CONTENTS. I. NOTE: Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Lowell, No. 368, May 8, 1882 II. Page. 219 (Extract) LIST OF EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS: 1. Definitive treaty of peace between Great Britain and Spain, signed at Paris February 10, 1763. 232 2. Definitive treaty of peace between Great Britain and Spain, signed at Versailles September 3, 1783. (Extract) 232 3. Convention between Great Britain and Spain, relative to America, signed at London July 14, 1786. 4. President Monroe's message to Congress March 8, 1822. (Extract). 5. Observations of John Quincy Adams on the claim of Russia to territorial possession on the continent of North America, communicated with Mr. Adams's letter to Mr. Middleton of July 22, 1823. No. 323. 233 237 239 6. Mr. Rush to Mr. John Quincy Adams, August 19, 1823. 239 242 12. Treaty between the United States and New Granada, December 12, 1846. (Extract) 13. Convention between the United States and Nicaragua, June 21, 1849. (Concluded, but not submitted to the Senate in consequence of the subsequent conclusion of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty) 14. Contract between Nicaragua and the American Atlantic and Pacific ShipCanal Company, signed at Leon, August 27, 1849, containing the grant which was subsequently accepted under Article VII of the ClaytonBulwer treaty. 15. Mr. Crampton to Lord Palmerston, September 15, 1849. 16. Mr. Crampton to Lord Palmerston, October 1, 1849. (Extract) 17. Mr. Crampton to Lord Palmerston, November 4, 1849.. 18. Mr. Abbott Lawrence to Lord Palmerston, November 8, 1849. 19. Sir Henry Bulwer to Lord Palmerston, January 6, 1850. (Extract). 20. Sir Henry Bulwer to Lord Palmerston, February 3, 1850, inclosing a proj- American Atlantic and Pacific Ship-Canal Company. 23. Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Clayton, No. 44, April 19, 1850. (Extract) 26. Declaration made by Sir Henry Bulwer at the Department of State, June 246 247 255 261 262 265 265 266 267 271 272 273 288 291 293 27. Memorandum touching Sir Henry Bulwer's declaration filed by Mr. Clay- 293 294 29. Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Webster, No. 164, February 27, 1852. (Extract) 296 30. Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Webster, No. 168, March 26, 1852. (Extract) 31. Arrangement for settling Central American affairs, agreed upon between Mr. Crampton and Mr. Webster, April 30, 1852. 32. Mr. Webster to Mr. Lawrence, No. 77, May 14, 1852. (Extract) 33. Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Webster, No. 188, June 8, 1852.. 34. Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Webster, No. 194, July 2, 1852. (Extract) 36. Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Webster, No. 198, August 13, 1852 35. Proclamation of the organization of the British colony of the Bay Islands, July 17, 1852 37. Mr. Marcy to Mr. Borland, No. 8, December 30, 1853. (Extract) 38. Statement of Mr. Buchanan for Lord Clarendon, January 6, 1854. (Extract) 39. Statement of Lord Clarendon for Mr. Buchanan, May 2, 1854. (Extract) 40. Remark by Mr. Buchanan in reply to Lord Clarendon's statement of May 2; July 22, 1854. (Extract). 41. Decree of the President of Nicaragua annulling the grant to the American Atlantic and Pacific Ship-Canal Company, February 18, 1856... 42. Additional articles to the treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation between Great Britain and Honduras, signed at London August 27, 1856. 43. Lord Napier to Lord Clarendon, March 12, 1857... Page. 296 297 301 302 303 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 311 312 44. Lord Napier to Lord Clarendon, May 6, 1857. (Extracts). 314 45. Mr. Cass to Lord Napier, May 29, 1857. 315 46. Lord Napier to Lord Clarendon, June 22, 1857. (Extract) 318 47. Lord Napier to Lord Clarendon, October 12, 1857. (Extract) 318 48. Mr. Cass to Lord Napier, October 20, 1857. 318 49. Lord Napier to Lord Clarendon, October 22, 1857. (Extract) 320 50. The Cass-Yrisarri treaty, concluded November 16, 1857, but the ratifications never exchanged 323 51. Lord Napier to Mr. Cass, November 30, 1857. (Extract). 331 52. President Buchanan's message to Congress, December 8, 1857. (Extract).... 53. Lord Napier to Mr. Cass, February 15, 1858 332 54. Lord Napier to Lord Malmesbury, March 22, 1858 55. Lord Malmesbury to Lord Napier, April 8, 1858 56. Mr. Cass to Mr. Lamar, No. 9, July 25, 1858. (Extract) 57. Mr. Cass to Lord Napier, November 8, 1858 58. Lord Malmesbury to Lord Napier, December 8, 1858. (Extract) 60. Treaty between Great Britain and Honduras respecting the Bay Islands, 61. Treaty between Great Britain and Nicaragua relative to the Mosquito Indians and to the rights and claims of British subjects, signed at Managua January 28, 1860 62. President Buchanan's message to Congress, December 3, 1860. (Extract). 63. Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, No. 1745, April 25, 1866.. 