ff 
 
 ^>& 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 The Library of Congress 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/speechofjohnaquiOOquit 
 
F 1783 
 
 ■ Q85 i SPEECH 
 
 Copy 1 
 
 JOHN A. QUITMAN, OF MISSISSIPPI, 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF THB 
 
 NEUTRALITY LAAVS: 
 
 IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION 
 
 APRIL 2 9, 1856. 
 
 WASHINGTON": 
 
 PRINTED AT THE UNION OFFICE. 
 1S56. 
 

VJ 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 JOHN A. QUITMAN, OF MISSISSIPPI. 
 
 Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, in the chair. 
 
 Mr. Chairman : Since the opening of this session of Congress, the 
 public mind has been almost exclusively absorbed by the slavery ques- 
 tion — that great issue which distracts the entire country, and seems to 
 menace with danger the integrity of the Union. Had it not been for 
 the excitement produced by that paramount question, a high sense of 
 duty would have impelled me, during even the first week of this ses- 
 sion, to present to the consideration of the House, and of the country, a 
 matter of deep and permanent interest to both. As I shall be neces- 
 sarily absent for several weeks, I will avail myself of this opportunity, 
 so kindly furnished by my friend from Florida, [Mr. Maxwell,] to 
 present my views on the subject of certain laws which now encumber 
 our statute-book ; those laws which seek to enforce our supposed neu- 
 tral obligations to other nations; those law«s which, though acquiesced 
 in for some years, are, in my opinion, injurious to the best interests ot 
 our country, and fatal to its hopes of future development. The pecu- 
 liar condition of many neighboring States and colonies, and the influ- 
 ence which their condition must exercise upon our own prosperity, ren- 
 der it highly important, at the present time, that we should review this 
 branch of our national policy. A radical change is required. For the 
 purpose of effecting this, I yesterday gave notice that I would introduce 
 a bill to repeal the objectionable provisions of the existing neutrality 
 law. This bill proposes to repeal the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, 
 eighth, tenth, and eleventh sections of "An act in addition to the act 
 for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and to 
 repeal the acts therein mentioned," approved April 20, IS 18. I frankly 
 admit, on the threshold, that my bill contemplates an entire alteration 
 of policy ; it advocates a complete abandonment of that extraordinary 
 system of legislative restriction by which the free action and enter- 
 prising spirit of our people are crippled, and to which it is a matter of 
 surprise that they have so long submitted. But, Mr. Chairman, we 
 live in an Age of Progress. Changes are constantly going on around us ; 
 and to them we must adapt our course. It is not to the past alone that 
 we must look to learn our present duties, or our future obligations. The 
 conduct of other nations, the aspect of adjacent States, the circum- 
 stances of each teeming hour — all these must be taken into considera- 
 tion. That which might, twenty years since, have been morally and 
 
4 
 
 politically right, may now be, not only morally wrong, but politically 
 suicidal. When one set of legislators may, by one act, bind down im- 
 mutably the energies of unborn millions, liberty ceases to exist. 
 
 Our government, in its theory, is purely representative. It should, 
 in reality, be the reflex of public sentiment ; but it too often lags be- 
 hind the march of opinion, and endeavors to control and direct that 
 power, from which it should properly take its color, as it does always 
 take its being. But when the full tide of popular principle is aroused, 
 the government must ultimately be carried with it. 
 
 While I believe that public opinion demands the change of policy 
 which I propose by this bill, I still approach the argument with diffi- 
 dence, doubting whether the short space of time allowed me will suf- 
 fice to render the conclusions as clearly forcible to the minds of others, 
 as they are to my own. But, Mr. Chairman, I act with a firm reliance 
 upon the strong American intellect, and with a conviction that my propo- 
 sition is founded on reason, justice, and sound policy. 
 
 " The law of notions," so called, does not profess to establish fixed 
 and invariable rules, applicable to all cases. Its object is, to define the 
 moral relations that mutually exist between independent States ; and 
 the character of those relations is necessarily modified by the course of 
 circumstances. To understand the obligations that we owe both to 
 ourselves and to other nations, we must first survey the position of the 
 political communities around us. A distant and cursory glance is all 
 that I can now bestow upon this instructive picture. 
 
 Of Canada, and the vast British possessions that skirt our northern 
 frontier, I will not speak. Tender the mild rule to which they are now 
 subjected by the mother-government, the people of those colonies wear 
 the appearance of content ; and it may be that they are preparing, 
 quietly and without violence, to take their place, at the proper time, in 
 the family of separate nations. 
 
 Turning to Mexico, our neighbor on the south and west, we shall 
 find her in a state of disintegration. Since 1820, when her mixed popu- 
 lation banished the Spanish tyrants, she has been rapidly sinking in 
 every moral and physical element ; and, during the last eight years, 
 she has preserved a state of sickly existence, by selling portions of her 
 territory to the United States. This method alone has sufficed to 
 prop the tottering foundations of her nationality ; and this is, indeed, 
 a sign that she is rapidly hastening to her final dissolution. The whole 
 history of man shows that the career of nations is upward or downward : 
 there is no level on which to rest, no halting-point for repose. Mexico, 
 with her delightful climate, her fertile soil, her jewelled mountains, and 
 her rich valleys, holding in her possession the commercial " philosopher's 
 stone" — the power to tax the commerce of the world by the junction 
 of the two oceans — Mexico, I repeat, is convulsed with annual revolu- 
 tions, is approaching a state of anarchy, and soon, wasted, plundered, 
 and depopulated, will become derelict, and liable to be seized upon as 
 a waif by some stronger power. She can be saved only by the ad- 
 vancing flood of our enterprising citizens. 
 
 Central America, though more distant, is brought into closer contact 
 with us, by the command which she exercises over an important route 
 
of travel between portions of our own country. She has now not 
 even the pretence of nationality. Her petty States, assuming each a 
 separate independence, torn by internal dissensions, and pillaged by 
 the avarice of rival chiefs, afford a fitting theatre for the display of 
 those European intrigues which do annoy our trade, and would check 
 our extension. The only hope of redeeming this beautiful country, by 
 the establishment of good government, rests in that patriotic band 
 which has lately transplanted the principles of democracy from the 
 United States to Nicaraguan soil. Although the extreme caution of 
 our government has left this new republic to sustain herself alone, 
 against the opposition of her prejudiced neighbors, still she has Ameri- 
 can energy to guide her advancement, and the sympathies of countless 
 American breasts, to cheer her in the hour of her perilous ordeal; and, 
 with these, she must finally triumph; she cannot fail to fulfil her glori- 
 ous mission, and cultivate the growth of civil and religious liberty in 
 Central America. 
 
