the fanaticism, nations of the 1st the peculiar on of this Union South Carolina; by giving vent copious and reand is irrigating I applause in the (Mr. Rusk in in the galleries. ed to be cleared. Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. capitalists. SENATE. has brought in debate. We can find this miser- || American capitalists. It was a grant to American Mr. DOUGLAS. I have introduced into this discussion none of these extraneous topics. I have contented myself with replying when others have brought them forward and thrust them upon me. My object has been to confine the debate to the k that the gal-points at issue between the Senator from Delaware outrage occurs and myself, and I have not departed from that line except when compelled to do so by the remarks of others. ill be done. It uch proceedings R. It certainly ccurs again. he word to say in . When I spoke not allude to the which the Senad the authors of d; and I do not of his way, and they had a conhere are impure ces besides Great xamples in other Britain. When ic terms of those Mr. CLAYTON. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] will recollect how this discussion in open session was forced upon me. It was introduced here by the member from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] on the 14th of February, and I was compelled to defend myself in open session, because the Senate permitted the attack to be made in open session. I wish no concealment, and do not mean to permit the member from Illinois to escape an exposure in public of the misstatements he has publicly made. He shall not avoid the notice of his own changes of position, by charging the same things on me. The Senator from South Carolina justly considers that treaty as so absurd on its own face, that no President would have been justified in submit. is what the Sena-ting it to the Senate for ratification. Such a course freshing streams; would have implied his approbation of it. In the efreshing to him, event that England had refused all our proposals ge. I named au- for an equal right of passage, he might have sent -ke? Will he dis- it to the Senate, if he had deemed it expedient, to ascertain whether his constitutional advisers desired an exclusive privilege to be acquired. But d the tone of feel- it could not possibly have in any event been conSir, when I spoke firmed, without so changing it as to make an enliterature of Eng-tirely new treaty. erted by this misCabin." [Laughptandum, but it is hat I said in rela ssent from Shakthe literature and terms of reverts and tombstones co the great men, gal learning and was great and nohem with respect I do not think it back two or three aggressions in the when I heard the giums upon past f present English and proper to reme of the present ould be borne in ies upon the past. its bearing upon am directing my ke to know how or "Uncle Tom's ser of it? I have I of England, and sickly sentimenerature as that to sa standard, Engh it is found. She miserable cant in ers. But with remercial relations, a civilized nation, would not be dismer nation. ther postpone nor e no eulogium to as our duty as a nounced no other to her literature, we are bound to land if we intend 8. I made no alwhich the Senator The Senator from Illinois has not ventured to deny that the treaty was unconstitutional as it stood. He evades that point, because he knows he cannot defend his favorite Hise treaty as a constitutional measure for a moment. He dared not attempt to defend it, after I had exposed it. Yet he had committed himself in favor of it by at least four or five electioneering speeches last summer, (one of which he made and published at Richmond,) and by his speeches here in the Senate so often, that he knew not how to retreat without discredit. When I read his Hise treaty to the Senate, it not only shocked the honorable Senator from South Carolina, who has just given utterance to his feelings, but I will venture to say it astonished nearly every other Senator present, that any man should have been so reckless as to have maintained for years past that such a treaty should have been sent to the Senate for confirmation. Now he is driven, by the exposure made here, to desert everything he ever said in favor of it before, with this solitary exception, that he still is in favor of the exclusive privilege provided for in it. All his declamation in its favor has ended in that. Sir, it was not only objectionable on the ground that it was a violation of the Constitution, but on the ground that it was a gross political and entangling alliance. The very remarks which the Senator has made so often in opposition to the treaty which Mr. Squier negotiated, and the treaty of the 19th of April, 1850, lie in justice, with all their force, to the treaty of Mr. Hise, but not one of them had any justice whatever when applied to the treaties to which he has objected. Neither of them provided for any political connection or entangling alliance. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator misunderstood me. I did not speak of the specific terms of the treaty of Mr. Squier, for the reason that the injunction of secrecy has not yet been removed, although I saw some papers friendly to the Senator putting some sections of it in the paper. Mr. CLAYTON. What papers? Mr. DOUGLAS. A New York paper did it the other day. I only spoke of the general terms used by Mr. Squier, and published by the Senator in 1850. But when I said that it opened to England and to us jointly, I spoke of the Senator having provided for that in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Mr. CLAYTON. The whole contract protected by the Squier treaty, of which I am speaking, was published two years ago, and is in a document before Congress. Mr. DOUGLAS. I was speaking of the treaty. Mr. CLAYTON. Then why did you interrupt me? You knew I was speaking of the contract or grant, and not of the treaty. The substance of the treaty was published long ago. It has been published at least two years; and there is not anything in it or the grant, about a partnership between European and American capitalists. Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator from Delaware say that the Squier treaty has been published by authority? Mr. CLAYTON. No, sir; but you know the substance of it was published long ago, and the injunction of secrecy has long since been taken off the treaty of the 19th of April, 1850, which discloses the principle of both. The Senator has shown that he has not the slightest difficulty in speaking of either of these treaties, or of anything connected with either of them. The Senator presents new issues for discussion, and changes his ground in his reply. But I mean to bring him back to the points from which he seeks to escape. He has not attempted, in his reply, to fasten on me, as he endeavored to do in the beginning of the debate, and as he did in his speech of the 14th of February, the charge that I had, in negotiating the treaty of the 19th of April, 1850, abnegated, as he expressed it, the Monroe doctrine. No, sir; he has abandoned that, and he will not venture to touch it again. He has good reason to shun it, for it burnt his fingers. He has fled from it. He cannot now vindicate a word he uttered on that subject. He beats a retreat. Mr. DOUGLAS. No, sir; the Senator is mistaken. Mr. CLAYTON. Then he is not willing to retreat, after he has become totally silenced on the subject, and ceased to make battle. Now, a word as to his favorite exclusive privilege. If we had it, it would involve us in controversies with all other nations, and would prove a curse instead of a blessing. In the event of a war between this country and any great naval power, the canal would be seized. The Senator fears nothing-oh no, not he! He would fortify it at both ends! Yes, sir; build a fort at both ends. A fort at San Juan de Nicaragua, and a fort on the Pacific; and then we must garrison them, and keep a standing army there. How many soldiers would it take to garrison a fortress if England and France, or either of them, should go to war with us? How many would the Senator have at San Juan?-how many on the Pacific? Does he suppose that any force that this country could possibly send there, and at that distance from us, could resist the other great Powers of the world, in a war? He is fond of boasting (and I love to hear it-it is quite flattering) that we are a giant Republic; and the Senator himself is said to be a "little giant;" [laughter;] yes, sir, quite a giant, and everything that he talks about in these latter days is gigantic. [Laughter.] He has become so magnificent of late, that he cannot consent to enter into a partnership on equal terms with any nation on earth-not he! He must have the exclusive I quoted, on a former occasion, the names of own the canal. Why not demand the same exclusive privilege at Gibraltar? What is the difference in principle? Why should we not seek to obtain the exclusive right of passage into the Mediterranean, as well as the passage across the Isthmus ? me 32D CONG Mr. DOUGL Mr. CLAYT more remarks, I have done. Mr. DOUGL the Senator; but look for an answ Mr. CLAYTO to say that one American passa And as the disti do not desire to about to say, I well myself. [L Sir, his are not Senate. His are two men who, or the treaty. The me: he arraigns of the President o His own colle the number who the distinguished were here at that self, Mr. Preside proclaimed the sa treaty with New exclusive right to canal outside the not known to the years ago. Sir, i men who have go ter of a century. The Senator de use the great cha party, in favor o that Livingston, t son, had proclain the hostility of th an exclusive pri letter of Mr. Li date, is decisive Jackson, on the in any one natio ing engagement treaty of comme Central America clusive privilege. present that conc exclusive privileg under the patron lands, had applie the canal at Nican ascertained that 1 granted to or aske Lands. I said, th favor of the doct Government, and on whom I have! but who has bee quite as capable o thing they might Illinois himself. ter of a century a great avenue to th such a thing as th tract, which I ha ing the canal whi of the earth on th is not a principle resolution of 183 tives in its resolu rent action of Pre lor, that is not i established by th by the Dutch Go adopted the narr BO commended it procuring an ( no one State co in the face of th But the Senat tion of the Sena had obtained t keep it not he ous, too fair tov keep any such his exclusive ri the monopoly earth. 3D SESS. Will the Senator permit If he is anxious to make willing to hear him when I I do not wish to interrupt nderstand him to ask me, and Let him be quiet. He meant European and the other an That is all he had to say. ion is without a difference, I ar him. Knowing all he was ught I could say it quite as hter.] ne principles of the American ot the principles of the fortyhe 22d of May, 1850, ratified mator does not merely arraign those constitutional advisers he United States. ue [Mr. SHIELDS] was among ted for the treaty. Most of ntlemen now around me, who ay, voted for it. You, your, were one of the men who e principle, by voting for the anada! This doctrine of the make, construct, and protect a mits of the United States, was statesmen who lived fourteen was a stranger to the statesrned this country for a quar ied again that I had a right to cter of Jackson, with his own the treaty. I stated the fact Secretary of State under Jack, on the 20th of July, 1831, Government to anything like ege through that canal. The gston to Mr. Jeffers, of that the sentiments of President -und that an exclusive privilege ould be a violation of the leadur own treaty and every other with any local Government in hich should grant such an exHe instructed Mr. Jeffers to sive objection to any grant of to the Dutch capitalists who, e of the King of the NetherFor and obtained a grant to cut ua. It was, as I stated before, ere was no exclusive privilege for by the King of the Netherrefore, I had the authority, in e of the treaty, of the Dutch is great chief himself—a man time to pronounce a eulogy, eulogized by men who were conferring distinction, by anyay, as even the Senator from at the distance of nearly a quarO, when desiring to open the Pacific, he did not dream of exclusive privilege. His conbefore me, provided for openhe projected, to all the nations same terms; and, in fact, there stablished by the Senate in its by the House of Representa-n of 1839, and by the concurdents Jackson, Polk, and Tayaccordance with the principle capitalists who were patronized rnment. Foreigners have not v and contracted policy which If to the member from Illinois, clusive right over a canal which possibly maintain and protect reat commercial nations of the Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. fortified it and protected it, so as to compel other nations to respect it-he would turn round and give to everybody else in the world the right to go through it at our expense! Is not that a magnificent conception? When my neighbors propose to make a highway, I say: "No, you shall not. No man shall dare to spend a dollar on it. I will have the exclusive right of way! I will make the highway: but after I have gone to the expense of making it, and while I have the sole burden of keeping up all the repairs, if any of you desire to travel upon it, on the same terms with myself, you are perfectly