOD,) another member of the committee, announced his dissent from it when the report was made. The honorable chairman, [Mr. MASON,] for whom I have great respect, defends it still, after all I have said to refute it. But it cannot escape observation that he has not been able to produce any authority to sustain it besides that which the report itself sets forth. What was that? Why, nothing more, according to his own present showing, than the assertion by Guatemala in some maps, purely ex parte maps, each entitled to no more credit than a plat of a farm made by a man claiming it who has never been in possession of it and never sought to obtain it. But I do not agree with him that the maps he has produced do prove that Guatemala makes any claim to the Balize territory within the limits of the treaty of 1786. The map made by order of the chief of the State of Guatemala, C. D. Mariano Galvez, appears, like every other map made by Guatemala which I have seen, to be constructed without scientific arrangement, and on its own face unreliable; and, if I understand it, the chairman is entirely mistaken in his inference from it, that it includes Balize within the limits of the State of Guatemala. The lines appear to be dotted which are to designate her boundaries, and dotted lines are marked around Balize, as if to exhibit it as a separate territory. The honorable chairman and I draw different inferences from the same paper, and the paper itself is no authority for either of us. As to his remarks on the passages from Humboldt and Alcedo quoted by me, I can only desire others to look at them and decide between us. honorable Senator, discredit Alcedo in reference Humboldt does not, in the passage cited by the another matter. The honorable Senator was ento this question, but differs from him in regard to tirely silent in regard to all the other authorities I quoted, except the map of Guatemala published by Arrowsmith, the royal hydrographer, in January, 1826, which he admits proves all I stated if |