SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 
 
 OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 14, 1853. 
 
 Mr. President : I regret the necessity which I conceive to exist 
 in trespassing on the attention of the Senate to-day, especially 
 the postponement of the deficiency bill, to discuss the principles, 
 the objects, and the effects of the resolution of the Senator from 
 Michigan in regard to European colonization. 
 
 Thirty years ago Mr. Monroe, in his message to Congress, made 
 a memorable declaration with respect to European colonization 
 upon this continent. That declaration has ever since been a 
 favorite subject of eulogism with orators, politicians, and states- 
 men. Recently it has assumed the dignified appellation of the 
 " Monroe doctrine,'''' It seems to be the part of patriotism for all 
 to profess the doctrine, while our Government has scarcely ever 
 failed to repudiate it, practicallj^, whenever an opportunity for its 
 observance has been presented. The Oregon treaty is a noted 
 case in point. Prior to that convention there was no British 
 colony on this continent west of the Rocky Mountains. The 
 Hudson's Bay Company was confined, by its charter, to the shores 
 of the bay, and to the streams flowing into it, and to the country 
 drained by them. The western boundary of Canada was hun- 
 dreds of miles distant; and there was no European colony to be 
 found in all that region on the Pacific coast stretching from Cali- 
 fornia to the Russian possessions. We had a treaty of non-occu- 
 pancy with Great Britain, by the provisions of which neither 
 party was to be permitted to colonize or assume dominion over 
 any portion of that territory. We abrogated that treaty of non- 
 occupancy, and then entered into a convention, by the terms of 
 which the country in question was divided into two nearly equal 
 parts, by the parallel of the forty-ninth degree of latitude, and all 
 on the north oonfirmed to Great Britain, and that on the south to 
 the United States. By that treaty Great Britain consented that 
 we might establish Territories and States south of the forty-ninth 
 parallel, and the United States consented that Great Britain might 
 to the north of that parallel, establish new European colonies in 
 open and flagrant violation of the Monroe doctrine I It is unne- 
 cessary for me to remind the country, and especially my own 
 constituents, with what energy and emphasis I protested against 
 that convention, upon the ground that it carried with it the undis- 
 
guised repudiation of the Monroe declaration, and the consent of 
 this Republic that new British colonies might be established on 
 that portion of the North American continent were none existed 
 before. 
 
 Again : as late as 1850, a convention was entered into between 
 the Government of the United States and Great Britain — called 
 the Clayton and Bulwer treaty — every article and provision of 
 which is predicted upon a practical negation and repudiation of 
 what is known as the Monroe doctrine, as I shall conclusively 
 establish before I close these remarks. Since the ratification of 
 that treaty and in defiance of its express stipulations, as well as 
 of the Monroe declaration, Great Britain has planted a new colony 
 in Central America, known as the colony of the Bay Islands. 
 In view of this fact, and with the colony of the Bay Islands in 
 his mind's eye, the venerable Senator from Michigan lays upon 
 the table of the Senate, and asks us to affirm, by our votes, a 
 resolution in which it is declared that "while existing rights 
 
 SHOULD BE RESPECTED, AND WILL BE BY THE UnITED StATES," the 
 
 American continents "are henceforth not to he considered as sub- 
 jects for future colonization by any European Power,^^ and " that 
 no FUTURE European colony or dominion shall, with their consent^ 
 be planted or established on any part of the North American con- 
 tinent.^^ 
 
 Now, sir, before I vote for this resolution, I desire to under- 
 stand, with clearness and precision, its purport and meaning. 
 Existing rights are to be respected ! What is to be the construc- 
 tion of this clause ? Is it that all colonies established in America, 
 by European Powers, prior to the passage of this resolution, are 
 to be respected by the United States as "existing rights?" Is 
 this resolution to be understood as a formal and official declara- 
 tion, by the Congress of the United States, of our acquiescence in 
 the seizure of the islands in the Bay of Honduras, and the erec- 
 tion of them into a new British colony? When, in connection 
 with this clause respecting " existing rights," we take into con- 
 sideration the one preceding it, in which it is declared that 
 " henceforth" the American continents are not open to European 
 colonization ; and the ^tduse immediately succeeding it, which 
 says that " no f uture European colony or dominion,''^ shall, with 
 our consent, be planted on the North American continent ; who 
 can doubt that great Britain will feel herself authorized to con- 
 strue the resolution into a declaration on our part of unconditional 
 acquiescence in her right to hold all the colonies and dependencies 
 she at this time may possess in America? Is the Senate of the 
 United States prepared to make such a declaration ? Is this 
 Republic, in view of our professions for the last thirty years, and 
 of our present and prospective position, prepared to submit to 
 such a result ? If we are, let us seal our lips, and talk no more 
 about European colonization upon the American continents. 
 What is to redeem our declarations upon this subject in the 
 future from utter contempt, if we fail to vindicate the past, and 
 meekly submit to the humiliation of the present? With an 
 avowed policy of thirty years' standing that no future European 
 