welcome! But take care! Dare not attempt to repair it, or use any means to protect or preserve it from destruction-I must have the exclusive honor of that." A mere restatement of such a proposition seems to me to make it absolutely unnecessary to comment upon it. But the Senator takes the ground that I have prevented the grant of the right of way from the local Government. He said, again and again, that I had prevented that. It was one of the chief objects of solicitude with me, while acting as Secretary of State, that our capitalists should obtain that. It was obtained; and on the true policy which had been recognized by all the leading statesmen of this country. The treaty with Nicaragua was negotiated under instructions from President Taylor. It provided for the protection of the right of way. It was presented to the Senate of the United States; and, for reasons which I have never known, and do not know to this day-after I resigned the office of Secretary of State, and had gone away from this place-it was not acted upon. It was never rejected. No vote was taken upon it. It was overlooked in the mass of business, or for some other cause it was entirely neglected; and yet I am censured, forsooth, by him, one of the very men who neglected a public duty, in regard to it, because that treaty did not pass! I hear from others that he opposed it, because he preferred the Hise treaty, and that he assisted in defeating it! The Senator means that I defeated the right of way, because I did not send the Hise treaty here-a treaty which, I say again, no Senator could have voted for, if it had come here. Sir, the right of way was secured by American capitalists, aided by all the efforts the Minister sent by President Taylor to Central America could make. The Senator ought to have known it was granted to American citizens at the very moment he charged me with the loss of it. He has repeatedly said we had obtained it by a grant to English and American capitalists. At the same time, if he had read the public documents sent to Congress on a subject about which he has talked more than any other living man, he would have known that statement was incorrect, and that the grant was made on the application of American capitalists to themselves. The President did all he had a right to do to encourage and protect it. If these capitalists construct a ship canal, England will protect it, the United States will protect it, and every other civilized nation we apply to will protect it when accomplished; because no nation can be or ought to be entitled to use it, except upon the terms of agreeing to protect it. England agrees, by the treaty, to assist us, not only in protecting this ship canal, but any railroad or ship canal that can be made through the whole isthmus. We have no interest, that I am aware of, to prefer the route by way of Nicaragua to that by Tehuantepec. If we could obtain a canal route nearer our country than either Nicaragua or Panama, we ought to prefer it. Undoubtedly, if we could obtain the Tehuantepec route, we ought to prefer that; but if we cannot obtain a passage at a point nearer to us than the southern part of the Isthmus of Darien, it is of the deepest interest to this country to have it at that point. Pains were taken, as the Senator will know by looking into the correspondence, to ascertain which was the most practicable route; and from all the informasaid-and I must call the attention before me, including that obtained from Lord back to the fact that when we exclusive right, he would not He was too liberal, too gener Palmerston himself, as well as from my own countrymen, the route believed to be the most easily practicable was through Nicaragua. Whether it SENATE. right of passage through it; and we have no longer any cause for such jealousy as was entertained by President Jackson and Mr. Livingston, the Secretary of State, in 1831. No matter who may construct this or any other canal, in any part of the whole isthmus between North and South America, we have the right to navigate it on the terms of the most favored nation, by virtue of the very treaty which the Senator so violently denounces, for his own personal and party purposes. The Senator says, that by adopting the treaty I have recognized the right of Great Britain or any European nation to interfere in the affairs of this continent. This Government has, to a much greater extent, recognized their right to claim an equlity of commercial privileges, from its very origin, by every commercial treaty which it has ever made. You have made your commercial treaties with all the European Powers. In each of them you have agreed to a certain extent that they have the right to interfere in your affairs, and they have conceded the right, on your part, to interfere in their affairs. Does the Senator mean to condemn every commercial treaty which we have ever made? Does he think that he can make an appeal successfully to the vulgar passions, in order to make this treaty odious, and thereby to make the men in the Senate of the United States who voted for it odious? We never made a treaty of any kind with a European Power which does not acknowledge to as great an extent, or greater, the right of European interference in the affairs of this continent. He has voted for treaties which regulate all our tonnage and import duties, and all our commercial intercourse with them. We have made treaties with them to control our own boundaries, and legislative arrangements to control our most important political and commercial interests. The Senator has rung the changes on the word partnership," from day to day, until one who did not know him would suppose that we had entered into some great joint-stock mercantile establishment with England. You might as well say that all men living near a navigable river, or a turnpike road, or a railroad, had entered into a partnership, as to say that the nations of the earth about to travel this highway on the same terms had entered into a partnership. "Every man in the District of Columbia has entered into partnership about Pennsylvania Avenue of the same kind. We all travel it on the same terms. anybody should attempt to destroy it, we are all equally interested to protect it, and we would pro tect it. If The reference made by the Senator to the instructions to our chargé d'affaires in Central America, to prove that he was directed to oppose the treaty of Mr. Hise, is evidence of a degree of recklessness or folly of which I should regret to accuse any Senator. Instructions plainly referring to a contract are construed by him to refer to a treaty. I endeavored to correct him at the time he referred to the instructions, but in vain; and on he went to his own