ON THE SPANISH TREATY.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 3, 1820.[APERUSALof this speech will be always gratifying and instructive, to all who would wish to be well informed in the political history of the United States. While it shows, in a striking manner, the foresight and sagacity ofMr.Clay, as an American statesman, it contains facts of much importance with regard to the settlement of the southern boundaries of the United States and the acquisition of Florida.It will be seen, thatMr.Clay disapproved of the treaty between this country and Spain, made in 1819, by the administration ofMr.Monroe, for reasons stated in this speech, which was made before the treaty was ratified by Spain. His principal objection to the treaty appears to have been, that it relinquished our claim to Texas, which territoryMr.Clay considered of much greater value to us than Florida. The settlement of these questions, by the subsequent ratification of the treaty, in October, 1820, by which we relinquished Texas and acquired Florida, does not diminish the value of this record ofMr.Clay’s views on a subject, which has increased in importance since the independence of both Mexico and Texas has been established.]THEhouse having resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the state of the union, and the following resolutions, submitted some days ago byMr.Clay (the speaker) being under consideration:First, resolved, that the constitution of the United States vests in congress the power to dispose of the territory belonging to them; and that no treaty, purporting to alienate any portion thereof, is valid without the concurrence of congress:Second, resolved, that the equivalent proposed to be given by Spain to the United States in the treaty concluded between them, on the twenty-second of February, 1819, for that part of Louisiana lying west of the Sabine, was inadequate; and that it would be inexpedient to make a transfer thereof to any foreign power, or to renew the aforesaid treaty:Mr.Clay said, that, whilst he felt very grateful to the house for the prompt and respectful manner in which they had allowed him to enter upon the discussion of the resolutions which he had the honor of submitting to their notice, he must at the same time frankly say, that he thought their character and consideration, in the councils of this country, were concerned in not letting the present session pass off without deliberating upon our affairs withSpain. In coming to the present session of congress, it had been his anxious wish to be able to concur with the executive branch of the government in the measures which it might conceive itself called upon to recommend on that subject, for two reasons, of which the first, relating personally to himself, he would not trouble the committee with further noticing. The other was, that it appeared to him to be always desirable, in respect to the foreign action of this government, that there should be a perfect coincidence in opinion between its several coördinate branches. In time of peace, however, it might be allowable, to those who are charged with the public interests, to entertain and express their respective views, although there might be some discordance between them. In a season of war there should be no division in the public councils; but a united and vigorous exertion to bring the war to an honorable conclusion. For his part, whenever that calamity may befall his country, he would entertain but one wish, and that is, that success might crown our struggle, and the war be honorably and gloriously terminated. He would never refuse to share in the joys incident to the victory of our arms, nor to participate in the griefs of defeat and discomfiture. He conceded entirely in the sentiment once expressed by that illustrious hero, whose recent melancholy fall we all so sincerely deplore, that fortune may attend our country in whatever war it may be involved.There are two systems of policy, he said, of which our government had had the choice. The first was, by appealing to the justice and affections of Spain, to employ all those persuasives which could arise out of our abstinence from any direct countenance to the cause of South America, and the observance of a strict neutrality. The other was, by appealing to her justice also, and to her fears, to prevail upon her to redress the injuries of which we complain—her fears by a recognition of the independent governments of South America, and leaving her in a state of uncertainty as to the further step we might take in respect to those governments. The unratified treaty was the result of the first system. It could not be positively affirmed, what effect the other system would have produced; but he verily believed that, whilst it rendered justice to those governments, and would have better comported with that magnanimous policy which ought to have characterized our own, it would have more successfully tended to an amicable and satisfactory arrangement of our differences with Spain.The first system has so far failed. At the commencement of the session, the president recommended an enforcement of the provisions of the treaty. After three months’ deliberation, the committee of foreign affairs, not being able to concur with him, has made us a report, recommending the seizure of Florida in the nature of a reprisal. Now the president recommends our postponement of the subject until the next session. It had been his intention, wheneverthe committee of foreign affairs should engage the house to act upon their bill, to offer, as a substitute for it, the system which he thought it became this country to adopt, of which the occupation of Texas, as our own, would have been a part, and the recognition of the independent governments of South America another. If he did not now bring forward this system, it was because the committee proposed to withdraw their bill, and because he knew too much of the temper of the house and of the executive, to think that it was advisable to bring it forward. He hoped that some suitable opportunity might occur during the session, for considering the propriety of recognising the independent governments of South America.Whatever he might think of thediscretionwhich was evinced in recommending the postponement of the bill of the committee of foreign relations, he could not think that the reasons, assigned by the president for that recommendation, were entitled to the weight which he had given them. He thought the house was called upon, by a high sense of duty, seriously to animadvert upon some of those reasons. He believed it was the first example, in the annals of the country, in which a course of policy, respecting one foreign power, which we must suppose had been deliberately considered, has been recommended to be abandoned, in a domestic communication from one to another coördinate branch of the government, upon the avowed ground of the interposition of foreign powers. And what is the nature of this interposition? It is evinced by a cargo of scraps, gathered up from thischargé d’affaires, and that; of loose conversations held with this foreign minister, and that—perhaps mere levee conversations, without a commitment in writing, in a solitary instance, of any of the foreign parties concerned, except only in the case of his imperial majesty; and what was the character of his commitment we shall presently see. But, he must enter his solemn protest against this and every other species of foreign interference in our matters with Spain. What have they to do with them? Wouldtheynot repel as officious and insulting intrusion, any interference on our part in their concerns with foreign states? Would his imperial majesty have listened with complacency, to our remonstrances against the vast acquisitions which he has recently made? He has lately crammed his enormous maw with Finland, and with the spoils of Poland, and, whilst the difficult process of digestion is going on, he throws himself upon a couch, and cries out, don’t, don’t disturb my repose.Hecharges his minister here to plead the cause of peace and concord! The American ‘government is too enlightened’ (ah! sir, how sweet this unction is, which is poured down our backs,) to take hasty steps. And his imperial majesty’s minister here is required toengage(Mr.Clay said, he hoped the original expressionwas less strong, but he believed the French wordengagerbore the same meaning,) ‘the American government,’&c.‘Nevertheless, the emperor does not interpose in this discussion.’ No! not he. He makes above all ‘no pretension to exercise influence in the councils of a foreign power.’ Not the slightest. And yet, at the very instant when he is protesting against the imputation of this influence, his interposition is proving effectual! His imperial majesty has at least manifested so far, in this particular, his capacity to govern his empire, by the selection of a sagacious minister. For if count Nesselrode had never written another paragraph, the extract from his despatch toMr.Poletica, which has been transmitted to this house, will demonstrate that he merited the confidence of his master. It is quite refreshing to read such state papers, after perusing those (he was sorry to say it, he wished there was a veil broad and thick enough to conceal them for ever,) which this treaty had produced on the part of our government.Conversations between my lord Castlereagh and our minister at London had also been communicated to this house. Nothing from the hand of his lordship is produced; no! he does not commit himself in that way. Thesensein which our minister understood him, and the purport of certain parts of despatches from the British government to its minister at Madrid, which he deigned to read to our minister, are alone communicated to us. Now we know very well how diplomatists, when it is their pleasure to do so, can wrap themselves up in mystery. No man more than my lord Castlereagh, who is also an able minister, possessing much greater talents than are allowed to him generally in this country, can successfully express himself in ambiguous language, when he chooses to employ it. He recollected himself once to have witnessed this facility, on the part of his lordship. The case was this. When Bonaparte made his escape from Elba, and invaded France, a great part of Europe believed it was with the connivance of the British ministry. The opposition charged them, in parliament, with it, and they were interrogated, to know what measures of precaution they had taken against such an event. Lord Castlereagh replied by stating, that there was anunderstandingwith acertainnaval officer of high rank, commanding in the adjacent seas, that he was toacton certaincontingences. Now,Mr.Chairman, if you can make any thing intelligible out of this reply, you will have much more success than the English opposition had.The allowance of interference by foreign powers in the affairs of our government, not pertaining to themselves, is against the councils of all our wisest politicians—those of Washington, Jefferson, and he would also add those of the present chief magistrate; for, pending this very Spanish negotiation, the offer of the mediation of foreign states was declined, upon the true ground,that Europe had her system, and we ours; and that it was not compatible with our policy to entangle ourselves in the labyrinths of hers. But a mediation is far preferable to the species of interference on which it had been his reluctant duty to comment. The mediator is a judge, placed on high; his conscience his guide, the world his spectators, and posterityhisjudge. His position is one, therefore, of the greatest responsibility. But what responsibility is attached to this sort of irregular, drawing-room, intriguing interposition? He could see no motive for governing or influencing our policy, in regard to Spain, furnished in any of the communications which respected the disposition of foreign powers. He regretted, for his part, that they had at all been consulted. There was nothing in the character of the power of Spain, nothing in the beneficial nature of the stipulations of the treaty to us, which warranted us in seeking the aid of foreign powers, if in any case whatever that aid were desirable. He was far from saying that, in the foreign action of this government, it might not be prudent to keep a watchful eye upon the probable conduct of foreign powers. That might be a material circumstance to be taken into consideration. But he never would avow to our own people, never promulgate to foreign powers, that their wishes and interference were the controlling cause of our policy. Such promulgation would lead to the most alarming consequences. It was toinvitefurther interposition. It might, in process of time, create in the bosom of our country a Russian faction, a British faction, a French faction. Every nation ought to be jealous of this species of interference, whatever was its form of government. But of all forms of government, the united testimony of all history, admonished a republic to be most guarded against it. From the moment Philip intermeddled with the affairs of Greece, the liberty of Greece was doomed to inevitable destruction.Suppose, saidMr.Clay, we could see the communications which have passed between his imperial majesty and the British government, respectively, and Spain, in regard to the United States; what do you imagine would be their character? Do you suppose the same language has been held to Spain and to us? Do you not, on the contrary, believe that sentiments have been expressed to her, consoling to her pride? That we have been represented, perhaps as an ambitious republic, seeking to aggrandize ourselves at her expense?In the other ground taken by the president, the present distressed condition of Spain, for his recommendation of forbearance to act during the present session, he was also sorry to say, that it did not appear to him to be solid. He could well conceive, how the weakness of your aggressor might, when he was withholding from you justice, form a motive for your pressing your equitable demands upon him; but he could not accord in the wisdom of that policy which would wait his recovery of strength, so as to enable himsuccessfully to resist those demands. Nor would it comport with the practice of our government heretofore. Did we not, in 1811, when the present monarch of Spain was an ignoble captive, and the people of the peninsula were contending for the inestimable privilege of self-government, seize and occupy that part of Louisiana which is situated between the Mississippi and the Perdido? What must the people of Spain think of that policy which would not spare them, and which commiserates alone an unworthy prince, who ignominiously surrendered himself to his enemy; a vile despot, of whom I cannot speak in appropriate language, without departing from the respect due to this house or to myself? What must the people of South America think of this sympathy for Ferdinand, at a moment when they, as well as the people of the peninsula, themselves, (if we are to believe the late accounts, and God send that they may be true,) are struggling for liberty?Again: when we declared our late just war against Great Britain, did we wait for a moment when she was free from embarrassment or distress; or did we not rather wisely select a period when there was the greatest probability of giving success to our arms? What was the complaint in England; what the language of faction here? Was it not, that we had cruelly proclaimed the war at a time when she was struggling for the liberties of the world? How truly, let the sequel and the voice of impartial history tell.Whilst he could not, therefore, persuade himself, that the reasons assigned by the president for postponing the subject of our Spanish affairs until another session, were entitled to all the weight which he seemed to think belonged to them, he did not, nevertheless, regret that the particular project recommended by the committee of foreign relations was thus to be disposed of; for it was war—war, attempted to be disguised. And if we went to war, he thought it should have no other limit than indemnity for the past, and security for the future. He had no idea of the wisdom of that measure of hostility which would bind us, whilst the other party is left free.Before he proceeded to consider the particular propositions which the resolutions contained, which he had had the honor of submitting, it was material to determine the actual posture of our relations to Spain. He considered it too clear to need discussion, that the treaty was at an end; that it contained, in its present state, no obligation whatever upon us, and no obligation whatever on the part of Spain. It was, as if it had never been. We are remitted back to the state of our rights and our demands which existed prior to the conclusion of the treaty, with this only difference, that, instead of being merged in, or weakened by the treaty, they had acquired all the additional force which the intervening time, and the faithlessness of Spain, can communicate to them. Standingon this position, he should not deem it necessary to interfere with the treaty-making power, if a fixed and persevering purpose had not been indicated by it, to obtain the revival of the treaty. Now he thought it a bad treaty. The interest of the country, as it appeared to him, forbade its renewal. Being gone, it was perfectly incomprehensible to him, why so much solicitude was manifested to restore it. Yet it is clung to with the same sort of frantic affection with which the bereaved mother hugs her dead infant, in the vain hope of bringing it back to life.Has the house of representatives a right to express its opinion upon the arrangement made in that treaty? The president, by asking congress to carry it into effect, has given us jurisdiction of the subject, if we had it not before. We derive from that circumstance the right to consider, first, if there be a treaty; secondly, if we ought to carry it into effect; and, thirdly, if there be no treaty, whether it be expedient to assert our rights, independent of the treaty. It will not be contended that we are restricted to that specific mode of redress which the president intimated in his opening message.The first resolution which he had presented, asserted, that the constitution vests in the congress of the United States the power to dispose of the territory belonging to them;and that no treaty purporting to alienate any portion thereof, is valid, without the concurrence ofcongress.8It was far from his wish to renew at large a discussion of the treaty-making power. The constitution of the United States had