Allied Powers to affect objects in America, as affecting ourselves; and the message was intended 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 contend against those who deny it, that the message did mean something; that it meant much; and I maintain, against both, that the declaration effected much good, answered the end designed by it, did great honor 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 hearty 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 right scale, and that, without departing from our duty, we had done something useful, and something effectual, for the cause of civil liberty. One general glow of exultation-one universal feeling of the gratified love of liberty-one conscious and proud perception of the consideration which the country possessed of the respect and honor which belonged to itpervaded all bosoms. Possibly the public enthusiasm went too far it certainly did go far. [H. of R. ing 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 honor to the sagacity of the Government, and will not diminish that honor. It elevated the hopes, and gratified the patriotism of the People. Over these hopes I will not bring a mildew; nor will I put that gratified patriotism to shame. But how should it happen, Sir, that there should now be such a new-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 this subject, were at that time here. They all heard the declaration. Not one of them complained. And yet, now, when all danger is over, we are vehemently warned against the sentiments of the declaration. To avoid this apparent inconsistency, it is, however, contended, that new force has been recently given to this declaration. But of this I see no evidence whatever. I see nothing in any instructions or communications from our Government, changing the character of that declaration in any degree. There is, as I have before said, in But, Sir, the sentiment which this declaration inspired one of Mr. Poinsett's letters, an inaccuracy of expression. was not confined to ourselves. Its force was felt every If he has recited correctly his conversation with the where, by all those who could understand its object and Mexican Minister, he did go too far: farther than any foresee its effect. In that very House of Commons, of instruction warranted. But, taking his whole correswhich the gentleman from South Carolina has spoken pondence together, it is quite manifest that he has dewith such commendation, how was it there received? ceived nobody, nor has he committed the country. On Not only, Sir, with approbation, but, I may say, with no the subject of a pledge, he put the Mexican Minister enlittle enthusiasm. While the leading Minister express-tirely right. He stated to him, distinctly, that this Goed his entire concurrence in the sentiments and opinions vernment had given no pledge which others could call of the American President, his distinguished competitor upon it to redeem. What could be more explicit? Again, in that popular body, less restrained by official decorum, Sir. It is plain that Mexico thought us under no greater more at liberty to give utterance to the feelings of the pledge than England: for the letters to the English and occasion, declared, that no event had ever created great- American Ministers, requesting interference, were in er joy, exultation, and gratitude, among all the freemen precisely the same words. When this passage in Mr. in Europe; that he felt pride in being connected, by Poinsett's letter was first noticed, we were assured there blood and language, with the People of the United States; was and must be some other authority for it. It was con. that the policy disclosed by the message became a great, fidently said he had instructions, authorizing it, in his a free, and an independent nation; and that he hoped pocket. It turns out otherwise. As little ground is his own country would be prevented by no mean pride, there to complain of any thing in the Secretary's letter or paltry jealousy, from following so noble and glorious to Mr. Poinsett. It seems to me to be precisely what it an example. should be. It does not, as has been alleged, propose any co-operation between the Government of Mexico and our own. Nothing like it. It instructs our Minister to bring to the notice of the Mexican Government the line of policy which we have marked out for ourselvesacting on our own grounds, and for our own interests; and to suggest to that Government, acting on its own grounds, and for its own interests, the propriety of following a similar course. Here, Sir, is no alliance, nor even any co-operation. It is, doubtless, true, as I took occasion to observe the other day, that this declaration must be considered as founded on our rights, and to spring mainly 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 Europe towards South America. If, for example, all 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 Provinces the most remote from us, as Chili or Buenos Ayres, the distance of the scene of action diminishing 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 Gulf of Mexico, and commenced the war in our own immediate neighborhood. 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 form So, again, as to the correspondence which refers to the appearance of the French fleet in the West India seas. Be it remembered, that our Government was contending, in the course of this correspondence with Mexico, 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 well as the rest of the new States, were suggested-and properly suggested. Mexico was reminded 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 neighboring 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 Government would have acted if other possible contingencies 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 mean 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 properly in this case, it did furnish ground to believe it would act properly also, in other cases, when they arose. And the reference to this incident or occurrence by the Secretary, was pertinent to the argument which he was pressing on the Mexican Government. on. I have here a word to say on the subject of the declaration against European colonization in America. The late President seems to have thought the occasion used by him for that purpose to be a proper one for the open avowal of the principle which had already been acted Great and practical inconveniences, it was feared, might be apprehended, from the establishment of new colonies in America, having a European origin and a Eupean 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 establishment, under the protection of a different Power, should occupy any portion of that space. We have a general interest, that, through all the vast territories rescued from the dominion of Spain, our commerce 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 colonization within their respective territories. True, indeed, 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 territories. 