manifest destiny. The very passage he quoted distinctly proves him to have entirely misrepresented the instructions. He has confounded the "charter or grant of the right of way," made to "the proprietors of the canal," with a treaty to protect it. His remarks on this subject, compared with the quotation which he has made from the instructions, will convict him without any exposure from me. I will quote the whole passage he has cited from my instructions, with a view to show the injustice of his remarks. The instructions say: "See that it [the contract or grant] is not assignable to others," [meaning to others than the capitalists-the American citizens who obtained it;]" that no exclusive privileges are granted to any nation that will not agree to the same treaty stipulations with Nicaragua; that the tolls to be demanded by the OWNERS are not unreasonable or oppressive; that no power be reserved to THE PROPRIETORS OF THE CANAL OR THEIR SUCCESSORS to extort at any time hereafter, or unjustly to obstruct or embarrass, the RIGHT OF PASSAGE. THIS will require all your vigilance and skill. If THEY do not agree to GRANT us passage on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua. "If a CHARTER or GRANT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made ? APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. If he did, I sehood, but, with e him to be guilty oject to any statedisapproved of ined of his mis Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. [March 16, SENATE. It is impossible to reason with one who says he friend from Massachusetts. I approved of all the does not understand the object for which this pas-policy of President Fillmore in regard to Cuba, sage in the dispatch was written. But he has quoted another passage from the same dispatch. I could not wish to expose him more effectually than by quoting it myself. It is as follows: "You may suggest, for instance, that the United States and Great Britain should enter into a treaty guarantying the independence of Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica, which treaty may also guaranty to British subjects the privileges acquired in those States by the treaties between Great Britain and Spain, provided that the limits of those States on the east be acknowledged to be the Caribbean sea." After citing this, he gravely asks me, "What has become of my objection to the guarantee of the independence of Nicaragua?" His question scarcely deserves an answer. Great Britain was in possession of the country, in virtue of the protectorate, and we were not; and the proposition made to her was, that she should not only abandon it, but also guaranty the independence of the Central American States adjoining the proposed canal. The Senator is incapable of perceiving the difference between a treaty of the United States and Nicaragua, guarantying the independence of Nicaragua, and a treaty of the United States and Great Britain jointly, on the one part, and Nicaragua on the other, for the same purpose. If Great Britain had joined us in such a treaty, we should have readily reached our whole object. She refused to accede to this proposition; and it was palpably a suggestion to ascertain her views. The separate guarantee of independence by us alone, was indeed an objection to the Hise treaty, and it was one among many other objections which made the whole insurmountable. Our separate guarantee was a guarantee against Great Britain, the party in possession. A joint guarantee with her was liable to no such exception, and could not possibly entangle us. The Senator is guilty of so many other misstatements, that it is a difficult matter to correct them all. He says that I voted for the Mexican treaty of peace-the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo-according to his recollection. His recollection is in this respect, as in many others, entirely at fault. The record shows that I did not vote upon the treaty. while my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT,] was at the head of the Depart ment of State. President Taylor, at an early period of his administration, was informed of the substance of Mr. Forsyth's letter, which has been since published, instructing our Minister at Madrid to say to the Spanish Government that we would defend the title of Spain to Cuba, with all the naval and military power of the United States. I thought it impolitic, as it led, of course, to a similar communication to Spain from Great Britain and France. The French and English Governments, being apprised by Spain of our guarantee against them, of course, I thought, would give her a similar guarantee against us. The assurance of the United States, Great Britain, and France, thus made to Spain, virtually guarantying Cuba to Spain, was equal in efficacy to any tripartite treaty that could have been concluded. By the President's direction, I did not continue the assurance on our part. I allude to this as illustrating the identical policy adopted by my honorable friend from Massachusetts in his letter to the Comte de Sartiges. Our Minister at Madrid was instructed, on the 2d of August, 1849, that the President could not comprehend or appreciate the motives or expediency of openly declaring to Spain that the whole power of the United States would be employed to prevent the occupation, in whole or in part, of Cuba from passing into other hands, because he had reason to believe that this declaration of Mr. Forsyth, on our part, had led to counter declarations to Spain of a similar character by other interested Powers; that whilst this Government was resolutely determined that the Island of Cuba should never be ceded by Spain to any other Power than the United States, it did not desire, in future, to enter into any guarantees with Spain on that subject; that, without guarantees, we should be ready, when the time came, to act; that the news of the cession of Cuba to any foreign Power would, in the United States, be the instant signal for war; and that no foreign Power would attempt to take it that did not expect a hostile collision with us as an inevitable consequence. His statement independence of easons which intreaty from the To sustain himmy letter to Mr. 1849. The very "if our effort to with the British a just and satisve abortive, (that privileges in the Il not hesitate to ty" (that is, the quier; the one for for equal privibe concluded by Guatemala, to the heir advice." It at if the British y Central Amerd refuse to yield - the isthmus on His statement that the Hise treaty was evidence e would submit, of the fact that Nicaragua was willing and anxious from Great Bri- to grant to the United States forever the exclusive hich would grant right and control over a ship