 I now pass to Cuba — well termed, from her position, her fertility, her 
 genial temperature, her lovely scenery, her noble harbors, and her nat- 
 ural wealth, the "Gem of the Antilles." She is the' solitary 
 remnant of that gigantic despotism, which, stretching its arm across 
 the broad ocean, shattered the empires of Montezuma and the Incas, 
 and attempted to grasp and hold the fairest portions of this continent. 
 Of all her vast colonial possessions, Spain retains only this island. 
 And how does she retain it? To keep in subjection an unarmed white 
 population of little more than half a million of souls, she places on 
 guard a standing army of twenty thousand mercenaries — an army 
 larger in proportion than that with which Great Britain, in the revo- 
 lutionary war, endeavored to subjugate these American States, with 
 their three millions of inhabitants. The records of tyranny cannot 
 show, in any other land,. a military force so proportionately great. It 
 is kept in readiness to maintain a despotic colonial government; and 
 this species of government is, at best, but a fraud, because it perverts, 
 by its very nature, the true purposes for which government is consti- 
 tuted. Its object, instead of being to promote the prosperity of the 
 governed, is to enchain and rob them, for the benefit of foreign rulers, 
 disconnected with them as well in feeling as in location. The jicople 
 of Cuba, belonging to the pure while Caucasian race, and descended 
 from the best blood of the old Hidalgos, have displayed, in their hos- 
 tility to Spanish misrule, a unanimity unequalled in the annals of revo- 
 lution. They have attempted, again and again, to assert their inde- 
 pendence. Were it possible for them to do so, they would vindicate 
 their rights by open rebellion; but, stripped of arms, and deprived, by 
 a tyranny that penetrates to their very hearths, of the means of com- 
 bining their efforts, they are subdued by the mere force of the bayonet. 
 It seems, indeed, as though Spanish oppression, driven out from its 
 hundred provinces, has centralized and intensified all its powers in this 
 unhappy isle. And yet this iron system is protected, not only by the 
 moral influence, but even by the active interference of England and 
 France; and, sir, I regret to add, that the schemes of our enemies are, 
 to some extent, aided by the ill-advised course of our own authorities — 
 
that course of action which prevents the generous and noble emotions 
 of the American heart from bursting forth, and encouraging the people 
 of Cuba to strike for justice and freedom. 
 
 In glancing at San Domingo we see a strange and grotesque power, 
 under whose stupid sway that fair island, holding, with her commodious 
 ports, the same relation to the Caribbean sea that Cuba holds to the 
 Gulf of Mexico, is fast relapsing into barbarism. This caricature of 
 government is sustained by mighty European influences in its attempts 
 to exterminate the small white Dominican republic which still retains 
 a portion of the island. All the rest of insular America is European 
 or African. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, standing here among the statesmen of America, 
 I point to the surrounding scene. Behold it as it is ; and then look for- 
 ward a few years and contemplate what it will be. What reflections 
 does it not present? A world-startling drama is to be enacted, and 
 are we, the guardians of our country's weal, to have no part in the 
 performance? Do we not know that the development, the greatness, 
 and the" safety, even, of our beloved land, are deeply concerned? Is 
 it not our evident duty to aid in the accomplishment of that high des- 
 tiny which Providence has assigned to our republic of States? Does 
 not the splendor of that destiny already tinge the present with a 
 glorious promise of the future ? And is it not time now, if ever, to act 
 boldly and vigorously? 
 
 There is no statesman, no writer on the law of nations, no political 
 casuist, even, who will deny that it is the right and duty of every in- 
 dependent nation, not only to adopt all measures necessary for her 
 self-preservation, but also to remove all obstructions from the path of 
 her just prosperity. Kent, whose opinions are extremely conserva- 
 tive, says, in his Commentaries: 
 
 " Every nation has an undoubted right to provide for its own safety, and to take due pre- 
 caution against distant as well as impending danger. The right of self-preservation is para- 
 mount to all other considerations. A rational fear of an imminent danger is said to be a jus- 
 tifiable cause of war." Vol. 1, p. 23. 
 
 Vattel lays down the principle on this subject as follows: 
 
 * In vain does nature prescribe to nations, as well as to individuals, the care of their self- 
 preservation, and of advancing their own perfection and happiness, if it does not give them a 
 right to preserve themselves from everything that can render this care ineffectual. * * * 
 Every nation, as well as every man, has a right not to suffer any other to obstruct its preser- 
 vation, its perfection, and happiness — that is, to preserve itself from all injuries, and this right 
 is perfect, since it is given to satisfy a natural and indispensable obligation; for when we 
 cannot use constraint, in order to causs our right to be respected, the effect is very uncertain. 
 It is this right of preservation from all injury that is called the right of security. * * * It 
 is safest to prevent the evil when it can be done. A nation has a right to resist an injurious 
 attempt, and to make use of force and every honest means against the power that is actually 
 engaged in opposition to it, and even to anticipate its machinations," &c, &c, &c. Vattel, b. 
 2, ch. 4, sec. 49, 50. 
 
 I shall now, Mr. Chairman, endeavor to apply these rules to our 
 present position. The isthmus of America is the first point to be con- 
 sidered. A free, safe, and unobstructed passage across that isthmus, 
 either through the Mexican State of Tehuantepec, above the peninsula 
 of Yucatan, or south of the peninsula, and through Central America, is 
 indispensable to intercourse and internal commerce between the Atlan- 
 tic and Pacific portions of our country. It is now the only road ; for 
 
many years to come it will be the only commodious road of transit. I 
 know that there has been projected a magnificent idea of effecting, at 
 some distant day, a speedy and safe passage across the great plains of 
 the West, and over the rugged mountains that separate the Atlanlic 
 and Pacific slopes of our continent. I heartily wish success to this 
 plan; it is a fitting subject for the individual enterprise of our citizens, 
 and for such governmental encouragement as can be properly given ; 
 but, even if assisted by all the resources of our government, long years 
 must elapse before this undertaking can furnish a sure and expeditious 
 route across the continent, within our own territory. Until then, and 
 during the period of the greatest emigration, while our infant settle- 
 ments on the Pacific coast especially require our fostering care and 
 protection, the true and natural route of communication must be across 
 the isthmus of America. The unobstructed passage of the isthmus 
 is, therefore, a necessity. It can be secured only by becoming a part 
 of our country — bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh — or by being 
 held under our immediate protection. Treaties with all the powers of 
 Europe would be insufficient to answer our purpose. At the moment 
 when their use is most needed, treaties may be violated or abrogated. 
 The isthmus must be in friendly hands, or in our own. To delay in 
 seizing or securing it, is to commit an act of moral treason against our- 
 selves. When I speak of a, friendly power I mean one that is identi- 
 fied with us in common interests, and similar political institutions — a 
 power that, when the mighty struggle between despotism and consti- 
 tutional liberty shall take place, will be found at our side as a firm and 
 reliable ally. 
 
 It is equally necessary that Cuba should be united with us in the 
 ties of a common destiny. Her geographical position proclaims her 
 ours. That magnificent island lies along our southern borders so near, 
 that the sound of the morning gun, booming on the dawn of our great 
 anniversary of independence, awakes an echo among her cliffs. 
 
 A single glance at the map is sufficient to show that Cuba, with her 
 numerous deep and commodious harbors, stretching across the mouth of 
 the vast inland sea of America, commands the entire trade of the Gulf of 
 Mexico. It is the commercial and naval stragetic key of the richest pro- 
 ducts of the world. Not a bale, a barrel, or a box, that passes from the 
 valley of the Mississippi, or from the States bordering on the gulf, can 
 reach the high seas through their natural outlet, without being exposed to 
 the cannon that bristle from the fortresses of Cuba. Should this mistress 
 of the gulf ever be in the possession of a declared enemy, we would 
 be effectually cut off from the proper path of our southern and western 
 trade; the best productions of our country, amounting in value to one- 
 half of all its exports, would be at the mercy of the foe. From the 
 Cuban ports, so strongly protected by both nature and art, would sally 
 out, daily, fast war-steamers, swooping down, like kites, upon the 
 white-winged carriers of our commerce, and even threatening our 
 extensive and defenceless coasts. 
 
 The communication and transit-commerce between the Atlantic and 
 Pacific coasts being thus dependent upon the disposition of the Cuban 
 authorities, we can easily perceive the necessity for uniting that island 
 
8 
 
 * 
 
 •with us by strong and lasting interests. But this is not all. If these 
 considerations were not pressed upon us by the dictates of necessity, 
 there are other vast and paramount reasons little short of absolute 
 necessity — reasons which Vattel, in the quotation already presented, 
 designates as the pursuit of perfection and happiness; reasons in which 
 are involved our peace, our prosperity, and the progress of civilization 
 on this continent; and it is to these reasons that our immediate and 
 earnest attention must be directed. 
 
