« ZurückWeiter »
is supposed to have been accidentally discovered in the British Museum, and, under Lord Melbourne's administration, to have been placed in the hands of Mr. Featherstonbaugh with other documents and materials relative to the boundary, although vo allusion to this map is made in his report. He was directed by Lord Aberdeen to hand over to Lord Ashburton all the documents and maps in his possession, but this, by far the most important of them all, was not among those transferred by him.
“At about the same time a copy of Mitchell's map was found among the papers of Mr. Jay, one of the American commissioners for negotiating the treaty of 1783. It contains a line drawn from the mouth to the source of the Saint John's, which is described upon the map as · Mr. Oswald's line. It no doubt represents the boundary line as offered by Mr. Oswald on the 8th of October, 1782, but not agreed to by the Brit ish Governmeut.
“On the discovery of Mr. Jay's map, a meeting of the New York Historical Society was held, at which a very learned memoir ou the Northeastern Boundary was read by the venerable Mr. Gallatin, who bad acted as one of the commissioners for preparing the American statement to be submitted to the King of the Netherlands as arbiter, and whose knowledge of the subject was not surpassed, if equaled, by that of any other person.
“At the time this meeting was held, the knowledge of Oswald's map had not reached America. The simultaneous discovery of these two maps in England and the United States, the most important in their bearing on the controversy of all the maps produced in the discussionone of them, in fact (Oswald's), decisive as to the point at issue, a discovery not made till after the conclusion of the treaty of 1812—is among the most singular incidents in the history of the protracted negotiations which resulted in that treaty. Taken together, and in connection with tbe official correspondence, they leave no doubt that Mr. Jay's map ex hibits the proposed live of the 8th of October, 1782, and that Oswald's map exbibits the line of treaty of 1783, and which is that always con tended for by the United States.
“Mr. Webster, bappening to be in New York, was present by invita tion at the meeting of the Historical Society above alluded to, and after the reading of Mr. Gallatin's memoir, baving been called upon by its vice-president, Mr. W. Beach Lawrence, made the following speech."
Mr. Everett's introductory vote to Jr. Webster's speech on the northeastern
boundary, 2 Webster's Works, 143. See discussion in 71 London Quart. Rev., 582.
“The conflict of these maps is undoubtedly a pretty remarkable circumstance. The great mass of contemporaneous maps are favorable to the claims of the United States, and the remarks read by the president of the society are most cogent to evince this. The treaty negotiated in Paris by Mr. Jswald, on the part of the British Government, met with great opposition in Parliament. It was opposed on the very ground that it made a line of boundary exceedingly inconvenient to Great Britain'; or, as a leading member of Parliament said, tbat it made the United States masters both of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; and maps were published exhibiting this line exactly as claimed by the United States. These maps accompanied the parliamentary papers and de bates. Now, it is very extraordinary, it would be deemed almost in
credible, that, if these maps, thus making out a case on which so much stress had been laid against the British ministry and their negotiation, had been erroneous, nobody in the foreign office, nor the minister, nor Mr. Oswald himself, should have one word to suggest against the accuracy of these maps. They defender the treaty and boundary as pre. sented on the maps, not going on the ground at all that those maps exbibited any erroneous presentation.
“Every office in Washington was ransacked, every book of authority consulted, the whole history of all the negotiations, from the treaty of Paris downward, was produced, and among the rest this discovery in Paris, to go for what it was worth. If these afforded any evidences to their (the commissioners of Maine and Massachusetts) minds to produce a couviction that it might be used to obscure their rights, to lead an arbitration into an erroneous, unjust compromise, that was all for their consideration. The map was submitted as evidence, together with all the other proofs and documents in the case, without the slightest reservation on the part of the Government of the United States. I must confess that I did not think it a very urgeut duty on my part to go to Lord Ashburton and tell him that I bad found a bit of doubtful evidence in Paris, out of which he might perhaps make something to the prejudice of our claims, and from which he could set up higher claims for himself, or throw further uncertainty over the whole matter."
Webster's speech on the northeastern boundary, 2 Webster's Works, 149, 153.