not defined the precise limits of that power, because, from the nature of it, they could not be prescribed. It appeared to him, however, that no safe American statesman would assign to it a boundless scope. He presumed, for example, that it would not be contended that in a government which was itself limited, there was a functionary without limit. The first great bound to the power in question, he apprehended, was, that no treaty could constitutionally transcend the very objects and purposes of the government itself. He thought, also, that wherever there were specific grants of powers to congress, they limited and controlled, or, he would rather say, modified the exercise of the general grant of the treaty-making power, upon the principle which was familiar to every one. He did not insist, that the treaty-making power could not act upon the subjects committed to the charge of congress; he merely contended that the concurrence of congress, in its action upon those subjects, was necessary. Nor would he insist, that the concurrence should precede that action. It would be always most desirable that it should precede it, if convenient, to guard against the commitment of congress, on the one hand, bythe executive, or on the other, what might seem to be a violation of the faith of the country, pledged for the ratification of the treaty. But he was perfectly aware, that it would be very often highly inconvenient to deliberate, in a body so numerous as congress, on the nature of those terms on which it might be proper to treat with foreign powers. In the view of the subject which he had been taking, there was a much higher degree of security to the interests of this country. For, with all respect to the president and senate, it could not disparage the wisdom of their councils, to add to that of this house also. But, if the concurrence of this house be not necessary in the cases asserted, if there be no restriction upon the power he was considering, it might draw to itself and absorb the whole of the powers of government. To contract alliances; to stipulate for raising troops to be employed in a common war about to be waged; to grant subsidies; even to introduce foreign troops within the bosom of the country; were not unfrequent instances of the exercise of this power; and if, in all such cases, the honor and faith of the nation were committed, by the exclusive act of the president and senate,the melancholy duty alone might be left to congress of recording the ruin of therepublic.9Supposing, however, that no treaty, which undertakes to dispose of the territory of the United States, is valid, without the concurrence of congress, it may be contended, that such treaty may constitutionally fix the limits of the territory of the United States, where they are disputed, without the coöperation of congress. He admitted it, when the fixation of the limits simply was the object. As in the case of the riverSt.Croix, or the more recent stipulation in the treaty of Ghent, or in that of the treaty of Spain in 1795. In all these cases, the treaty-making power merely reduces to certainty that which was before unascertained. It announces the fact; it proclaims, in a tangible form, the existence of the boundary. It does not make a new boundary; it asserts only where the old boundary was. But it cannot, under color of fixing a boundary previously existing, though not in fact marked, undertake to cede away, without the concurrence of congress, whole provinces. If the subject be one of a mixed character, if it consists partly of cession, and partly of the fixation of a prior limit, he contended that the president must come here for the consent of congress. But in the Florida treaty it was not pretended that the object was simply a declaration of where the western limit of Louisiana was. It was, on the contrary, the caseof an avowed cession of territory from the United States to Spain. The whole of the correspondence manifested that the respective parties to the negotiation were not engaged so much in an inquiry where the limit of Louisianawas, as that they were exchanging overtures as to where itshould be. Hence, we find various limits proposed and discussed. At one time the Mississippi is proposed; then the Missouri; then a river discharging itself into the gulf east of the Sabine. A vast desert is proposed to separate the territories of the two powers; and finally the Sabine, which neither of the parties had ever contended was the ancient limit of Louisiana, is adopted, and the boundary is extended from its source by a line perfectly new and arbitrary; and the treaty itself proclaims its purpose to be a cession from the United States to Spain.The second resolution comprehended three propositions; the first of which was, that the equivalent granted by Spain to the United States, for the province of Texas, was inadequate. To determine this, it was necessary to estimate the value of what we gave, and of what we received. This involved an inquiry into our claim to Texas. It was not his purpose to enter at large into this subject. He presumed the spectacle would not be presented of questioning, in this branch of the government, our title to Texas, which had been constantly maintained by the executive for more than fifteen years past, under three several administrations. He was, at the same time, ready and prepared to make out our title, if any one in the house were fearless enough to controvert it. He would, for the present, briefly state, that the man who is most familiar with the transactions of this government, who largely participated in the formation of our constitution, and all that has been done under it, who, besides the eminent services that he has rendered his country, principally contributed to the acquisition of Louisiana, who must be supposed, from his various opportunities, best to know its limits, declared, fifteen years ago, that our title to the Rio del Norte was as well founded as it was to the island of New Orleans. [HereMr.Clay read an extract from a memoir presented in 1805, byMr.Monroe andMr.Pinckney, toMr.Cevallos, proving that the boundary of Louisiana extended eastward to the Perdido, and westward to the Rio del Norte, in which they say, ‘the facts and principles which justify this conclusion, are so satisfactory to their government as to convince it, that the United States have not a better right to the island of New Orleans, under the cession referred to, than they have to the whole district of territory thus described.’] The title to the Perdido on the one side, and to the Rio del Norte on the other, rested on the same principle—the priority of discovery and of occupation by France. Spain had first discovered and made an establishment at Pensacola; France at Dauphine island, in the bay of Mobile. The intermediate space was unoccupied; and the principle observed among European nations having contiguous settlements, being, that theunoccupied space between them should be equally divided, was applied to it, and the Perdido thus became the common boundary. So, west of the Mississippi, La Salle, acting under France, in 1682 or 3, first discovered that river. In 1685, he made an establishment on the bay ofSt.Bernard, west of the Colorado, emptying into it. The nearest Spanish settlement was Panuco; and the Rio del Norte, about the midway line, became the common boundary.All the accounts concurred in representing Texas to be extremely valuable. Its superficial extent was three or four times greater than that of Florida. The climate was delicious; the soil fertile; the margins of the rivers abounding in live oak; and the country admitting of easy settlement. It possessed, moreover, if he were not misinformed, one of the finest ports in the Gulf of Mexico. The productions of which it was capable were suited to our wants. The unfortunate captive ofSt.Helena wished for ships, commerce, and colonies. We have them all, if we do not throw them away. The colonies of other countries are separated from them by vast seas, requiring great expense to protect them, and are held subject to a constant risk of their being torn from their grasp. Our colonies, on the contrary, are united to and form a part of our continent; and the same Mississippi, from whose rich deposit the best of them (Louisiana) has been formed, will transport on her bosom the brave, the patriotic men from her tributary streams, to defend and preserve the next most valuable, the province of Texas.We wanted Florida, or rather weshallwant it; or, to speak more correctly, we want no body else to have it. We do not desire it for immediate use. It fills a space in our imagination, and we wish it to complete thearrondissementof our territory. It must certainly come to us. The ripened fruit will not more surely fall. Florida is enclosed in between Alabama and Georgia, and cannot escape. Texas may. Whether we get Florida now, or some five or ten years hence, it is of no consequence, provided no other power gets it; and if any other power should attempt to take it, an existing act of congress authorizes the president to prevent it. He was not disposed to disparage Florida, but its intrinsic value was incomparably less than that of Texas. Almost its sole value was military. The possession of it would undoubtedly communicate some additional security to Louisiana, and to the American commerce