canal between the favorable terms, two oceans, is contradicted by the letter of Carof Great Britain. cache, the Nicaraguan minister, who declares she stified in endeav-rejected it after it had been signed by Señor Selva, evidently that she the commissioner on her part. The treaty was desired her fairly evidence of extreme folly, and of little else beside. otation from the ich he has made, w that my refering more than a n equal privileges er. The Senator recurs again to his objection that the convention will not permit us to annex Central America, and points with triumph to a passage in the letter of my distinguished friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT,] to the Comte de Sartiges, in which he expresses a doubt whether the Constitution would permit us, by the tripartite treaty proposed by France and England, to declare that we would never purchase Cuba. The Senator from Illinois held this up as a conclusive authority to prove that the treaty of the 19th April, 1850, was unconstitutional. He did not venture to argue this position. The treaty of 1850 was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, was at the time a member, who joined in reporting the treaty and in voting for it: did he not understand the Constitution? Without referu will inform him, ring to all the other distinguished jurists who voted -wn consent, we With a view n this subject, 1 Lawrence-the ds to rely: nt shall reject these to cooperate with us me of rendering the way of the port and the same terms, we ing our interests inr opposition or hoswe, we have a treaty which has been sent ou should unreserv d without a power or t the President had he intention to form Hise, our late chargé of September last; und to ratify it, and we can, by arrange-e our interests upon t if our effort for this will not hesitate to à may be concluded emala, to the Senate and consent, with a ghtened body should y sanction, and will ecute its provisions he may confidently ople of the United for it, or to the numerous treaties in which this Government has defined the limits of its own territory as perpetual, including the Ashburton treaty, and the treaty of Ghent, and the treaty with Mexico, and I know not how many others, I say to the Senator from Illinois, that I acknowledge a wide distinction between the purchase of Cuba and the annexation of Central America. Cuba was not in the possession of Great Britain, under the name of a protectorate or otherwise. A large part of Central America was. We had no canal to make in Cuba. She presented no obstacle to us in our passage to California and Oregon. Central America did. Sir, I do most cordially concur in all the encomiums upon the letter of my This discontinuance, or revocation, of Mr. Forsyth's declaration, which had bound this Government for so many years, was not exactly a refusal to agree to such a tripartite convention, as was very properly rejected by my honorable friend from Massachusetts, but it was the first instance in which this Government gave unmistakable evidence of its policy not to agree to any such convention. Sir, the Senator said that I had abolished the Monroe doctrine. If I have really done that, I have done more than I ever thought I was capable of doing. If I have done that, I have abolished a fruitful source of controversy between my own country and other nations. But how and in what sense have I abolished the Monroe doctrine? One of the principles on which I acted, in the formation of the treaty, was the exclusion of a European nation from further interference on a part of this continent. Was that exclusion an abolition of the Monroe doctrine? Will he tell me of any instance in the history of this country, in which any other Administration has carried out the Monroe doctrine in the same way, or in any other way? Can he find any other instance in which there has been the slightest approximation to it. As to the Indian protectorate in Nicaragua, I have only to say of it as I said before," Stat nominis umbra"-it stands, the shadow of a name! The Senator is fond of talking violently about driving European nations from this continent. When he discourses in such magnificent terms as he employed a few years ago, about "fifty-four forty or fight," he does no harm among his own countrymen. We all know exactly what it means. But when these speeches reach the other side of the Atlantic, they have a different effect. They induce foreigners to believe that we are a quarrelsome, violent, and aggressive race, denying to all other men equal rights with ourselves; and they are well calculated to make us odious among other nations. We once held among them a high character for probity and honor; but if it shall come to be understood among them that we are bent 32D CONG upon seizing eve a fancy, we sha enemies of the h that, instead of upon earth, we the sun of our g profess to be, a an American; as respect for Ame tecting America any man; but I maintain Ameri daim it among there does not ex proud of observi and all their cont ted States. Let now practiced b others among us of inculcating it a other nation. I the subject in m asking the Secre Farewell Addres Let us refresh a close of this turb fountain whose b invigorate us. The Clerk read "Nothing is more antipathies against tachments for others. of them, just and an cultivated. The nat habitual hatred or a a slave. It is a sla either of which is s and its interest. A deposes each more hold of slight cause tractable, when acc occur. Hence fred 9 and bloody contests of the latter, witho It leads also to con leges denied to other making the concess ought to have been will, and a dispositi rifee the interests ADMISSION TO Mr. FISH s *CORRECTION at the foot of the to the Congressi never said that take. Also, two of the same pag Country to which we may take - looked upon as pirates and n race. Then it will be found ntaining the highest position e descended to the lowest, and will set forever. I am, and merican in heart-every inch cermined to assert and enforce n rights, and the duty of proterests at home and abroad, as also resolved to assert and faith and honor. Let us prothe nations of the earth that under the sun a people more and maintaining their treaties cts than the people of the Uni= discountenance this system he Senator from Illinois and f denouncing Europeans, and a duty to hate the men of any not express my sentiments on e appropriate terms, than by -y to read a passage from the of the Father of his Country. I strengthen ourselves, at the ent debate, by a resort to that ght waters have never failed to E, as follows: ential than that permanent inveterate rticular nations, and passionate athould be excluded; and that, in place -able feelings towards all