 As early as 1823, Mr. Jefferson, foreseeing the immense advantages, 
 since so fully developed, of uniting our interests with Cuba, wrote to 
 President Monroe as follows : 
 
 " I candidly confess, I have ever looked on Cuba as the most interesting addition which 
 could ever be made to our system of States. The control -which, with the Florida point, this 
 island would give us over the Gulf of Mexico, and the countries and isthmus bordering on it, 
 as well as those waters which flow into it, would fill up the measure of our political well- 
 being." 
 
 Mr. Stevenson, while minister to England, in a letter to Mr. Forsythe, 
 Secretary of State in 1837, says: 
 
 " The possession of Cuba by a great maritime power would be little less than the establish- 
 ment of a fortification at the mouth of the Mississippi, commanding the Gulf of Mexico and 
 Florida, and consequently the whole trade of the Western States, besides deeply affecting the 
 interests and tranquillity of the southern portions of this Union." 
 
 J. Q. Adams, when Secretary of State, in his instructions to Mr. 
 Nelson, in 1823, says : 
 
 " Cuba's commanding position, with reference to the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies, 
 &c, gives it an importance in the sum of our national interests with which that of no other 
 foreign territory can be compared." 
 
 In his letter to our minister at Madrid, written during the same year, 
 
 Mr. A. farther says: 
 
 " la looking forward to the probable course of events for the short period of half a century, 
 it is scarcely possible to resist the conviction that the annexation of Cuba to our Federal Re- 
 public will be indispensable to the continuance and integrity of the Union itself." 
 
 In 1852, Mr. Everett, Secretary of State, in reply to the French 
 minister, writes : 
 
 "The United States, on the other hand, would, by the proposed convention, disable them- 
 selves from making an acquisition which might take place without any disturbance of exist- 
 ing foreign relations, and in the natural order of things. The island of Cuba lies at our doors. 
 It commands the approach to the Gulf of Mexico, which washes the shores of five of our 
 States. It bars the entrance of that great river which drains half the North American conti- 
 nent, and with its tributaries forms the largest system of internal water communication in 
 the world. It keeps watch at the door-way of our intercourse with California by the Isthmus 
 route. If an island like Cuba, belonging to the Spanish crown, guarded the entrance of the 
 Thames and the Seine, and the United States should propose a convention like this to France 
 and England, those powers would assuredly feel that the disability assumed by ourselves was 
 far less serious than that which we asked them to assume." * * ' * * 
 
 " But whatever may be thought of these last suggestions, it would seem impossible for any 
 one who reflects upon the events glanced at in this note to mistake the law of American 
 growth and progress, or think it can be ultimately arrested by a convention like that pro- 
 posed. In the judgment of the President it would be as easy to throw a dam from Cape Flor- 
 ida to Cuba, in the hope of stopping the flow of the gulf-stream, as to attempt, by a compact 
 like this, to fix the fortunes of Cuba ' now and for hereafter;' or, as expressed in the French 
 text of the convention, 'for the present as for the future/ (pour le present commepour I'avenir,) 
 that is, for all coming time." * * * * * * * * 
 
 Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Mason, and Mr. Soule, our ministers to London, 
 Paris, and Madrid, having, in compliance with the wish of the Presi- 
 
9 
 
 dent, assembled atOstend, in 1854, for the purpose of conferring on Ae 
 subject of our relations with Spain, addressed a joint letter to tfte 
 Secretary of State, from which I read the following appropriate extract : 
 
 " But if Spain, dead to the voice of her own interest, and actuated by stubborn pride and 
 a false seuse of honor, should refuse to sell Cuba to the United States, then the question will 
 arise, what ought to be the course of the American government under such circumstances? 
 
 " Self-preservation is the first law of nature, with States as well as with individuals. All 
 nations have, at different periods, acted upon this maxim. Although it has been made the 
 pretext for committing flagrant injustice, as in the partition of Poland, and other similar 
 cases which history records, yet the principle itself, though often abused, has always been re- 
 cognised." * * • * * * * * * * * 
 
 " Whilst pursuing this course, we can afford to disregard the censures of the world, to which 
 we have been so often and so unjustly exposed. 
 
 . " After we shall have offered Spain a price for Cuba far beyond its present value, and thi3 
 shall have been refused, it will then be time to consider the«question, does Cuba, in the pos- 
 session of Spain, seriously endanger our internal peace an4 the existence of our cherished 
 Union? Should this question be answered in the affirmative, then, by every law, human and 
 divine, we shall be justified in wresting it from Spain if we possess the power; and this upon 
 the very same principle that would justify an individual in tearing down the burning house 
 of his neighbor, if there were no other means of preventing the flames from destroying his 
 own home. 
 
 " Under such circumstances, we ought neither to count the cost, nor regard the odds which 
 Spain might enlist against us. We forbear to enter into the question, whether the present 
 condition of the island would justify such a measure? We should, however, be recreant to 
 our duty, be unworthy of our gallant forefathers, and commit base treason against our pos- 
 terity, should we permit Cuba to be Africanized, and become a second St. Domingo, with all 
 its attendant horrors to the white race, and suffer the flames to extend to our neighboring 
 shores, seriouslj r to endanger, or actually to consume the fair fabric of our Union. We fear 
 that the course and current of events are rapidly tending towards such a catastrophe. We, how- 
 ever, hope for the best, though we ought certainly to be prepared for the worst.'* 
 
 From the earliest ages, the East India trade has been the most valu- 
 able object of commercial nations. The rise and fall of a hundred 
 dynasties have been dependent upon it. This commerce, when borne 
 on the backs of camels over the deserts of Asia, enriched Palmyra, 
 and built up those splendid palaces whose ruins, even after the lapse 
 of many centuries, are the wonder of travellers, and the shame of 
 modern art. It was afterwards seized upon by the genius of Alexan- 
 der, to found, and stamp with a conqueror's name, the glorious cily of 
 the Nile ; and, during the middle ages, it was a source of unfailing 
 wealih'to the merchant-princes of Italy. After the southern capes of 
 Africa had been rounded by the bold, navigator, this commerce attracted 
 the attention of England. She grasped it; and her hold upon it, at. 
 this day, is unloosened. From it she has derived the principal elements 
 of her naval importance. To perfect it, she has expended millions in 
 attempts to find a shorter passage through the icebergs of the Arctic 
 seas. To retain it, she has been engaged in numerous desperate strug- 
 gles. Her wars with Napoleon, and, more lately, her conflict with 
 Russia — no matter what may have been their alleged pretext — have, 
 in reality, grown out of her jealousy against all nations that might dis- 
 pute with her the exclusive control of this vast mine of commercial 
 wealth. 
 
 This lucrative trade, during the next twenty years, is destined to 
 take a new channel. When the isthmus of America shall be cut, tho 
 Gulf of Mexico will become the highway of communication, not only 
 between the most distant portions of our own territory, but also between 
 Europe and the East Indies, and China. The island of Cuba is, as I 
 have before shown, the key to this path of communication. The pos- 
 
/ 10 
 
 'I 
 sessors of that island will have the control of all this mighty trade, and, 
 consequently, will soon become the first naval power of the globe. 
 ' Such are the natural advantages of the American continent ; and to 
 'us, not to Europe, do they belong. We are the great power of this 
 hemisphere; it is not only our right, it is our positive duty, so to direct 
 our affairs that European interests and intrigues may gain no permanent 
 foothold upon our shores. Shall we, w T ho look upon our institutions as 
 promotive of the highest civilization, intellectual improvement, and 
 popular happiness, — shall we permit the natural advantages of our land 
 to be taken away ? Shall we yield them up, with calm indifference, 
 to the unfriendly powers of Europe? 
 