in the Gulf of Mexico. But it was not very essential to have it for protection to Georgia and Alabama. There could be no attack upon either of them, by a foreign power, on the side of Florida. It now covered those states. Annexed to the United States, and we should have to extend our line of defence so as to embrace Florida. Far from being, therefore, a source of immediate profit, it would be the occasion of considerable immediate expense.The acquisition of it was certainly a fair object of our policy; and ought never to be lost sight of. It is even a laudable ambition, in any chief magistrate, to endeavor to illustrate the epoch of his administration, by such an acquisition. It was less necessary, however, to fill the measure of honors of the present chief magistrate, than that of any other man, in consequence of the large share which he had in obtaining all Louisiana. But, whoever may deserve the renown which may attend the incorporation of Florida into our confederacy, it is our business, as the representatives of that people who are to pay the price of it, to take care, as far as we constitutionally can, that too much is not given. He would not give Texas for Florida in a naked exchange. We were bound by the treaty to give not merely Texas, but five millions of dollars, also, and the excess beyond that sum of all our claims upon Spain, which have been variously estimated at from fifteen to twenty millions of dollars!The public is not generally apprized of another large consideration which passed from us to Spain; if an interpretation which he had heard given to the treaty were just; and it certainly was plausible. Subsequent to the transfer, but before the delivery of Louisiana from Spain to France, the then governor of New Orleans (he believed his name was Gayoso) made a number of concessions, upon the payment of an inconsiderable pecuniary consideration, amounting to between nine hundred thousand and a million acres of land, similar to those recently made at Madrid to the royal favorites. This land is situated in Feliciana, and between the Mississippi and the Amité, in the present state of Louisiana. It was granted to persons who possessed the very best information of the country, and is no doubt, therefore, the choice land. The United States have never recognised, but have constantly denied the validity of these concessions. It is contended by the parties concerned, that they are confirmed by the late treaty. By the second article his catholic majesty cedes to the United States, in full property and sovereignty, all the territories which belong to him, situated to theeastwardof the Mississippi, known by the name ofEast and West Florida. And by the eighth article, all grants of land made before the twenty-fourth of January, 1818, by his catholic majesty, or by hislawful authorities, shall be ratified and confirmed,&c.Now, the grants in question having been made long prior to that day, are supposed to be confirmed. He understood from a person interested, that don Onis had assured him it was his intention to confirm them. Whether the American negotiator had the same intention or not, he did not know. It will not be pretended, that the letter ofMr.Adams, of the twelfth of March, 1818, in which he declines to treat any further with respect to any part of the territory included within the limits of the state of Louisiana, can control the operation of the subsequent treaty. That treaty must be interpreted by what is in it, and notby what is out of it. The overtures which passed between the parties respectively, prior to the conclusion of the treaty, can neither restrict nor enlarge its meaning. Moreover, whenMr.Madison occupied, in 1811, the country between the Mississippi and the Perdido, he declared, that in our hands it should be, as it has been, subject to negotiation.It results, then, that we have given for Florida, charged and incumbered as it is,First, unincumbered Texas;Secondly, five millions of dollars;Thirdly, a surrender of all our claims upon Spain, not included in that five millions; and,Fourthly, if the interpretation of the treaty which he had stated were well founded, about a million of acres of the best unseated land in the state of Louisiana, worth perhaps ten millions of dollars.The first proposition contained in the second resolution, was thus, he thought, fully sustained. The next was, that it was inexpedient to cede Texas to any foreign power. They constituted, in his opinion, a sacred inheritance of posterity, which we ought to preserve unimpaired. He wished it was, if it were not, a fundamental and inviolable law of the land, that they should be inalienable to any foreign power. It was quite evident, that it was in the order of providence; that it was an inevitable result of the principle of population, that the whole of this continent, including Texas, was to be peopled in process of time. The question was, by whose race shall it be peopled? In our hands it will be peopled by freemen, and the sons of freemen, carrying with them our language, our laws, and our liberties; establishing, on the prairies of Texas, temples dedicated to the simple, and devout modes of worship of God, incident to our religion, and temples dedicated to that freedom which we adore next to Him. In the hands of others, it may become the habitation of despotism and of slaves, subject to the vile dominion of the inquisition and of superstition. He knew that there were honest and enlightened men, who feared that our confederacy was already too large, and that there was danger of disruption, arising out of the want of reciprocal coherence between its several parts. He hoped and believed, that the principle of representation, and the formation of states, would preserve us a united people. But if Texas, after being peopled by us, and grappling with us, should, at some distant day, break off, she will carry along with her a noble crew, consisting of our children’s children. The difference between those who might be disinclined to its annexation to our confederacy, and him, was, that their system began where his might, possibly, in some distant future day, terminate; and their’s began with a foreign race, aliens to every thing that we hold dear, and his ended with a race partaking of all our qualities.The last proposition which the second resolution affirms, is, that it is inexpedient to renew the treaty. If Spain had promptly ratified it, bad as it is, he would have acquiesced in it. After the protracted negotiation which it terminated; after the irritating and exasperating correspondence which preceded it, he would have taken the treaty as a man who has passed a long and restless night, turning and tossing in his bed, snatches at day an hour’s disturbed repose. But she would not ratify it; she would not consent to be bound by it; and she has liberated us from it. Is it wise to renew the negotiation, if it is to be recommenced, by announcing to her at once our ultimatum? Shall we not give her the vantage ground? In early life he had sometimes indulged in a species of amusement, which years and experience had determined him to renounce, which, if the committee would allow him to use it, furnished him with a figure—shall we enter on the game, with our hand exposed to the adversary, whilst he shuffles the cards to acquire more strength? What has lost us his ratification of the treaty? Incontestably, our importunity to procure the ratification, and the hopes which that importunity inspired, that he could yet obtain more from us. Let us undeceive him. Let us proclaim the acknowledged truth, that the treaty is prejudicial to the interests of this country. Are we not told, by the secretary of state, in the bold and confident assertion, that don Onis was authorized to grant usmuchmore, and that Spaindarenot deny his instructions? The line of demarcation isfarwithin his limits? If she would have then granted us more, is her position now more favorable to her in the negotiation? In our relations to foreign powers, it may be sometimes politic to sacrifice a portion of our rights to secure the residue. But is Spain such a power, as that it becomes us to sacrifice those rights? Is she entitled to it by her justice, by her observance of good faith, or by her possible annoyance of us in the event of war? She will seek, as she has sought, procrastination in the negotiation, taking the treaty as the basis. She will dare to offend us, as she has insulted us, by asking the disgraceful stipulation, that we shall not recognise the patriots. Let us put aside the treaty; tell her to grant us our rights, to their uttermost extent. And if she stillpalters, let us assert those rights by whatever measures it is for the interest of our country to adopt.If the treaty were abandoned; if we were not on the contrary signified, too distinctly, that there was to be a continued and unremitting endeavor to obtain its revival; he would not think it advisable for this house to interpose. But, with all the information in our possession, and holding the opinions which he entertained, he thought it the bounden duty of the house to adopt the resolutions. He had acquitted himself of what he deemed a solemn duty, in bringing up the subject. Others would discharge their’s, according to their own sense of them.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 3, 1820.