should be n which indulges towards another an abitual fondness is, in some degree, to its animosity or to its affection, icient to lead it astray from its duty pathy in one nation against another dily to offer insult and injury, to lay umbrage, and to be haughty and inntal or trifling occasions of dispute nt collisions, obstinate, envenomed, The nation, prompted by ill will and impels to war the Government, conlations of policy. The Government s in the national propensity, and , what reason would reject; at other imosity of the nation subservient to stigated by pride, ambition, and other s motives. The peace often, some-erty of nations, has been the victim. ssionate attachment of one nation for ariety of evils. Sympathy for the ating the illusion of an imaginary ases where no real common interest to one the enmities of the other, beparticipation in the quarrels and wars adequate inducement or justification. sions to the favorite nation of priviwhich is apt doubly to injure the nation s, by unnecessarily parting with what etained, and by exciting jealousy, illto retaliate, in the parties from whom ES are withheld. And it gives to or deluded citizens (who devote Drite nation) facility to betray or sactheir own country, without odium, popularity; gilding with the appearense of obligation, a commendable pinion, or a laudable zeal for public sh compliances of ambition, corrup I have done. The first resolued, calling for information, has the other may sleep upon the assured that the information had, as it ought to be, without different to its fate. My chief end my own position, and that complished.* nsideration of the subject was til to-morrow. "HE FLOOR OF THE SENATE. mitted the following resolution chaplains of Congress, the judges of the United States, foreign ministers and their secretaries, and officers who by unme shall have received the thanks of Congress, or medals by a vote of Congress, shall, each time before being admitted upon the floor, enter their names, together with the official position in right of which they claim admission, in a book to be provided and kept at the main entrance to the Senate Chamber; and no person except members of the Senate shall be allowed within the bar of the Senate, or to occupy the seat of any Senator. WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. COOPER in the chair.) The Secretary of the Board to examine the claims of Lieutenant Colonel Frémont, has addressed a letter to the President of the Senate requesting permission to withdraw a report submitted on the 29th December last, with the view of correcting certain errors. Will the Senate grant the leave asked for? Mr. WELLER. Let that lie over until I can On motion by Mr. COOPER, it was On motion by Mr. ADAMS, it was Ordered, That leave be given to withdraw the papers on On motion by Mr. JAMES, it was THURSDAY, March 17, 1853. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. The PRESIDENT presented a communication from the Department of the Interior, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st instant, transmitting a report from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. SELECT COMMITTEES. On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was Ordered, That the vacancies in the Select Committee on Frauds, &c., occasioned by the expiration of the terms of Mr. UNDERWOOD and Mr. BROOKE, be filled by the Chair. And Mr. MORTON, and Mr. THOMPSON of Kentucky, were appointed. On motion by Mr. WELLER, it was Ordered, That the vacancy in the Select Committee on the Mexican Boundary, occasioned by the expiration of the term of Mr. CLARKE, be filled by the President. And Mr. FISH was appointed. COAL FOR THE JAPAN EXPEDITION. Mr. BUTLER. I ask unanimous consent to make an explanation connected with some remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. COOPER,] the other day, reflecting on a constituent of mine, who is one of the officers of this Government. Unanimous consent was given. Mr. BUTLER. The Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. COOPER,] the other day, in introducing certain resolutions, which I hold in my hand, made the following remark: "He meant to cast no reproach on the late Secretary of the Navy or his predecessor; they were both highminded and honorable men, men of character and integrity; but nevertheless these contracts have been made by the bureaus possibly without their knowledge. He desired to have this information; and he hoped the resolution would now be passed." The resolution is as follows: "Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby, required to communicate to the Senate the contract entered into with Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall for supplying the Japan squadron with coal, the price per ton which the said coal will cost delivered in the Chinese seas, the amount of commissions and insurance, respectively, together with the rate of exchange which the Government will be required to pay for such of the coal as may be purchased in England. "That the Secretary be also required to inform the Senate whether offers were made by other parties than Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall, to supply the above-named squad SENATE. ularly the rates at which anthracite, American bituminous, and English bituminous were respectively offered; and whether, after these offers had been made, a contract at higher prices was not entered into with Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall for English coal. "That the Secretary be further required to inform the Senate whether, previous to the time of contracting for the supply of the said squadron with coal, the Government had not regularly-authorized agents employed for the express purpose of purchasing and inspecting all coal necessary for the supply of the Navy, and what commission the said agents received by way of compensation for their services. That he be required further to inform the Senate whether Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall were not appointed agents to purchase and inspect the whole or a greater part of the coal necessary for the supply of the Japan squadron; whether the commissions allowed them are not double the amount of those allowed and paid to the regular purchasing and inspecting agents; whether the said commissions are not counted on the gross price of coal-namely, on the price with freight, exchange, and insurance added. That he be required also to inform the Senate what quantity of coal it is estimated will be required for the supply of the said squadron annually, and what kind principally will be used; what amount of demurrage has been paid, and for what quantity of coal, for what length of time, and to whom; also, what