“In this state of things, he (Mr. Webster) made the only use of it (Sparks' copy) which could be legitimately made, in communicating it to the commissioners of the State of Maine and of Massachusetts and to the Senate of the United States, as a piece of conflicting evidence entitled to consideration, likely to be urged as of great importance, as it was derived from it source open to the other party, if the discussion should be reveweil, increasing the ditficulties which already surrounded the question, and thus furnishing new grounds for agreeing to the proposed conventional line.
This would seem to be going as far as reason and honor required, in reference to an unauthenticated document, having none of the properties of legal evidence, not exhibited by the opposite party, though draron from (1 source equally open to them, and of a nature to be outweighed by contradictory evidence of the same kind, which was very soon done."
Mr. Everett's address on Mr. Webster, Sept. 17, 1859, 4 Everett's Orations, 213.
In this address the “red line” question is elaborately discussed.
" It is a remarkable fact that, on each side of the Atlantic, the treaty was attacked as a settlement productive of injury to the honor and the mutual interests of each country. By Lord Palmerston it was stigmatized as the Ashburton capitulation, whilst Mr. Webster was compelled to deliver a most elaborate defense of the policy of his Government in concluding the convention.”
Abdy's Kent (1878), 152. See defense of this treaty in 71 London Quart. Rev.,
360, where the history of prior negotiations is given.
(9) CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY (1850).
The acquisition of California in May, 1848, by the treaty of Gaudalupe-Hidalgo, and the vast rush of population which followed almost immediately on the development of the gold mines to that portion of the Pacific coast, made the opening of interoceanic communication a matter of paramount importance to the United States. In December, 1846, had been ratified a treaty with New Granada (which in 1862 assumed the name of Colombia) by which a right of transit over the Isthmus of Panama was given to the United States, and the free transit over the Isthmus “ from the one to the other sea guaranteed by both of the contracting powers (supra, ş 145). Under the shelter of this treaty the Panama Railroad Company, composed of citizens of the United States, and supplied by capital from the United States, was organized in 1850 and put in operation in 1855. In 1849, before, therefore, this company bad taken shape, the United States entered into a treaty with Nicaragua for the opening of a ship-canal from Greytown (San Juan) on the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast, by way of the Lake of Nicaragua. Greytown, however, was then virtually occupied by British settlers, mostly from Jamaica (infra, § 295), and the whole eastern coast of Nicaragua, so far at least as the eastern terminus of such a canal was concerned, was held, so it was maintained by Great Britain, by the Mosquito Indians, over whom Great Britain claimed to exercise a protectorate. That the Mosquito Indians had no such settled territorial site; that if they had, Great Britain had no such protectorate or sovereignty over them as authorized her to exercise dominion over their soil, even if they had any, are positions which, as will be hereafter seen (infra, § 295), the United States has repeatedly affirmed. But the fact that the pretension was set up by Great Britain, and that though it were baseless, any attempt to force a canal through the Mosquito country might precipitate a war, induced Mr. Clayton, Secretary of State in the administration of General Taylor, to ask through Sir H. L. Bul. wer, British minister at Washington, the administration of Lord Jehu Russell, (Lord Palmerston being then foreign secretary,) to withdraw the British pretensions to the coast so as to permit the construction of the canal under the joint auspices of the United States and of Nicaragua. This the British Government declined to do, but agreed to enter into a treaty for a joint protectorate over the proposed canal. Of this treaty (Clayton-Bulwer) the following is a summary :
The preamble states that the contracting parties“ being desirous of consolidating the relations of amity which so happily subsist between them by setting forth and fixing in a convention their views and intentions with reference to any means of communication by ship.caval which may be coustructed between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by way of the river San Juan de Nicaragua, and either or both of the lakes of Nicara. gua or Managua to any port or place on the Pacific Ocean."
The treaty proceeds as follows:
"ARTICLE I. The Governments of the United States and of Great Britain, hereby declare that neither the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship.canal; agreeing that neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the
Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America ; nor will either make use of any protection which either affords, or way afford, or any alliance which either bas or may bave to or with any state or people, for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of occupying, for tifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same; nor will the United States or Great Britain take advantage of any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence, that either may possess, with any State or Government through whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of acquiring or bolding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens or subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of the other."
Article II provides that in case of war between the contracting parties vessels of either traversing the canal shall be exempt from blockade, detention, or capture by the other.