colonization is to be permitted in America — affirmed when there 
 was no opportunity for enforcing it, and abandoned whenever a 
 case was presented for carrj'ing it into practical effect — is it now 
 proposed to beat another retreat under cover of terrible threats 
 of awful consequences when the offence shall be repeated^ 
 Hence for Ik^^ no "future" European colony is to be planted in 
 America with our consent T It is gratifying to learn that the 
 United States are never going to "consent" to the repudiation of 
 the Monroe doctrine again. No more Clayton and Bulwer trea- 
 ties; no more British "alliances" in Central America, New 
 Granada, or Mexico; no more resolutions of oblivion to protect 
 "existing rights !" Let England tremble, and Europe take warn- 
 ing, if the offence is repeated. " Should the attempt be made," 
 (says the resolution,) "it will leave the United States free to 
 adopt such measures as an independent nation may justly adopt 
 in defence of its rights and honor." Are not the United States 
 now free to adopt such measures as an independent nation may 
 justly adopt in defence of its rights and honor? Have we not 
 given the notice? Is not thirty years sufficient notice? And has 
 it not been repeated within the last eight years, and yet the deed 
 is done in contempt of not only the Monroe doctrine, but of 
 solemn treaty stipulations? Will you ever have a better oppor- 
 tunity to establish the doctrine — a clearer right to vindicate, or 
 a more flagrant wrong to redress ? If 3'OU do not do it now, 3'our 
 "henceforth" resolutions, in respect to "future" attempts, may as 
 well be dispensed with. I have no resolutions to bring forward 
 in relation to our foreign policy. Circumstances have deprived 
 me ol'the opportunity or disposition to participate actively in the 
 proceedings of the Senate this session. I know not what the pre- 
 sent Administration has done, or is doing in reference to this 
 question ; and I am willing to leave the incoming Administration 
 free to assume its own position, and to take the initiation unem- 
 barrassed by the action of the Senate. 
 
 My principal object in addressing the Senate to-day is to avail 
 myself of the opportunity, now for the first time presented by the 
 removal of the injunction of secrecy, of explaining my reasons for 
 opposing the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In 
 order to clearly understand the question, in all its bearings, it is 
 necessary to advert to the circumstances under which it was pre- 
 sented. The Oregon boundary had been established, and im- 
 portant interests had grown up in that Territory; California had 
 been acquired, and an immense commerce had sprung into exist- 
 ence ; lines of steamers had been established from New York and 
 New Orleans to Chagres, and from Panama to California and 
 Oregon; American citizens had acquired the right of way, and 
 were engaged in the construction of a railroad across the Isthmus 
 of Panama, under the protection of treaty stipulations with New 
 Granada ; other American citizens had secured the right of way, 
 and were preparing to construct a canal from the Atlantic to the 
 Pacific, through Lake Nicaragua; and still other American citi- 
 zens had procured the right of way, and were preparing to com- 
 mence the construction of a railroad, under a grant from Mexico, 
 
4 
 
 across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Thus, the right of transit, on 
 all the routes across the Isthmus, had passed into American hands, 
 and were within the protection and control of the American Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 In view of this state of things, Mr. Hise, who had been ap- 
 pointed Charg6 d'Alfaires, under the administration of Mr. Polk, 
 to the Central American States, negotiated a treaty with the 
 State of Nicaragua which secured to the United States forever 
 the exclusive privilege of opening and using all canals, railroads, 
 and other means of communication, from the Atlantic to the 
 Pacific, through the territory of that Republic. The rights, privi- 
 leges, and immunities conceded by that treaty were all that any 
 American could have desired. Its provisions are presumed to be 
 within the knowledge of every Senator, and ought to be familiar 
 to the people of this country. The grant was to the United States, 
 or to such compauies as should be organized under its authority, 
 or received under its protection. The privileges were exclusive 
 in their terms and perpetual in their tenure. They were to con- 
 tinue forever as inalienable American rights. In addition to the 
 privilege of constructing and using all roads and canals through 
 the territory of Nicaragua, Mr. Rise's treaty also secured to the 
 United States the right to erect and garrison such fortifications 
 as we should deem necessary at the termini of such communica- 
 tion on each ocean, and at intermediate points along the lines of 
 the works, together with a grant of lands three miles square at 
 the termini for the establishment of towns with free ports and 
 free institutions. I do not deem it necessary to detain the Senate 
 by reading the provisions of this treaty. It is published in the 
 document I hold in my hand, and is open to every one who chooses 
 to examine it. It was submitted to the Department of State in 
 Washington on the 15th of September, 1849, but never sent to the 
 Senate for ratification. In the meantime the Administration of 
 General Taylor had superseded Mr. Hise by the appointment of 
 another representative to the Central American States, and in- 
 structed him in procuring a grant for a canal, to "claim no pecu- 
 liar PRIVILEGE NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT NO MONOPOLY OF COMMERCIAL 
 
 INTERCOURSE." 
 
 After having thus instructed Mr. Squire as to the basis of the 
 treaty which he was to conclude, Mr. Clayton seems to have been 
 apprehensive that Mr. Hise might already have entered into a 
 convention by which the United States had secured the exclusive 
 and perpetual privilege, and in order to guard against such a con- 
 tingency, he adds, at the conclusion of the same letter of instruc- 
 tions, the following: 
 
 " If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsider- 
 ately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it properly modified to an- 
 swer THE ENDS WE HAVE IN VIEW." 
 
 In other words, if Mr. Hise shall have made a treaty by which 
 he may have secured all the desired privileges to the United States 
 exclusively, "seek to have it properly modified," so as to form a 
 partnership with England and the other monarchial Powers of 
 Europe, and thus lay the foundation for an alliance between the 
 
5 
 
 New and the Old World, by which the right of European Powers 
 to intermeddle with the affairs of American States will be es- 
 tablished and recognised. With these instructions in his pocket, 
 Mr. Squier arrived at Nicaragua, and before he reached the Seat 
 of Government, learned, by a "publication in the Gazette of the 
 Isthmus," that Mr. Hise was already negotiating a treaty in re- 
 spect to the contemplated canal. Without knowing the provisions 
 of the treaty, but taking it for granted that it was in viola- 
 tion of the principles of General Taylor's Administration, as set 
 forth in his instructions, Mr. Squier immediately dispatched a 
 notice to the Government of Nicaragua that " Mr. Hise was su- 
 
 * perseded on the 2d April last, upon which date I (Mr. Squier) 
 
 * received my commission as his successor;" "that Mr. Hise was 
 
 * not empowered to enter upon any negotiations of the character 
 
 * referred to ;" and concluding with the following request : 
 
 "/ have, therefore, to request that no action he taken by the Government of 
 
 Nicaragua upon the inchoate treaty which may have been negotiated at Guatemali, 
 but that the same may be allowed to iass as an unofficial act " 
 
 On the same day, Mr. Squier, with commendable promptness, 
 sends a letter to Mr. Clayton, informing our Government of what 
 he had learned in respect to the probable conclusion of the Hise 
 treat}^, and expressing his apprehension that the information may 
 be true, and adds : 
 
 " If so, I shall he placed in a situation of some embarrassment, as I conceive that Mr. 
 Hise has no authority for the step he has taken, and is certainly not informed of the 
 present views and desires of our Government." 
 