[APERUSALof this speech will be always gratifying and instructive, to all who would wish to be well informed in the political history of the United States. While it shows, in a striking manner, the foresight and sagacity ofMr.Clay, as an American statesman, it contains facts of much importance with regard to the settlement of the southern boundaries of the United States and the acquisition of Florida.It will be seen, thatMr.Clay disapproved of the treaty between this country and Spain, made in 1819, by the administration ofMr.Monroe, for reasons stated in this speech, which was made before the treaty was ratified by Spain. His principal objection to the treaty appears to have been, that it relinquished our claim to Texas, which territoryMr.Clay considered of much greater value to us than Florida. The settlement of these questions, by the subsequent ratification of the treaty, in October, 1820, by which we relinquished Texas and acquired Florida, does not diminish the value of this record ofMr.Clay’s views on a subject, which has increased in importance since the independence of both Mexico and Texas has been established.]
THEhouse having resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the state of the union, and the following resolutions, submitted some days ago byMr.Clay (the speaker) being under consideration:
First, resolved, that the constitution of the United States vests in congress the power to dispose of the territory belonging to them; and that no treaty, purporting to alienate any portion thereof, is valid without the concurrence of congress:
Second, resolved, that the equivalent proposed to be given by Spain to the United States in the treaty concluded between them, on the twenty-second of February, 1819, for that part of Louisiana lying west of the Sabine, was inadequate; and that it would be inexpedient to make a transfer thereof to any foreign power, or to renew the aforesaid treaty:
Mr.Clay said, that, whilst he felt very grateful to the house for the prompt and respectful manner in which they had allowed him to enter upon the discussion of the resolutions which he had the honor of submitting to their notice, he must at the same time frankly say, that he thought their character and consideration, in the councils of this country, were concerned in not letting the present session pass off without deliberating upon our affairs withSpain. In coming to the present session of congress, it had been his anxious wish to be able to concur with the executive branch of the government in the measures which it might conceive itself called upon to recommend on that subject, for two reasons, of which the first, relating personally to himself, he would not trouble the committee with further noticing. The other was, that it appeared to him to be always desirable, in respect to the foreign action of this government, that there should be a perfect coincidence in opinion between its several coördinate branches. In time of peace, however, it might be allowable, to those who are charged with the public interests, to entertain and express their respective views, although there might be some discordance between them. In a season of war there should be no division in the public councils; but a united and vigorous exertion to bring the war to an honorable conclusion. For his part, whenever that calamity may befall his country, he would entertain but one wish, and that is, that success might crown our struggle, and the war be honorably and gloriously terminated. He would never refuse to share in the joys incident to the victory of our arms, nor to participate in the griefs of defeat and discomfiture. He conceded entirely in the sentiment once expressed by that illustrious hero, whose recent melancholy fall we all so sincerely deplore, that fortune may attend our country in whatever war it may be involved.
There are two systems of policy, he said, of which our government had had the choice. The first was, by appealing to the justice and affections of Spain, to employ all those persuasives which could arise out of our abstinence from any direct countenance to the cause of South America, and the observance of a strict neutrality. The other was, by appealing to her justice also, and to her fears, to prevail upon her to redress the injuries of which we complain—her fears by a recognition of the independent governments of South America, and leaving her in a state of uncertainty as to the further step we might take in respect to those governments. The unratified treaty was the result of the first system. It could not be positively affirmed, what effect the other system would have produced; but he verily believed that, whilst it rendered justice to those governments, and would have better comported with that magnanimous policy which ought to have characterized our own, it would have more successfully tended to an amicable and satisfactory arrangement of our differences with Spain.
The first system has so far failed. At the commencement of the session, the president recommended an enforcement of the provisions of the treaty. After three months’ deliberation, the committee of foreign affairs, not being able to concur with him, has made us a report, recommending the seizure of Florida in the nature of a reprisal. Now the president recommends our postponement of the subject until the next session. It had been his intention, wheneverthe committee of foreign affairs should engage the house to act upon their bill, to offer, as a substitute for it, the system which he thought it became this country to adopt, of which the occupation of Texas, as our own, would have been a part, and the recognition of the independent governments of South America another. If he did not now bring forward this system, it was because the committee proposed to withdraw their bill, and because he knew too much of the temper of the house and of the executive, to think that it was advisable to bring it forward. He hoped that some suitable opportunity might occur during the session, for considering the propriety of recognising the independent governments of South America.
Whatever he might think of thediscretionwhich was evinced in recommending the postponement of the bill of the committee of foreign relations, he could not think that the reasons, assigned by the president for that recommendation, were entitled to the weight which he had given them. He thought the house was called upon, by a high sense of duty, seriously to animadvert upon some of those reasons. He believed it was the first example, in the annals of the country, in which a course of policy, respecting one foreign power, which we must suppose had been deliberately considered, has been recommended to be abandoned, in a domestic communication from one to another coördinate branch of the government, upon the avowed ground of the interposition of foreign powers. And what is the nature of this interposition? It is evinced by a cargo of scraps, gathered up from thischargé d’affaires, and that; of loose conversations held with this foreign minister, and that—perhaps mere levee conversations, without a commitment in writing, in a solitary instance, of any of the foreign parties concerned, except only in the case of his imperial majesty; and what was the character of his commitment we shall presently see. But, he must enter his solemn protest against this and every other species of foreign interference in our matters with Spain. What have they to do with them? Wouldtheynot repel as officious and insulting intrusion, any interference on our part in their concerns with foreign states? Would his imperial majesty have listened with complacency, to our remonstrances against the vast acquisitions which he has recently made? He has lately crammed his enormous maw with Finland, and with the spoils of Poland, and, whilst the difficult process of digestion is going on, he throws himself upon a couch, and cries out, don’t, don’t disturb my repose.
