^4i <-<r ^zx -(" 
 CC CjC C 
 
 CC dec 
 ccc cr< c 
 
 Ccc <ZC C 
 
 €. < C <i^ 
 
 
 "f ccjir^cr 
 c CC« CC 
 
 1 C. <<3 'CC ' 
 
 C C<J$- cr <^ , 
 r o .CC:c.'C <: 
 
 :c ccr c 
 
 C CC -' , 
 
 < CT: < <r dc vc CLeC 
 
 v.cc;<:<: c<cic 
 r c c<: r sootc 
 ■c < ccr <i'- cc<::c,< 
 
 e <3C CTcc <<: Cc<r a, ccc 
 
 
 c < CC 
 
 ^ic: c cc: ccc <? ccc 
 <r^ <c^ CC cxT 
 
 T cTcc cs-rcgc- 
 ^^" ccc- CC c c <:c ^ • c ^c: c:c <^ c c cc< c<^ 
 
 O C ^c 
 
 - c cu 
 
 [ <. <: 
 
 C cC <j 
 
 L c c 
 
 cc< 
 cc< 
 
 ccc cCCo 
 CC CCCC' 
 
 Ccc'C^c:c:c 
 
 <3CCC CC< C^ 
 
 C CCCC 
 
 <: cccc - 
 
 ^c <;sccc 
 A ^CdCC < 
 
 IlIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 
 
 # -— J 
 
 t [FORCE COLl-ECTION.J | 
 
 5* - /" 
 
 free c c <jC c cc5L4>~c 
 
 cscck:' 
 
 sccc c: c <^ 
 
 fecc:c<r 5 5: 
 
 ^UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. | 
 
 r <i «Jc ' 
 
 
 _Jc^ C CC 
 
 CCC'^ C CC 
 
 \CC.-^ C ccc c 
 
 cce >^^''c cc ^> c 
 
 ice ^^ ' CcCCTcc. 
 
 <c<%c 4^cc 'C c<c<:>c 
 
 '<c^ C ^^>^< '^'^ <.'CCCCC 
 
 tC d cCCC C C ^<;^^ 
 
 c.dCC^^" 
 
 '" cd-c^> > ^ 
 
 <<LCC CC C 
 
 ^dd:ccco 
 
 ^CiiCCXScC 
 c<.cj«ci c cc^ < 
 c<ccL^d: c <^c 
 
 cc^ad c 
 
 cc 
 
 cc<«d:c dx 
 cc^acc dc 
 
 Cd C CCt.c^Bd c dc 
 c ccd c cccc^at c <:< 
 
 -"^C CCC«CCCC 
 r c cccvc<«cr c cc 
 
 : c CC 
 
 1 C®«1 CCC 
 
 1 c cc 
 
 CCC 
 
 ^c c< 
 
 : ccc 
 
 cC< 
 
 ;cC v^-CC C C( 
 
 ' 4C ^< <cc:c ccc<: <: «- 
 
 Tccc <r <?^c C4LCC c-^ccd c c 
 ccc d <^c cccc c<rc C C 
 
 ' AC ■ c c -^CCC d CC < cC 
 
 =^c< c C.5CCCC S^S''^ 
 ^■c < ■< «:<<c d. c< 'c 
 
 cc< 
 cc^ 
 
 cc 
 
 cC< 
 
 < <L 
 
 cc c 
 
 CC c 
 
 ^c c 
 
l^f c.^ 
 
 
 
 <±<^^ 
 
 c^ c < 
 
 
 
 ■c<C'<CO..< 
 
 
 
 ^<5<:^< c 
 
 
 
 
 r- . '-tree CiCK 
 
 fC <z c c c c<< 
 
 
 rc<:_ <ii^" .."_ 
 
 
 ^X^CIcc 
 
 
 :ccc<j^ccx: 
 ::_<Lc,i^::c<:< 
 
 „ .^ .^c 
 
 <cc<:<r-r<:^ 
 
 
 cc 
 
 ^3^ 
 
 
 «^«c:<i'o 
 
SPEECH 
 
 Mr, WEBSTER, of Mass, 
 
 HOiySB 0¥ ^ETll|lSli3<TATIVES, 
 
 THS VAZVAMA XttlSSIQUr. 
 
 DELIVERED ON T^E 14th APRIL, 1826, 
 
 Uf 
 
 r 
 
 |]^a$9)mston : 
 
 PRINTED BY DAVIS & FORCE, (FRANKLIN'S HEAJO,) 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. 
 
 1826. * 
 
f /4fOf 
 
 The following Kesolution being under consideration, in Committee of 
 the Whole House upou the state cf the Union, viz : 
 
 ''Resolved, That in the opinion of the House it is expedient to ap- 
 propriate the funds necessary to enable the President of the United 
 States to send Ministers to the Congress of Panama,'' 
 
 Mr. McLaite, of Delaware, submitted the following amendment 
 thereto, viz : 
 
 "It being understood as the opinion of this House, that, as it has 
 always been the settled policy of this Government, in extending our 
 commercial relations with foreign nations, to have with them as little polit- 
 ical connection as possible, to preserve peace, commerce, and friendship, 
 with all nations, and to form entangling alliances with none ; the Min- 
 isters who may be sent shall attend at the said Congress in a diplomatic 
 character merely; and ought not be authorized to discuss, consider, or. 
 consult, upon any proposition of alliance, offensive or defensive, between 
 this country and any of the Spanish American Governments, or any 
 stipulation, compact, or declaration, binding the United States in any 
 ivay, or to any extent, to resist interference from abroad, with the 
 domestic coneerns of the aforesaid Governments; or any measure which 
 shall commit the present or future neutral rights or duties of these United 
 States, either as may regard European nations, or between the several 
 States of Mexico and South America : leaving the United States free to 
 adopt, ih any event which may happen, affecting the relations of the 
 South American Governments, with each other, or with foreign nations 
 such measures as the friendly disposition cherished by the American 
 People towards the People of those States, and the honour and inter- 
 est of this nation may require ;"' 
 
 To which M. Rives proposed to add, after the words "aforesaid 
 governments,'' in the l2th line, the following: 
 
 "Or any compact or engagement by which the United States shall be 
 pledged to the Spanish American States, to maintain, by force, the prin- 
 ciple that no part of the American continent is henceforward subject to 
 colonization by any European power." — 
 
 ^i^dy 
 
i<^ 
 
 The preceding motions to amend being und:er 
 consideration, 
 
 Mr. WKBSTER, of Massachusetts, addressed 
 the Committee as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman: I am not ambitious of ampli- 
 fying this discussion. On the contrary, it is my 
 anxious wish to confine the debate, so far as I par- 
 take in it, to the real and material questions be- 
 fore us. 
 
 Our judgment of things is liable, doubtless, t© 
 be affected by our opinions of men. It would be 
 .affectation in me, or in any ohe, to claim an ex- 
 emption from this possibility of bias. I can say, 
 however, that it has been my sincere purpose to 
 consider and discu^ss the present subject, with the 
 single view of finding out what duty it devolves 
 upon me, as a member of the House of Represen- 
 tatives. If any thing has diverted me from that 
 sole aim, it has been against my intention. 
 
 I think, sir, that there are two questions, and 
 two only, for our decision. The first is, whether 
 the House of Representatives will assume the 
 responsibility of withholding the ordinary appro- 
 priation, for carrying into effect an _ Executive 
 measure, which the Executive Department has 
 constitutionally instituted ? The second, whether, 
 
if it will not withhold the appropriation, it will 
 yet take the responsibility of interposing, with its 
 own opinions, directions or instructions, as to the 
 manner in which this particular Executive measure 
 shall be conducted ? 
 
 I am, certainly, in the negative, on both these 
 propositions. I am neither willing to refuse the 
 appropriation, nor am I willing to limit or restrain 
 the discretion of the Executive, beforehand, as to 
 the manner in which it shall perform its own ap- 
 propriate constitutional duties. And, sir, those of 
 us who hold these opinions have the advantage of 
 being on the common* highway of our national po- 
 litics. We propose nothing new ; we suggest no 
 change ; we adhere to the uniform practice of the 
 government, as I understand it, from its origin. It 
 is for those, on the other hand, who are in favour 
 of either, or both, of the propositions, to show us 
 the cogent reasons %vhich recommend their adop- 
 tion. The duty is on them, to satisfy the House 
 and the country that there is something in the pre- 
 sent occasion which calls for sueh an extraordinary 
 and unprecedented interference. 
 
 The President and Senate have instituted a pub- 
 lic mission, for the purpose of treathigwith foreign 
 States, The Constitution gives to the President 
 the power of appointing, with the consent of the 
 Senate, Embassadors, and other public ministers. 
 Such appointment is, therefore, a clear and un- 
 questionable exercise of Executive power. It is, 
 indeed, less connected with the appropriate duties 
 of this House, than almost any other Executive 
 act ; because the office of a public minister is not 
 
created by any statute or law of our own Govern- 
 ment. It exists under the law of nations, and is 
 l-ecognised as existing by our Constitution. The 
 acts of Congress, indeed, limit the salaries of public 
 ministers ; but they do no more. Every thing else, 
 in regard to the appointment of public ministers, 
 their numbers, the time of their appointment, and 
 the negotiations contemplated in such appoint- 
 ments, is matter for Executive discretion. Every 
 new appointment to supply vacancies in existing 
 missions, is under the same authority. There are, 
 indeed, what we commonly term standing missions, 
 so known in the practice of the government, but 
 they are not made so by any law. All ijnissions 
 rest on the same ground. Now the question is, 
 whether the President and Senate, having created 
 this mission, or, in other words, having appointed 
 the ministers, in the exercise of theiV undoubted 
 constitutional power, this House will take upon 
 itself the responsibility of defeating its objects, and 
 rendering this exercise of Executive power void r 
 
 By voting the salaries, in the ordinary way, we 
 assume, as it seems to me, no responsibility what- 
 ever. We merely empower another branch of the 
 government to discharge its own appropriate du- 
 ties, in that mode which seems to itself most con- 
 ducive to the public interests. We are, by so vot- 
 ing, no more responsible for the manner in which 
 the negotiation shall he conducted, than we are for 
 the manner in which one of the Heads of Depart- 
 ment may discharge the duties of his office. 
 
 On the other hand, if we withhold the ordinary 
 jneans, we do incur a heavy responsibility. \Ye 
 
ftiterfere, as it seems to me, to prevent the action of 
 the Government, according to constitutional forms 
 and provisions. It ought constantly to be remem- 
 bered that our whole power, in the case, is merely 
 incidental. It is only because public ministers must 
 have salaries, like other officers, and because no sa- 
 laries can be paid, but by our vote, that the subject 
 is referred to us at all. The Constitution vests the 
 power of appointment in the President and Senate ; 
 the law gives to the President even the power of fix- 
 ing the amount of salary, within certain limits; and 
 the only question, here, is upon the appropriation. 
 There is no doubt that we have the power, if we 
 see fit to exercise it, to break up the mission, by 
 withholding the salaries ; we have power also to 
 break up the Court, by withholding the salaries of 
 the Judges, or to break up the office of President, 
 by Avith holding the salary provided for it by law. 
 -All these things, it is true, we have the power to 
 do, since we hold the keys of the Treasury. But, 
 then, can we rightfully exercise this power? The 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania, ("Mr. Buchanan, j 
 with whom I have great pleasure in concurring on 
 this part of the case, while I regret that I differ 
 with him on others, has placed this question in a 
 point of view which cannot be improved. These 
 officers do, indeed, already exist. They are public 
 ministers. If they' were to negotiate a treaty, and 
 the Senate should ratify it, it would become a law 
 of the land, whether we voted their salaries or not. 
 This shows that the Constitution never contem- 
 plated that the House of Representatives should 
 act a part in originating negotiations, or concluding 
 treaties. 
 