By Article III it is provided that, " in order to secure the construction of the said canal, the contracting parties engage that, if any such canal shall be undertaken upon fair and equitable terms by any parties having the authority of the local Government or Governments through whose territory the same may pass, then the persons employed in making the said canal, and their property used or to be used for that object, shall be protected, from the commencement of the said canal to its completion, by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, from unjust detention, confiscation, seizure, or any violence whatsoever.
By Article IV it is provided that "the contracting parties will use whatever influence they respectively exercise with any state, states, or Governments possessing, or claiming to possess, any jurisdiction or right over the territory which the said canal shall traverse, or which shall be near the waters applicable thereto in order to induce such states or Governments to facilitate the construction of the said canal by every means in their power; and, furthermore, the United States and Great Britain agree to use their good offices, wherever or however it may be most expedient, in order to procure the establishinent of two free ports, one at each end of the said canal."
The remaining articles are as follows:
*ART. V. The contracting parties further engage that when the said canal shall have been completed they will protect it from interruption, seizure, or unjust covfiscation, and that they will guarantee the neutrality thereof, so that the said canal may forever be open and free, and the capital invested therein secure. Nevertheless, the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, in according their protection to the construction of the said canal, and guaranteeing its neutrality and security when completed, always understand that this protection and guarantee are granted conditionally, and may be withdrawn by both Governments, or either Government, if both Governments or eithe Government should deem that the persons or company undertaking or managing the same adopt or establish such regulations concerning the traffic thereupon as are contrary to the spirit and intention of this convention, either by making unfair discriminations in favor of the commerce of one of the contracting parties over the commerce of the other, or by imposing oppressive exactions or unreasonable tolls upon passengers, vessels, goods, wares, merchandise, or other articles. Neither party, however, shall withdraw. the aforesaid protection and guarantee with. out first giving six months' notice to the other.
“ART. VI. The contracting parties in this convention engage to juvite every state with wbich both or either bare friendly intercourse to enter into stipulations with them similar to those wbich they have entered into with each other, to the end that all other states may sbare in the bonor and advantage of having contributed to a work of such general interest and importance as the canal herein contemplated. And the contracting parties likewise agree that each sball enter into treaty stipulatious with such of the Central American States as they may deem advisable for the purpose of more effectually carrying out the great design of this convention, namely, that of constructing and maintaining the said canal as a ship communication between the two oceans, for the benefit of mankind, on equal terms to all, and of protecting the same; and they also agree that the good offices of either shall be employed, when requested by the other, in aiding and assisting the negotiation of such treaty stipulations; and should any differences arise as to right or property over the territory through which the said canal shall pass, between the States or Governments of Central America, and such differences should in any way impede or obstruct the execution of the said caval, the Governments of the United States and Great Britain will use their good offices to settle such differences in the manner best suited to promote the interests of the said canal, and to strengthen the bonds of friendship and alliance wbich exist between the contracting parties.
ART. VII. It being desirable that no time should be unuecessarily lost in commencing and constructing the said canal, the Governments of the United States and Great Britain determine to give their support and encouragement to such persons or company as may first offer to commence the same, with the necessary capital, the consent of the local authorities, and on such principles as accord with the spirit and intention of tbis convention; and if any persons or company should already have, with any state through which the proposed ship.canal may pass, a contract for the construction of such a canal as that specified in this convention, to the stipulations of which contract neither of the contracting parties in this convention have any just cause to object, and the said persons or company shal., moreover, have made preparations and expended time, money, and trouble on the faith' of such contract, it is hereby agreed that such persons or company shall have a priority of claim over every other person, persons, or com. pany to the protection of the Governments of the United States and Great Britaiv, and be allowed a year from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this convention for concluding their arrangements and presenting evidence of sufficient capital subscribed to accomplish the contemplated undertaking; it being understood that if, at the expiration of the aforesaid period, such persons or company be not able to commence and carry out the proposed enterprise, then the Governments of the United States and Great Britain shall be free to afford their protection to any other persons or company that shall be prepared to commence and proceed with the construction of the canal in question.
" ART. VIII. The Governmeuts of the United States and Great Britain baving not only desired, in entering into this convention, to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protection, by treaty stipulations, to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and