 We are not impelled* only by the laudable and patriotic desire of 
 advancing the interests of our own country; other considerations of a 
 higher character are presented by the aspect of the neighboring States. 
 Cuba has the most important claims upon our sympathy. There we 
 find a people of our own race, the white Caucasian man — a race born 
 for all noble endeavors, and capable of indefinite progression — we find 
 that people crushed to earth by the brutal despotism of an old, effete, 
 decayed, and corrupt nation, which is itself kept alive only by the 
 principle adopted by the more vigorous European nations of preserving 
 the "balance of power." The tyranny of Spain over the people of 
 Cuba is § reproach to the age, a disgrace to Europe, and an insult to 
 the United States. There is no legitimate government in Cuba ; there 
 is no law there. The will of a Spanish satrap changes the government 
 from day to day, and makes the law a thing of caprice. The sword, 
 the musket, and the garote are the ministers of sway. The immense 
 military force overawes the spirit of the inhabitants. The most sacred 
 principles of the social compact are violated; yet Europe sustains this 
 heinous fraud, and America tolerates it. Why is this ? Because 
 British statesmen with wily policy are determined to keep this com- 
 manding-point in the Gulf of Mexico, this outlet to the richest commerce 
 of the world, out of the hands of Americans, and under their own con- 
 trol. They have seen its transcendent value, present and prospective. 
 They know that, if revolutionized and independent, with a domestic 
 system similar to that of this Union, Cuba would always be our stead- 
 fast ally, even though she should not, as she undoubtedly would, be- 
 come a member of our confederacy. They know that, with, a ship- 
 canal across the isthmus of America, Cuba united with us, and the con- 
 trol of the great staples of sugar and tobacco under our hands, as that 
 of cotton now is, the commercial world would become tributary to us. 
 Hence it is that she has striven, with so much art and perseverance, to 
 maintain an ascendancy in Central America and Cuba. In the former 
 instance, she has succeeded in procuring from us, during a period of 
 political delirium, a most absurd treaty, and in placing upon it a con- 
 struction still more absurd ; in the latter, she has been pertinaciously 
 engaged in protecting Spanish tyranny, and in the unnatural and anti- 
 Christian attempt to establish, throughout the whole of insular America, 
 a barbaric black empire. The germ of her plot was exhibited in lay- 
 ing waste Jamaica, by destroying the proper relations between the 
 white and black races there, and endeavoring by law to make those 
 
11 
 
 equal whom God had made unequal. Her plot is further exposed by 
 her intrigues in San Domingo, where, unfortunately, she had the ad- 
 dress to defeat the ratification by that government of highly favorable 
 arrangements, entered into by the United States commissioner, Gen. 
 Cazneau, with the Dominican authorities.* Pursuing her schemes 
 with intense cunning, and indefatigable zeal, she has used her strong 
 influence with Spain to bring about the gradual abolition of negro 
 slavery in Cuba. Her intent is plain. She is well aware, that, at some 
 not distant day, public opinion in the United States, favoring the cause 
 of Cuban independence, must control the action of our government. 
 She has rallied all her skill to prevent this consummation so devoutly 
 to be wished. She desires to devote the American archipelago, the 
 great islands of the Caribbean sea, to the negro race. The history of 
 that race, from the beginning of time, shows that it is incapable of self- 
 government — that constitutional government cannot exist where that 
 race predominates — that arbitrary despotism necessarily accompanies 
 its social systems. Could this scheme be effected, the object of Eng- 
 land would be attained ; our progress in that quarter would be for- 
 ever checked. The protectorate of the black empire, or States, thus 
 brought into existence, would, of course, be vested in Great Britain. 
 She hesitates not, for purposes of interest or profit, to stoop to alliances 
 with a negro boy. On the other hand, we need not argue long to prove 
 that the United States could have no relations, political or diplomatic, 
 with a black empire. Such intercourse would taint with incurable 
 leprosy our political system, already affected to an alarming extent by 
 negrophilism. The end would be, internal convulsion, disunion, and 
 death. Let Great Britain accomplish her aims, (and accomplish them 
 she will, if we, with folded arms, supinely await the result of her 
 machinations), and she will not only reap the incalculable advantages 
 connected with the possession of this Gibraltar of the American Medi- 
 terranean, and forever retard our commercial advancement, but she 
 will also have the power to disturb, at her pleasure, the repose of the 
 contiguous States, and to "stimulate throughout our entire country the 
 agitation of that slavery question which, even now, is so pregnant with 
 mischief to the harmony of our institutions. 
 
 I am aware that the British minister has denied, somewhat informally, 
 that it is the design of his government to urge upon Spain the emanci- 
 pation of the negroes in Cuba. I have not lime to present the many 
 and conclusive proofs that the policy of England is such as I have 
 attributed to her. Can we not point to the " mixed commission," 
 English and Spanish, which her influence over Spain has enabled her 
 to secure in Cuba, for the purpose of examining into the status of a 
 portion of the negro population, with powers to declare certain classes 
 of that population free? Let us refer, also, to the instructions given 
 by Lord Palmerston to the British minister at Madrid, in 1S51, in 
 which he says: 
 
 "I hare to instruct your lordship to say to the Spanish minister, that the slaves forma 
 large portion, and by no means an unimportant one, of the people of Cuba; and that any 
 steps taken to provide for their emancipation would, therefore, as far as the black population 
 
 * See letter of General Cazneau —Appendix, 
 
{ 
 
 r 
 
 12 
 
 ( 
 
 ; is concerned, be quite in unison with the recommendation made by her Majesty's government, 
 "ithat measures should be adopted for contenting the people of Cuba, with 'a view to secure the 
 connexion between the Spanish crown and the island; and it must be evident that, if the ne- 
 gro population of Cuba were rendered free, thai fact would create a most powerful element ofre- 
 \ sistance to any scheme for annexing Cuba to the United Slates, where slavery exists." 
 
 Here is the plan of England plainly laid open to the gaze of all 
 
 civilized nations. She says to Spain that it would be quite in unison 
 
 with the policy of her Britannic Majesty's government that the negroes 
 
 of Cuba should be set free, because their emancipation would create 
 
 " a powerful element of resistance" to the annexation of that island to 
 
 the United States. Unfortunately, such would, indeed, be the case. 
 
 This proud country, which, when united in sentiment, might stand 
 
 against a world in arms, is unable to resent the insults of feeble Spain 
 
 when the slavery question may be, even incidentally, involved. Full 
 
 well does England appreciate this fact, and through its means she 
 
 seeks to obtain over us a safe and bloodless triumph. She could thus 
 
 place in our side a thorn which would cause our energies to fester and 
 
 gangrene, and might, perhaps, bring about national dissolution. None 
 
 but the' perversely blind can fail to perceive her serpent-like policy — a 
 
 policy in which France, since the advent of Louis Napoleon, has heartily 
 
 coincided. This important circumstance was announced by Lord 
 
 Clarendon, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, to the British Parliament. 
 
 He remarks: 
 
 " I will further add that the union between the two governments has not been confined to 
 the eastern question. The happy accord and good understanding between France and Eng- 
 land have been extended beyond the eastern policy to the policy affecting all parts of the 
 world ; and lam heartily rejoiced to say, that there is no portion of the two hemispheres, with 
 regard to which the policy of the two countries, however heretofore antagonistic, is not now 
 in entire harmony." 
 