I know, sir, it is a useless labour to discuss the 
 kind of power which this House incidentally 
 holds in these cases. Men will differ in that par- 
 ticular; and as the forms of public business and 
 of the Constitution are such, that t,he power may 
 be exercised by this House, there will always be 
 some, or always may be some, who feel inclined 
 to exercise it. For myself, I feel bound not to 
 step out of my own sphere, and neither to exer- 
 cise nor control any authority, of which the Con^ 
 stitution has intended to lodge the free and unre- 
 strained exercise in other hands. Cases of extreme 
 necessity, in which a regard to public safety is 
 to be the supreme law, or rather to take place of 
 all law, must be allowed io provide for themselves, 
 when they arise. Reasoning from such possible 
 cases, will shed no light on the general path of 
 our constitutional duty, ' ' 
 
 Mr. Chairman : I have a habitual and very sin- 
 cere respect for the opinions of the gentleman from 
 Delaware. And I can say with truth, that he is the 
 last man in the House from whom I should have 
 looked for this proposition of amendment, or from 
 whom I should have expected to hear some of the 
 reasons which he has given in its support. He 
 says, that, in this matter, the source from which 
 the measure springs should have no influence with 
 us whatever. I do not comprehend this ; and I 
 cannot but think the honourable gentleman has 
 been surprised into an expression which does not 
 convey his meaning. This measure comes from 
 the Executive, and it is an appropriate exercise of 
 Executive Pow«r. How is it, then, that we are 
 
8 
 
 to consider it as entirely an open question for us ; 
 as if it were a legislative measure originating with 
 ourselves? In deciding whether we will enable 
 the Executive to exercise his own duties, are we 
 to consider whether we should have exercised them 
 in the same way ourselves ? And if we differ in 
 opinion with the President and Senate, are we on 
 that account to refuse the ordinary means? I 
 think not; unless we mean to say that we will 
 exercise ourselves, all the powers of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 But the gentleman argues, that although, general- 
 ly, such a course would not be proper, yet, in the 
 present case, the President has especially referred 
 the matter to our opinion ; that he has thrown off, 
 or attempted to throw off, his own constitutional 
 responsibility ; or, at least, that he proposes to 
 divide it with us ; that he requests our advice, and 
 that we, having referred that request to the Com- 
 mittee on Foreign Affairs, have now received from 
 that Committee their Report thereon. 
 
 Sir, this appears to me a very mistaken view of 
 the subject ; but if it were all so — if our advice 
 and opinion had thus been asked, it would not 
 alter the line of our duty. We cannot take, though 
 it were offered, any share in Executive dut}'. We 
 cannot divide their own proper responsibility with 
 other branches of the Government. The Presi- 
 dent cannot properly ask, and we cannot properly 
 give, our advice, as to the manner in which he shall 
 discharge his duties. He cannot shift the respon- 
 sibility from himself; and we cannot assume it. 
 5^uch a course, sir, would confound all that is 
 
distinct in the constitutional assignment of our re- 
 spective functions. It would break down all known 
 divisions of power, and put an end to all just re- 
 sponsibility. If the President were to receive 
 directions or advice from us, in things pertaining to 
 the duties of his own office, what becomes of his 
 responsibility to us, and to ths Senate ? We hold 
 the impeaching power. We are to bring him to 
 trial in any case of mal-administration. The Se- 
 nate are to judge him by the Constitution and laws ; 
 and it would be singular, indeed, if, when such oc- 
 casion should arise, the party accused should have 
 the means of sheltering himself under the advice 
 or opinions of his accusers. Nothing can be more 
 incorrect, or more dangerous, than this pledging the 
 House beforehand, to any opinion, as to the man- 
 ner of discharging Executive duties. 
 
 But, sir, I S3e no evidence whatever, that the 
 President has asked us to take this measure upon 
 ourselves, or to divide the responsibility of it with 
 him. I see no such invitation or request. The 
 Senate having concurred in the mission, the Presi- 
 dent has sent a message, requesting the appropria- 
 tion, in the usual and common form. Another 
 message is sent, in answer to a call of the House, 
 communicating the correspondence, and setting 
 forth the objects of the mission. It is contended, 
 that by this message he asks our advice, or refers 
 the subject to our opinion. I do not so understand 
 it. Our concurrence, he says, by making the ap- 
 propriation, is subject to our free determination. 
 Doubtless it is so. If we determine at all, we 
 shall determine freely ; and the message does no 
 
10 
 
 more than leave to ourselves to decide how far we 
 feel ourselves bound, either to support or to thwart 
 the Executive Department, in the exercise of its 
 duties. There is no message, no document, no 
 communication to us, which asks for our concur- 
 rence, otherwise than as we shall manifest it by 
 making the appropriation. 
 
 Undoubtedly, sir, the President would be glad 
 to know that the measure met the approbation of 
 the House. He must be aware, unquestionably, 
 that all leading measures mainly depend for suc- 
 cess on the support of Congress. Still, there is 
 no evidence that on this occasion he has sought 
 to throw off responsibility from himself, or that 
 he desires of us to be answerable for any thing 
 beyond the discharge of our own constitutional 
 duties. I have already said, sir, that I know of 
 no precedent for such a proceeding as the amend- 
 ment proposed by the gentleman from Delaware. 
 None which I think analogous has been cited. 
 The resolution of the House, some years ago, on 
 the subject of the slave-trade, is a precedent the 
 other way. A committee had reported that, in 
 order to put an end to the slave-trade, a mutual 
 right of search might be admitted and arranged 
 by negotiation. But this opinion was not incor- 
 porated, as the gentleman now proposes to incor- 
 porate his amendment, into the resolution of the 
 House. The resolution only declared, in general 
 terms, that the President be requested to enter up- 
 on such negotiations with other powers as he 
 might deem expedient, for the effectual abolition 
 of the African slave-trade. It is singular enough, 
 
11 
 
 and may serve as an admonition on the present oc- 
 casion, that a negotiation having been concluded, 
 in conformity to the opinions expressed, not, in- 
 deed, by the House, but by the committee, the 
 treaty, vi^hen laid before the Senate, was rejected 
 by that body. 
 
 The gentleman from Delaware himself says, 
 that the Constitutional responsibility pertains alone 
 to the Executive Department: and that none other 
 has to do with it, as a public measure. These ad- 
 missions seem to me to conclude the question ; 
 because, in the first place, if the Constitutional re- 
 sponsibility appertains alone to the President, he 
 cannot devolve it on us, if he would ; and because, 
 in the second place, I see no proof of any mten- 
 tion, on his part, so to devolve it on us, even if he 
 had the power. 
 
 Mr. Chairman : [ will here take occasion, in 
 order to prevent misapprehension, to observe, that 
 no one is more convinced than 1 am, that it is the 
 right of this House, and often its duty^ to express 
 its general opinion in regard to questions of foreign 
 policy. Nothing, certainly, is more proper. I have 
 concurred in such proceedings, and am ready to do 
 so again. On those great subjects, for instance, 
 which form the leading topics in this discussion, 
 it is not only the right of the House to express its 
 opinions, but I think it its duty to do so, if it should 
 think the Executive to be pursuing a general course 
 of policy which the House itself will Hot ultimate- 
 ly approve. But that is something entirely differ- 
 ent from the present suggestion. Here it is pro- 
 posed to decide, by our vote, what shall be discus- 
 
12 
 
 sed by particular ministers, already appointed, when 
 they shall meet the ministers of the other powers. 
 This is not a general expression of opinion. It is 
 a particular direction, or a special instruction. Its 
 operation is limited to the conduct of particular 
 men, on a particular occasion. Such a thing, sir, 
 is wholly unprecedented in our history. When the 
 House proceeds, in the accustomed way, by gene- 
 ral resolution, its sentiments apply, as far as ex- 
 pressed, to all public agents, and on all occasions. 
 They apply to the whole course of policy, and 
 must, necessarily, be felt every where. But if we 
 proceed by way of direction to particular ministers, 
 we must direct them all. In short, we must our- 
 selves furnish, in all cases, diplomatic instructions. 
 We now propose to prescribe what our ministers 
 shall discuss, and what they shall not discuss, at 
 Panama. But there is no subject coming up for dis- 
 cussion at Panama, which might not also be pro- 
 posed for discussion either here or at Mexico, or in 
 the Capital of Colombia. If we direct what our 
 ministers at Panama shall or shall not say on the 
 subject of Mr. Monroe's declaration, for example, 
 why should we not proceed to say also what our 
 other ministers abroad, or our Secretary at home, 
 shall say on the same subject ? There is precisely 
 the same reason for one, as for the other. The 
 course of the House, hitherto, sir, has not bqpn 
 such. It has expressed its opinions, when it deem- 
 ed proper to express them at all, on great, leading 
 questions, by resolution, and in a general form. 
 These general opinions, being thus made known, 
 have doubtless always had, and such expressions of 
 
13 
 
 opinion doubtless always will have, their effect. — 
 This is the practice of the Government. It is a sa- 
 lutary practice ; but if we carry it farther, or rather 
 if we adopt a very different practice, and under- 
 take to prescribe to our public ministers what they 
 shall discuss, and what they shall not discuss, we 
 take upon ourselves that which, in my judgment, 
 does not at all belong to us. I see no more pro- 
 priety in our deciding now, in what manner these 
 ministers shall discharge their duty, than there 
 would have in our prescribing to the President and 
 Senate what persons ought to have been appointed 
 ministers. 
 
 An honourable member from Virginia, who spoke 
 some days ago, fJVIr. RiVES,j seems to go still far- 
 ther than the member from Delaware. He main- 
 tains, that we may distinguish between the various 
 objects contemplated by the Executive in the pro- 
 posed negotiation ; and adopt some and reject others. 
 And this hig^h, delicate, and important trust, the 
 gentleman deduces simply from our power to with- 
 hold the minister's salaries. The process of the 
 gentleman's argument appears to me as singular as 
 its conclusion. He foimds himself on the leeral 
 maxim, that he who has the power to give, may 
 annex whatever condition or qualification to the 
 gift he chooses. This maxim, sir, would be appli- 
 Ga|jle to the present case, if we were the sover- 
 eigns of the country ; if all power were in our 
 hands ; if the public money were entirely our own ; 
 if our appropriation of it were mere grace and fa- 
 vour ; and if there were no restraints upon us, but 
 our own sovereign will and pleasure. But the 
 
14 
 
 argument totally forgets that we are ourselves 
 but public agents ; that our power over the Trea- 
 sury is but that of stewards over a trust fund ; 
 that we have nothing to give, and therefore no 
 gifts to limit, or qualify ; that it is as much our 
 duty to appropriate to proper objects, as to with- 
 hold appropriations from such as are improper ; 
 and that it is as much, and as clearly, our duty 
 to appropriate in a proper and Constitutional man- 
 ner, as to appropriate at all. 
 
 The same honourable member advanced another 
 idea, in which I cannot concur. He does not ad- 
 mit that confidence is to be reposed in the Execu- 
 tive, on the present occasion, because confidence, 
 he argues, implies only, that not knowing ourselves 
 what will be done in a given case by others, we 
 trust to those who are to act in it, that they will 
 act right ; and as we know the course likely to be 
 pursued in regard to this subject, by the Executive, 
 confidence can have no place. This seems a sin- 
 gular notion of confidence ; certainly is not my 
 notion of that confidence which the Constitution 
 requires one branch of the Government to repose 
 in another. The President is not our agent, but 
 like ourselves, the agent of the People. They have 
 trusted to his hands the proper duties of his office: 
 and we are not to lake those duties out of his 
 hands, from any opinion of our own that we shoiJd 
 execute them belter ourselves. The confidence 
 which is due from us to the Executive, and from 
 the Executive to us, is not personal, but official and 
 Constitulional. It has nothing to do with individ- 
 ual likings or dislikings ; but results from that di- 
 
15 
 
 vision of power among departments, and those 
 limitations on the authority of each, which belong 
 to the nature and frame of our government. 
 