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 hinge on which interesting events may possibly turn. I pray gentlemen to review their opinions on this subject, before they fully commit themselves. I understood the honorable member from South Carolina to say, that, if Spain chose to transfer this Island to any Power in Europe, she had a right to do so, and we could not interfere to prevent it. Sir, this is a delicate subject. I hardly feel competent to treat it as it deserves; and I am not quite willing to state here all that I think about it. I must, however, dissent from the opinion of the gentleman from South Carolina. The rights of nations, on subjects of this kind, are necessarily very much modified by circumstances. Because England or France could not rightfully complain of the transfer 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 was not dangerous to the safety of either of those nations, nor fatal to any of their great and essential interests. Proximity of position, neighborhood, whatever augments the power of injuring and annoying, very properly belong to the consideration of 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 with it. It justifies, for these reasons, and on these grounds, what otherwise might never be thought of. By negotiation with a foreign Power, Mr. Jefferson obtained a Province. Without any alteration of our Constitution, we have made it part of the United [APRIL 14, 1826. States, and its Senators and Representatives, now com ing from several States, are here among us. Now, Sir, if, instead of being Louisiana, this had been one of the provinces of Spain proper, or one of her South American Colonies, he must have been a madman that should have proposed such an acquisition. A high conviction of its convenience, arising from proximity, and from close natural connexion, alone reconciled the country to the measure. Considerations of the same sort have weight in other cases. An honorable member from Kentucky (Mr. WICKLIFFE) 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 distinction 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 applies 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 belligerent 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 delicate 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 maritime Power of Europe, would seriously endanger our own immediate security, or our essential interests. I put the question, Sir, in the language of some of the best considered State Papers of modern times. The general rule of national law, is, unquestionably, against interference in the transactions of other States. There are, however, acknowledged exceptions, growing out of circumstances, and founded in those circumstances. These exceptions, it has been properly said, cannot, without danger, be reduced to previous rule, and incorporated into the ordinary diplomacy of nations. Nevertheless, they do exist, and must be judged of when 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 already stated, self-preservation. It is not a slight injury to our interest; it is not even a great inconvenience, that makes out a case. There must be danger to our security, or danger, manifest and imminent danger, to our essential rights, and essential interests. Now, sir, let us look at Cuba. I need hardly refer to its present amount of commercial connexion with the United States. Our statistical tables, I 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-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 Power 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 Gulf of Mexico. Sec, too, how it lies in the very line of our coastwise traffic; interposed in the very highway between New York and New Orleans. Now, sir, who has estimated, or who can estimate, 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 objects 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 gentlemen not to prejudice any rights of the country, by assenting to propositions which, perhaps, may be necessary to be reviewed. sent ? [H. of R. these respective correspondences have become public, are these different views, addressed thus to different parties, and with different objects, to be relied on as proof And here I differ again with the gentleman from Ken- of inconsistency? It is the strangest accusation ever tucky. He thinks that, in this, as in other cases, we heard of. No Government, not wholly destitute of comshould wait till the event comes, without any previous de-mon sense, would have acted otherwise. We urged the claration of our sentiments upon subjects important to proper motives to both parties. To Spain we urged the our own rights or interests. Sir, such declarations are probable loss of Cuba; we showed her the danger of its often the appropriate means of preventing that which, if capture by the new States, and we asked her to inform unprevented, it might be difficult to redress. A great us on what ground it was that we could interfere to preobject in holding diplomatic intercourse, is frankly to ex-vent such capture, since she was at war with these States, pose the views and objects of nations, and to prevent, by and they had an unquestionable right to attack her in any candid explanation, collision and war. In this case, the of her territories; and especially she was asked how she Government has said that we could not assent to the trans- could expect good offices from us, on this occasion, since fer of Cuba to another European State. Can we so as she fully understood our opinion to be, that she was perDo gentlemen think we can? If not, then it was sisting in the war without or beyond all reason, and with entirely proper that this intimation should be frankly and a sort of desperation. This was the appeal made to the seasonably made. Candor required it; and it would good sense of Spain, through Russia. But, soon afterhave been unpardonable, it would have been injustice, wards, having reason to suspect that Colombia and Mexias well as folly, to have been silent, while we might sup- co were actually preparing to attack Cuba, and knowing pose the transaction to be contemplated, and then to that such an event would most seriously affect us, our Gocomplain of it afterwards. If we should have a subse-vernment remonstrated against such meditated attack, quent right to complain, we have a previous right, equal- and to the present time, it has not been made. In all ly clear, of protesting; and if the evil be one which, when this, who sees any thing either improper or inconsistent ? it comes, would allow us to apply a remedy, it not only For myself, I think the course pursued showed a watchful allows us, but it makes it our duty, also, to apply pre-regard to our own interest, and is wholly free from any imputation, either of impropriety or inconsistency. But, sir, while some gentlemen have maintained that, There are other subjects, sir, in the President's mes on the subject of a transfer to any of the European Pow-sage, which have been discussed in the debate, but on ers, the President has said too much; others insist that, which I shall not detain the committee. 