ter to arbitration, it was the sense of the House that the President should be permitted, upon his own responsibility, to take such further measures as he might deem expedient. This was rejected.

Mr. J. A. Black offered as an amendment for the substitute a preamble and resolution, that, with a view of fixing a limit beyond which the settlement of the question could not be delayed, and at the same time affording every possible opportunity for a just and final settlement, the President give the twelve months' notice, etc. Rejected.

Mr. Ramsey moved to amend by striking out all after the word "resolved," and insert,

"That the Oregon question is no longer a subject of negotiation or compromise."

This was the ultimate ground on the subject, and the House voted-ayes 10, noes 146. The proceedings having taken place in Committee of the Whole, and the vote by tellers, no record is preserved of the names of members voting on this or any other of the propositions'; but Mr. Wheeler, in his History of Congress, writing from personal knowledge, gives as the names of the ten who voted in the affirmative the following: Alexander Ramsey, of Pennsylvania. Archibald Yell, of Arkansas. William Sawyer, of Ohio.

Cornelius Darragh, of Pennsylvania.
F. G. M'Connell, of Alabama.

Joseph B. Hoge, of Illinois.
Robert Smith,

Stephen A. Douglas,
J. A. M'Clernand,
John Wentworth,

66

66

66

፡፡

Finally, after the rejection of a large number of amendments, the committee, by a vote of ayes 110, noes 93, adopted the following: "Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representa tives, etc., that the President of the United States cause notice to be given to the government of Great Britain that the convention between the United States of America and Great Britain concerning the territory on the northwest coast of America, west of the Stony or Rocky Mountains, of the sixth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, signed at London, shall be annulled and abrogated twelve months after giving said notice.

66

Resolved, That nothing herein contained is intended to interfere with the right and discretion of the proper authorities of the two contracting parties to renew or pursue negotiations for an amicable settlement of the controversy respecting the Oregon Territory."

E

The committee rose and reported the resolution to the House. The House, by a vote of yeas 163, nays 54, ordered it to be engrossed, and then, without a division, the resolution passed. The Senate debated this resolution from February till the 16th of April, when it amended it by substituting another resolution for it. The House refused to concur; a committee of conference was appointed, and they reported a resolution which was finally agreed to by both houses. It authorized the President, in his discretion, to give the notice, which authority he promptly exercised. It is known that while the Senate and House were thus engaged, an active correspondence was going on between the representatives of the two governments, which finally ended in a formal offer, in the month of June, by the British government for a settlement of the boundary-line upon the parallel of 49°. As the rejection of that proposition involved possibly the issue of peace or war, the President, imitating the example set by Washington in several cases, submitted the offer to the Senate for their advice upon it. The Senate, by a vote of 38 to 12, advised the President to accept the proposal of the British government. On the 16th of June the President communicated the treaty to the Senate; and on the 18th, the Senate, by a vote of yeas 41, nays 14, advised and consented to the ratification of the same. Thus ended the exciting Oregon boundary question, in the discussions upon which Mr. Douglas earned an enviable reputation both as an orator and as a statesman.

The annexation of Texas and the Mexican war, though both questions bearing directly upon the foreign policy of the government of the United States, are subjects so intimately connected, and forming a distinct chapter of the history of the country at the time, will be found under a separate head.

MONROE DOCTRINE.- -CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY.

The next great question affecting the policy of the United States respecting the management of its relations with foreign governments was the Treaty of Washington, more familiarly known as the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. The proceedings of the Senate (of which Mr. Douglas was then a member) upon this treaty were, of course, secret, and the record since made public presents the statement of the votes of senators, and the resolutions of the Senate. Involved in this treaty was the pol

icy of the United States respecting the states of Central America, and the enforcement of what is known historically as the Monroe Doctrine.