rate of demurrage is to be paid hereafter." Whilst the remark exempts the Secretaries of the Navy from censure and blame, it leaves but one inference, that it may be applicable only to the head of the Naval Bureau, my friend and constituent Commodore Shubrick, than whom no one in the public service could be less liable to such a censure. In fact there was no contract entered into by the Navy Department, either by the Secretary himself or the head of the bureau, with Howland & Aspinwall, for coal, in the proper acceptation of the term contract. The Navy Department, by express law, and in change of an old regulation, is authorized to purchase coal for the use of the Navy. The mode of making such purchases is left to the judgment of the Secretary, under his official responsibility. In carrying out the provisions of this law, the late Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Graham, appointed Howland & Aspinwall as agents to supply the Japan squadron with coal. To enable them to do so with certainty and precision, that is, as to quantity and place, they are subject to the requisition and orders of the head of the bureau. For their services as agents, thus appointed, they receive a stipulated commission, previously agreed upon between themselves and the Secretary of the Navy. The only function to be performed by the head of the bureau is strictly ministerial, that is, to make a requisition on the agents, and to pay their bills when duly presented and authenticated. Commodore Shubrick, the head of the bureau, confining himself strictly in the sphere of his of ficial agency, has done nothing more nor less than carry out the stipulated arrangements of the Secretary of the Navy. He could have no inducement to do anything else; and I will answer for it, sir, that if anything had depended on his discretion, it would have been performed with good judgment and honorable purpose. I have no doubt that the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania had no intention of saying anything to wound the feelings or touch the honor of my honorable friend and constituent. Mr. COOPER. The Senator from South Carolina certainly did me no more than justice, when he said that I intended to cast no reflection upon Commodore Shubrick. I did not intend to convey the idea that Commodore Shubrick had acted dishonestly, or perhaps even improperly. I believe I stated at the time that the contracts were made by the Bureau of Construction and Supply, and it is probable that if I had reflected a moment, I would have known that Commodore Shubrick was at the head of that bureau. But there is one suggestion in that letter that I think had better have been left out. Mr. BUTLER. It is not a letter. It is my own memorandum from his conversation. Mr. COOPER. He states that there is no contract entered into. There is no contract, perhaps, made with the persons who furnish the coal, but they are appointed agents, and ex officio their duty is to furnish coal, and they become in law contractors with the Government. Now, sir, let me say further, that instead of paying a commission of five per cent., which the regularly-authorized agents of the Government are entitled to receive. 1 -esent Secretary ed at ten and a ge; and instead e price at which the tests made y the officers in y preferable to English coal at a Hid not intend to uent. I never high or low; but ads squandered, d, in order that must take notice , by any means. have heard and er persons; but the community, Il represent, will at I said or not. say in rejoinder ad a limited ad rse none of the him. It was a to by the Navy he Senator says, not believe that arged as having a wrong on the the prejudice of which have been e censure upon Mr. Graham, and d state my recolI had with him apply of coal for I do not profess curacy, I think y, a few things leman from any n him. ore Perry came Navy, and urge aring the supply oubted respectapossibility of a proper place and mportant to the hat it might be alyzed if the coal s to be obtained fore induced to did make, and ommodore ShuAspinwall. I doubted. Their et, at the precise of coal, was unat, the Secretary hink that I am e whole subject, at the operation hat in the place is much I nave Il say no more, ll report on the of the Navy. LEATY. Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. ideration of the TON, on the 7th upon the public mind in reference to the state of things in Central America, so far as we are concerned; and having had the honor, not long ago, in another capacity, to submit a communication to the President, which was transmitted to Congress, in reference to this subject, I am desirous, and I think it would be perhaps in some degree for the public interest, that some further explanation should be made in reference to the state of things in Central America at this time, so far as we are connected with it. e Senator from , I was desirous it, with the view w remarks upon discussion; and done so at that w by the courthe Committee to postpone the addressing you In doing this, which is really the principal, and I may say almost the only object which I have in view in claiming the attention of the Senate for a short time, I shall wish to make some reference to the proposition of the 30th of April last, which it was the object of the Senator from Delaware to get before the Senate. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Senate has made a special order for this day, for the election of certain officers of the Senate, it would be an accommodation to me, and I think also to the Senate, if the Senate would consent, by general acquiescence, to pass the resolutions of the Senator from Delaware. I understand it was his expectation in moving them, that the second resolution would require considerable time to meet it; that the answer would not come before the next session. It is a call for general information in reference to the affairs of Central America. But with reference to the first resolution, which calls for an answer with regard to the proposition of the 30th of April, it can be answered in half an hour, if it is the pleasure of the President. The papers can be sent in to the Senate to-morrow or the next day, and they can be referred to without inconvenience or impropriety, and it would be an accommodation to me that that should be the case before I proceed to address the Senate as I shall wish to do on the subject. I have consulted the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign y any means of as occupied the I presume it is te that that degentlemen who Relations in reference to this matter, and he approves of the course which I suggest. I therefore respectfully ask that the resolutions of the Senator from Delaware be