 He also adds: 
 
 " Under these circumstances, I have addressed a note [B] to the Government of this 
 Republic, (Nicaragua,) requesting that the treaty made at Guatemala, (if any such exists,) 
 may be allowed to pssi as an unofficial act, and that neio negotiations may be entered 
 upon at the Seat of Government." 
 
 Having communicated this important intelligence to his own 
 Government, Mr. Squier proceeded on his journey with a patriotic 
 zeal equal to the importance of his mission, and on his arrival 
 upon the theatre of his labors, opened negotiations for a new 
 treaty in accordance with the " present views and desires of our 
 Government," as contained in his instructions. The new treaty 
 was concluded on the 3d of September, 1849, and transmitted to 
 the Government, with a letter explanatory of the negotiation, 
 bearing date the 10th of the same month. Mr. Squier's treaty, 
 so far as I can judge from the published correspondence — for the 
 injunction of secrecy forbids a reference to more authentic sources 
 of information — is in strict accordance with his instructions, and 
 entirely free from any odious provisions which might secure " pe- 
 culiar privileges or exclusive rights" to the United States. 
 
 These two treaties — the one negotiated by Mr. Hise, and the 
 other by Mr. Squier — were in the State Department in this city 
 when Congress met in December, 1849. The Administration of 
 General Taylor was at liberty to choose between them, and sub- 
 mit the one or the other to the Senate for ratification. The Hise 
 treaty was suppressed, without giving the Senate an opportunity 
 of ratifying it or advising its rejection. I am aware that a single 
 letter published in this document of correspondence, (House of 
 
6 
 
 Representatives Executive document, No. 75,) gives an apparent 
 excuse — a mere pretext — for withholciing it from the Senate. I 
 allude to the letter of Mr. Carcache, Charg6 d 'Affaires from Nica- 
 ragua, to Mr. Clayton, dated Washington, December 31, 1849, that 
 the Hise treaty "has been, as is publicly and universally known, 
 
 * disapproved by my Government, and that my Government desires 
 *the ratification of the treaty signed by Mr. Squier on the 3d of 
 
 * September last." And I am also aw^are that Mr. Clayton, in 
 reply to this letter, stated to Mr. Carcache that "if, however, as 
 *you state, that convention has not been approved by your Gov- 
 ' ernment, there is no necessity for its further consideration by the 
 
 * Government of the United States." From this it wouhl seem 
 that Mr. Clayton desires to have it understood that the fiiilure of 
 the Government of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty, was 
 the reason why he suppressed it, and refused to allow the Senate 
 the opportunity of ratifying it. Is that the true reason? Why 
 did the Government of Nicaragua fail to approve the Hise treaty? 
 I have already shown, conclusiv ely, that the failure to approve; on 
 the part of the Government of Nicaragua, was produced by the 
 representative of General Taylor's Administration in Central 
 America, acting in obedience to the imperative instruction of the 
 State Department of this city, over the signature of Mr. Clayton 
 himself Mr. Clayton had instructed Mr. Squier, in advance, that 
 in the event Mr. Hise should have made a treaty before his ar- 
 rival in the country, he (Mr. Squier) must "seek to have it properly 
 modified to answer the ends we have in view." Mr. Squier did 
 *'seek" to have it so " modified," and with great difficulty, as the 
 correspondence proves, succeeded in the effort. The Government 
 and people of Nicaragua were anxious to grant the exclusive and 
 perpetual privilege to the United States, and to prevent the con- 
 summation of the grand European alliance and partnership. Mr. 
 Squier, in his letter of September 10, 1 849, communicating to Mr. 
 Clayton the joyous news that his efforts had been crow^ned with 
 complete success, says : 
 
 " Sir : / have the satisfaction of ivforming the Department that I have succeeded 
 in accomplishing the objects of my mission to this Republic. " 
 
 Then, after giving an exposition of the main provisions of his 
 treaty, he details the embarrassment he was compelled to en- 
 counter before he could bring the Government of Nicaragua to 
 terms. Hear him, and then judge whether the failure of the 
 Government of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty was the 
 reason why Mr. Clayton refused to submit it to the Senate for 
 ratification ! 
 
 " The principal source of embarrassment was Mr. Rise's special convention, 
 which had raist-d extravagant hopes of a relation between the United States, amounting 
 to something closer than exists between the States of our Confederacy. However, as 
 matters have been finally arranged, they are all the better for this Republic, and quite 
 as favorable to the United States." 
 
 So it seems that the Hise treaty was "the principal source of 
 embarrassment" to the consummation of the European partner- 
 ship. It "had raised extravagant hopes" on the part of the Gov- 
 ernment and people of Nicaragua of a "closer" relation to the 
 United States, which it was difficult to induce them to relinquish. 
 