 I have thus taken a very cursory view of the condition of Cuba and 
 the neighboring States of Central America and Mexico. I have shown 
 that, to preserve a free communication between the Atlantic and Paci- 
 fic portions of our Union, the right to the undisturbed transit of the 
 American isthmus is absolutely necessary ; and that, for the same pur- 
 poses, and to secure an outlet for the productions of the great valley of 
 the Mississippi and of the States bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, and 
 to protect a commerce now valued at more than four hundred millions 
 of dollars annually, the possession of Cuba by ourselves, or by some 
 reliable friendly power identified with us in principles, is equally a 
 necessity. I have shown, further, that paramount interests, involving 
 the safety, the prosperity, and the advancement of our beloved coun- 
 try — " the last and noblest realm of time," destined by Providence, 
 as we fondly hope, to promote the civilization, the moral and physical 
 improvement, the elevation and happiness of man on earth — that para- 
 mount interests not only justify us, but loudly urge us onwards, in 
 sweeping away every obstacle from the path of our glorious mission. 
 I have still further shown, that while we, from over-fastidious notions 
 of our neutral obligations to other powers, supinely rest in fancied se- 
 curity, or, what is worse, restrain by laws and prosecutions the giant 
 energies of our free and adventurous population, the never-slumbering 
 vigilance of our great commercial rival is at work, weaving intricate 
 meshes and planning dangerous combinations to entangle and destroy 
 
13 
 
 us. It is time for us to awaken from our lethargy. The matured, de- 
 liberate, and sound opinion of the people, I believe, demands our con- 
 currence. The government, which should always be the follower, a» 
 it is the offspring, of that opinion, is called upon to act. How shall 
 we act? By the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which I hold to be unconsti- 
 tutional, because it professes to impair the right of Congress to admit 
 new States, at least in Central America — by that treaty we have thus 
 far most foolishly bound ourselves to exercise no dominion in Central 
 America. Spain refuses to sell Cuba at any price. The hope of ac- 
 quiring that island by purchase was always a delusion. The white 
 people of Cuba, though crushed to earth by the iron heel of tyranny, 
 are still too proud, to give their assent to be transferred as chattels. 
 They deny that Spain has the right to sell them. Were we to declare 
 war against Spain, the evil would not be corrected. Were we to at- 
 tempt an invasion of the island, the landing of our troops would be 
 preceded by an edict, emancipating the slave population. It is known 
 that, in such event, the Captain- General has power to issue such edict. 
 Yet there before us, pregnant with ruin, hangs the dark and terrible 
 cloud. Cunning devices to cripple our commerce and check our pros- 
 perity are being rapidly matured. Public opinion cries out for action ; 
 and again I ask, how shall we act ? My answer is, meet that opinion ! 
 Let it speak, and be heard ; aye, more, let it have way ! Repeal your 
 neutrality laws. If you cannot, or will not, avert impending dangers, 
 at least do not manacle the hands of your free citizens, and prevent 
 them from protecting themselves. If you cannot, or will not, remove 
 the barriers that obstruct the career of our brilliant future, leave them 
 to the foresight, enterprise, and perseverance of the American people, 
 and, my word for it, they will prove themselves equal to the emergency. 
 
 I wish not to be understood as the advocate or apologist of any act 
 in violation of the moral obligations due from one nation to another. I 
 would faithfully observe and stringently enforce all the duties imposed 
 upon us by honor or good morals. As a legislator, I am ready to assent 
 to any regulation that will punish offences against the law of nations, 
 provided that that regulation does not infringe upon the reserved rights 
 of the citizen. Farther than this, Congress must not go. This govern- 
 ment has no powers beyond those delegated by the constitution. If the 
 power be not therein written, or clearly deducible therefrom, the acts 
 of Congress are usurpations, and void. By these rules I am disposed, 
 as my time will permit, to briefly examine our present neutrality laws. 
 It has been my misfortune to become somewhat acquainted with them, 
 and to witness the total disregard of the rights of the citizen with which 
 they have sometimes been administered by courts and judges. 
 
 The leading features of the eight sections of the act of April 20, 1S18, 
 "which my bill proposes to repeal, are, in my opinion, not only unneces- 
 sary and impolitic, but are repugnant to the intention of the constitu- 
 tion, and must be regarded as infringements of the personal rights of 
 the citizen. This act, as may be shown by the debates at the time of 
 its passage, is supposed to have been suggested by the representatives 
 of European courts, for the purpose of crippling the practical sympathy 
 manifested by the people of the United States in favor of some of the 
 
14 
 
 Spanish colonies in America then struggling for their freedom. Mr. 
 Clay, then Speaker of the House, and a warm advocate of the cause of 
 the young republics, descended from the Speaker's chair, and strenu- 
 ously opposed some of the provisions of the act, denouncing them as 
 placing our government in the attitude of an ally of European despot- 
 ism, and an enemy to the extension of liberal political institutions on 
 this continent. That bold and sagacious statesman saw the deep 
 schemes of European sovereigns whose colonial possessions in America 
 were jeopardized, and dared to assail the suicidal policy attempted to 
 be foisted upon us, under the specious pretence of non-interference and 
 national morality. In the History of Congress, published by Gales & 
 Seaton, p. 1403, in reference to the discussion of this bill, I find the 
 following : 
 
 "Mr. Clay offered some general remarks on the offensive nature of the bill, which he said, 
 instead of an act to enforce neutrality, ought to be entitled an act for the benefit of his Majes- 
 ty the King of Spain." 
 
 Again, on the 18th of March, it is reported of Mr. Clay: 
 
 "In the threshold of this discussion, he confessed he did not like much the origin of that 
 act. There had been some disclosures — not in an official form, but in such shape as to entitle 
 them to credence — that showed that act to have been the result of a teasing on the part of for- 
 eign agents in this country, which he regretted to have seen. But from whatever source it 
 sprung, if it was an act necessary to preserve the neutral relations of the country, it ought to 
 be retained ; but this he denied." * * * * * * * 
 
 " In its provisions it went beyond the obligations of the United States to other powers, and 
 that part of it was unprecedented in any nation which compelled citizens of the United States 
 to give bonds not to commit acts without the jurisdiction of the United States, which it is the 
 business of foreign nations, and not of this government, to guard against." 
 
 Again, on the same day, this bill being still under consideration, Mr. 
 Clay, alluding to the Spanish minister, said: 
 
 " He (Mr. C.) would not treat with disrespect even the minister of Ferdinand, whose cause 
 this bill was intended to benefit; he is a faithful minister, if, not satisfied with making repre- 
 sentations to the foreign department, he also attends the proceedings of the Supreme Court to 
 watch its decisions ; he affords but so many proofs of the fidelity for which the representatives 
 of Spain have always been distinguished. And how mortifying is it, sir, to hear of the hon- 
 orary rewards and titles, and so forth, granted for these services ; for, if I am not mistaken, 
 our act of 181*7 produced the bestowal of some honor on this faithful representative of his 
 Majesty ; and, if this bill passes which is now before us, I have no doubt he will receive some 
 new honor for his further success." 
 
 Mr. Clay concluded his speech thus : 
 
 " Let us put all these statutes out of our way except that of 1*794. When was that passed? 
 At a moment when the enthusiasm of liberty ran through the country with electric rapidity ; 
 when the whole country en masse was ready to lend a hand and aid the French nation in 
 their struggle, General Washington, revered name! the Father of his country, could hardly ar- 
 rest this inclination. Yet, under such circumstances, the act of 1V94 was found abundantly 
 sufficient. There was, then, no gratuitous assumption of neutral debts. For twenty years 
 that act has been found sufficient. But some keen-sighted, sagacious foreign minister finds 
 out that it is not sufficient, and the act of 1817 is passed. That act we find condemned by 
 the universal sentiment of the country ; and I hope it will receive further condemnation by 
 the vote of the House this day." 
 
