ing 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 unembarrassed 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 presented. The Oregon boundary had been established, and important interests had grown up in that territory; California had been acquired, and an immense commerce had sprung into existence; 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 citizens had procured the right of way, and were preparing to commence the construction of a railroad, under a grant from Mexico, 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 government.

In view of this state of things, Mr. Hise, who had been appointed chargé d'affaires, 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, privileges, 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 companies 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 continue forever as inalienable American rights. In addition to the privilege of constructing and using all roads and canals through the territory of Nicaragua, Mr. Hise'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 communication 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 mean time, the administration of General Taylor had superseded Mr. Hise by the appointment of another representative to the Central American States, and instructed him, in procuring a grant for a canal, to 66 CLAIM NO PECULIAR PRIVILEGE-NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-NO MONOPOLY OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE.

After having thus instructed Mr. Squier 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 contingency, he adds, at the conclusion of the same letter of instructions, the following:

"If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, SEEK to have it properly MODIFIED TO ANSWER THE ENDS WE HAVE IN VIEW."

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 other monarchical powers of Europe, and thus lay the foundation for an alliance between the New and Old World, by which the right of European powers to intermeddle with the affairs of American states will be established and recognized. With these instructions in his pocket, Mr. Squier arrived in 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 respect to the contemplated canal. Without knowing the provisions of the treaty, but taking it for granted that it was in violation 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 superseded on the 2d of 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:

"I have, therefore, to request that NO ACTION will be taken by the government of Nicaragua upon the inchoate treaty which may have been negotiated at Guatemala, but that the SAME MAY BE ALLOWED TO PASS 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 treaty, and expressing his apprehension that the information may be true, and adds:

"If so, I shall be 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 pass as an unofficial act, and that new 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 "peculiar 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 submit 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 Representatives, Executive Document, No. 75) gives an apparent excuse-a mere pretext-for withholding it from the Senate. I allude to the letter of Mr. Carache,

chargé d'affaires from Nicaragua, to Mr. Clayton, dated Washington, Der cember 31, 1849, that the Hise treaty "has been, as is publicly and univers ally 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 aware that Mr. Clayton, in reply to this letter, stated to Mr. Carache that "if, however, as you state, that convention has not been approved by your government, there is no necessity for its farther consideration by the government of the United States." From this it would seem that Mr. Clayton desires to have it understood that the failure of the government of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty was the reason he suppressed it, and refused to allow the Senate an 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 conclusively 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 arrival in the country, he (Mr. Squier) must "seek to have it prop erly 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 consummation of the grand European alliance and partnership. Mr. Squier, in his letter of September 10, 1849, communicating to Mr. Clayton the joyous news that his efforts had been crowned with complete success, says:

"SIR: I have the satisfaction of informing the department that I have succeeded in accomplishing THE OBJECT 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 encounter 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. HISE'S SPECIAL CONVENTION, which had raised 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 partnership. It "had raised extravagant hopes" on the part of the government 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 accomplish so great a feat. "Finally" the matter was "arranged," and the result communicated to the department with "satisfaction," 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 ye advocates of European intervention in the affairs of the American continent! The Hise treaty is dead! The principal source of embarrassment is removed! Nicaragua has failed to approve the special convention granting peculiar privileges and exclusive 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 unanswered-their receipt not even acknowledged-her hopes of a closer relation to this Union blasted-the Monroe doctrine abandoned-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 established 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 peculiar 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 its true meaning and construction, 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 construction 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 stipulations 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 repeat, 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 and 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 settle disputes between the states and governments of Central America, not only recognizes the right of European powers to interfere with the affairs of the American continent, but invites the exercise of such right, and makes it obligatory to do so in certain 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 Nicaragua, Costa Rica, 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 is 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

cases.

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 America, 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 England may keep and maintain those she now has.

I was not satisfied with the clause in relation to the British protectorate over the Mosquito Coast. It is equivocal in terms, and no man can say with certainty whether the true construction excludes the protectorate from the continent or recognizes its rightful existence, and imposes restraints upon its use and exercise. Equivocal terms in treaties are easily understood where the stipulations are between a strong power on the one hand and a feeble one on 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 recognize the potential right of the other to prescribe and enforce a construction of the equivocal terms which shall enable it to appropriate 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 British 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 controversy 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 protectorate disappeared from that part of Central America? Have the British authorities retired from the port of San Juan, and thereby recognized the right of American citizens and vessels to arrive and depart free of hinderance and molestation? Is it not well known that the protectorate is continued and maintained with increased 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 sovereignty under the pretext of protecting the rights of the Mosquito king? These things are being done openly and without disguise, 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 withdraw 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 expelled from Central America. Shall we wait patiently until our silence shall be construed into acquiescence in her right to remain and maintain 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