64. Report from Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, on the commercial relations between the United States and the Spanish-American States, July 14, 1870. (Extract) (Extract) 65. Mr. Fish to General Schenck, No. 375, April 26, 1873.. 68. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Lowell, No. 187, June 24, 1881. 69. Mr. Hoppin to Mr. Blaine, No. 218, November 11, 1881, inclosing Lord 70. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Lowell, No. 270, November 19, 1881. 76. Mr. Lowell to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No. 376, June 1, 1882. 343 352 352 354 357 361 361 363 368 370 371 380 383 384 390 396 397 397 400 409 No. 368.] L NOTE. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Lowell. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D. C., May 8, 1882. SIR: Mr. Sackville West has handed me copies of two dispatches from Lord Granville to him respecting the Clayton-Bulwer treaty; the first, dated 7th January last, comments upon Mr. Blaine's 270 of the 19th of November; the second, of the 14th January, comments upon Mr. Blaine's 281 of the 29th November. They have been read with interest and with attention. After careful consideration, the President is not without hope that the views of the two Governments may be harmonized in this matter. He therefore directs me to communicate to you, somewhat at length, the opinions entertained here respecting the traditional continental policy of the United States and the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. A canal across the Isthmus for vessels of all dimensions and every character, under possible conditions hereinafter referred to, would affect this Republic in its trade and commerce; would expose our Western coast to attack; destroy our isolation; oblige us to improve our defenses and to increase our Navy, and possibly compel us, contrary to our traditions, to take an active interest in the affairs of European nations. The United States, with their large and increasing population and wealth, can not be uninterested in a change in the physical conformation of this hemisphere which may injuriously affect either the material or political interests of the Republic, and naturally seek that the severance of the Isthmus connecting the continents shall be effected in harmony with those interests. This Government, while believing that the Isthmus should not be severed so as to do unnecessary injury to the United States, at the same time appreciates the desire of Great Britain that she should be able, by a short and easy passage from ocean to ocean, to reach her eastern and American possessions on the Pacific, and that other nations of the world have a similar interest in such a passage. There is, however, no necessary conflict between the political claims of the United States in this matter and the material interests of other nations. A canal across the Isthmus can be created, and under the protectorate of the United States and the Republic whose territory it may cross, can be freely used by all nations; thus in some degree would be continued to the United States the benefit of that conformation of the earth which is now an element of security and defense. For thirty years the Panama Railroad has been maintained without other protection than that of the United States and the local sovereign, in accordance with the treaty of 1846 with New Granada. During that period Great Britain has carried to a successful result the wars of the Crimea and the Indian mutiny; France has three times convulsed Europe with strife; a conflict between Russia and Turkey has changed the face of the Ottoman Empire; thrones have crumbled; empires have been constructed; republics have arisen, while on this continent the most remarkable civil war in history has occurred, and at the same time the Emperor of the French was lending his active support to an aspirant for imperial honors in the neighboring Republic of Mexico. Within that period almost every form of war and strife have taken place that would seem to make especially necessary the neutralization of the Isthmus, and yet the trains of the Panama Railroad have run from ocean to ocean peacefully and with no other interruption than what has come from the rare turbulence of the local population. During the same time another isthmus has been pierced, and while wars have raged within sight of the Mediterranean port the peaceful commerce of the world has moved through the Suez Canal quietly and safely under no international protectorate. If no guarantee or protectorate has been found necessary during such troubled times, it can scarcely be required in the more peaceful period which both the Government of the United States and that of Great Britain hope and strive for. The President, therefore, considers it unnecessary and unwise, through an invitation to the nations of the earth, to guarantee the neutrality of the transit of the Isthmus, or to give their navies a pretext for assembling in waters contiguous to our shores, and to possibly involve this Republic in conflicts from which its natural position entitles it to be relieved. It will doubtless occur to Lord Granville, as