 In the course of the same debate, Mr. Robertson also intimated the 
 charge that foreign influence, more than domestic policy, produced the 
 passage of that law. He argues : 
 
 "This might be a sufficient ground for the ministers of Portugal, of England, and of France 
 to proceed upon ; but shall we sympathise in their feelings on the subject, and be induced by 
 them to pass acts to shackle our citizens, when it is so easy to trace their remonstrances to a 
 general hostility to the cause of any people who are engaged in a struggle to ameliorate their 
 condition by changing their form of government ? It does not appear now that that act was 
 passed so much with a view to do what is just to ourselves, as to accommodate the views of 
 foreign nations. 
 
15 
 
 But, alas! European ideas were too much venerated; European in- 
 fluence prevailed, and this unfortunate system was engrafted upon us. 
 
 The objections to this act, as interpreted in our day, are : 
 
 Its creation of constructive crimes; 
 
 Its denial of the right of expatriation, and, under certain circumstances, 
 of emigration even ; 
 
 Its prohibition of the right of the citizen, in some cases, to avail him- 
 self of the rewards of his skill, his ingenuity, or his labor ; 
 
 Its loading with onerous burdens, and punishing with severe penal- 
 ties, fair commercial enterprises and speculations ; 
 
 Its conferring upon the President and the collectors of ports powers 
 inconsistent with the principles and dangerous to the institutions of our 
 country; 
 
 Its branding as criminal, acts noble, generous, and patriotic in them- 
 selves ; 
 
 Tts assuming to treat the citizens of a free country as the subjects or 
 property of the government. 
 
 If all these obnoxious features do not appear distinctly in the act, the 
 construction which has been placed upon them by, at least, one of the 
 judges of the Supreme Court, has marked them in bold and unmistaka- 
 ble outlines. 
 
 There is, however, at the start, a still more serious objection to the 
 whole of this legislation. It is not only not warranted by the consti- 
 tution — it is an attempt to take away from a free people rights which 
 they have never surrendered. It is, to say the least, founded on an 
 entire misconception of the relations which exist between the govern- 
 ment and the people under our peculiar system. 
 
 This federal government is a limited one. Constituted by the States 
 in their sovereign capacity, it possesses no powers but those clearly 
 delegated to it in the compact of union. This character of our govern- 
 ment is not left to inference: it is stamped in express words upon the 
 instrument that created it. There it rests, and casuistry cannot blot it 
 out. The "powers not delegated are reserved." " The enume- 
 ration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage 
 others retained by the people." When, therefore, it is proposed to 
 legislate upon any subject, the first inquiry must be, whether that sub- 
 ject is within the jurisdiction of Congress. The broadest constructionist 
 does not pretend that crimes and misdemeanors, generally, are within 
 the jurisdiction of the federal government. Whence, then, are derived 
 the powers claimed under the act in question? To what clause of the 
 constitution do you trace them? There is no semblance of a warrant 
 for them to be found in the constitution, unless they be included in the 
 power to define and punish "offences against the law of nations." If 
 the grant of power be not contained in that clause, it is not to be found 
 in any place. The act, to be defined and punished, must be an offence 
 against the law of nations. To offences of that class is this power limited; 
 to them alone can it be applied. Will it be pretended, that under this 
 power to define and punish, Congress has power to go out of the 
 law of nations, and n\ake offences or crimes of those acts whicn, by 
 the law of nations, are not condemned? If so, the whole fiVld of 
 criminal jurisprudence is thrown open to federal legislation, and the 
 
16 
 
 specification of a limitation becomes absurd. For instance, the sale of 
 breadstuff's, or of clothing, by one of our citizens, to a nation at war 
 with a friendly power, is not forbidden by the law of nations. Will it 
 be assumed, then, that Congress, under the power above quoted, can 
 make such sale a penal offence? Why can this not be done? Be- 
 cause the act is not an offence against the law of nations. That law 
 is referred to in the constitution as a positive existence. No authority 
 is given to Congress to alter or change it, or to create new offences. 
 Judging the act of 1818 by these rules, its leading provisions are clearly 
 without the pale of the authority of Congress. The very title of the 
 act, as if in contempt of the limitations of the constitution, proclaims 
 it an usurpation. Instead of an act to define and punish offences against 
 the law of nations, it purports to be "An act for the punishment of cer- 
 tain crimes against the United States." Like the alien and sedition laws, 
 it attempts to make a crime of that which was before not even an of- 
 fence. Now, the law of nations, even as known and acted upon in 
 Europe, where the government, generally, has entire control over the 
 citizen, or rather the subject — there, I repeat, the law of nations does 
 not regard it as an offence for the citizen to take service under a foreign 
 government at war with a friendly power. The usage is the reverse. 
 Vattel, b. 3, ch. 7, sec. 110, gives the rule and example: 
 
 " The quarrels of another cannot deprive me of the free disposition of my rights in the pur- 
 suit of measures which I judge advantageous to my country. Therefore, when it is a custom 
 in a nation, in order for employing and exercising its subjects, to permit levies of troops in 
 favor of a power in whom it is pleased to confide, the enemy of this power cannot call these 
 permissions hostilities. * *■ He cannot even claim, with any right, that the like should be 
 granted him," &c. * * * " The Switzers grant levies of troops to whom they please, and 
 nobody has thought proper to quarrel with them on this head." 
 
 If, then, it be not an offence against the law of nations, even accord- 
 ing to the European code, for the citizen of any neutral state to take 
 service under a belligerent nation what constitutional power has Con- 
 gress to prohibit the right of a free American citizen to lend his intel- 
 lect, his wealth, or his sword, to any cause which he believes to be 
 just? And jet the first and second sections of the act of 1818 declare 
 the exercise of this right to be a high crime, and worthy of fine and im- 
 prisonment. 
 
 The third, fifth, eighth, ninth, and eleventh sections of the act are 
 obnoxious to objections of a similar character. They, in substance, 
 forbid, under severe penalties, the selling, fitting out, arming, furnish- 
 ing, or adding to the force of any ship or vessel intended to be employed 
 in the service of any foreign state, or to cruise or commit hostilities 
 against the citizens, subjects, or property of any foreign state ; and, 
 furthermore, they invest the President and the collectors of ports with 
 extraordinary powers, to seize and detain suspected vessels. Now, 
 many of these acts, if hot all of them, thus made criminal and severely 
 penal, are in strict conformity with the rights of neutrals, acknowledged 
 by the law of nations. The property thus risked may, if seized by a 
 belligerent, be confiscated ; but the neutrality of the country whose citi- 
 zens are engaged in such trade has never been considered as violated 
 thereby. Valtel, in the same connexion, proceeds thus : 
 
 tl Further, it may be affirmed, on the same principles, that if a nation trades in arms, timber, 
 ships, military stores, &c, I cannot take it amiss that it sells such things to my enemy, pro- 
 
17 , 
 
 vided it does not refuse to sell them to me also. It carries on its trade without any design of 
 injuring me ; and in continuing it the same as if I was not engaged in war, that nation gives 
 me no just cause of complaint. * * * It is certain that, as they have no part in my quar- 
 rel, they are under no obligations to abandon their trade, that they may avoid furnishing my 
 enemy with the means of making war. * * * They only exercise a right which they are 
 under no obligations of sacrificing to me." 
 
 The question, then, recurs, has Congress a right to brand as crini 
 inal, acts clearly permitted by the law of nations ? 
 