It required all the zeal, skill, and tact of Mr. Squier to accom- 
 plish so great a feat. "Finally," the matter was "arranged," 
 and the result communicated to the Department with " satisfac- 
 tion," in these memorable words, which must have carried great 
 joy to Mr. Clayton's heart: "I have succeeded in accomplishing 
 the objects of my mission to this Republic." Rejoice, all 3^e ad- 
 vocates of European intervention in the affairs of the American 
 continfint ! The Hise treaty is dead ! The principal source of 
 embarrassment is removed ! Nicaragua has failed to approve 
 the special convention, granting peculiar privileges and exclu- 
 sive rights to the United States! This failure has enabled us 
 " properly to modify the grant, so as to answer the ends we have 
 in view," and at the same time relieves Mr. Clayton from the 
 imminent risk of submitting these peculiar privileges to the 
 Senate, where there was great danger of their being accepted. 
 Nicaragua has at last consented ! Her appeals to the United 
 States for mediation or protection against British aggression 
 being unheeded — her letters to our Government remaining unan- 
 swered — their receipt not even acknowledged — her hopes of a 
 closer relation to this Union blasted — the Monroe doctrine aban- 
 doned — the Mosquito kingdom, under the British protectorate, 
 rapidly absorbing her territory, she sinks in despair, and yields 
 herself to the European partnership which was about to be estab- 
 lished over all Central America by the Clayton and Bulwer 
 treaty ! 
 
 Now, sir, I repeat that these two treaties — the one negotiated 
 by Mr. Hise and the other by Mr. Squier, the first conceding pe- 
 culiar privileges and exclusive and perpetual rights to the United 
 States; the second admitting of a partnership in these privileges 
 with European Powers, Mr. Clayton suppressed the first, and 
 sent the second to the Senate for ratification, and immediately 
 opened negotiations with the British Minister, which resulted in 
 what is known as the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In stating 
 my objections to this treaty, I shall not become a party to the 
 protracted controversy respecting it? true meaning and construc- 
 tion, which has engaged so much of the attention of this session. 
 I leave that in the hands of those who conducted the negotiation 
 and procured its ratification. That is their own quarrel, with 
 which I have no disposition to interfere. Establish which con- 
 struction you please — that contended for by the Secretary of 
 State who signed it, or the one insisted upon by the venerable 
 Senator from Michigan, and those who acted in concert with him 
 in ratifying it — neither obviates any one of my objections. 
 
 In the first place, I was unwilling to enter into treaty stipula- 
 tions with Great Britain or any other European Power in respect 
 to the American continent, by the terms of which, we should 
 pledge the faith of this Republic not to do in all coming time that 
 which in the progress of events our interests, duty, and even 
 safety may compel us to do. I have already said, and now re- 
 peat, that every article, clause, and provision of that treaty is 
 predicated upon a virtual negation and repudiation of the Monroe 
 declaration in relation to European colonization on this continent. 
 
The article inviting any Power on earth, with which England or 
 the United States are on terms of friendly intercourse, to enter 
 into similar stipulations, and which pledges the good offices of 
 each, when requested by the other, to aid in the new negotiations 
 with the other Central American States, and which pledges the 
 good offices of all the nations entering into the "alliance" to set- 
 tle disputes between the States and Governments of Central 
 America, not only recognises the right of European Powers to 
 interfere with the affairs of the American continent, but invites 
 the exercise of such right, an'l makes it obligatory to do so in 
 certain cases. It establishes, in terms, an alliance between the 
 contracting parties, and invites all other nations to become parties 
 to it. I was opposed also to the clause which stipulates that 
 neither Great Britain nor the United States will ever occupy, 
 colonize, or exercise dominion over any portion of ?sicaragua, 
 Costa Rico, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America. 
 I did not desire then, nor do I now, to annex any portion of that 
 country to this Union. I do not know that the time will ever 
 come in my day when I would be willing to do so. Yet I was 
 unwilling to give the pledge that neither we nor our successors 
 ever would. This in an age of rapid movements and great 
 changes. How long is it since those who made this treaty would 
 have told us that the time would never come when we would 
 want California or any portion of the Pacific coast? California 
 being a State of the Union, who is authorized to say that the 
 time will not arrive when our interests and safety may require 
 us to possess some portion of Central America, which lies half 
 way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions and embraces 
 the great water lines of commerce between the two oceans ? I 
 think it the wiser and safer policy to hold the control of our own 
 action, and leave those who are to come after us untrammeled 
 and free to do whatever they may deem their duty, when the 
 time shall arrive. They will have a better right to determine 
 for themselves, when the necessity for action may arise, than we 
 have now to prescribe the line of duty for them. I was equally 
 opposed to that other clause in the same article, which stipulates 
 that neither party will ever fortify any portion of Central Amer- 
 ica, or any place commanding the entrance to the canal, or in the 
 vicinity thereof. It is not reciprocal, for the reason that it leaves 
 the Island of Jamaica, a British colony, strongly fortified, the 
 nearest military and naval station to the line of the canal. It is, 
 therefore, equivalent to a stipulation that the United States shall 
 never have or maintain any fortification in the vicinity of, or 
 commanding the line of navigation and commerce through said 
 canal, while Eno:land may keep and maintain those she now has. 
 