it does to us, that international agreements of this kind calling for interference by force, and conferring joint rights upon several independent powers, are calculated to breed dissension and trouble. In times of peace, when there is no call for their exercise, they are harmless though useless. But when wars and trouble come, it too frequently happens that differences arise, and so at the very moment when the agreement should be enforced it is impossible to enforce it; and such agreements would lead to that political intervention in American affairs which the traditional policy of the United States makes it impossible that the President should either consent to or look upon with indifference. The President believes that the formation of a protectorate by European nations over the isthmus transit would be in conflict with a doctrine which has been for many years asserted by the United States. This sentiment is properly termed a doctrine, as it has no prescribed sanction and its assertion is left to the exigency which may invoke it. It has been repeatedly announced by the Executive Department of this Government, and through the utterances of distinguished citizens; it is cherished by the American people, and has been approved by the Government of Great Britain. It is not the inhospitable principle which it is sometimes charged with being and which asserts that European nations shall not retain dominion on this hemisphere and that none but republican governments shall here be tolerated; for we well know that a large part of the North American continent is under the dominion of Her Majesty's Government, and that the United States were in the past the first to recognize the imperial authority of Dom Pedro in Brazil and of Iturbide in Mexico. It is not necessary now to define that doctrine, but its history clearly shows that it at least opposes any intervention by European nations in the political affairs of American republics. In 1823 Mr. Canning, with the concurrence of the cabinet of London, informed Mr. Rush that Great Britain could not see with indifference the intervention of foreign power in Spanish America, or the transfer to those powers of any of the colonies, and suggested a joint declaration to that effect by the United States and Great Britain. This suggestion grew out of the relations then existing between France and Spain, their attitude towards the South American republics then strug gling for independence, and the injuries to the colonies and commerce of Great Britain which would result from a successful prosecution of the policy of those two Governments. President Monroe did not adopt the proposal for a joint declaration; but in his message of December 2, 1823, after stating that it was our policy not to interfere with the internal concerns of European powers, speaking of the war which the revolted colonies were carrying on against Spain, and of contemplated interference by the "Holy Alliance" in behalf of the latter, said, in language which has gone into history under his name, thus: But in regard to these continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness, nor can any one believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. This sentiment was received in England with enthusiasm. Mr. Brougham said: The question in regard to Spanish America is now, I believe, disposed of or nearly so; for an event has recently happened than which none has ever dispensed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the freedmen of Europe; that event which is decisive on the subject is the language held with respect to Spanish America in the message of the President of the United States. Sir James Mackintosh said: This evidence of the two great English commonwealths (for so I delight to call them, and I heartily pray that they may be forever united in the cause of justice and liberty) cannot be contemplated without the greatest pleasure by every enlightened citizen of the earth. Mr. John Quincy Adams, who well knew what had led to these statements by Mr. Monroe, explained in a message to the House of Representatives on the 17th day of March, 1826, that there was no purpose of interfering with the existing European colonies in America; that the language was only a frank declaration that the United States could not look with indifference either upon an attempt by colonization to close any port of the continent against the commerce of the United States or upon concerted political interference from Europe in American affairs. Thus the doctrine of non-intervention by European powers in American affairs arose from complications in South America, and was announced by Mr. Monroe on the suggestion of the official representative of Great Britain. The doctrine so formulated by Monroe and expounded by Adams has since remained a cardinal principle of our continental policy. In several notable instances, especially in the case of the French attempt to set up imperial authority in Mexico, it guided our political action, and it is to-day firmly embedded in the American heart. |