 The sixth section of the act proposed to be repealed, although in its 
 phraseology, and still more in the interpretation which judicial advo- 
 cates of constructive powers have placed upon it, it is more odious to 
 the unaffected impulses of the American heart than any of the others, 
 is still not so palpably at variance with the rights of neutrals, conceded 
 by the laws of nations. This section forbids, under severe penalties, 
 any person within our territory to begin, set on foot, provide, or prepare 
 the means for any military expedition or enterprise to be carried from 
 this country against the territories of any foreign prince or people with 
 whom we are at peace. This clause, if strictly construed, according 
 to the rules which should govern the interpretation of penal statutes, 
 means only to forbid military associations in the United States, intended 
 to proceed from thence in full military organization ; but it has been 
 construed by government officials, executive and judicial, to embrace 
 in its penal denunciations those who separately, as private individuals, 
 and without military organization, may choose to leave our country, 
 with or without arms, to combine together elsewhere, for the purpose 
 of aiding an oppressed people to achieve their political independence. 
 Such acts, on the part of citizens, do not involve the neutrality of our 
 country ; therefore, penal laws to punish them are not only beyond the 
 scope of congressional powers, but are also infringements on the un- 
 questionable right of the citizen as well to expatriate himself, and 
 unite his fortunes with those of another political community, as to em- 
 igrate to foreign lands, and there follow pursuits which may not be 
 inconsistent with his allegiance to his country. 
 
 I have thus, Mr. Chairman, in this brief argument, considered the 
 constitutionality of this law, with reference to the European views of 
 ihe law of nations. 1 have shown that the act of 1818 restrains indi- 
 vidual rights, private enterprise, and personal liberty, beyond the re- 
 quirements of the international code ; and, consequently, is without the 
 pale of congressional powers. The power " to define and punish 
 offences against the law of nations" was confided by the constitution 
 to Congress, not to the Executive or judiciary, for the sole purpose of 
 preventing individuals from compromising the neutrality of the United 
 States. It was never intended to control the private enterprises or 
 speculations of the people. So far, then, as these enterprises do not, 
 according to the established international code, involve the neutrality 
 of the government, it is powerless to restrain them, because the right to 
 do so has never been delegated. The government is responsible to the 
 citizen, but not for him. He may commit, without responsibility to 
 any earthly power, many deeds which the government cannot so com- 
 mit. The latter is always responsible. The American citizen sits en- 
 throned within the charmed circle of his reserved rights, the monarch 
 2 
 
18 
 
 of his own actions. The reservation of these individual rights is the 
 noblest feature of our system ; and he is its worst enemy who, by legis- 
 lative usurpation or judicial construction, would seek to impair them. 
 The true patriot should watch and guard them from secret as well as 
 open foes. 
 
 Even if the penal laws which I have arraigned were strictly con- 
 stitutional, I would still oppose them as unwise, impolitic, and against 
 the genius of our free institutions. They are founded upon the false 
 assumption that the government should direct the morals and control 
 the sentiment of the people. It is sheer political hypocrisy, or, at least, 
 self-stultification, to crown with honor the memory of the good man 
 Lafayette, whose portrait is deemed worthy to decorate this republican 
 Hall, in company with that of our own Washington, in our gratitude 
 for the aid which, in despite of his country's laws, he rendered us in 
 the ' dark hour of our revolutionary struggle, if we are by legislation to 
 stigmatize as criminal the efforts of our own citizens, to bear assistance 
 to a neighboring people, groaning under the yoke of an iron despotism — 
 a despotism to which the condition of our ancestors was almost a state 
 of freedom. 
 
 If our moral and national obligations to other nations require us to 
 curb, by severe penal statutes, the adventurous and progressive spirit 
 of our people, and we have the constitutional right to do so, let the 
 bond be executed. If no such obligations rest upon us, and we are left 
 free to consult the best interests of our country, it is my opinion that, 
 even if we had the power to retard the progression of the age, it would 
 not be exactly the perfection of wisdom for us to do so. Keeping in 
 view the remarkable and interesting condition of adjacent countries, 
 we cannot fail to perceive that we have reached an epoch, pregnant 
 with mighty events. A year, a month, even, may determine whether 
 Mexico, Central America, and Cuba shall be European or American. 
 If, as I fear, the eyes of the two great powers of western Europe are 
 directed to their acquisition, how easy would it be for them, with their 
 fleets and their armies now unemployed, to effect their purposes? 
 How long, bloody, and destructive would be the struggle, should we 
 attempt to assert the rights which, since the days of Monroe, we have 
 claimed upon this continent, and which, but for the ignorant policy of 
 the act of 1S18, we would now peaceably and without violence pos- 
 sess! But for that act, Tehuantepec, Nicaragua, and perhaps all 
 Central America, would be now Americanized, advancing and pros- 
 perous, under a liberal and stable form of government. In Cuba the 
 tyrant-flag of blood and gold would have given place to the tri-color of 
 independence, or to the starry and more glorious banner that floats 
 " o'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave." The bayonets 
 of Spain, with the war- ships of France and England, could not have 
 supported in that lovely island an unrelenting despotism, had not the 
 prvate American aid, invoked by the patriots of Cuba, been cut off by 
 the stringent application of this law : 
 
 An able editorial of the "Union," under date of March 11, 1855, 
 truly says: 
 
 " The well known fact that Spain is indebted to the United States for the continuance of 
 her dominion in Cuba, so far from inclining her to be grateful or even just, has only made her 
 
19 
 
 more arrogant and insensible to reason or liberality. But for the neutrality laws of the 
 United States, which are far more strict than those of any other government, Cuba would at 
 this moment have been at least independent, if not annexed to this confederation, had such 
 been its desire. The government of the United States was the great instrument that arrested 
 what in a few months would have been an invasion that no power in or out of Cuba could 
 have resisted. The government of the United States preserved Cuba to Spain," &c. 
 
 Who will say that liberal civil institutions, borne over our borders by 
 the energy of freemen, and planted in the misruled countries around us, 
 would not have, promoted civilization, and added to the sum of human 
 happiness ? What American patriot, who appreciates the beneficent 
 results to our country which might have flowed from such sources, by 
 not only securing our safety, but also many incalculable commercial 
 advantages, does not deeply regret the false policy that manacles our 
 hands, while those of our rivals are unconfined ? The monarchies of 
 Europe are annexing to their dominions vast territories in Asia, Africa, 
 Australasia, and the islands of the South Sea. They take away the 
 liberties of the conquered people, and establish arbitrary colonial gov- 
 ernments, without regard to the opinions of the governed. We carry 
 to the annexed free representative systems, and unite them with us as 
 equals. The oligarchs oppress and impoverish their possessions ; yet 
 the false sentiment of the world styles them philanthropists, and fastens 
 on us the name of "fillibusters." Let us accept the word. As the 
 term "rebel," in Ireland designates the patriot, so let the term "filli- 
 buster" designate the bold, fearless man of thought and action in 
 America. 
 
 I have, Mr. Chairman, reflected mucn upon the subject of thsee 
 neutrality laws, and I believe that of 1818 such a departure from the 
 theory of our institutions as to be incapable of amendment. I there- 
 fore propose to repeal all its prominent features at once. When it shall 
 come up for consideration, I shall either propose to return to the act of 
 1794, or present some proper bill, to perform our absolute duties to 
 other nations, and no more. 
 