 I was not satisfied with the clause in relation to the British 
 protectorate over the Misquito coast. It is equivocal in terms, 
 and no man can say with certainty whether the true construc- 
 tion excludes the protectorate from the continent, or recognises 
 its rightful existence, and imposes restraints upon its use and ex- 
 ercise. Equivocal terms in treaties are easily understood where 
 the stipulations are between a strong Power on the one hand;, 
 
9 
 
 and a feeble one upon the other. The stronger enforces its own 
 construction, and the weaker has no alternative but reluctant 
 acquiescence. In this case neither party may be willing to recog- 
 nise the potential right of the other to prescribe and enforce a 
 construction of the equivocal terms which shall enable it to ap- 
 propriate to itself all the advantages in question. It would seem 
 that our own Government have not ventured to insist upon a rigid 
 enforcement of the provisions of the treaty in relation to the Brit- 
 ish protectorate over the Mosquito coast, in the sense in which 
 it was explained and understood when submitted to the Senate 
 for ratification. Has the British protectorate disappeared from 
 Central America? I am not referring to the matters in contro- 
 versy between certain Senators who supported the treaty and 
 Mr Clayton, in respect to the Balize settlement. I allude to the 
 Mosquito coast, which, by name and in terms, is expressly made 
 subject to the provisions of the treaty. Has the British protec- 
 torate disappeared from that part of Central America ? Have the 
 British authorities retired from the port of San Juan, and thereby 
 recognised the right of American citizens and vessels to arrive 
 and depart free of hindrance and molestation ? Is it not well 
 known that the protectorate is continued and maintained wth in- 
 creased vigor and boldness? Is not the British consul at San 
 Juan now actively engaged in disposing of the soil, conveying 
 town lots and lands, and exercising the highest functions of sov- 
 ereignty under the pretext of protecting the rights of the Mos- 
 quito King ? These things are being done openly and without dis- 
 guise, and are well known to the world. Can any Senator inform 
 me whether this Government has taken the slightest notice of 
 these transactions ? Has our Government entered its protest 
 against these infractions of the treaty, or demanded a specific 
 compliance with our understanding of its terms ? How long are 
 we to wait for Great Britain to abandon her occupancy and with- 
 draw her machinery of Government? Nearly three years have 
 elapsed since we were boastingly told that by the provisions of 
 the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, Great Britain was expe'led from 
 Central America. Shall we wait patiently until our silence shall 
 be constructed into acquiescence in her right to remain and main- 
 tain her possessions ? 
 
 But there was another insuperable objection to the Clayton and 
 Bulwer treaty which increases, enlarges, and extends the force of 
 all the obnoxious provisions I have pointed out. ] alluded to the 
 article in which it is provided that — 
 
 *'The Government of the United States and Great Britain, having not only desired 
 to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general pkjnciple, 
 
 THEX HEHEBT agree TO EXTEND THEIR PROTECTION, BY TREATY STIPULATIONS, TO 
 
 ANY OTHER PRACTICABLE COMMUNICATIONS, whether by caual or railway, across the 
 Isthmus which connects North and South Am.erica, and especially to the interoceanie 
 communications, should the same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, 
 which are now proposed to he established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama." 
 
 The "particular object" which the parties had in view being 
 thus accomplished — the Hise treaty defeated — the exclusive pri- 
 vilege to the United States surrendered and abandoned, and the 
 European partnership established — yet they were not satisfied. 
 
lb 
 
 They were not content to "accomplish a particular object," but 
 desired to " establish a general principle !" That which, by the 
 terms of the treaty, was particular and local to the five States of 
 Central America, is, in this article, extended to Mexico on the 
 north, and to New Grenada on the south, and declared to be a 
 general principle by which any and all other practicable routes 
 of communication across the Isthmus between North and South 
 America, are to be governed and protected by the allied Powers. 
 New and additional treaty stipulations are to be entered into for 
 this purpose, and the network which had been prepared and 
 spread over all Central America, is to be extended far enough 
 into Mexico and New" Granada to cover all the lines of commu- 
 nication, whether by railway or canal, and especially to include 
 Tehuantepec and Panama. When it is remembered that the treaty 
 in terms establishes an alliance between the United States and 
 Great Britain, and engages to invite all other Powers, with which 
 either is on terms of friendly intercourse, to become parties to 
 its provisions, it will be seen that this article seeks to make the 
 principles of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty the law of nations in 
 respect to American affairs. The general principle is establishec' ; 
 the right of European Powers to intervene in the affairs of Ameri- 
 can States is recognised ; the propriety of the exercise of that 
 right is acknowledged ; and the extent to which the allied Powers 
 shall carry their protection, and the limits within which they 
 shall confine their operations, are subject to treaty stipulations in 
 the future. 
 
 When the American continent shall have passed under the 
 protectorate of the allied Powers, and her future made dependent 
 upon treaty stipulations for carrying into effect the object of the 
 alliance, Europe will no longer have cause for serious apprehen- 
 sions at the rapid growth, expansion, and development of our 
 Federal Union. She will then console herself, that limits have 
 been set and barriers erected beyond which the territories of this 
 Republic can never extend, nor its principles prevail. In confirm- 
 ation of this view she will find additional cause for congratu- 
 lation when she looks into the treaty of peace with Mexico, and 
 there sees the sacred honor of this Republic irrevocably pledged 
 that we will never, in all coming time, annex any more Mexican 
 territory in the mode in which Texas was acquired. The fifth 
 article contains the follovvmg extraordinary provision : 
 
 *' The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each 
 of the two Republics, and no change shall ever be made therein except by the express 
 and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, 
 in conformity with its own Constitution." 
 