 It would be unfortunate, indeed, if our line of 
 Constitutional action were to vibrate, backward and 
 forward, according to our opinions of persons, 
 swerving this way to day, from undue attachment, 
 and the other way to-morrow, from distrust or 
 dislike. This may sometimes happen from the 
 weakness of our virtues, or the excitement of our 
 passions ; but I trust it will not be coolly recom- 
 mended to us, as the rightful course pf public, 
 conduct. 
 
 It is obvious to remark, Mr. Chairman, that the 
 Senate have not undertaken to give directions or 
 instructions in this case. That body is closely con- 
 nected with the President in Executive measures* 
 Its consent to these very appointments is made ab- 
 solutely necessary by the Constitution ; yet it has 
 not seen fit, in this or any other case, to take upon 
 itself the responsibility of directing the mode in 
 which the negotiations should be conducted. 
 
 For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am for giv- 
 ing no instructions, advice, or directions, in the 
 ease. I prefer leaving it where, in my judgment, 
 the Constitution has left it — to Executive discretion 
 and Executive responsibility. 
 
 But, sir, I think there are other objections to 
 the amendment. There are parts of it which I 
 could not agree to, if it were proper to attach any 
 such condition to our vote. As to all that part of the 
 amendment, indeed, which asserts the neutral po- 
 licy of the United States, and the inexpediency of 
 
forming alliances, no man assents to those senti- 
 ments more readily, or more sincerly, than myself. 
 On these points, ^ve are all agreed. Such is our 
 opinion ; such, the President assures us, in terms, 
 is his opinion ; such we know to be the opinion of 
 the country. If it be thought necessary to affirm 
 opinions whiclrno one either denies or doubts, by a 
 resolution of the House, I shall cheerfully concur 
 in it. But there is one part of the proposed amend- 
 ment to which I could not agree, in any form. I 
 wish to ask the gentleman from Delaware himself to 
 reconsider it. I pray him to look at it again, and to 
 see whether he means what it expresses or implies ; 
 for, on this occasion, I should be more gratified by 
 seeing that the honourable gentleman himself had 
 become sensible that he had fallen into some error, 
 in this respect, than by seeing the vote of the House 
 against him by any majority whatever. 
 
 That part of the amendment to which I now ob- 
 ject, is that which requires, as a condition of the 
 resolution before us, that the ministers " shall not 
 be authorized to discuss, consider, or consult upon 
 any measure which shall commit the present or 
 future neutral rights or duties of these United 
 States, either as may regard European nations, or 
 between the several States of Mexico and South 
 America." 
 
 I need hardly repeat, that this amounts to a prej- 
 cise instruction. It being understood that the min4 
 isters shall not be authorized to discuss particular 
 subjects, is a mode of speech precisely equivalent 
 to saying, provided the ministers be instructed, 
 or the ministers being instructed, not to discuss 
 
17 
 
 those subjects. After all that has been said, o^ 
 can be said, about this amendment being no 
 more than a general expression of opinion, or 
 abstract proposition, this part of it is an exact and 
 definite instruction. It prescribes to public minis- 
 ters the precise manner in which they are to con- 
 duct a public negotiation ; a duty manifestly and 
 exclusively belonging, in my judgment, to the Ex- 
 ecutive, and not to us. 
 
 But if we possessed the power to give instruct' V 
 tions, this instruction would not be proper to be 
 given. Let us examine it. The ministers shall 
 not " discuss, consider, or consult," &c. 
 
 Now, sir, in the first place, it is to be observed, 
 that they are not only not to agree to any such 
 measure, but they are not to discuss it. If pro- 
 posed to them, they are not to give reasons for 
 declining it. Indeed they cannot reject it ; they 
 can only say they are not authorized to consider 
 it. Would it not be better, sir, to leave these 
 agents at liberty to explain the policy of our Go- 
 vernment, fully and clearly, and to show the rea- 
 sons which induce us to abstain, as far as possible, 
 from foreign connexions, and to act, in all things, 
 with' a scrupulous regard to the duties of neutra- 
 lity? 
 
 But again : they are to discuss no measure which 
 may commit our neutral rights or duties* To com= 
 mit is somewhat indefinite. May they not modify 
 nor in any degree alter our neutral rights and du^ 
 ties? If not, I hardly know whether a common 
 treaty of commerce could be negotiated ; because 
 all such treaties affect or modify, more or less, the 
 
18 
 
 neutral rights or duties of the parties ; especially 
 all such treaties as our habitual policy leads us to 
 form. But I suppose the author of the amend- 
 ment uses the word in a larger and higher sense. 
 He means that the ministers shall not discuss or 
 consider any measure which may have a tendency, 
 in any degree, to place us in a hostile attitude to- 
 wards any foreign State. And here, again, one 
 cannot help repeating, that the injunction is, not 
 to propose or assent to any such measure, but not 
 to consider it, not to answer it, if proposed; not 
 to resist it with reasons ? 
 
 But, if this objection were removed, still the in- 
 struction could not properly be given. What im- 
 portant or leading measure is there, connected with 
 our foreign relations, which can be adopted, with- 
 out the possibility of committing us to the necessi- 
 ty of a hostile attitude ? Any assertion of our 
 plainest rights may^ by possibility, have that effect. 
 The author of the amendment seems to suppose 
 that our pacific relations can never be changed, but 
 by our own option. He seems not to be aware 
 that other states may compel us, in defence of our 
 own rights, to measures, which, in their ultimate 
 tendency, may commit our neutrality. Let me 
 ask, if the ministers of other powers, at Panama, 
 should signify to our agents that it was in contem- 
 plation immediately to take some measure which 
 these agents know to be hostile to our ix)licy, ad- 
 verse to our rights, and such as we could not sub- 
 rait to — should they be left free to speak the sen- 
 timents of their Government, to protest against the 
 Ineasurc^l aiKl to declare that the United State? 
 
19 
 
 ivould not see it carried into effect ? Or should they» 
 as this amendment proposes, be enjoined silence, 
 let the measure proceed, and afterwards, when, 
 perhaps, we go to war to redress the evil, we may 
 learn that if our objections had been fairly and 
 frankly stated, the step would not have been taken ? 
 Look, sir, to the very case of Cuba — the most 
 delicate, and v-astly the most important point in all 
 our foreign relations. Do gentlemen think they 
 exhibit skill or staiesmanship, in laying such re- 
 straints as they propose on our ministers, in regard 
 to this subject, among others ? It has been made 
 matter of complaint, that the Executive has not 
 used, already, a more decisive tone towards Mexic6 
 and Colombia, in regard to their designs on this 
 Island, Pray, sir, what tone could be taken, un- 
 der these instructions ? Not one word — not one 
 single word could be said on the subject. If ask- 
 ed whether the United States would consent to the 
 occupation of that Island by those republics, or 
 to its transfer by Spain to a European power; or 
 whether we should resist such occupation or such 
 transfer, what could they say ? " That is a matter 
 we cannot discuss, and cannot consider — it would 
 commit our neutral relations — we are not at liberty 
 to express the sentiments of our Government on 
 the subject : we have nothing at all to say." Is this, 
 sir, what gentlemen wish, or what they would 
 recommend ? 
 
 If, sir, we give these instructions, and they 
 should be obeyed, and inconvenience or evil resultj 
 who is answerable ? And I suppose it is ex- 
 pected they will be obeyed. Certainly it cannot 
 
20 
 
 be intended to give them, and not to take the 
 responsibility of consequences, if they be follow- 
 ed. It cannot be intended to hold the President 
 answerable both ways ; first, to obey our instruc- 
 tions, and, secondly, for having obeyed them, if 
 evil comes from obeying them. 
 
 Sir, events may change. If we had the pow- 
 er to give instructions, and if thes^ proposed in- 
 structions were proper to be given, before we ar- 
 rive at our own homes, affairs may take a new di- 
 rection, and the puulic interest require new and 
 corresponding orders to our agents abroad. 
 
 This is said to be an extraordinary case, and, 
 on that account, to justify our interference. If 
 the fact were true, the consequence would not 
 follows If it be the exercise of a power assign- 
 ed by the Constitution to the Executive, it can 
 make no difference whether the occasion be 
 common or uncommon. But, in truth, there 
 have been much stronger cases for the interfe- 
 rence of the House, where, nevertheless, the 
 House has not interfered. For example; in the 
 negotiations for peace carried on at Ghent. In 
 that case, Cono;ress, by both Houses, had de- 
 clared war, for certain alleged causes. After the 
 war had lasted some years, the President, with the 
 advice of the Senate, appointed ministers to treat 
 of peace ; and he gave them such instructions as 
 be saw fit. Now, as the war was declared by 
 Congress, and was waged to obtain certain ends, 
 it would have been plausible to say that Congress 
 ought to know the instmctions under w"hich peace 
 was to be negotiated, that they might see whether 
 
21 
 
 the objects for which the war was declared, had 
 been abandoned. Yet no such claim was set up. 
 The President gave instructions, such as his judg- 
 ment dictated, and neither House asserted any right 
 of interference. 
 
 Sir, there are gentlemen in this House, opposed 
 to this mission, who, I hope, will nevertheless con- 
 sider this question of amendment on general Consti- 
 tutional grounds. They are gentlemen of much 
 estimation in the community, likely I hope, long 
 to continue in the pubHc service ; and, I trust, they 
 will well reflect on the effect of this amendment 
 on the separate powers and duties of the several 
 departments of the government. 
 
 An honourable member from Pennsylvania, 
 fMF, Hemphill, J has alluded to a resolution in- 
 troduced by me the session before the last. I 
 should not have referred to it myself, had he not 
 invited the reference ; but T am happy in the op- 
 portunity of showing how that resolution coincides 
 with every thing which I say to day. What was 
 that resolution ? When an interesting people were 
 struggling for national existence against a barbar- 
 ous despotism, when there were good hopes, 
 ("hopes, yet, I trust, to be fully realized,J of their 
 success, and when the Holy Alliance had pro- 
 nounced against them certain false and abominable 
 doctrines, I moved the House to resolve — what ? 
 Simply, that provision ought to be made by law 
 to defray the expense of an agent or commission- 
 er to that country, whenever the President should 
 deem it expedient to make such appointment. Did 
 T propose any instruction to the President, or anj 
 
22 
 
 limit on his discretion ? None at all, sir; none at 
 all. What resemblance then can be found be- 
 tween that resohition and this amendment? Let 
 those who think any such resemblance exists, adopt, 
 if they will, the words of the resolution, as a sub- 
 stitute for this amendment. We shall gladly take 
 them. 
 
 I am, therefore, Mr. Chairman, against th& 
 amendment ; not only as not being a proper man- 
 ner of exercising any power belonging to this 
 House; but also as not containing instructions fit 
 to be given, if we possessed the power of giving 
 them. And as my vote will rest on these grounds, 
 I might terminate my remarks here : but the dis- 
 cussion has extended over a broader surface, and 
 following where others have led, I will ask your 
 indulgence to a few observations on the more 
 general topics of the debate. 
 
 Mr. Chairman : it is our fortune to be called 
 upon to act our part, as public men, at a most in- 
 teresting era in human affairs. The short period of 
 your life, and of mine, has been thick and crowd- 
 ed with the most important events. Not only new 
 interests and new relations have sprung up among 
 States, but new societies, new nations, and fam- 
 ilies of nations, have risen to take their places, 
 and perform their parts, in the order and the in- 
 tercourse of the world. Every man, aspiring to 
 the character of a statesman, must endeavour to 
 enlarge his views to meet this new state of things. 
 He must aim at adequate comprehension, and in- 
 stead of being satisfied with that narrow political 
 sagacity, which, like the power of minute vision. 
 