 I know that the public voice calls for some action on this subject. 
 The true secret of national prosperity is progress. Understanding the 
 value, of free institutions, we cannot but wish to extend them wherever 
 the force of our example may penetrate. A social system, like ours, 
 is most secure when its range is widest, and its influence is most ex- 
 tensively felt. We can afford to profit by the follies of the past ; we 
 can still more afford to profit by the prestige of our name. We are too 
 dangerous an element in politics to be loved by the monarchical gov- 
 ernments of the Old World. They tolerate us only because they can- 
 not crush us ; it is upon our own continent, within and around us, that 
 they seek to fan the flames of discord. By firmly establishing our in- 
 fluence upon this continent, we wrench away the last offensive weapon 
 from their hands. Shall we now pause in our career ? I, for one, will 
 not be satisfied that our experiment of free institutions has been fully 
 tested, until it has gained the fairest portions of this continent for its 
 field, and the noblest types of the white race for its supporters. When 
 I look back to the past, I can form but one conjecture lor the future ; I 
 rest in the faith, that our favored country will steadily ascend througfe 
 all the grades of her glorious destiny. 
 
20 
 
 APPENDIX. 1 ; 
 
 Washington, April 25, 1856. 
 
 Dear General. Feeling, as every true citizen mast, a deep interest in the vindication of the 
 honor of my country, outraged by incessant acts of foreign aggression, I have heard with 
 great satisfaction that you propose to arraign before Congress and the people that absurd con- 
 tradiction to every independent principle of American policy, the neutrality act of 1818. That 
 law, and the obsolete ideas on which it is founded, constitute the most efficient aid and sup- 
 port to European interference and dictation in American affairs. 
 
 Our country can never occupy its proper and honorable position among other nations while 
 the freedom of our citizens is shackled by laws which seem made for the sole and exclusive 
 benefit of foreign and unfriendly powers. 
 
 Among the many instances of European interference in American affairs, I wish to call your 
 attention to one in which I have it in my power to place before you the most undeniable evi- 
 dence of a direct and insulting attack on the freedom and dignity of our inter-American 
 relations. 
 
 The Dominican republic had repeatedly and earnestly solicited the attention of the United 
 States to its peculiar situation. It is the only territory in all that grand circle of islands which 
 enclose the Caribbean sea, and command our isthmus routes to the Pacific, under an inde- 
 pendent American flag. 
 
 Of all that one hundred thousand square miles of tropical wealth, with their three and a 
 half millions of inhabitants, the Dominican republic is the only free white and republican 
 government; all the rest of the West India empire is European and African. The Domini- 
 cans alone have achieved by their unassisted courage an independent, constitutional, and 
 American existence. Their central and commanding position, their splendid harbors and inex- 
 haustible natural resources, offer great and peculiar advantages to our commerce, and it was 
 manifestly our interest to encourage the prosperity and independence of this American State. 
 
 In pursuance of this just and enlightened policy, I was commissioned by President Pierce, 
 in June, 1854, to negotiate a treaty with the Dominican republic; and, after encountering 
 many difficulties, through the intrigues and false representations of the French and English 
 agents — who notoriously make common cause with the negroes of Hayti against the whites — 
 the terms were fully agreed upon, and the 8th of September, 1854, named for the final signa- 
 ture of the treaty. 
 
 Meantime, an allied squadron had been sent for by these agents, and sustained by its pres- 
 ence before the Dominican capital, Sir Eobert H. Schomburgh, acting, as he declared, under the 
 directions of Lord Clarendon, warned the Dominican government that it could not be per- 
 mitted to enter into treaty relations with " such a suspicious and dangerous power as the 
 United States, without the previous knowledge and sanction of France and England." If the 
 Dominicans resisted this dictation, they were threatened with a Haytien invasion. Under the 
 specious title of " the mediating powers," France and England always hold the negroes in 
 readiness to be let slip like bloodhounds on the whites at the east end of Hayti, if they prove, 
 at any time, refractory to European policy. 
 
 The pretext for this forcible and high-handed dictation in our inter- American negotiation 
 was, that the treaty contained some encouragement for the establishment of steam lines, and 
 provided for a suitable naval and coal depot in the admirable bay of Samana. This is the 
 natural and invaluable point of intersection for our lines of trade with South America and 
 Africa, as well as Central America and the West Indies. It is to the Caribbean sea and the 
 outlets of our isthmus routes, what Cuba is to the Gulf of Mexico and the mouth of the Mis- 
 sissippi. These European powers would not permit this American State to enjoy the advan- 
 tages which nature has lavished upon it, and at their interference and command, Samana re- 
 mains a closed port to our citizens. 
 
 So many other American interests were at stake, that it seemed advisable to waive the 
 question of a coal depot, in order to deprive France and England ot every excuse for combin- 
 ing with Hayti to attack the Dominican territory. Besides, to confess the whole truth, I had 
 in view the necessity of bringing out and obtaining conclusive proof of the character and ex- 
 tent* of these European encroachments. Actuated by these considerations, and the critical 
 position, of the Dominican Republic, the article respecting a depot at Samana was omitted in 
 the second convention. 
 
 The treaty, thus modified, was signed by all the plenipotentiaries October 5, after every 
 clause and article had received the full concurrence of the Dominican executive. It secured 
 perfect liberty of conscience and worship to our citizens, and the most complete right to ac- 
 quire, hold, and bequeath all kinds of property in the Dominican Republic. 
 
 It reciprocally guarantied all advantages of trade, travel, and residence by the most favored 
 nations, and it particularly recognised and established the important principle — without which 
 no American treaty ought to receive the seal of the United States — that the flag covers the 
 goods, and prohibits arbitrary search on the high seas. Perhaps it was this last, and truly 
 American principle, which provoked the displeasure of England, wlio seems to persist in her 
 title of " mistress of the seas," even on our American coasts. 
 
21 
 
 After the promulgation of the treaty with the United States the French and British consuls 
 called an allied squadron for the second time before the Dominican capital to overawe that 
 government and prevent its ratification. The unfortunate Dominicans had no alternative but 
 obedience, and the convention with the United States was sacrificed in the mode dictated by 
 the agents of France and England. 
 
 These agents even went further and demanded, as the price of their mediation with Hayti, 
 that the Dominican government should stipulate, as a permanent bar to the establishment of 
 American steam lines and depots, and the introduction of American settlers on Dominican 
 soil — 
 
 " Not to permit any government to found or occupy any depots or factories of any kind on 
 the Dominican territory ; not to tolerate the landing on the said territory of parties of emi- 
 grants armed or unarmed," &c. 
 
 Such privileges had been previously conceded and secured to European companies by spe- 
 cial grants, and these prohibitions were expressly aimed at Americans. 
 
 I cannot severely blame the Dominican government for receding from its engagements with 
 the United States with the evidence I had before me that it was under stringent European 
 duress. I have the evidence of this interference at command, and also of the protection af- 
 forded by the French and British consuls to the negro conspirators, who had planned the gen- 
 eral massacre of the white authorities, and there is no doubt that the British consul was an 
 active accomplice in the plot. 
 
 The Dominican journals which advocated the American treaty were suppressed, and the 
 editors were obliged to leave the country at the direct instance of the European agents, who 
 in all their aggressions on American rights publicly avowed they were carrying out the 
 wishes of their respective governments. 
 
 For this whole class of encroachments there is but one available answer — suspend the neu- 
 trality laws until the encroaching powers shall give ample security for future non-interference, 
 or so modify them as to allow our citizens the same advantages in defending, that unfriendly 
 powers have in attacking American interests. The people will be with you in your efforts to 
 open a new and noble era in our foreign policy ; and firmly trusting in your triumphant 
 success, 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM L. CAZNEAU. 
 

L^RY OF CONGRESS 
 
 015 817 92^ 1 
 
^ 
 
 JLS1 5 817 927 1 
 
 conservation Resources 
 Lig-Free® Type I 
 Ph 8.5. Buffered