 One would naturally suppose that for all the ordinary purposes 
 of a treaty of peace, the first clause of the paragraph would have 
 been entirely sufficient. It declares that "the boundary line es- 
 l^ablished by this article shall be religiously respected by each of 
 the two Republics." Why depart from the usual course of pro- 
 ceeding in such cases, and add, that "no change shall ever be made 
 therein, except hy the express and free consent of both nations, 
 LAWFULLY given by the General Government of each, in conformity 
 
11 
 
 with its OWN Constitution." What is the meaning of this pecu- 
 liar phraseology? The history of Texas furnishes the key by 
 which the hidden meaning can be unlocked. The Sabine was 
 once the boundary between the Republics of the United States 
 and Mexico By the revolt of Texas and the establishment of 
 her independence, and the acknowledgment thereof by the great 
 Powers of the world, and her annexation to the United States, the 
 boundary between the two Republics was "changed" from the 
 Sabine to the Rio Grande without "the express and free consent 
 of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of 
 each, in conformity with its own Constitution." Mexico regarded 
 that change a just cause of war, and accordingly invaded Texas 
 with a view to the recovery of the lost territory. A protracted 
 war ensued, in which thousand of lives were lost, and millions of 
 money expended, when peace is concluded upon the express condi- 
 tions that the treaty should contain an open and frank avowal that 
 the United States has been wrong in the causes of the war, by the 
 pledge of her honor never to repeat the act which led to hostilities. 
 
 Wherever you turn your eye, whether to your own record, to 
 the statute books, to the history of this country or of Mexico, or 
 to the diplomatic history of the world, this humiliating and de- 
 grading acknowledgment stares you in the face, as a monument 
 of your own creation, to the dishonor of our common country. 
 Well do I remember the determined and protracted efforts of the 
 minority to expunge this odious clause from the treaty before its 
 ratification, and how, on the 4'h of March, 1848, we were voted 
 down by forty-two to eleven. The stain which that clause fas- 
 tened upon the history of our country was not the only objection 
 I urged to its retention in the treaty. It violated a great princi- 
 ple of public policy in relation to this continent. It pledges the 
 iaith of this Republic, that our successors shall not do that which 
 duty to the interests and honor of the country, in the progress of 
 events, may compel them to do. I do not meditate or look with 
 favor upon any aggression upon Mexico. I do not desire, at this 
 time, to annex any portion of her territory to this Union; nor am 
 I prepared to say that the time will ever come, in my day, when 
 I w^ould be willing to sanction such a proposition. But who can 
 say, that, amid the general wreck and demoralization in Mexico, 
 a state of things may not arise in which a just regard for our own 
 rights and safety, and for the sake of humanity and civilization, 
 may render it imperative for us to do that which was done in the 
 case of Texas, and thereby change the boundary between the two 
 Republics, without the free consent of the General Government of 
 Mexico, lawfully given in conformity with her Constitution ? Re- 
 cent events in ^Sonora, Chihuahua, and Tamaulipas, do not estab- 
 lish the wisdom and propriety of that line of policy which ties our 
 hands in advance, and deprives the Government of the right, in 
 the luture, of doing whatever duty and honor may require, when 
 the necessity for action may arrive. 
 
 Mr. President, one of the resolutions under consideration makes 
 a declaration in relation to the Island of Cuba, which requires a 
 passing notice. It is in the following words: 
 
IS 
 
 " That while the United States disclaim any designs upon the Island of Cuba, incon- 
 sistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to Spain, they consider it due to 
 the vast importance of the subject, to make known, in this solemn manner, that they 
 should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to procure possession, whether 
 peaceably or forcibly, of that island, which as a naval or military position, must, under 
 circumstances easy to be foreseen, become dangerous to their southern coast, to the Gulf 
 of Mexico, and to the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts, directed against 
 them, to be resisted by all the means in their power." 
 
 That we would resist any attempt to transfer the Island of Cuba 
 to any European Power, either with or without the consent of 
 Spain, there is, I trust, no question in the mind of any American, 
 and the fact is as well known to Europe as it is to our own coun- 
 try. That the United States do not meditate any designs upon 
 the island inconsistent with the laws of nations, and with their 
 duties to Spain, has been demonstrated to the world in a manner 
 that forbids the necessity for a disclaimer of unworthy and per- 
 fidious purposes on our part. The resolutions convey, beneath 
 this disclaimer, the implication that our character is subject to 
 suspicion upon that point. Shall we let the presumption go 
 abroad that a disclaimer of an act of dishonesty and perfidy and 
 infamy has become necessary upon our part? Sir, is there any 
 thing in the history of our relations with foreign nations, or in re- 
 spect to Cuba, that should subject our country to such injurious 
 imputations? When has our Government failed to perform its 
 whole duty as a neutral Power in respect to Cuba ? The only com- 
 plaint has been, that in its great anxiety to preserve in good faith 
 its neutral relations, it has permitted treaty stipulations with 
 Spain, providing for the protection of our citizens, to be wantonly 
 and flagrantly violated. No suspicion that this Government has 
 been wanting in energy and fidelity in the enforcement of our 
 laws has been entertained in any quarter. It was the excessive 
 energy and severity with which the duty was performed that has 
 provoked the disapprobation of some portion of the American 
 people. 
 
 Sir, what right has Great Britain to call upon the United 
 States, as she did in a late application, to enter into a negotiation 
 to guaranty Cuba to Spain? Such a step might have been ne- 
 cessary on the part of England in order to satisfy Spain that she 
 has abandoned the policy which for centuries has marked her 
 colonial history with plunder and rapine. Why does not Eng- 
 land first restore to Spain the Island of Jamaica, by the seizure 
 and possession of which she is enabled to overlook Cuba, while 
 it gives her the command of the entrance of the proposed Nicara- 
 gua canal? Why does she not restore to old Spain Gibraltar, 
 which from proximity and geographical position, naturally be- 
 longs to her, and is essential to her safety? Why does she not 
 restore the colonial possessions which she has stretched all over 
 the world, commanding every important military and naval sta- 
 tion, both upon land and water? Why does she not restore them 
 to their original owners, from whom she obtained them by fraud 
 and violence? Why does she not do these things before she calls 
 upon us to enter into stipulations that we will not rob Spain of 
 the Island of Cuba ? 
 