Hecharges his minister here to plead the cause of peace and concord! The American ‘government is too enlightened’ (ah! sir, how sweet this unction is, which is poured down our backs,) to take hasty steps. And his imperial majesty’s minister here is required toengage(Mr.Clay said, he hoped the original expressionwas less strong, but he believed the French wordengagerbore the same meaning,) ‘the American government,’&c.‘Nevertheless, the emperor does not interpose in this discussion.’ No! not he. He makes above all ‘no pretension to exercise influence in the councils of a foreign power.’ Not the slightest. And yet, at the very instant when he is protesting against the imputation of this influence, his interposition is proving effectual! His imperial majesty has at least manifested so far, in this particular, his capacity to govern his empire, by the selection of a sagacious minister. For if count Nesselrode had never written another paragraph, the extract from his despatch toMr.Poletica, which has been transmitted to this house, will demonstrate that he merited the confidence of his master. It is quite refreshing to read such state papers, after perusing those (he was sorry to say it, he wished there was a veil broad and thick enough to conceal them for ever,) which this treaty had produced on the part of our government.
Conversations between my lord Castlereagh and our minister at London had also been communicated to this house. Nothing from the hand of his lordship is produced; no! he does not commit himself in that way. Thesensein which our minister understood him, and the purport of certain parts of despatches from the British government to its minister at Madrid, which he deigned to read to our minister, are alone communicated to us. Now we know very well how diplomatists, when it is their pleasure to do so, can wrap themselves up in mystery. No man more than my lord Castlereagh, who is also an able minister, possessing much greater talents than are allowed to him generally in this country, can successfully express himself in ambiguous language, when he chooses to employ it. He recollected himself once to have witnessed this facility, on the part of his lordship. The case was this. When Bonaparte made his escape from Elba, and invaded France, a great part of Europe believed it was with the connivance of the British ministry. The opposition charged them, in parliament, with it, and they were interrogated, to know what measures of precaution they had taken against such an event. Lord Castlereagh replied by stating, that there was anunderstandingwith acertainnaval officer of high rank, commanding in the adjacent seas, that he was toacton certaincontingences. Now,Mr.Chairman, if you can make any thing intelligible out of this reply, you will have much more success than the English opposition had.
The allowance of interference by foreign powers in the affairs of our government, not pertaining to themselves, is against the councils of all our wisest politicians—those of Washington, Jefferson, and he would also add those of the present chief magistrate; for, pending this very Spanish negotiation, the offer of the mediation of foreign states was declined, upon the true ground,that Europe had her system, and we ours; and that it was not compatible with our policy to entangle ourselves in the labyrinths of hers. But a mediation is far preferable to the species of interference on which it had been his reluctant duty to comment. The mediator is a judge, placed on high; his conscience his guide, the world his spectators, and posterityhisjudge. His position is one, therefore, of the greatest responsibility. But what responsibility is attached to this sort of irregular, drawing-room, intriguing interposition? He could see no motive for governing or influencing our policy, in regard to Spain, furnished in any of the communications which respected the disposition of foreign powers. He regretted, for his part, that they had at all been consulted. There was nothing in the character of the power of Spain, nothing in the beneficial nature of the stipulations of the treaty to us, which warranted us in seeking the aid of foreign powers, if in any case whatever that aid were desirable. He was far from saying that, in the foreign action of this government, it might not be prudent to keep a watchful eye upon the probable conduct of foreign powers. That might be a material circumstance to be taken into consideration. But he never would avow to our own people, never promulgate to foreign powers, that their wishes and interference were the controlling cause of our policy. Such promulgation would lead to the most alarming consequences. It was toinvitefurther interposition. It might, in process of time, create in the bosom of our country a Russian faction, a British faction, a French faction. Every nation ought to be jealous of this species of interference, whatever was its form of government. But of all forms of government, the united testimony of all history, admonished a republic to be most guarded against it. From the moment Philip intermeddled with the affairs of Greece, the liberty of Greece was doomed to inevitable destruction.
Suppose, saidMr.Clay, we could see the communications which have passed between his imperial majesty and the British government, respectively, and Spain, in regard to the United States; what do you imagine would be their character? Do you suppose the same language has been held to Spain and to us? Do you not, on the contrary, believe that sentiments have been expressed to her, consoling to her pride? That we have been represented, perhaps as an ambitious republic, seeking to aggrandize ourselves at her expense?
In the other ground taken by the president, the present distressed condition of Spain, for his recommendation of forbearance to act during the present session, he was also sorry to say, that it did not appear to him to be solid. He could well conceive, how the weakness of your aggressor might, when he was withholding from you justice, form a motive for your pressing your equitable demands upon him; but he could not accord in the wisdom of that policy which would wait his recovery of strength, so as to enable himsuccessfully to resist those demands. Nor would it comport with the practice of our government heretofore. Did we not, in 1811, when the present monarch of Spain was an ignoble captive, and the people of the peninsula were contending for the inestimable privilege of self-government, seize and occupy that part of Louisiana which is situated between the Mississippi and the Perdido? What must the people of Spain think of that policy which would not spare them, and which commiserates alone an unworthy prince, who ignominiously surrendered himself to his enemy; a vile despot, of whom I cannot speak in appropriate language, without departing from the respect due to this house or to myself? What must the people of South America think of this sympathy for Ferdinand, at a moment when they, as well as the people of the peninsula, themselves, (if we are to believe the late accounts, and God send that they may be true,) are struggling for liberty?
Again: when we declared our late just war against Great Britain, did we wait for a moment when she was free from embarrassment or distress; or did we not rather wisely select a period when there was the greatest probability of giving success to our arms? What was the complaint in England; what the language of faction here? Was it not, that we had cruelly proclaimed the war at a time when she was struggling for the liberties of the world? How truly, let the sequel and the voice of impartial history tell.
Whilst he could not, therefore, persuade himself, that the reasons assigned by the president for postponing the subject of our Spanish affairs until another session, were entitled to all the weight which he seemed to think belonged to them, he did not, nevertheless, regret that the particular project recommended by the committee of foreign relations was thus to be disposed of; for it was war—war, attempted to be disguised. And if we went to war, he thought it should have no other limit than indemnity for the past, and security for the future. He had no idea of the wisdom of that measure of hostility which would bind us, whilst the other party is left free.