In March, 1849, General Taylor succeeded Mr. Polk in the presidency. The Hon. John M. Clayton succeeded Mr. Buchanan as secretary of state. During the summer and winter following the administration undertook to establish some fixed relations respecting affairs in Central America. The result was the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. This convention was communicated to the Senate by a special message on the 22d of April, 1850. On the 22d of May following it was ratified by that body by the following vote:

Yeas-F. Badger of North Carolina, Baldwin of Connecticut, Bell of Tennessee, Berrien of Georgia, Butler of South Carolina, Cass of Michigan, Chase of Ohio, Clarke of Rhode Island, Clay of Kentucky, Cooper of Pennsylvania, Corwin of Ohio, Davis of Massachusetts, Dawson of Georgia, Dayton of New Jersey, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Downs of Louisiana, Felch of Michigan, Foote of Mississippi, Green of Rhode Island, Hale of New Hampshire, Houston of Texas, Hunter of Virginia, Jones of Iowa, King of Alabama, Mangum of North Carolina, Mason of Virginia, Miller of New Jersey, Morton of Florida, Norris of New Hampshire, Pearce of Maryland, Pratt of Maryland, Sebastian of Arkansas, Seward of New York, Shields of Illinois, Smith of Connecticut, Soule of Louisiana, Spruance of Delaware, Sturgeon of Pennsylvania, Underwood of Kentucky, Wales of Delaware, and Webster of Massachusetts-42.

Nays-Atchison of Missouri, Borland of Arkansas, Bright of Indiana, Clemens of Alabama, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson of New York, Douglas of Illinois, Turney of Tennessee, Walker of Wisconsin, Whitcomb of Indiana, and Yulee of Florida-11.

The very interesting debates were not published, though it was well known at the time that Mr. Douglas had taken an active part in opposition to the ratification of the treaty.

At the session of 1852-3, General Cass called the attention of the Senate to certain alleged misunderstandings between the two governments respecting the meaning of certain stipulations in the treaty. A debate of deep interest sprung up, and for several days the entire subject of the treaty was discussed. Mr. Clayton was then at his residence in Delaware. So deeply did he consider himself involved in the matters agitated before the Senate, that he addressed a long letter by telegraph to the National Intelligencer. The Legislature of Delaware shortly after elected him to a seat in the Senate. On the 3d of March Congress adjourned; but, as is usual upon the incoming of a new administration, the retiring President called a special session of the Senate to consider such executive

business as might be laid before them. Mr. Clayton took his seat at this special session, and, by way of a resolution calling for information, he renewed the controversy. Upon this resolution, the whole subject of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and Central American affairs was discussed in a debate which was protracted until late in April. As Mr. Douglas bore a conspicuous part in the debate in February, as well as at the special session, his speeches on these occasions are quoted from largely, as presenting in a clear and comprehensive form his views and opinions upon the important subjects embraced in the debates.

On the 14th of February, in the Senate, Mr. Douglas said:

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 statesmen. Recently it has assumed the dignified appellation of the "Monroe doctrine." It seems to be the part of patriotism for all to profess that doctrine, while our government has scarcely ever failed to repudiate it practically 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 hundreds of miles distant; and there was no European colony to be found in all that region on the Pacific coast stretching from California to the Russian possessions. We had a treaty of non-occupancy 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 fortyninth degree of latitude, and all on the north confirmed 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 fortyninth 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. It is unnecessary 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 undisguised 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 where 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 predicated 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 be considered as subjects 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 continent."

Now, sir, before I vote for this resolution, I desire to understand, with clearness and precision, its purport and meaning. Existing rights are to be respected! What is to be the construction 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 declaration, by the Congress of the United States, of our acquiescence in the seizure of the islands in the Bay of Honduras, and the erection of them into a new British colony? When, in connection with this clause respecting "existing rights," we take into consideration the one preceding it, in which it is declared that 66 'HENCEFORTH" the American continents are not open to European colonization; and the clause immediately succeeding it, which says that "no future 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 construe 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 carrying it into practical effect-is it now proposed to beat another retreat under cover of terrible threats of awful consequences when the offense shall be repeated? "Henceforth" no "future" European colony is to be planted in America “with our consent !" 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 treaties; 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 warning, if the offense 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 defense of its rights and honor." Are not the United States now free to adopt such measures as an independent nation may justly adopt in defense 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 opportunity to establish the doctrine-a clearer right to vindicate, or a more flagrant wrong to redress? If you do not do it now, your "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 of the opportunity or disposition to participate actively in the proceedings of the Senate this session. I know not what the present administration has done or is do