23 
 
 sees small things accurately, but can see nothing 
 else, he must look to the far horizon, and embrace, 
 in his broad survey, whatever the series of recent 
 events has brought into connexion, near or remote, 
 with the country whose interests he studies to serve. 
 We have seen eight States, formed out of colonies 
 on our own continent, assume the rank of nation^. 
 
 This is a mighty revolution, and when we con- 
 sider what an extent of the surface of the globe 
 they cover ; through what climates they extend ; 
 what population they contain, and what new im- 
 pulses they must derive from this change of govern- 
 ment, we cannot but perceive that great effects 
 are likely to be produced on the intercourse, and 
 the interests of the civilized world. Indeed, it 
 has been forcibly said, by the intelligent and dis- 
 tinguished statesman who conducts the foreign re- 
 lations of England, that when we now speak of 
 Europe and the world, we mean Europe and 
 America ; and that the different systems of these two 
 portions of the globe, and their several and various 
 interests, must be thoroughly studied and nicely 
 balanced by the statesmen of the times. 
 
 In many respects, sir, the European and the 
 American nations are alike. They are alike chris- 
 tian States, civilized States, and commercial' States, 
 They have access to the same common fountains 
 of intelligence ; they all draw from those sources 
 which belong to the whole civilized world. In 
 knowledge and letters — in the arts of peace and 
 war, they differ in degrees ; but they bear, never- 
 theless, a general resemblance. On the other 
 hand, in matters of s^overnment and social institu- 
 
2i 
 
 tion, the nations ou this continent are founded 
 upon principles which never did prevail, in consi- 
 derable extent, either at any other time, or in any 
 other place. There has never been presented to 
 the mind of man a more interesting subject of con- 
 templation than the establishment of so many na- 
 tions in America, partaking in the civilization and 
 in the arts of the old world, but having left behind 
 them those cumbrous institutions which had therr 
 origin in a dark and military age. Whatsoever 
 European expo-rience has developed favourable to 
 the freedom and the happiness of man ; whatso- 
 ever European genius has invented for his improve- 
 ment or gratification ; whatsoever of refinement 
 or polish the culture of European society pre- 
 sents for his adoption and enjoyment — all this is of- 
 fered to man in America, with the additional advan- 
 tages of the full power of erecting forms of gov- 
 ernment on free and simple principles, without 
 overturning institutions suited to times long passed, 
 but too strongly supported, either by interests or 
 prejudices, to be shaken without convulsions. 
 This unprecedented state of things presents the 
 happiest of all occasions for an attempt to establish 
 national intercourse upon improved principles ; 
 upon principles tending to peace, and the mutual 
 prosperity of nations. In this respect America, the 
 whole of America, has a new career before her. 
 If we look back on the history of Europe, we see 
 how great a portion of the last two centuries her 
 States have been at war for interests connected 
 mainly with her feudal monarchies ; wars for par- 
 ticular dynasties ; wars to support or defeat par=- 
 
-25 
 
 ticular successions ; wars to enlarge or curtail th6 
 dominions of particular crowns ; wars to support 
 or to dissolve family alliances ; wars, in fine, to 
 enforce or to resist religious intolerance. What long 
 and bloody chapters do these not fill, in the his- 
 tory of European politics ! Who does not see, and 
 who does not rejoice to see, that America has a 
 glorious chance of escaping, at least, these causes of 
 contention ? Who does not see, and who does not 
 rejoice to see, that, on this continent, under other 
 forms of government, we have before us the noble 
 hope of being able, by the mere influence of 
 civil liberty and religious toleration, to dry up 
 these outpouring fountains of blood, and to extin- 
 guish these consuming fires of war The general 
 opinion of the age favours such hopes and such 
 prospects. There is a growing disposition to treat 
 the intercourse of nations more like the useful in- 
 tercourse of friends; philosophy — -just views of na- 
 tional advantage, good sense and the dictates of a 
 common religion, and an increasing conviction that 
 war is not the interest of the human race — all con- 
 cur, to increase the interest created by this new ac- 
 cession to the list of nations. 
 
 We have heard it said, sir, that the topic of South 
 American Independence is worn out, and thread- 
 bare. Such it may be, sir, to those who have 
 contemplated it merely as an article of news, like 
 the fluctuation of the markets, or the rise and fall 
 of stocks. Such it may be, to those minds who can 
 see no consequences following from these great 
 events. But whoever has either understood their 
 present importance, or can at all estimate their fw- 
 4* 
 
26 
 
 tare influence — whoever has reflected on the new 
 relations they introduce with other states — whoevei^ 
 among ourselves especially, has meditated on the 
 new relations which we now bear to them, and the 
 striking attitude in which we ourselves are now 
 placed, as the oldest of the American nations, will 
 feel that the topic can never be without interest ; 
 and will be sensible that, whether we are wise 
 enough to perceive it or not, the establishment of 
 South American independence will affect all na- 
 tions, and ourselves perhaps more than any other, 
 through all coming time. 
 
 But, sir, although the independence of these 
 new States seems effectually accomplished, yet a 
 lingering and hopeless war is kept up against them 
 by Spain. This is greatly to be regretted by all 
 nations. To Spain it is, as every reasonable man 
 sees, useless, and without hope. To the new States 
 themselves it is burdensome and afflictive. To the 
 commerce of neutral nations it is annoying and 
 vexatious. — There seems to be something of the 
 pertinacy of the Spanish character in holding on 
 in such a desperate course. It reminds us of the 
 seventy years during which Spain resisted the In- 
 dependence of Holland. I think, however, that 
 there is some reason to believe that the war ap- 
 proaches to its end. I believe that the measures 
 adopted by our own Government have had an 
 effect in tending to produce that result. I under- 
 stand, at least, that the question of recognition 
 has been taken into consideration by the Spanish 
 Government '* and it may be hoped that a war, 
 which Spain finds to be so expensive, which the 
 
27 
 
 whole world tells her is so hopeless, and which, if 
 continued, now threatens her with new dangers, 
 she maj, ere long, have the prudence to terminate. 
 
 Our own course during this contest between 
 Spain and her colonies is well known. Though 
 entirely and strictly neutral, we were in favour of 
 early recognition. Our opinions were known to 
 the Allied Sovereigns when in Congress at Aix-la- 
 Chapelle in 1818, at which time the affairs of 
 Spain and her colonies were under consideration ; 
 and, probably, the knowledge of those sentiments, 
 together with the policy adopted by England, pre- 
 vented any interference by other powers at that 
 time. Yet we have treated Spain with scrupu- 
 lous delicacy. We acted on the case as one of 
 civil war. We treated with the new Governments 
 as Governments de facto. Not questioning the right 
 of Spain to coerce them back to their old obedi- 
 ence, if she had the power, we yet held it to be 
 our right to deal with them as with existing Go- 
 vernments in fact, when the moment arrived at 
 which it became apparent and manifest that the 
 dominion of Spain over these, her ancient colonies, 
 was at an end. Our right, our interest, and our 
 duty, all concurred at that moment to recommend 
 recognition- — and we did recognize. 
 
 Now, sir, the history of this proposed Congress 
 goes back to an earlier date than that of our re- 
 cognition. It commenced in i821 ; and one of 
 the treaties now before us, proposing such a meet- 
 ing, that between Colombia and Chili, was con- 
 cluded in July, 1822, a few months only after we 
 had acknowledged the independence of the new 
 
28 
 
 States. The idea originated, doubtless, in the 
 wish to strengthen the union among the new Go- 
 vernments, and to promote the common cause of 
 all, the effectual resistance to Spanish authority. 
 As independence was at that time their leading 
 object, it is natural to suppose that they contem- 
 plated this mode of mutual intercourse and mutual 
 arrangement, as favourable to the necessary con- 
 centration of purpose, and of action, for the at- 
 tainment of that object. But this purpose of the 
 Congress, or this leading idea, in which it may be 
 supposed to have originated, has led, as it seems 
 to me, to great misapprehensions as to its true 
 character, and great mistakes in regard to the dan- 
 ger to be apprehended from our sending ministers 
 to the meeting. This meeting, sir, is a Congress — 
 not a Congress as the word is known to our Con- 
 stitution and laws, for we use it in a peculiar 
 sense ; but as it is known to the law of nations. 
 A Congress, by the law of nations, is but an ap- 
 pointed meeting for the settlement of affairs be- 
 tween different nations, in which the representa- 
 tives or agents of each treat and negotiate as they 
 are instructed by their own gov ernment. In other 
 words, this Congress is a diplomatic meeting. We 
 are asked to join no government — no legislature — 
 no league — acting by votes. It is a Congress, such 
 as those of Westphalia, of Nimeguen, of Ryswyck, 
 or of Utrecht ; or such as those which have been 
 holden in Europe, in our own time. No nation is 
 a party to any thing done in such assemblies, to 
 which it does not expressly make itself a party. ^ 
 No one's rights are put at the disposition of any of 1 
 
29 
 
 the rest, or of all the rest. What ministers agree 
 to, being afterwards duly ratified at home, binds , 
 their Government ; and nothing else binds the \^ 
 Government. Whatsoever is done, to which they I 
 do not assent, neither binds the ministers nor their • 
 Government, any more than if they had not been 
 present. 
 
 These truths, sir, seem too plain, and too com- 
 mon place to be stated. I iind my apology only 
 in those misapprehensions of the character of the 
 meeting to which 1 have referred both now and 
 formerly. It has been said that commercial trea- 
 ties are not negotiated at such meetings. Far 
 otherwise is the fact. Among the earliest of im- 
 portant stipulations made in favour of commerce 
 and navigation, were those at Westphalia. And 
 what we call the treaty of Utrecht, was a bundle 
 of treaties, negotiated at that Congress ; some of 
 peace, some of boundary, and others of commerce. 
 Again, it has been said, in order to prove that this 
 meeting is a sort of confederacy, that such assem- 
 blies are out of the way of ordinary negotiation, 
 and are always founded on, and provided for, by 
 previous treaties. Pray, sir, what treaty preceded 
 the Congress at Utrecht ? and the meeting of our 
 Plenipotentiaries with those of England at Ghent, 
 what was that but a Congress ? and what treaty 
 preceded it? It is said, again, that there is no 
 sovereign to whom our ministers can be accredited. 
 Let me ask whether, in the case last cited, our 
 ministers exhibited their credentials to the Mayor 
 of Ghent ? Sir, the practice of nations in these 
 matters, is well known, and is free of difficulty. 
 
30 
 
 If the government be not present, agents or Pleni- 
 potentiaries interchange their credentials. And 
 when it is said that our ministers at Panama will 
 be, not ministers, but deputies, members of a de- 
 liberative body, not protected in their public char- 
 acter by the public law ; when all this is said, 
 propositions are advanced, of which I see no evi- 
 dence whatever, and which appear to me to be 
 wholly without foundation. 
 