13 
 
 The whole system of European colonization rests upon seizure, 
 violence, and fraud. European Powers hold nearly all their 
 colonies by the one or the other of these tenures. They can 
 show no other evidence, no other muniment of title. What is 
 there in the history of the United States that requires us to make 
 any such disclaimer? We have never acquired one inch of ter- 
 ritory, except by honest purchase, and full payment of the con- 
 sideration. We have never seized any Spanish or other European 
 colony. We have never invaded the rights of other nations. We 
 do not hold in our hand the results of rapine, violence, war, and 
 fraud, for centuries, and then prate about honesty ; and propose 
 to honest people to enter into guarantees that they will not rob 
 their neighbors? 
 
 Fortunately the history of our country subjects her to no such 
 imputation, and relieves us from the necessity of making dis- 
 claimers which carry with them the implication of an equivocal 
 reputation. England, France, and the other European Powers 
 are at liberty to judge for themselves whether any such necessity 
 exists in their case. I have not much faith in these gratuitous 
 protestations of honesty and disinterestedness. They are gen- 
 erally made for the purpose of concealing a dark design while 
 preparations are maturing for its execution ! I recollect that 
 pending the Clayton and Bulvver treaty before the Senate, a 
 rumor was set afloat that England meditated the extension of 
 her dominion or protection over Costa Rica, or some other portion 
 of Central America. Sir Henry Bulwer deemed the time op- 
 portune and the rumor a sufficient excuse for addressing to our 
 Department of State an official letter, disclaiming, in the name 
 and by the authority of the British Government, any such design, 
 and saying : 
 
 *'I am also desired to add, that it would be contrary to the fixed and settled policy 
 of Great Britain to entangle herself by any engagement to protect distant States over 
 whose policy and conduct it would be imponsible for the British Government to exercise 
 any effective control. Such a protectorate would confer no possible advantage on Great 
 Britain, and might become the source of many embarrassments to her." 
 
 Mr. Clayton was so much delighted with this frank disclaimer, 
 that he promptly replied : 
 
 ** I take pleasure in expressing the satisfaction with which this Government has re- 
 ceived this friendly assurance from that of her Britannic Majesty, and more especially aa 
 it cannot fail to strengthen the bonds of amity now existing between our respective coun- 
 tries." 
 
 General Taylor deemed the matter of sufficient importance to 
 communicate the evidence of this *' friendly assurance" to the 
 Senate in a special message. Well, the treaty was ratified, and 
 in less than three years Great Britain seizes the Bay Islands and 
 erects them into a colony, in the face of this "friendly assurance," 
 and in direct violation of the provisions of the treaty ! 
 
 I confess I have not formed a very high appreciation of the 
 value of these disclaimers of all intention of committing crimes 
 against our neighbors. 1 do not think I should deem my house 
 any more secure in the night in consequence of the thief having 
 pledged his honor not to steal my property ! If I am surrounded 
 by honest men there is no necessity for the " friendly assurance,% 
 
14 
 
 and if by rogues, it would not relieve my apprehensions or afford 
 much security to my rights ! I am unwilling, therefore, to make 
 any disclaimer as to our purposes upon Cuba, or to give any 
 pledge in respect to existing rights upon this continent. The 
 nations of Europe have no right to call upon us for a disclaimer 
 of the one, or for a pledge to protect the other. It is true, British 
 newspapers are in the habit of calumniating the people of the 
 United States, as a set of marauders upon the territorial rights of 
 our neighbors. It is also true, that for party purposes, some por- 
 tion of the press of this country is in the habit of attributing such 
 sentiments to some of our public men ; but it is not true, so far as 
 I know, that any one man in either House of Congress does enter- 
 tain, or has ever entertained or avowed a sentiment that justifies 
 such an imputation. I am unwilling, therefore, to countenance 
 the vile slander, by voting for a resolution which by implication 
 contains so base an insinuation. Perhaps I may as well speak 
 plainly. I feel that there may be a lurking insinuation in these 
 two clauses, having a little bearing towards an individual of 
 about my proportions. It is the vocation of some partisan presses 
 and personal organs, to denounce and stigmatize a certain class 
 of politicians, by attributing to them unworthy and disreputable 
 purposes, under the cognomen of " Young America." It is their 
 amiable custom, I believe, when they come to individualize, to 
 point to me as the one most worthy to bear the appellation. I 
 have never either assumed or disclaimed it. I have never before 
 alluded to it, and should not on the present occasion, had it not 
 been introduced into the discussions of the Senate in such a man- 
 ner as leave the impression that I evaded it if I failed to notice 
 it. I am aware that the Senator, who the other day directed so 
 large a portion of his speech against the supposed doctrines of 
 "Young America," had no reference to myself in that part of his 
 speech, and that the only allusion he made to me was kind and 
 complimentary. So far as I am concerned, and those who harmo- 
 nize with me in sentiment and action, the votes to which I have 
 referred, and the reasons I have given in support of them, consti- 
 tute the only profession of faith I deem it necessary to make on 
 this subject. I am willing to compare votes and acts, principles 
 and professions, with any Senator who chooses to assail me. I 
 yield to none in strict observance of the laws of nations and 
 treaty stipulations. I may not have been willing blindly or reck- 
 lessly to pledge the faith of the Republic for all time on points, 
 where in the nature of things, it was not reasonable to suppose 
 that the pledge could be preserved. I may have deemed it wise 
 and prudent to hold the control of our own action, and leave our 
 successors free, according to their own sense of dut}^ under the 
 circumstances which may then exist. 
 
