the most innocent actions; and the greatest coward is always the most suspicious. It is only in time of war, or when the existence of our country is in imminent peril, that mere suspicion is a justifiable ground for outraging the favored rights of the citizen,

"I have merely reiterated your own ideas and arguments, and you will be pleased to consider this long letter as a commentary on your speech, which meets my unqualified approbation. The Central American question has occupied much of my attention during my retirement from public life, and I have, from first to last, written much on this subject in more than one of the Washington journals. I have always believed that and the Cuba question as the two by far most important points of our foreign policy, and, between ourselves, the article from which you quoted in your speech was from my pen. They are daily assuming still greater importance, and approaching a crisis in which we must either give all or take all. There is no other alternative; for if we succeed in patching up a Joseph's coat of many colors, it will only be rent in twain the first breeze that blows.

"I was therefore highly gratified to sco you taking up this subject, and handling it with such statesman-like ability. I say, let the energy and enterprise of the people of the United States have their way, for that they will have whether you let them or not. In their expansion, they are but obeying the law of God and nature. It suits the organs of Europe, the London Times, and their docile echoes here, who have no opinions but what they derive from these legitimate' sources, to brand every citizen of the United States who goes to Nicaragua as a filibuster; but we hear nothing amiss of the German, French, and English filibusters who are abetting the Costa Ricans in murdering our countrymen in cold blood. All this is legitimate and orthodox; it accords with the humanity of legitimacy. It is no violation of the neutrality laws, and in strict conformity with the decalogue!

"Our countrymen don't seem to see it, but it is clear to me as the light of day, that the perpetual clamor of the British journals, led by the Times, against what they are pleased to call filibustering, originates in the convic

tion that the spirit which animated these gallant missionaries of civilization and liberty is the most formidable of all the obstacles to the cherished purpose of Great Britain for the subjugation of Central America. It is our great weapon of defense against British encroachments; it is the best and deepest bulwark of the liberties of the New World, and the strongest barrier against the encroachments of the Old. Hence it is that the British journals are perpetually harping on filibustering, and the Anglo-American papers responding to their principles, until our people have become persuaded they can not go to any part of Central America to better their fortunes, aid the progress of free principles, teach the people how to govern themselves, or exercise any attribute of personable liberty, without violating either municipal or international law. The honest truth of the matter is, we have no opinions of our own; we are led by the nose by the British press; we are the footballs of British opinions, and, what is worst of all, we are cowed by the apprehension of British power. We can not take a single step, or contemplate a single movement of policy, without asking ourselves whether it will give offense to Great Britain, which is always on the look-out, and always ready to place herself in our way. The statesmen of England know this, and consequently despise our threats, and persevere in their policy. In the whole course of our history we have never gained any thing from Great Britain by negotiation, complaint, or remonstrance, but a repetition of insults and injuries. As in the past, so will it be in the future, so long as we rely on her friendship, her magnanimity, or her justice, and most especially, so long as she sees we are afraid of her.

"You will, I hope, pardon me for inflicting this long letter on you, in consideration of the deep interest I take in the subject, and especially as I do not expect an answer. If it should chance to afford you any hints that may be useful, they are heartily at your service for any purpose you may deem proper. Permit me to express a hope that you will use every effort to bring this question to an issue before Congress during the present session. With such material to deal with, I confess my hopes are not very sanguine. But if you fail now, I trust

you will not be deterred from repeating the effort at some propitious period. You have the right, the truth, and the Constitution on your side, and these will prevail at last, for under them the people will rally and conquer."

The next is from a citizen of Louisiana, of a family gloriously identified with the Revolution, and with every subsequent war in which we have been engaged, himself a gallant oflicer, the ward and confidential friend of the illustrious Jackson. The insight it gives into the sentiments of that great man is of special interest.

From Colonel E. G. W. Butler.

"Bayou Goula, La., June 9th, 1856. "DEAR GENERAL,-I return you many thanks for the copy of your most excellent speech upon the subject of the neutrality laws, which you were so kind as to send to me; and, although I have not gone along, pari passu, with you, in your views of these laws (deeming something of the sort necessary to curb the military and adventurous proclivities of our people, and thereby prevent collisions with foreign nations), I could not avoid a feeling of indignation at the false construction placed upon them by Webster, Fillmore, and others of less ability, by which our people were made pirates and robbers, and placed at the mercy of England and France.