Before he proceeded to consider the particular propositions which the resolutions contained, which he had had the honor of submitting, it was material to determine the actual posture of our relations to Spain. He considered it too clear to need discussion, that the treaty was at an end; that it contained, in its present state, no obligation whatever upon us, and no obligation whatever on the part of Spain. It was, as if it had never been. We are remitted back to the state of our rights and our demands which existed prior to the conclusion of the treaty, with this only difference, that, instead of being merged in, or weakened by the treaty, they had acquired all the additional force which the intervening time, and the faithlessness of Spain, can communicate to them. Standingon this position, he should not deem it necessary to interfere with the treaty-making power, if a fixed and persevering purpose had not been indicated by it, to obtain the revival of the treaty. Now he thought it a bad treaty. The interest of the country, as it appeared to him, forbade its renewal. Being gone, it was perfectly incomprehensible to him, why so much solicitude was manifested to restore it. Yet it is clung to with the same sort of frantic affection with which the bereaved mother hugs her dead infant, in the vain hope of bringing it back to life.
Has the house of representatives a right to express its opinion upon the arrangement made in that treaty? The president, by asking congress to carry it into effect, has given us jurisdiction of the subject, if we had it not before. We derive from that circumstance the right to consider, first, if there be a treaty; secondly, if we ought to carry it into effect; and, thirdly, if there be no treaty, whether it be expedient to assert our rights, independent of the treaty. It will not be contended that we are restricted to that specific mode of redress which the president intimated in his opening message.
The first resolution which he had presented, asserted, that the constitution vests in the congress of the United States the power to dispose of the territory belonging to them;and that no treaty purporting to alienate any portion thereof, is valid, without the concurrence ofcongress.8It was far from his wish to renew at large a discussion of the treaty-making power. The constitution of the United States had not defined the precise limits of that power, because, from the nature of it, they could not be prescribed. It appeared to him, however, that no safe American statesman would assign to it a boundless scope. He presumed, for example, that it would not be contended that in a government which was itself limited, there was a functionary without limit. The first great bound to the power in question, he apprehended, was, that no treaty could constitutionally transcend the very objects and purposes of the government itself. He thought, also, that wherever there were specific grants of powers to congress, they limited and controlled, or, he would rather say, modified the exercise of the general grant of the treaty-making power, upon the principle which was familiar to every one. He did not insist, that the treaty-making power could not act upon the subjects committed to the charge of congress; he merely contended that the concurrence of congress, in its action upon those subjects, was necessary. Nor would he insist, that the concurrence should precede that action. It would be always most desirable that it should precede it, if convenient, to guard against the commitment of congress, on the one hand, bythe executive, or on the other, what might seem to be a violation of the faith of the country, pledged for the ratification of the treaty. But he was perfectly aware, that it would be very often highly inconvenient to deliberate, in a body so numerous as congress, on the nature of those terms on which it might be proper to treat with foreign powers. In the view of the subject which he had been taking, there was a much higher degree of security to the interests of this country. For, with all respect to the president and senate, it could not disparage the wisdom of their councils, to add to that of this house also. But, if the concurrence of this house be not necessary in the cases asserted, if there be no restriction upon the power he was considering, it might draw to itself and absorb the whole of the powers of government. To contract alliances; to stipulate for raising troops to be employed in a common war about to be waged; to grant subsidies; even to introduce foreign troops within the bosom of the country; were not unfrequent instances of the exercise of this power; and if, in all such cases, the honor and faith of the nation were committed, by the exclusive act of the president and senate,the melancholy duty alone might be left to congress of recording the ruin of therepublic.9
Supposing, however, that no treaty, which undertakes to dispose of the territory of the United States, is valid, without the concurrence of congress, it may be contended, that such treaty may constitutionally fix the limits of the territory of the United States, where they are disputed, without the coöperation of congress. He admitted it, when the fixation of the limits simply was the object. As in the case of the riverSt.Croix, or the more recent stipulation in the treaty of Ghent, or in that of the treaty of Spain in 1795. In all these cases, the treaty-making power merely reduces to certainty that which was before unascertained. It announces the fact; it proclaims, in a tangible form, the existence of the boundary. It does not make a new boundary; it asserts only where the old boundary was. But it cannot, under color of fixing a boundary previously existing, though not in fact marked, undertake to cede away, without the concurrence of congress, whole provinces. If the subject be one of a mixed character, if it consists partly of cession, and partly of the fixation of a prior limit, he contended that the president must come here for the consent of congress. But in the Florida treaty it was not pretended that the object was simply a declaration of where the western limit of Louisiana was. It was, on the contrary, the caseof an avowed cession of territory from the United States to Spain. The whole of the correspondence manifested that the respective parties to the negotiation were not engaged so much in an inquiry where the limit of Louisianawas, as that they were exchanging overtures as to where itshould be. Hence, we find various limits proposed and discussed. At one time the Mississippi is proposed; then the Missouri; then a river discharging itself into the gulf east of the Sabine. A vast desert is proposed to separate the territories of the two powers; and finally the Sabine, which neither of the parties had ever contended was the ancient limit of Louisiana, is adopted, and the boundary is extended from its source by a line perfectly new and arbitrary; and the treaty itself proclaims its purpose to be a cession from the United States to Spain.
The second resolution comprehended three propositions; the first of which was, that the equivalent granted by Spain to the United States, for the province of Texas, was inadequate. To determine this, it was necessary to estimate the value of what we gave, and of what we received. This involved an inquiry into our claim to Texas. It was not his purpose to enter at large into this subject. He presumed the spectacle would not be presented of questioning, in this branch of the government, our title to Texas, which had been constantly maintained by the executive for more than fifteen years past, under three several administrations. He was, at the same time, ready and prepared to make out our title, if any one in the house were fearless enough to controvert it. He would, for the present, briefly state, that the man who is most familiar with the transactions of this government, who largely participated in the formation of our constitution, and all that has been done under it, who, besides the eminent services that he has rendered his country, principally contributed to the acquisition of Louisiana, who must be supposed, from his various opportunities, best to know its limits, declared, fifteen years ago, that our title to the Rio del Norte was as well founded as it was to the island of New Orleans. [HereMr.Clay read an extract from a memoir presented in 1805, byMr.Monroe andMr.Pinckney, toMr.Cevallos, proving that the boundary of Louisiana extended eastward to the Perdido, and westward to the Rio del Norte, in which they say, ‘the facts and principles which justify this conclusion, are so satisfactory to their government as to convince it, that the United States have not a better right to the island of New Orleans, under the cession referred to, than they have to the whole district of territory thus described.’] The title to the Perdido on the one side, and to the Rio del Norte on the other, rested on the same principle—the priority of discovery and of occupation by France. Spain had first discovered and made an establishment at Pensacola; France at Dauphine island, in the bay of Mobile. The intermediate space was unoccupied; and the principle observed among European nations having contiguous settlements, being, that theunoccupied space between them should be equally divided, was applied to it, and the Perdido thus became the common boundary. So, west of the Mississippi, La Salle, acting under France, in 1682 or 3, first discovered that river. In 1685, he made an establishment on the bay ofSt.Bernard, west of the Colorado, emptying into it. The nearest Spanish settlement was Panuco; and the Rio del Norte, about the midway line, became the common boundary.