passed for the object that I have stated. The proposition of the 30th of April should be communicated to the Senate, and when we get that, the discussion of the subject can be resumed, if such is the pleasure of the Senate. SENATE. The PRESIDENT. They can be divided by unanimous consent. The first resolution is adopted, and the question is on postponing the further consideration of the second. Mr. MASON. The honorable Senator from Massachusetts did me the honor to confer with me this morning on the expediency of passing the first resolution offered by the Senator from Delaware, in order to bring before the Senate the information to which the Senator from Massachusetts refers, and very properly refers, as pertinent to the subject under debate. It refers to the message of the President of the United States of the 18th of February last, communicating the correspondence of the British Minister in reference to the affairs of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. That letter has been referred to in the Senate in a general way; but the information is not before us, and cannot be brought before us without the adoption of this resolution. I submit, therefore, cheerfully to the request of the Senator, that the Senate should pass the first resolution. The second resolution, before it is passed, I think should be altered so as very much to enlarge the scope of it. The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Vir ginia asks for a division of the question. The question will be on the adoption of the first resolution. the first resolution, which is as follows, was adopted: Mr. MASON. I have no desire to interfere with the proposition of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts; but I entertained the idea that we should be able to adjourn on Monday next, sine die. "Resolved, That the President be respectfully requested, if compatible, in his opinion, with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the propositions mentioned in the letter of the Secretary of State accompanying the Executive message to the Senate of the 18th February last, as having been agreed upon by the Department of State, the British Minister, and the State of Costa Rica, on the 30th of April, 1852, having for their object the settlement of the territorial controversies between the States and Governments bordering on the river San Juan." Several SENATORS. Oh, no; we cannot do that. Mr. MASON. I submit the suggestion that the consideration of the subject be postponed until Saturday. Mr. EVERETT. I have no objection. Mr. MASON. I make that motion to test the sense of the Senate. Mr. SHIELDS. It will be utterly impossible to do that. There is business of the Senate which requires that we should sit longer than until next Monday. I do not think it will be possible to adjourn at that time. Mr. EVERETT. I now move a further postponement of the consideration of this subject until Monday next. Mr. BADGER. I would suggest to the Chair t. Being how-whether, as these two resolutions were offered as it if the debate one subject, the postponement of one would not would leave a carry the whole subject with it-the first resolutory impression tion as well as the second? Mr. MASON. To test the sense of the Senate, I move to postpone the resolution until Saturday. Mr. BADGER. I move to amend the motion by inserting Monday instead of Saturday. Mr. BADGER's motion was agreed to. PAY AND MILEAGE OF DAVID L. YULEE. The Senate then took up for consideration the resolution submitted by Mr. MORTON on the 7th instant, to allow per diem and mileage to David L. Yulee during the time he contested the seat of Mr. MALLORY. "Resolved, That there be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate to the Hon. David L. Yulee, a sum equal to the amount of mileage and per diem compensation of a Senator, from the commencement of the first session of the Thirty-second Congress to the 27th of August, 1852, the day on which the Senate decided that the Hon. Stephen R. Mallory, whose seat in the Senate was claimed by him, was duly elected a member of the Senate from the State of Florida." Mr. MORTON. All I can say in advocacy of the resolution is this: I only ask for my former colleague that justice or liberality which has heretofore been given to persons in similar cases. It is the custom of this and the other House to pay the persons who contest a seat the per diem and mileage for the proper time. Mr. BRIGHT. I do not know that I wish to be considered in the attitude of opposing the resolution; but as I was chairman of the committee that had charge of the contested-election case, I think it is my duty to remind the Senate that the committee unanimously reported against the right of Mr. Yulee to a seat here, and the Senate as unanimously confirmed that report. Now, if it is the pleasure of the Senate to pay the mileage and per diem under such circumstances, I shall not object; but I desire the Senate before they vote, to know that the committee were unanimous in reporting against the right of Mr. Yulee, and the Senate, without a dissenting voice, on the call of the yeas and nays, confirmed the report. Mr. DOUGLAS. I desire to say, and the Senate will recollect, that I wished a postponement of this question, that I might have an opportunity of examining it, and making a speech upon it. The examination I had given the subject convinced me, so far as it had gone, that there was great plausibility in the claim of Mr. Yulee, and I was inclined to think at that time-and I believe no man can doubt-that he believed he was entitled to a seat, and prosecuted his claim to it in good faith. No one that knows him can doubt that he believed that. And when a Senator prosecutes a claim in good faith, I have yet to learn that the Senate have ever declined to make such compensation as is asked by this resolution. If I recollect right, we have within this year paid a gentleman who did not claim a seat, or assert his right to it. is true there were members of the Senate who thought him entitled to a seat, although he did not claim it. He set up no claim whatever. I believe there has not been a case in the history of the Government, where there has been a contest, in which the party who lost his seat has not been paid. Certainly we have not refused to pay where there has been no imputation that the contest was not made in good faith. It Mr. MASON. I think it due to the occasion to say, as I was a member of the select committee 32D CONG.... on the subject, th Mr. BADGE if the vote of th of profit, but a m to be a legal, co his State, I thin the compensati tion will be ag Mr. BRIGH the remarks w doubted the sin referred to. I was honestly that at comm He prosecute to by the Sen |