 It is contended that this Congress, by virtue of 
 the treaties which the new States have entered 
 into, will possess powers other than those of a di- 
 plomatic character, as between those new States 
 themselves. If that were so, it would be unimpor- 
 tant to us. The real question here is, what will 
 be our relation with those States, by sending min- 
 isters to this Congress ? Their arrangements among 
 themselves will not affect us. Even if it were a go- 
 vernment, like our old confederation, yet, if its mem- 
 bers had authority to treat with us in behalf of their 
 ricspective nations on subjects on which we have 
 a right to treat, the Congress might still be a very 
 proper occasion for such negotiations. Do gentle- 
 men forget that the French Minister was introduced 
 to our old Congress, met it in its sessions, carried 
 on oral discussions with it, and treated with it in 
 behalf of the French King? All that did not 
 make him a member of it; nor connect him at 
 all with the relations which its members bore to 
 each other. As he treated on the subject of carry- 
 ing on the war against England, it was, doubtless, 
 hostile towards that power ; but this consequeiice 
 followed from the object and nature of the stipula- 
 
31 
 
 tions, and not from the manner of the intercourse. 
 The Representatives of these South American 
 States, it is said, will carry on belligerant councils at 
 this Congress. Be it so ; we shall not join in such 
 councils. At the moment of invitation, our Go- 
 vernment informed the ministers of those States, 
 that we could not make ourselves a party to the 
 war between them and Spain, nor to councils for 
 deliberating on the means of its further prosecution. 
 
 If, it is asked, we send ministers to a Congress 
 composed altogether of belligerauts, is it not a 
 breach of neutrality ? Certainly not : no man can 
 say it is. Suppose, sir, that these ministers from 
 the new states, instead of Panama, were to assem- 
 ble at Bogota, where we already have a minister : 
 their councils, at that place, might be belligerant, 
 while the war should last with Spain. ^ But should 
 we, on that account, recall our minister from Bo- 
 gota ? The whole argument rests on this ; that be- ! 
 cause, at the same time and place, the agents of 
 the South American Governments may negotiate 
 about their own relations with each other, in regard 
 to their common war against Spain, therefore we| 
 cannot, at the same time and place, negotiate with" 
 them, or any of them, upon our own neutral and 
 commercial relations. This proposition, sir, can- 
 not be maintained ; and, therefore, all the inferen- 
 ces from it fail. 
 
 But, sir, I see no proof that, as between them- 
 selves, the representatives of the South American 
 States are to possess other than diplomatic powers, 
 I refer to the treaties, wliich are essentially alike, 
 and which have been often read. 
 
32 
 
 With two exceptions, f which I will notice,^ the 
 articles of these treaties, describing the powers of 
 the Congress, are substantially like those in the 
 treaty of Paris, in 1814, providing for the Con- 
 gress of Vienna. It was there stipulated that all 
 the powers should send plenipotentiaries to Vienna, 
 to regulate, in general Congress, the arrangements 
 to complete the provisions of the present treaty. 
 Now, it might have been here asked, how regulate? 
 How regulate in general Congress ? — regulate by 
 votes ? Sir, nobody asked such questions : simply 
 because it was to be a Congress of plenipotentia- 
 ries. The two exceptions which I have mentioned, 
 are, that this Congress is to act as a council and to 
 interpret treaties ; but there is nothing in either of 
 these to be done which may not be done diplomat- 
 ically. What is more common than diplomatic in- 
 tercourse, to explain and to interpret treaties ? Or 
 what more frequent than that nations, having a 
 common object, interchange mutual counsels and 
 advice, through the medium of their respective 
 ministers ? To*bring this matter, sir, to the test 
 let me ask, when these ministers assemble at Pa 
 nama, can they do any thing but according to their 
 instructions ? Have they any organization, any 
 power of action, or any rule of action common to 
 them all ? No more, sir, than the respective min- 
 isters at the Congress of Vienna. Every thing is 
 settled by the use of the word Plenipotentiary. 
 That proves the meeting to be diplomatic, and no- 
 thing else. ^^ ho ever heard of a plenipotentiary 
 member of the Legislature ? — a plenipotentiary 
 burgess of a city ? — or a plenipotentiary knight of 
 the shire ? 
 
 e - : 
 
33 • 
 
 We may dismiss all fears, sir, arising from the 
 nature of this meeting. Oar agents will go there, 
 if they go at all, in the character of ministers, pro- 
 tected by the public law, negotiating only for 
 ourselves, and not called on to violate any neu- 
 tral duty of their own government. If it be so 
 that this meeting has other powers, in consequence 
 of other arrangements between other States, of 
 which I see no proof, still, we are not party to 
 these arrangements, nor can be in any way affec- 
 ted by them. As far as this government is con-^ 
 cerned, nothing can be done but by negotiation, as 
 in other cases. 
 
 It has been affirmed, that this measure, and the 
 sentiments expressed by the Executive relative to 
 its objects, are an acknowledged departure from 
 the neutral policy of the United States. Sir, I 
 deny there is an acknowledged departure, or any 
 departure at all, from the neutral policy of the 
 country. What do we mean by our neutral po- 
 licy ? Not, I suppose, a blind and stupid indiffer- 
 ence to whatever is passing around us ; not a total 
 disregard to approaching events, or approaching 
 evils, till they meet us full in the face. Nor do 
 we mean, by our neutral policy, that we intend 
 never to assert our rights by force. No, Sir. We 
 mean by our policy of neutrality, that the great 
 objects of national pursuit with us are connected 
 with peace. Wc covet no provinces ; we desire 
 no conquests ; we entertain no ambitious projects 
 of aggrandizement by war. This is our policy. 
 But it does not follow, from this, that we rely less 
 than other nations, on our own power to vindicate 
 5* 
 
34 
 
 our own rights. We know that the last logic of 
 kings is also our last logic ; that our own interests 
 must be defended and maintained by our own 
 arm ; and that peace or war may not always be 
 of our own choosing. Our neutral policy, there- 
 fore, not only justifies but requires, our anxious 
 attention to the political events which take place 
 in the world, a skilful perception of their relation 
 to our own concerns, an early anticipation of their 
 consequences, and firm and timely assertion of 
 what we hold to be our own rights, and our own 
 interests. Our neutrality is not a predetermined 
 abstinence, either from remonstrances, or from 
 force. Our neutral policy is a policy that protects 
 neutrality, that defends neutrality, that takes up 
 arms, if need be, for neutrality. When it is said, 
 therefore, that this measure departs from our neu- 
 tral policy, either that policy, or the measure itself, 
 is misunderstood. It implies either that the object 
 or the tendency of the measure is to involve us in 
 the war of other States, which I think cannot be 
 shown, or that the assertion of our own sentiments, 
 on points affecting deeply our own interests, may 
 place us in a hostile attitude with other States, 
 and that, therefore, we depart from neutrality ; 
 whereas the truth is, that the decisive assertion, 
 and the firm support of these sentiments, may be 
 most essential to the maintenance of neutrality. 
 
 An honourable member from Pennsylvania thinks 
 this Congress will bring a dark day over the 
 United States. Doubtless, sir, it is an interesting 
 moment in our history ; but 1 see no great proofs 
 of thick coming darkness. But the object of the 
 
35 
 
 remark seemed to be to show that the President 
 himself saw difficuhies on all sides, and making a 
 choice of evils, preferred rather to send ministers 
 to this Congress, than to run the risk of exciting 
 the hostility of the States by refusing to send. In 
 other words, the gentleman wished to prove that 
 the President intended an alliance ; although such 
 intention is expressly disclaimed. 
 
 Much commentarj; has been bestowed on the 
 letters of invitation from the ministers. I shall 
 not go through with verbal criticisms on these 
 letters Their general import is plain enough. I 
 shall not gather together small, and minute quota- 
 tions, taking a sentence here, a word there, and a 
 syllable in a third place, dovetailing them into the 
 course of remark, till the printed discourse bristles 
 with inverted commas, in every line, like a harvest- 
 field. I look to the general tenor of the invita- 
 tions, and I find that we are asked to take part only 
 in such things as concern ourselves. I look still 
 more carefully to the answers, and I see every 
 proper caution, and proper guard. I look to the 
 message, and I see that nothing is there contem- 
 plated, likely to involve us in other men's quarrels, 
 or that may justly give offence to any foreign 
 State. With this, I am satisfied. 
 
 I must now ask the indulgence of the Commit- 
 tee to an important point in the discussion, I mean 
 the Declaration of the President in 1823. Not 
 only as a member of the House, but as a citizen of 
 the country, I have an anxious desire that this part 
 of our public history should stand in its proper 
 light. Sir, in my judgment, the country has a 
 
36 
 
 . very high honour, connected with that occurence, 
 which we may maintain, or which we may sacri- 
 fice. I look upon it as a part of its treasures of 
 reputation ; and, for one, I intend to guard it. 
 
 Sir, let us recur to the important political events 
 which led to that declaration, or accompanied it. 
 In the fall of 1822, the allied sovereigns held their 
 Congress at Verona. The great subject of consid- 
 eration was the condition of Spain, that country 
 then being under the government of the Cortes. 
 The question was, whether Ferdinand should be 
 reinstated in all his authority, by the intervention 
 ©f foreign force. Russia, Prussia, France, and 
 Austria, were inclined to that measure ; England 
 dissented and protested ; but the course was agreed 
 on, and France, with the consent of these other 
 continental powers, took the conduct of the ope- 
 ration into her own hands. In the spring of 1823, 
 a Frsnch Army was sent into Spain. Its success 
 w^as complete. The popular government was over- 
 thrown, and Ferdinand re-established in all his 
 power. This invasion, sir, was determined on, 
 and undertaken, precisely on the doctrines which 
 the allied monarchs had proclaimed the year before, 
 at Laybach ; and that is, that they had a right to 
 interfere in the concerns of another State, and re- 
 form its government, in order to prevent the effects 
 of its bad example ; this bad example, be it remem- 
 bered, always being the example of free govern- 
 ment. Now, sir, acting on this principle of sup- 
 posed dangerous example, and having put down 
 the example of the Cortes in Spain, it was natural 
 to inquire with what eyes they would look on the 
 
37 
 
 colonies of Spain, that were following still worse 
 examples. Would King Ferdinand and his allies 
 be content with what had been done in Spain it- 
 self, or would he solicit their aid, and was it likely 
 thej would grant it, to subdue his rebellious Amer- 
 ican Provinces. 
 
 Sir, it was in this posture of affairs, on an oc- 
 casion which has already been alluded to, that I 
 ventured to say, early in the session of December, 
 1 823, that these allied monarchs might possibly 
 turn their attention to America; that America came 
 within their avowed doctrine, and that her exam- 
 ples might very possibly attract their notice. Tfife 
 doctrines of Laybach were not limited to any con- 
 tinent ; Spain had colonies in America, and having 
 reformed Spain herself to the true standard, it was 
 not impossible that they might see fit to complete 
 the work by reconciling, in their way, the colonies 
 to the mother country. Now, sir, it did so happen, 
 that as soon as the Spanish King was completely 
 re-established, he did invite the co-operation of his 
 allies, in regard to South America. In the same 
 month of December, of 1 823, a formal invitation 
 was addressed by Spain to the courts of St. Pe- 
 tersburg, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris, proposing to 
 establish a conference at Paris, in order that the 
 Plenipotentiaries, there assembled, might aid Spain 
 in adjusting the affairs of her revolted provinces. 
 These affairs were proposed to be adjusted in such 
 manner as should retain the sovereignty of Spain 
 over them ; and though the co-operation of the al- 
 lies, by force of arms, was not directly solicited — 
 such was evidently the object aimed at. 
 
38 
 
 The King of Spain, in making this request to 
 the members of the Holj Alliance, argued, as it 
 had been seen he mi^ht argue. He quoted their 
 own doctrines of Lajbach ; he pointed out the per- 
 nicious example of America ; and he reminded 
 them that their success, in Spain itself, had paved 
 the way for successful operations against the spirit 
 of liberty on this side the Atlantic. 
 
 The proposed meeting, however, did not take 
 place. England had already taken a decided 
 course ; for, as early as October, Mr. Canning, in 
 a conference wath the French minister in London, 
 informed him distinctly and expressly, that En- 
 gland would consider any foreign interference, 
 by force or by menace, in the dispute between 
 Spain and the colonies, as a motive for recognising 
 the latter, without delay. 
 