"The high and apposite authority which you adduce, in regard to the importance to us of Cuba, in a military, political, and commercial point of view, recalled to my recollections the opinions and remarks of my lamented and venerated friend, Andrew Jackson, and, on turning to a file of his letters to me, I find, under dato of March 3d, 1823, the following characteristic remarks: If it is true that Spain is about to cede Cuba to England, good policy points to the course the United States ought to adopt.

"There can not be an American who does not see that, if Britain obtains the Gibraltar of the Gulf, as she holds the Gibraltar of the Mediterranean, she controls the commerce of the world, and embargoes the mouth of the Mississippi when she pleases.

“The wisdom and energy of America must prevent this, or we are involved in a perpetual war until Great Britain shall be dispossessed of it.'

"Immediately preceding this is the following paragraph, which can not but interest you. 'I have declined the mission to Mexico. I could be of no benefit to my country there: and, in the present state of revolution, a minister from the United States, to present credentials to the tyrant Iturbide, might strengthen him on his tottering throne, and aid him in riveting the chains of despotism upon the Mexican people.

"I can never do an act to aid tyranny and oppression. I have therefore declined.'

The

"What a wonderful and noble old man he was! letter from which these extracts were taken is one of advice, principally, on the commencement of my military career; and, after commending to me the study and imitation of the life of Sir William Wallace, he remarks: It is in the scenes of military life that you can judge properly of men.'

"I am looking with much interest to the result of the deliberations of the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, and hope, for the sake of the Union and the great principles of democracy, that they will end in harmony, and in a fraternal and unanimous determination to give to the nominee, whoever he may be, a disinterested, patriotic, and zealous support."

The next is from a distinguished citizen, equally eminent for his enlightened and philosophical views of government and statesmanship, and for his profound researches in medical science.

From Dr. Samuel A. Cartwright.

"New Orleans, May 21st, 1856. "DEAR GENERAL,-I have just read your speech on the 'Neutrality Laws,' published in the Louisiana Courier of this morning, and am delighted with it. * * * "In a letter to Gallatin, June 16th, 1817 (see Correspondence, vol. iv., page 306), Thomas Jefferson says: "A law respecting our conduct as a neutral between Spain and her contending colonies was passed by a ma

jority of one only, I believe, and against the very general sentiment of our country. It is thought to strain our complaisance to Spain beyond her right or merit, and almost against the right of the other party, and certainly against any claim they have to our good wishes and neighborly relations. That we should wish to see tho pooplo of other countries free, is as natural, and at least as justifiable, as that one king should wish to see the kings of other countries maintained in their despotism. Right to both parties, innocent favor to the juster cause, is our proper sentiment.'

"You have shown that our neutrality laws not only strain our complaisance to Spain and other monarchies of Europe, and against the rights of oppressed nations struggling to establish republican institutions, but they strain to violation our own Constitution by infringing on the reserved rights of American citizens themselves; and consequently the neutrality laws, as far as they encroach on the reserved rights of the people, are, or should be, null and void. The Constitution, which gives power to Congress 'to define and punish offenses against the law of nations,' gave no power to the Congress of 1817, or any other Congress, to alter or amend the law of nations, or to convert praiseworthy acts and chivalrous deeds, so considered by the world at large, into high crimes and misdemeanors, punishable with fine and imprisonment. Among the rights not delegated to the government, but reserved to the people, were the rights our fathers reserved of teaching their children virtues, and setting before them the lives and actions of such men as Lafayette, as worthy of imitation. Yet the Congress of 1817, by a majority of one, usurped the power and encroached upon the reserved rights of the people by declaring those very acts which had crowned the noble foreigners who came to our assistance during our revolutionary struggle with honor and glory as high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States. The government of the United States was prohibited from enacting any ex post facto law; yet the Congress of 1817 usurped that power by declaring those acts vices which our fathers taught their children to regard as virtues. Nay more: having, by an ex post facto act,