 Now, sir, a few words with regard to the Island of Cuba. If 
 any man desires my opinions upon that question, he can learn 
 them very easily. They have been proclaimed frequently for the 
 last nine years, and still remain unchanged. I have often said, 
 and now repeat, that so long as the Island of Cuba is content to 
 remain loyal to the Crown of Spain, be it so. I have no desire, 
 
15 
 
 no wish to disturb that relation. I have always said, and now 
 repeat, that whenever the people of the Island of Cuba shall show 
 themselves worthy of freedom b\' asserting and maintaining their 
 independence, and establishing republican institutions, my heart, 
 my sympathies, my prayers, are with them for the accomplishment 
 of the object. I have often said, and now repeat, that when that 
 independence shall have been established, if it shall be necessary 
 to their interest or safety to apply as Texas did for annexation, I 
 shall be ready to do by them as we did by Texas, and receive 
 them into the Union. 1 have said, and now repeat, that when- 
 ever Spain shall come to the conclusion that she cannot much 
 longer maintain her dominion over the island, and that it is better 
 for her to transfer it to us upon fair and reasonable teiTOs, I am 
 one of those who would be ready to accept the transfer. I have 
 said, and now repeat, that whenever Spain shall refuse to make 
 such transfer to us, and shall make it to England, or any other 
 Europe-in Power, I would be among those who would be in favor 
 of taking possession of the Island, and resisting such transfer at 
 all hazards. 
 
 Thus far I have often gone ; thus far I novr go. These are my 
 individual opinions, not of much consequence, I admit, but anV 
 one who desires to know them, is welcome to them. But it is 
 one thing for me to entertain these individual sentiments, and it 
 is another and very different thing to pledge forever and unalter- 
 ably the policy of this Government in a particular channel, in 
 defiance of any change in the circumstances that may hereafter 
 take place. I do not deem it necessary to affirm by a resolution, 
 in the name of the Republic, every opinion that I mav entertain, 
 and be willing to act upon as the representive of a local consti- 
 tuency. I am not, therefore, prepared to say that it is wise policy 
 to make any declaration upon the subject of the Island of Cuba. 
 Circumstances not within our control, and orgrinating in causes 
 beyond our reach, may precipitate a state things that would 
 change our action, and reverse our whole line of policy. Cuba, 
 in the existing position of affairs, does not present a practical 
 issue. All that we may say or do is merely speculative, and de- 
 pendent upon contingencies that may never happen. So it is, in 
 a great measure, with the discussion that has occupied so much 
 of the time of the Senate in relation to the British settlement at 
 the Balize. Although Great Britain has no other title than a 
 mere permit to cut log-wood, it is undeniable that she was in 
 possession of the country before the United States became an in- 
 dependent Power, and has maintained the undisturbed possession 
 ever since. Our Government has recognised it as a British colony 
 in various ways, and it is so desio^nated in our public documents. 
 If the object be to provoke a difficulty with England, regardless 
 of the merits of the quarrel, I am inclined to think that it can be 
 accomplished as easily and readily by a notice to quit the Balize 
 as to abandon Canada. But if the object be to establish and main- 
 tain a cherished principle of public policy in opposition to Eu- 
 ropean colonization in America, the new British colony recently 
 established at the islands in the bay of Honduras presents that 
 
16 
 
 distinct, naked issue, in a form which places us clearly in the 
 right. Now is the time for action. Here is a practical issue 
 presented, which should not he evaded by vague generalities and 
 equivocal resolves, which will be understood to mean one thing 
 on this side of the Atlantic, and quite a different thing in Europe. 
 Whatever action we take should be direct, unequivocal, and 
 againvSt the Bay Island colony by name. I am not certain as to 
 the best mode of proceeding; but I am inclined to the opinion 
 that the Executive should take the initiative, and make a courte- 
 ous, but firm and manly protest against the infraction of the 
 Clayton and Bulwer treaty, as well as the violation of our known 
 policy in relation to European colonization, by the creation of 
 this new British colony, together with the distinct and unequivo- 
 cal declaration, that in no event or contingency can the United 
 States acquiesce in the continuence of the Bay Island colony. If 
 Great Britain yields to the protest, and discontinues the colony, 
 our rights and honor will be vindicated, and a sufficient notice 
 will be given to the world of our determination to enforce the 
 principle hereafter. If, on the contrary, Great Britain should in- 
 sist in maintaining the colony in contempt of our protest, it would 
 become the duty of the President to communicate the result to 
 Congress, with the recommendation for the adoption of such 
 measures as should be necessary to enable him to vindicate our 
 violated rights. I am not particular, however, as to the form of 
 the proceeding. My great desire is to meet the question fairly, 
 and assume whatever responsibility the consequences may involve, 
 and not beat a disgraceful retreat under shelter of terrible threats 
 in the event the offence is repeated. If we act with becoming 
 discretion and firmness, I have no apprehension that the en- 
 forcement of our rights will lead to hostilities; Great Britain will 
 not be willing to engage in a contest of arms with us when she 
 is so clearly in the wrong. She has given bond and security to 
 keep the peace towards the United States, and she well knows 
 that the condition of a forfeiture is the loss of her colonies, and 
 her expulsion forever from the American continent. Firmness, 
 and prompt unequivocal action on our part is the only sure mode 
 of preserving peace. Let the Bay Island colony be discontinued, 
 and let us free ourselves from entangling alliances by the annul- 
 ment of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and the United States 
 will assume the position we are entitled to among the nations of 
 the earth. 
 
 Mr. President, I will trespass on the kindness of the Senate no 
 longer. I have deemed it due to myself and the occasion to make 
 this exposition of my views. I have availed myself of the earliest 
 opportunity afforded by the removal of the injunction of secrecy, to 
 explain my reasons for opposing the ratification of the Clayton and 
 Bulwer treaty. I have contented myself with vindicating my own 
 course without assailing any one, or calling in question the con- 
 duct of others. I return my thanks to the Senate for the kindness 
 and courtesy extended to me on this occasion.