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 the greatest danger. Heretofore, that danger was, doubtless, greatest, which was apprehended from a voluntary transfer. The other has been met as it arose; and, thus far, adequately and sufficiently met. And here, sir, I cannot but say, that I never knew a more extraordinary argument than we have heard on the conduct 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. vention. It cannot be denied that, from the commencement of our Government, it has been its object to improve and simplify the principles o: national intercourse. It may well be thought a fit occasion to urge these improved principles, at a moment when so many new States are coming into existence, untrammelled, of course, with previous and long established 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 recommended 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 discussion. Sir, it is not always the party that has the power of employing the largest military marine, that enjoys the advantage by authorizing privateers in war. It is not enough that there are brave and gallant captors: there must be something to be captured. 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 practice 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 Sir, what are the facts? The Government saw fit 'to invite the Emperor of Russia to use his endeavors 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 was thought might have influence, or ought to have influence, either on Russia or Spain, 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 prevent Mexico and Colombia from taking those Islands from her, since she was their enemy, in a public war, and since she pertinaciously, and unreasonably, 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 de-all their ports, and our commerce, spread over every sea, spatch, it seems, was sent to the Senate, in confidence. It has not been published by the Executive. Now, the alleged inconsistency is, that, notwithstanding this letter, the President has interfered to dissuade Mexico and Colombia from attacking Cuba. That, finding or thinking that those States meditated such a purpose, this Government has urged them to desist from it. Sir, was ever any thing inore 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 dificulties in pursuing the war? And if, now, by any thing unexpected, VOL. II.--144 would be the destined prey. So, again, if war should unhappily spring up among those States themselves, might it not be for our 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 observations which have been submitted to us, in 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 volume 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 Washington'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 inferred from the Farewell Address, that, according to the opinion of Washington, we ought now to have alliances with Foreign States. No such thing. The Farewell Address recommends to us, to abstain 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 Štates, 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 represented to be; this part of the Farewell Address, aimed 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 purposes. 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 satisfactorily explained. In the first place, the instructions of May, 1823, which, it is said, were not sent to the Senate, were instructions on which a treaty had been already negotiated; which treaty 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 Senate; and this accounts for one of the alleged differences. 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 uninteresting. I am glad 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 discussion, on which I must ask to be indulged with a few observations. Pains, sir, have been taken by the honorable member from Virginia, to prove that the measure now in contemplation, and, indeed, the whole policy of the Government respecting South America, 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 certain speeches of that gentleman delivered here. He charges him with having become himself affected, at an early day, with what he is pleased to call the South American fever; [APRIL 14, 1826. and with having infused its baneful influence into the whole councils of the country. If, sir, it be true, that that gentleman, prompted by an ardent love of civil liberty, felt, earlier than others, a proper sympathy for the struggling colonies 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 him to lead the willing or unwilling councils of his country, in her manifes tations of kindness to the new Governments, and in her seasonable recognitions of their independence; if it be this, which the honorable 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 liberty-he ought to be esteemed one of the most fortunate 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 measures which reflect high honor on his country, in the judgment of mankind. Sir, it is always with great reluc tance 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 reproach to have been first to reach forth the hand of welcome and of succor to new-born nations, struggling to obtain, and to enjoy, the blessings of liberty. We are told that the country is deluded and deceived by cabalistic words. Cabalistic words! If 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 Nations, and express our joy by the common terms of regard and sympathy; if we feel and signify high gratification that, throughout this whole continent, men are now likely to be blessed by free and popular institutions; and if, in the uttering of these sentiments, we happen to speak of sister Republics, of the great American family of Nations, or of the political sys tems 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 indifferent to the fortunes of these new neighbors' 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 Governments, essentially after our own example? Sir, I do not wish to overrate-I do not overrate-the progress of these new States in the great work of establishing a well-secured popular liberty. I 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 vassalage of these States? When did we, or our ancestors, feel, like them, the 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 bigoted 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 rational 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 English colonies when they first asserted their independence. There is, doubtless, much more to be done, in the first than in the last case. But, on that account, the honor of the attempt is not less; 2277 APRIL 15, 