 It is probable this determination of the Eng- 
 lish Government was known here, at the com- 
 mencement of the session of Congress ; and it 
 was under these circumstances, it was in this cri- 
 sis, that Mr. Monroe's declaration was made. It 
 was not then ascertained whether a meeting of the 
 Allies would, or would not, take place, to concert 
 with Spain the means of re-establishing her power ; 
 but it was plain enough they would be pressed by 
 Spain to aid her operations ; and it was plain 
 enough also, that they had no particular liking to 
 W'liat was taking place on this side the Atlantic, 
 nor any great disinclination to interfere. This was 
 the posture of affairs ; and, sir, 1 concur entirely 
 in the sentiment expressed in the resolution, of a 
 gentleman from reinisylvania, fMa. Markley,) 
 
39 
 
 that this declaration of Mr. Monroe was wise, sea- 
 sonable, and patriotic. 
 
 It has been said, in the course of this debate, to 
 have been a loose and vague declaration. It was, 
 I believe, sufficiently studied. I have understood, 
 from good authority, that it was considered, weigh- 
 ed, and distinctly and decidedly approved by every 
 one of the President's advisers, at that time. Our 
 Government could not adopt, on that occasion, 
 precisely the course which England had taken. 
 England threatened the immediate recognition of 
 the Provinces, if the Allies should take part with 
 Spain against them. — We had already recognized 
 them. It remained, therefore, only for our Govern- 
 ment to say how we should consider a combination 
 of the Allied Powers, to effect objects in America, 
 as affecting ourselves ; and the message was intend- 
 ed to say, what it does say, that we should regard 
 such combination as dangerous to us. Sir, I agree 
 with those who maintain the proposition, and I con- 
 tend against those who deny it, that the message 
 did mean something ; that it meant much ; and I 
 maintain, against both, that the declaration affect- 
 ed much good, answered the end designed by it, 
 did great honour to the foresight, and the Spirit of 
 the government, and that it cannot now be taken 
 back, retracted or annulled, without disgrace. It 
 met, sir, with the entire concurrence, and the hear- 
 ty approbation of the country. The tone which 
 it uttered found a corresponding response in the 
 breasts of the free people of the United States. 
 That people saw, and they rejoiced to see, that, on 
 a fit occasion, our weight had been thrown into the 
 
40 
 
 » 
 
 wght scale, and that, without departing from our 
 duty, we had done something useful, and some- 
 thing effectual, for the cause of civil liberty. One 
 general glow of exultation — one universal feeling 
 of the gratified Jove of liberty — one conscious and 
 proud perception of the consideration which the 
 country possessed, and of the respect and honour 
 which belonged to it — pervaded all bosoms. Possi- 
 bly the public enthusiasm went too far ; it certainly 
 did go far. But, sir, the sentiment which this de- 
 claration inspired was not confined to ourselves. 
 Its force was felt every where ^ by all those who 
 could understand its object, and foresee its effect. In 
 that very House of Commons, of which the gentle- 
 man from South Carolina has spoken with such 
 commendation, how was it there received ? Not 
 only, sir, with approbation, but, I may say, with no 
 little enthusiasm. While the leading minister ex- 
 pressed his entire concurrence in the sentiments and 
 opinions of the American President, his distinguish- 
 ed competitor in that popular body, less restrained 
 by official decorum, more at liberty to give utterance 
 to the feeling of the occasion, declared that no 
 event had ever created greater joy, exultation, and 
 gratitude, among all the free men in Europe ; that 
 he felt pride in being connected by blood and lan- 
 guage, with the people of the United States ; that 
 the policy disclosed by the message, became a great, 
 a free, and an independent nation ; and that he 
 hoped his own country would be prevented by no 
 mean pride, or paltry jealousy, from following so 
 noble and glorious an example. 
 
 It is doubtless true, as I took occasion to observe 
 
41 
 
 the other day, that this declaration must be consid- 
 ered as founded on our rights, and to spring main- 
 ly from a regard to their preservation. It did not 
 commit us at all events to take up arms, on any 
 indication of hostile feeling by the powers of Eu- 
 rope towards South America. If, for example, ' ^1 
 the States of Europe had refused to trade with 
 South America, until her States should return to 
 their former allegiance, that would have furnished 
 no cause of interference to us. Or if an armament 
 had been furnished by the allies to act against pro- 
 vinces the most remote from us, as Chili or Buenos 
 Ayres, the distance of the scene of action dimin- 
 ishing our apprehension of danger, and diminishing 
 also our means of effectual interposition, might still 
 have left us to content ourselves with remonstrance. 
 But a very different case would have arisen, if an 
 army, equipped and maintained by these powers, 
 had been landed on the shores of the Gulph of Mex- 
 ico, and commenced the war in our own immediate 
 neighbourhood. Such an event might justly be 
 regarded as dangerous to ourselves, and, on that 
 ground, to have called for decided and immediate 
 interference by us. The sentiments and the policy 
 announced by the declaration, thus understood, 
 were, therefore, in strict conformity to our duties 
 and our interest. 
 
 Sir, I look on the message of December, 1823, 
 as forming a bright page in our history. I will 
 neither help to erase it, or tear it out ; nor shall 
 it be, by any act of mine, blurred or blotted. It 
 did honour to the sagacity of the Government, and 
 I will not diminish that honour. It elevated the 
 6* 
 
42 
 
 hopes, and gratified the patriotism, of the people. 
 Over those hopes I will not bring a mildew ; nor 
 will I put that gratified pritriotism to shame. 
 
 But how should it happen, sir, that there should 
 now be such a nevv-born fear, on the subject of 
 this declaration ? The crisis is over ; the danger is 
 past. At the time it was made, there was real 
 ground for apprehension : now there is none. It 
 was then possible, perhaps not improbable, that 
 the allied powers might interfere with America. 
 There is now no ground for any such fear. Most 
 of the gentlemen who have now spoken on the 
 subject, were at that ti le here. They all heard 
 the declaration. Not one of them complained. 
 And yet, now, when all danger is over, we are ve- 
 hemently warned against the sentiments of the 
 declaration. 
 
 To avoid this apparent inconsistency, it is, howev- 
 er, contended, that new force has been recently giv- 
 en to this declaration. But of this, I see no evidence 
 whatever. I see ncAhing in any instructions or 
 communications from our government clianging 
 the character of that declaration in any degree. 
 There is, as I have before said, in one of Mr. 
 Poinsett's letters, an inaccuracy of expression. If 
 he has recited correctly his conversation with the 
 Mexican minister, he did go too far : farther than 
 any instruction warranted. But, taking his whole 
 correspondence together, it is quite manifest that 
 he has deceived nobody, nor has he committed the 
 country. On the subject of a pledge, he put the 
 Mexican minister entirely right. He stated to 
 him, distinctly, that this government had given no 
 
43 
 
 pedge which othf^rs could call upon it to redeem. 
 What could be more explicit? Again, sir : it is 
 plain that Mexico thought us under no greater 
 pledge than England : for the letters to the 
 English and American ministers, requesting inter- 
 ference, were in precisely the same words. When 
 this passage in Mr. Poinsett's letter was first 
 noticed, we were assured there was and must be 
 sosne other authority for it. It was confidently said 
 he had instructions, authorizing it, in his pocket. 
 It turns out otlierwise. As little ground is there 
 to complain of any thing in the Secretary's letter 
 to Mr. Poinsett. It seems to me to be precisely 
 what it should be. It does not, as has been al- 
 leged, propose any co-operation between the go- 
 vernment of Mexico and our own. Nothing like 
 it. It instructs our ministers to bring to the notice 
 of the Mexican government the line of policy which 
 we have marked out for ourselves — acting on our 
 own grounds, and for our own interests; and to 
 suggest to that government, acting on its own 
 groi<iid, and for its own interests, the propriety of 
 following a similar course. Here, sir, is no alli- 
 ance, nor even any co-operation. 
 
 So, again, as to the correspondence which re- 
 fers to tlie appearance of the French fleet in the 
 West India Seas. Be it remembered, that our go- 
 vernment was contending, in the course of this 
 correspondence with Mex:ico, for an equality in 
 matters of commerce. It insisted on being placed, 
 in this respect, on the same footing as the other 
 South American States. To enforce this claim, 
 our known friendly sentiments towards Mexico, as 
 
44 
 
 well as to the rest of the new States, were sug- 
 gested — and properly suggested. IvJexico was re- 
 minded of the timely declaration which had been 
 made of these sentiments. — She was reminded that 
 she herself had been well inclined to claim the 
 benefit resulting from that declaration, when a 
 French fleet appeared in the neighbouring seas ; 
 and she was referred to the course adopted by our 
 government on that occasion, with an intimation 
 that she might learn 'from it how the same govern- 
 ment would have acted if other possible contingen- 
 cies had happened. What is there, in all this, of 
 any renewed pledge, or what is there of any thing 
 beyond the true line of our policy ? Do gentlemen 
 mean to say that the communication made to 
 France, on this occasion, was improper ? Do they 
 rnean^ to repel and repudiate that declaration ? 
 That declaration was, that we could not see Cuba 
 transferred from Spain to another European power. 
 If the House mean to contradict that — be it so. If 
 it do not, then, as the government had acted pro- 
 perly in this case, it did furnish ground tri be- 
 lieve it would act properly, also, in other cases, 
 when they arose. And the reference to this inci- 
 dent or occurrence by the Secretary, was pertinent 
 to the argument which he was pressing on the 
 Mexican government. 
 
 J have bwt a word to say on the subject of the 
 declaration against European colonization in Amer- 
 ica. The late President seems to have thought the 
 occasion used by him for that purpose to be a pro- 
 per one for the open avowal of a principle which 
 had already been acted on. Great and practical 
 
45 
 
 inconveniences, it was feared, might be apprehend- 
 ed, from the establishment of new colonies in 
 America, having a European origin and a European 
 connexion. Attempts of that kind, it was obvious, 
 might possibly be made, amidst the changes that 
 were taking place, in Mexico, as well as in the 
 more southern States. Mexico bounds us, on a 
 vast length of line, from the Gulf of Mexico to 
 the Pacific Ocean. There are many reasons why 
 it should not be desired by us, that an establish- 
 ment, under the protection of a different power, 
 should occupy any portion of that space. We have 
 a general interest, that through all the vast territo- 
 ries rescued from tlie dominion of Spain, our com- 
 merce might find its way, protected by treaties with 
 Governments existing on the spot. These views, 
 and others of a similar character, rendered it highly 
 desirable to us, that these new States should settle 
 it, as a part of their policy, not to allow coloniza- 
 tion within their respective territories. True, in- 
 deed, we did not need their aid to assist us in 
 maintaining such a course for ourselves ; but we 
 had an interest in their assertion and support 
 of the principle as applicable to their own Ter- 
 ritories. 
 
 I now proceed, Mr. Chairman, to a few remarks 
 on the subject of Cuba, the most important point 
 of our foreign relations. It is the hhige on which 
 interesting events may possibly turn. I pray gen- 
 tlemen to review their opinion^ on this subject be- 
 fore they fully commit themselves. I understood 
 the honourable member from South Carolina to 
 say, that if Spain chose to transfer this Island to 
 
46 
 
 any jiower in Europe, she had a right to do so, 
 and w e could not interfere to prevent it. Sir, this 
 is a delicate subject. 1 hardly fj^el^ competent to 
 treat it as it deserves ; and I am not quite willing to 
 state here all that I think about it. 1 must, how- 
 ever, dissent from the opinion of the gentleman 
 from South Carolina. The right of nations, on 
 subjects of this kind, are necessarily very much 
 modified by circumstances. Because England or 
 France could not rightfully complain of the trans- 
 fer of Florida to us, it by no means follows, 
 as the gentleman supposes, that we could not 
 complain of the cession of Cuba to one of them. 
 The plain difference is, that the transfer of 
 Florida to us w^as not dangerous to the safe- 
 ty of either of those nations, nor fatal to any 
 of their great and essential interests. Proximity 
 of position, neighbourhood, whatever augments 
 the power of injuring and annoying, very properly 
 belong to the consideration oi all cases of this 
 kind. The greater or less facility of access itself 
 is of consideration in such questions, because it 
 brings, or may bring, weighty consequences u ith 
 it. It justifies, for these reasons, and on these 
 grounds, what otherwise might never be thought 
 of. By negotiation with a foreign power, Mr. Jef- 
 ferson obtained a province. Without an}^ altera- 
 tion of our Constitution, we have made it part of 
 the United States, and its Senators and Represen- 
 tatives, now coming from several Htates, are here 
 among us. Now, sir, if, instead of being Lou- 
 isiana, this liad been one of tiie provinces of .'^pain 
 proper, or one of her South American colonies, he 
 
47 
 
 must have been a madman,, that should have pro- 
 posed such an acquisition. A high conviction of 
 its convenience, arising from proximity, and from 
 close natural connection, alone reconciled the 
 country to the measure. Considerations of the 
 same sort have weight in other cases. 
 
 An honourable member from Kentucky, fMr. 
 WiCKLiFFEjJ argues, that although we might 
 rightfully prevent another power from taking Cuba 
 from Spain, by force, yet if Spain should choose 
 to make the voluntary transfer, we should have no 
 right whatever to interfere. Sir, this is a distinc- 
 tion without a difference. If we are likely to have 
 contention about Cuba, let us first well consider 
 what our rights are, and not commit ourselves. And, 
 sir, if we have any right to interfere at all, it ap- 
 plies as well to the case of a peaceable, as to that 
 of a forcible, transfer. If nations be at war, we 
 are not judges of the question of right, in that 
 war; we must acknowledge, in both parties, the 
 mutual right of attack, and the mutual right of 
 conquest. It is not for us to set bounds to their 
 belligerant operations, so long as they do not affect 
 ourselves. Our right to interfere, sir, in any such 
 case, is but the exercise of the right of reasonable 
 and necessary self-defence. It is a high and deli- 
 cate exercise of that right ; one not to be made but 
 on grounds of strong and manifest reason, justice, 
 and necessity. The real question is, whether the 
 possession of Cuba by a great maririme power of 
 Europe, would seriously endanger our own imme- 
 diate security, or our essential interests- I put the 
 question, sir, in the language of some of the best 
 
48 
 
 considered state papers of modern times. The 
 general rule of national law, is, unquestionably, 
 against interference, m the transactions of other 
 States. There are. however, acknowledged ex- 
 ceptions, growing out of circumstances, and found- 
 ed in those circumstances. These exceptions, it has 
 been properly said, cannot, without danger, be re- 
 duced to previous rule, and incorporated into the 
 ordinary diplomacy of nations. Nevertheless, they 
 do exist, and must be judged of, vvhen they arise, 
 with a just regard to our own essential interests, 
 but in a spirit of strict justice and delicacy also 
 towards foreign States. 
 
 The ground of these exceptions is, as I have al- 
 ready stated, self-preservation. It is not a slight 
 injury to our interest ; it is not even a great incon- 
 venience, that makes out a case. There must be 
 danger to our security, or danger, manifest and 
 imminent danger, to our essential rights, and our 
 essential interests. Now, sir, let us look at Cuba. 
 1 need hardly refer to its present amount of com- 
 mercial connection with the United States. Our 
 statistical tables, 1 presume, would show us, that our 
 commerce with the Havana alone is more in amount 
 than our whole commercial intercourse with France 
 and all her dependencies. But this is but one part 
 of the case, and not the most important. Cuba, as is 
 well said in the report of the Committee of Foreign 
 Affairs, is placed in the mouth of the Mississippi. 
 Its occupation by a strong maritime po\ver would 
 be felt, in the first moment of hostility, as far up 
 the Mississippi and the Missouri, as our population 
 extends. It is the commanding point of the (Julf 
 
# 
 
 49 
 
 of Mexico. See, too, how it lies in the very line 
 of our coast-wise traffic ; interposed in the very 
 highway between New- York and New-Orleans. 
 
 Now, sir, who has estimated, or who can esti- 
 mate, the effect of a change, which should place 
 this Island in other hands, subject it to new rules 
 of commercial intercourse, or connect it with ob- 
 jects of a different and still more dangerous nature? 
 Sir, I repeat that I feel no disposition to pursue 
 this topic, on the present occasion. My purpose 
 is only to show its importance, and to beg gentle- 
 men not to prejudice any rights of the country by 
 assenting to propositions, which, perhaps, may be 
 necessary to be reviewed. 
 
 And here I differ again with the gentleman from 
 Ker^tucky. He thinks that', in this, as in other 
 * cases, \ve should wait till the event comes, with- 
 out any previous declaration of our sentiments 
 upon subjects important to our own rights or our own 
 interests. Sir, such declarations are often the ap- 
 propriate means of preventing that which, if unpre- 
 vented, it might be diflficult to redress. A great ob- 
 ject in holding diplomatic intercourse, is frankly to 
 expose the views and objects of nations, and to pre- 
 vent, by candid explanation, collision and war. In 
 this case, the Government has said that we could not 
 assent to the transfer of Cuba to another European 
 State. Can we so assent ? Do gentlemen think 
 we can ? If not, then it was entirely proper that 
 this intimation should be frankly and seasonably 
 made. Candor required it ; and it would have 
 been unpardonable, it would have been injustice? 
 as well as folly, to have been silent, w^hile we 
 
50 
 
 might suppose the transaction to be contemplated, 
 and then to complain of it afterwards. If we 
 should have a subsequent right to complain, we 
 have a previous right, equally clear, of protes- 
 ting ; and if the evil be one, which, when it comes, 
 would allow us to apply a remedy, it not only 
 allows us, but it makes it our duty, also, to a^ply 
 prevention. 
 
 But, Sir, while some gentlemen have maintain- 
 ed, that on the subject of a transfer to any of the 
 European powers, the President has said too 
 much, others insist that on that of the Islands 
 being occupied by Mexico or Colombia, he has 
 said and done too little. I presume, sir, for my 
 own part, that the strongest language has been 
 directed to the source of greatest danger. Hereto- 
 fore that danger was, doubtless, greatest, which 
 was apprehended from a voluntary transfer. The 
 other has been met, as it arose ; and, thus far, ade- 
 quately and sufficiently met. And here, sir, I 
 cannot but say that I never knew a more extraor- 
 dinary argument than we have heard on the con- 
 duct of the Executive on this part of the case. 
 The President is charged with inconsistency ; and, 
 in order to make this out, public despatches are 
 read, which, it is said, militate with one another. 
 
 Sir, what are the facts ? This government saw 
 fit to invite the Emperor of Russia to use his en- 
 deavours to bring Spain to treat of peace with her 
 revolted colonies. Russia was addressed on this 
 occasion as the friend of Spain ; and, of course, every 
 argument which it was thought might have influence, 
 or ought to have iniiuence, either on Russia or 
 
51 
 
 Spahif^ was suggested in the correspondence. 
 Among other things, the probable loss to .Spain, of 
 Cuba and Porto Rico, was urged ; and the question 
 was asked, how it was, or could be, expected by 
 Spain, that the United States could interfere, to pre- 
 vent Mexico and Colombia from taking those Is- 
 lands from her, since she was their enemy, in a pub- 
 lie war, and since she pertinaciously, and unrea- 
 sonably, as we think, insists on maintaining the 
 war ; and since these Islands offered an obvious 
 object of attack ? Was not this, sir, a very proper 
 argument to be urged to Spain ? A copy of this 
 despatch, it seems, was sent to the Senate, in con- 
 fidence. It has not been published by the Exec- 
 utive. Now, the alleged inconsistency is, that, 
 notwithstanding this letter, the President has in- 
 terfered to dissuade Mexico and Colombia from 
 attacking Cuba ; that, finding or thinking that 
 those States meditated such a purpose, this Go- 
 vernment has urged them to desist from it. Sir, 
 was ever any thing more unreasonable than this 
 charge ? Was it not proper, that, to produce the 
 desired result of peace, our Government should 
 address different motives to the different parties in 
 the war ? Was it not its business to set before 
 each party its dangers and its difficulties, in pur- 
 suing the war ? And if, now, by any thing unex- 
 pected, these respective correspondences have be- 
 come public, are these different views, addressed 
 thus to different parties, and with different objects, 
 to be relied on as proof of inconsistency ? It is the 
 strangest accusation ever heard of. No Govern- 
 ment, not wholly destitute of common sense, would 
 
52 
 
 have acted otherwise. We urged the pro^r mo- 
 tives to both parties. To Spain we urged the 
 probable loss of Cuba ; we showed her the dan- 
 gers of its capture by the new States ; and we 
 asked her to inform us on what ground it was, 
 that we could interfere to prevent such capture, 
 since she was at war with these States, and they 
 had an unquestionable right to attack her in any 
 of her territories; and especially she was asked, 
 how she could expect good offices from us, on 
 this occasion, since she fully understood our opin- 
 ion to be, that she was persisting in the war with- 
 out, or beyond, all reason, and with a sort of des- 
 peration. This was the appeal made to the good 
 sense of Spain, through Russia. But, soon af- 
 terwards, having reason to suspect that Colombia 
 and Mexico were actually preparing to attack 
 Cuba, and knowing that such an event would most 
 seriously affect us, our government remonstrated 
 against such meditated attack, and to the present 
 time it has not been made. In all this, who 
 sees any thing either improper or inconsistent ? 
 For myself, I think the course pursued showed a 
 watchful regard to our own interest, and is wholly 
 free from any imputation, either of impropriety, or 
 inconsistency. 
 
 There are other subjects, sir, in the President's 
 message, which have been discussed in the debate, 
 but on which I shall not detain the Committee. 
 
 It cannot be denied, that from the commence- 
 ment of our government, it has been its object to 
 improve and simplify the principles of national in- 
 tercourse. It may well be thought a fit occasion to 
 
53 
 
 urge these improved principles, at a moment when 
 so many new States are coming into existence, un- 
 trammelled, of course, with previous and long es- 
 tablished connexions or habits. Some hopes of 
 benefit, connected with these topics, are suggested 
 in the message. 
 
 The abolition of private war on the ocean, is 
 also among the subjects of possible consideration. 
 This is not the first time that that subject has been 
 mentioned. The late President took occasion to 
 enforce the considerations which he thought re- 
 commended it. For one, I am not prepared to 
 say how far such abolition may be practicable, or 
 how far it ought to be pursued ; but there are views 
 belonging to the subject, which have not been, in 
 any degree, answered or considered, in this dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Sir, it is not always the party that has the pow- 
 er of employing the largest military marine, that 
 enjoys the advantage by authorizing privateers in 
 war. It is not enough that there are brave apd gal- 
 lant captors ; there must be something to be cap- 
 tured. Suppose, sir, a war between ourselves and 
 any one of the new States of South America were 
 now existing, who would lose most, by the prac- 
 tice of privateering, in such a war ? There would 
 be nothing for us to attack ; while the means of 
 attacking us would flow to our enemies from every 
 part of the world. Capital, ships, and men, would 
 be abundant in all their ports, and our commerce, 
 spread over every sea, would be the destined prey. 
 So, again, if war should unhappily spring up among 
 those States themselves, might it not be for our 
 
54 
 
 interest, as being likely to be much connected by 
 intercourse with all parties, that our commerce 
 should be free from the visitation and search of 
 private armed ships ; one of the greatest vexations 
 to neutral commerce in time of war ? These, sir, 
 are some of the considerations belonging to this 
 subject. I have mentioned them only to show that 
 they well deserve serious attention. 
 