1826.] the resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations is one which is at variance with the best interests of this country, and involves in it a departure from that neutral policy which has hitherto governed our public councils. If this be true, which I shall attempt presently to show, this Committee ought, certainly, to withhold its sanction from such a measure. and if all difficulties shall be in time surmounted, it will be greater. The work may be more arduous-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 that I am I must confess, however, that, in coming to this concluan American, to think that recent events have not only opened new modes of intercourse, but have created also sion, I have found myself under the necessity of offering new grounds of regard and sympathy between ourselves violence to some early and strong inclinations of my mind. and our neighbors; if it be weak to feel that the South, The People of this country, and I in common with them, in her present state, is somewhat more emphatically part have always looked with intense interest to the progress of America than when she lay obscure, oppressed, and of affairs in South America. We have watched, with the unknown, under the grinding bondage of a foreign Pow-liveliest interest, every occurrence connected with the er; if it be weak to rejoice, when, even in any corner of establishment of their independence. Their alternate the earth, human beings are able to get up from beneath triumps and defeats have occasioned alternate joy and oppression, to erect themselves, and to enjoy the proper sympathy in the bosoms of their neighbors. Theirs has happiness of their intelligent nature; if this be weak, it been the struggle of liberty against despotism; they have contended in the cause of mankind. It is not, therefore, is a weakness from which I claim no exemption. at all surprising, that every step which has been taken, in the progress of this deeply interesting controversy, has called forth the most anxious concern of the People of A day of solemn retribution now visits the once proud monarchy of Spain. The prediction is fulfilled. The spirit of Montezuma and of the Incas might now well say, "Art thou, too, fallen, Iberia? Do we sce In their 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 smother our faculties, as not to see that, in the progress and the establishment of South American liberty, our own example has been among That great light-a light the most stimulating causes. which can never be hid-the light of our own glorious Revolution, has shone on the path of the South American Patriots, from the beginning of their course. emergencies, they have looked to our experience. In their political institutions, they have followed our models. In their deliberations, they have invoked the presiding Spirit of our own Liberty. They have looked steadily, In in every adversity, to the GREAT NORTHERN LIGHT. the hour of bloody conflict, they have remembered 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 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, am guilty of that weakness. If it be prudence to meet their proffered civility, not with reciprocal kindness, but with coldness or with insult, I choose still to follow where natural impulse leads, and to give up that false and mistaken prudence, for the voluntary sentiments of my heart. The committee then rose, and the House adjourned. the United States. But, Sir, we are not called upon to legislate upon the The occasion which we are delibesympathies of men. rating demands decision. We are called upon to determine between a course which, looking to the enthusiasm of the moment-an enthusiasm which cannot be too much praised-may yet lead to consequences which may here. after be long and vainly deplored, and that course which, disregarding any present popular impulse, aims, with a fixed and unwavering purpose, at the ultimate honor and safety of the country. With regard to the amendment which is the immediate subject of discussion, sincere as my respect has always been for the opinions of the honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. McLANE) as well as those of my friend from Virginia, (Mr. RIVES) I am constrained to differ with them both on the present occasion. greater regret, because of the coincidence of our views on the general policy of the proposed measure. I do so with the To the Executive has the Constitution confided the sole and exclusive superintendence of our foreign peaceful relations. I say peaceful, because the power of declaring war being vested in both branches of the Legislature, Congress may be said to divide the responsibility of the Executive, when the country is to assume a hostile attitude with regard to any foreign Power. But so far as the consequences of this Mission can at present be foreseen and contemplated, it would be assuming too much to say, that war is to be immediately and necessarily the result; that this House, in consequence of its general agency in Constitutional functions of the President, and say, that the declaring war, would have a right to interfere with the negotiations or deliberations at Panama should be limited to such topics, or restricted on all topics, to be discussed there, in such manner that the peace of the country should, in no possible event, be endangered. The House of ReThe House having again resumed the consideration of presentatives ought not to place itself in the attitude of the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations, approv- giving counsel to the President, or instructions to any ing the Mission to Panama, with the amendments propos- public functionary, either at home or abroad, without the ing a qualification to the general expression of approba-power of enforcing them. Self-respect ought to restrain this House from registering any remonstrance, or other tion thereofMr. VERPLANCK addressed the Committee, in sup-declaration, which is to prove inoperative. If any object, port of the amendment of Mr. McLANE. SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1826. Mr. CARTER then took the floor, and spoke as follows: Mr. CHAIRMAN: The subject at present before the Committee, is entitled, as well from its great importance as from its entire novelty, to the most deliberate and candid From the fullest reflection which I have consideration. been able to betow upon it, aided by the documents which are before us, I have come to the conclusion that valuable to the safety or interests of the country, the acquisition of which the President promised himself, at the Congress of Panama, should, by reason of his recognising the force of the limitation proposed by this amendment, be put beyond his reach, he would not only be at liberty to disregard it, but he would be bound, by the double alIf the Mission, therefore, be sanctionlegiance which he owed to the Constitution and to the country, to do so. |