 I have not intended to reply to the many ob- 
 servations which have been submitted to us, on the 
 message of the President to this House, or that 
 to the Senate. Certainly I am of opinion, that 
 ^some of those observations merited an answer, 
 and they have been answered by others. On two 
 points only will I make a remark. It has been 
 said, and often repeated, that the President in 
 his message to the Senate, has spoken of his 
 own power in regard to missions, in terms which 
 the Constitution does not warrant. If gentlemen 
 will turn to the message of President Washington, 
 relative to the mission to Lisbon, in the 10th vol. 
 of State Papers, they will see almost the exact 
 form of expression used in this case. The other 
 point, on which I would make a remark, is the 
 allegation, that an unfair use has been made in 
 the argument of the message, of General Wash- 
 ington's Farewell Address. There would be no 
 end, sir, to comments and criticisms, of this sort, 
 if they were to be pursued. I only observe, 
 that, as it appears to me, the argument of the 
 message, and its use of the Farewell Address, are 
 not fairly understood. It is not attempted to be in- 
 ferred from the Farewell Address, that, according to 
 
55 
 
 the opinion of Washington, we ought now to have 
 alliances with Foreign States. No such thing. 
 The Farewell Address recommends to us, to ab- 
 stain as much as possible from all sorts of political 
 connexion with the States of Europe, alleging, as 
 the reason for this advice, that Europe has a set 
 of primary interests of her own, separate from 
 ours, and with which we have no natural connexion. 
 Now the message argues, and argues truly, that 
 the new South American States, not having a set of 
 interests of their own growing out of the balance 
 of power, family alliances, &c., separate from 
 ours, in the same manner, and to the same degree, 
 as the primary interests of Europe were represent- 
 ed to be ; this part of the Farewell Address, aim- 
 ed at those separate interests expressly, did not 
 apply in this case. But does the message infer 
 from this the propriety of alliances with these new 
 States ? Far from it. It infers no such thing. 
 On the contrary, it disclaims all such purpose. 
 
 There is one other point, sir, on which common 
 justice requires a word to be said. It has been 
 alleged that there are material differences, as to 
 the papers sent respectively to the two Houses. 
 All this, as it seems to me, may be easily and satis- 
 factorily explained. In the first place, the instruc- 
 tions of May, 1823, which, it is said, were not 
 sent to the Senate, were instructions on which 
 a treaty had been already negotiated ; which trea- 
 ty had been subsequently ratified by the Senate. 
 It may be presumed, that when the treaty was sent 
 to the Senate, the instructions accompanied it ; 
 and if so, they were actually already before the 
 
56 
 
 Senate ; and this accounts for one, of the alleged 
 dilferences. In the next place, the letter to Mr. 
 Middleton, in Russia, not sent to the House, but 
 now published by the Senate, is such a paper 
 as possibly the President might not think proper 
 to make public. There is evident reason for such 
 an inference. And, lastly, the correspondence 
 of Mr Brown, sent here, but not to the Senate, 
 appears, from its date, to have been received after 
 the communication to the Senate. Probably when 
 sent to us, it was also sent, by another message, 
 to that body. 
 
 These observations, sir, are tedious and uninter- 
 esting, lam glcid to be through with them. And 
 here I might terminate my remarks, and relieve 
 the patience, now long and heavily taxed, of the 
 committee. But there is one part of the discus- 
 sion, on which I must ask to be indulged with 
 a few observations. 
 
 Pains, sir, have been taken by the honourable 
 member from Virginia, to prove that the measure 
 now in contemplation, and, indeed, the whole po- 
 licy of the government respecting South Ame- 
 rica, is the unhappy result of the influence of 
 a gentleman formerly filling the chair of this 
 House. To make out this, he has referred to cer- 
 tain speeches of that gentleman delivered here. 
 He charges him with having become himself affec- 
 ted at an early day with what he is pleased to call 
 the South American fever ; and with having in- 
 fused its baneful influence into the whole councils 
 of the country. 
 
 If, sir, it be true, that that gentleman, prompted 
 
57 
 
 by an ardent love of civil liberty, felt earlier than 
 others, a proper sympathy for the struggling colo- 
 nies of South America ; or that, acting on the 
 maxim, that revolutions do not go backward, he 
 had the sagacity to foresee, earlier than others, the 
 successful termination of those struggles ; if, thus 
 feeling, and thus perceiving, it fell to hitn to lead 
 the willing or unwilling councils of his country, 
 in her manifestations of kindness to the new Go- 
 vernments, and in her seasonable recognition of 
 their independence ; if it be this which the 
 honourable member imputes to him ; if it be by 
 this course of public conduct that he has identified 
 his name with the cause of South American liber- 
 ty, he ought to be esteemed one of the most for- 
 tunate men of the age. If all this be, as is now 
 represented, he has acquired fame enough. It 
 is enough for any man, thus to have connected 
 himself with the greatest events of the age in 
 which he lives, and to have been foremost in mea- 
 sures which reflect high honour on his country, in 
 the judgment of mankind. Sir, it is always with 
 great reluctance that I am drawn to speak, in my 
 place here, of individuals ; but I could not forbear 
 what I have now said, when I hear, in the House 
 of Representatives, and in this land of free spirits, 
 that it is made matter of imputation and of re- 
 proach, to have been first to reach forth the hand 
 of welcome and of succour to new-born nations, 
 struggling to obtain, and to enjoy, the blessings of 
 liberty. 
 
 We are told that the country is deluded and de- 
 ceived by cabalistic words. Cabalistic words ! If 
 8* 
 
58 
 
 we express an emotion of pleasure at the results of 
 this great action of the spirit of political liberty ; 
 if we rejoice at the birth of new Republican na- 
 tions, and express our joy by the common terms of 
 regard and sympathy; if we feel and signify higli 
 gjatification that, throughout this whole Continent, 
 men are now likely to be blessed by free and pop- 
 ular institutions ; and if, in the uttering of thes^ 
 sentiments, we happen to speak of sister Repub- 
 lics ; of the great American family of nations ; or of 
 the political system and forms of government of 
 this Hemisphere, then indeed, it seems, we deal 
 in senseless jargon, or impose on the judgment and 
 feeling of the community by cabalistic words ! Sir, 
 what is meant by this ? Is it intended that the 
 People of the United States ought to be totally in- 
 different to the fortunes of these new neighbours ? 
 Is no change, in the lights in which we are to view 
 them, to be wrought, by their having thrown off 
 foreign dominion, established independence, and 
 instituted, on our very borders, republican govern- 
 ments, essentially after our own example ? 
 
 Sir. I do not wish to overrate, I do not over- 
 rate, the progress of these new States in the great 
 work of establishing a well-secured popular liber- 
 ty. 1 know that to be a great attainment, and I 
 know they are but pupils in the school. But, thank 
 God, they are in the school. They are called to 
 meet difficulties, such as neither we nor our fathers 
 encountered. For these, we ought to make 
 large allowances. What have we ever known 
 like the colonial vassalag<? of these States? When 
 did we or our ancestors, feci, like them, the 
 
39 
 
 weight of a political despotism that presses men 
 to the earth, or of that religious intolerance which 
 would shut up heaven to all but the bigotted ? Sir, 
 we sprung from another stock. We belong to 
 another race. We have known nothing — we have 
 felt nothing of the political despotism of Spain, 
 nor of the heat of her fires of intolerance. No ra- 
 tional man expects that the South can run the same 
 rapid career as the North ; or that an insurgent 
 province of Spain is in the same condition as the 
 EngHsh colonies, when they first asserted their in- 
 dependence. There is, doubtless, much more to 
 be done, in the first than in the last case. But on 
 that account the honour of the attempt is not less ; 
 and if all difficulties shall be in time surmounted, 
 it will be greater. The work may be more ardu- 
 ous — it is not less noble, because there may be 
 more of ignorance to enlighten ; more of bigotry to 
 subdue ; more of prejudice to eradicate. If it be a 
 weakness to feel a strong interest in the success of 
 these great revolutions, I confess myself guilty of 
 that weakness. If it be weak to feel thai J am an 
 American, to think that recent events have not on- 
 ly opened new modes of intercourse, but have cre- 
 ated also new grounds of regard and sympathy 
 between ourselves and our neighbours ; if it be 
 weak to feel that the South, in her present 
 state, is somewhat more emphatically a part of 
 America, than when she lay obscure, oppressed, 
 and unknown, under the grinding bondage of a 
 foreign power ; if it be weak to rejoice, whenj 
 even in any corner of the earth, human beings are 
 able to get up from beneath oppression, to erect 
 
60 
 
 themselves, and to enjoy the proper happiness of 
 their intelligent nature ; if this be weak, it is a 
 weakness from which I claim no exemption. 
 
 A day of solemn retribution now visits the once- 
 proud monarchy of Spain. The prediction is ful- 
 filled. The spirit of Montezuma and of the Incas 
 might now well say, 
 
 " Art thou, too, fallen, Iberia? Do we see 
 
 " The robber and the murderer weak as we ? 
 
 " Thou ! that has wasted earth and dared despise 
 
 " Alike the wrath and mercy of ilie skies, 
 
 *' Thy pomp is in the grave ; thy glory laid 
 
 " Low in the pit thine avarice has made." 
 
 Mr. Chairman : I will detain you only with one 
 more reflection on this subject. We cannot be so 
 blind — we cannot so shut up our senses, and smo- 
 ther our faculties, as not to see, that in the pro- 
 gress and the establishment of South American 
 liberty, our own example has been among the 
 most stimulating causes. That great light — a light 
 which can never be hid — the light of our own glo- 
 rious revolution, has shone on the path of the 
 South-American patriots, from the beginning of 
 their course. In their emergencies, they have 
 looked to our experience ; in their, political insti- 
 tutions, they have followed our models ; in their 
 deliberations, they have invoked the presiding spirit 
 of our own liberty. They have looked steadily, 
 in every adversity, to the great northern light. 
 In the hour of bloody conflict, they have remem- 
 bered the fields which have been consecrated by 
 the blood of our own fathers ; and when they have 
 fallen, they have wished only to be remembered, 
 with them, as men who had acted their parts 
 
61 
 
 bravely, for the cause of liberty in the Western 
 World. 
 
 Sir, I have done. If it be weakness to feel the 
 sympathy of one's nature excited for such men, in 
 such a cause, I am guilty of that weakness. If it 
 be prudence to meet tlieir proffered civility, not 
 with reciprocal kindness, but with coldness or with 
 insult, I choose still to follow where natural im- 
 pulse leads, and to give up that false and mistak- 
 en prudence, for the voluntary sentiments of my 
 heart. 
 

 
 ^-:> 
 
 >:"^ 
 
 
 
 
 2X> > 
 
 
 
 ^I>1^ 5>3. '^3^^ 
 
 g30 o . J^^ 
 
 
 
 
 :>:>::> l>> ^Dc» >:>xi> ^Dl:^ j2i>^ ,r>^ 
 
 ' ^ "" v'5>^/ ■■:)>:3> xa^ .:>3>5>3 : 
 oj>:)r- 3>^> ^>>.:^s> ^i^:!^ >o>5>» r 
 
 5 s*> »aL>- ^^^_3> ^^^ a^"^^^:^ 
 
 
 
 ■ >>^ ^ . 
 >> > : 
 
 > V 
 
 

 
 
 
 ?:>3 >o» > 
 
 > :> J> > :)X>32> ^.> ):> :3> 3 5 
 
 3 93: 
 
 
 
 ->>> »:> :SS= 
 
 
 ^^)^^^ ^^^^A, ^ 
 
 o o3 
 
 
 
 
 ^p.;0;>S S 
 
 -^^.y?^ my)y> :