All the accounts concurred in representing Texas to be extremely valuable. Its superficial extent was three or four times greater than that of Florida. The climate was delicious; the soil fertile; the margins of the rivers abounding in live oak; and the country admitting of easy settlement. It possessed, moreover, if he were not misinformed, one of the finest ports in the Gulf of Mexico. The productions of which it was capable were suited to our wants. The unfortunate captive ofSt.Helena wished for ships, commerce, and colonies. We have them all, if we do not throw them away. The colonies of other countries are separated from them by vast seas, requiring great expense to protect them, and are held subject to a constant risk of their being torn from their grasp. Our colonies, on the contrary, are united to and form a part of our continent; and the same Mississippi, from whose rich deposit the best of them (Louisiana) has been formed, will transport on her bosom the brave, the patriotic men from her tributary streams, to defend and preserve the next most valuable, the province of Texas.
We wanted Florida, or rather weshallwant it; or, to speak more correctly, we want no body else to have it. We do not desire it for immediate use. It fills a space in our imagination, and we wish it to complete thearrondissementof our territory. It must certainly come to us. The ripened fruit will not more surely fall. Florida is enclosed in between Alabama and Georgia, and cannot escape. Texas may. Whether we get Florida now, or some five or ten years hence, it is of no consequence, provided no other power gets it; and if any other power should attempt to take it, an existing act of congress authorizes the president to prevent it. He was not disposed to disparage Florida, but its intrinsic value was incomparably less than that of Texas. Almost its sole value was military. The possession of it would undoubtedly communicate some additional security to Louisiana, and to the American commerce in the Gulf of Mexico. But it was not very essential to have it for protection to Georgia and Alabama. There could be no attack upon either of them, by a foreign power, on the side of Florida. It now covered those states. Annexed to the United States, and we should have to extend our line of defence so as to embrace Florida. Far from being, therefore, a source of immediate profit, it would be the occasion of considerable immediate expense.The acquisition of it was certainly a fair object of our policy; and ought never to be lost sight of. It is even a laudable ambition, in any chief magistrate, to endeavor to illustrate the epoch of his administration, by such an acquisition. It was less necessary, however, to fill the measure of honors of the present chief magistrate, than that of any other man, in consequence of the large share which he had in obtaining all Louisiana. But, whoever may deserve the renown which may attend the incorporation of Florida into our confederacy, it is our business, as the representatives of that people who are to pay the price of it, to take care, as far as we constitutionally can, that too much is not given. He would not give Texas for Florida in a naked exchange. We were bound by the treaty to give not merely Texas, but five millions of dollars, also, and the excess beyond that sum of all our claims upon Spain, which have been variously estimated at from fifteen to twenty millions of dollars!
The public is not generally apprized of another large consideration which passed from us to Spain; if an interpretation which he had heard given to the treaty were just; and it certainly was plausible. Subsequent to the transfer, but before the delivery of Louisiana from Spain to France, the then governor of New Orleans (he believed his name was Gayoso) made a number of concessions, upon the payment of an inconsiderable pecuniary consideration, amounting to between nine hundred thousand and a million acres of land, similar to those recently made at Madrid to the royal favorites. This land is situated in Feliciana, and between the Mississippi and the Amité, in the present state of Louisiana. It was granted to persons who possessed the very best information of the country, and is no doubt, therefore, the choice land. The United States have never recognised, but have constantly denied the validity of these concessions. It is contended by the parties concerned, that they are confirmed by the late treaty. By the second article his catholic majesty cedes to the United States, in full property and sovereignty, all the territories which belong to him, situated to theeastwardof the Mississippi, known by the name ofEast and West Florida. And by the eighth article, all grants of land made before the twenty-fourth of January, 1818, by his catholic majesty, or by hislawful authorities, shall be ratified and confirmed,&c.Now, the grants in question having been made long prior to that day, are supposed to be confirmed. He understood from a person interested, that don Onis had assured him it was his intention to confirm them. Whether the American negotiator had the same intention or not, he did not know. It will not be pretended, that the letter ofMr.Adams, of the twelfth of March, 1818, in which he declines to treat any further with respect to any part of the territory included within the limits of the state of Louisiana, can control the operation of the subsequent treaty. That treaty must be interpreted by what is in it, and notby what is out of it. The overtures which passed between the parties respectively, prior to the conclusion of the treaty, can neither restrict nor enlarge its meaning. Moreover, whenMr.Madison occupied, in 1811, the country between the Mississippi and the Perdido, he declared, that in our hands it should be, as it has been, subject to negotiation.
It results, then, that we have given for Florida, charged and incumbered as it is,
First, unincumbered Texas;
Secondly, five millions of dollars;
Thirdly, a surrender of all our claims upon Spain, not included in that five millions; and,
Fourthly, if the interpretation of the treaty which he had stated were well founded, about a million of acres of the best unseated land in the state of Louisiana, worth perhaps ten millions of dollars.
The first proposition contained in the second resolution, was thus, he thought, fully sustained. The next was, that it was inexpedient to cede Texas to any foreign power. They constituted, in his opinion, a sacred inheritance of posterity, which we ought to preserve unimpaired. He wished it was, if it were not, a fundamental and inviolable law of the land, that they should be inalienable to any foreign power. It was quite evident, that it was in the order of providence; that it was an inevitable result of the principle of population, that the whole of this continent, including Texas, was to be peopled in process of time. The question was, by whose race shall it be peopled? In our hands it will be peopled by freemen, and the sons of freemen, carrying with them our language, our laws, and our liberties; establishing, on the prairies of Texas, temples dedicated to the simple, and devout modes of worship of God, incident to our religion, and temples dedicated to that freedom which we adore next to Him. In the hands of others, it may become the habitation of despotism and of slaves, subject to the vile dominion of the inquisition and of superstition. He knew that there were honest and enlightened men, who feared that our confederacy was already too large, and that there was danger of disruption, arising out of the want of reciprocal coherence between its several parts. He hoped and believed, that the principle of representation, and the formation of states, would preserve us a united people. But if Texas, after being peopled by us, and grappling with us, should, at some distant day, break off, she will carry along with her a noble crew, consisting of our children’s children. The difference between those who might be disinclined to its annexation to our confederacy, and him, was, that their system began where his might, possibly, in some distant future day, terminate; and their’s began with a foreign race, aliens to every thing that we hold dear, and his ended with a race partaking of all our qualities.
The last proposition which the second resolution affirms, is, that it is inexpedient to renew the treaty. If Spain had promptly ratified it, bad as it is, he would have acquiesced in it. After the protracted negotiation which it terminated; after the irritating and exasperating correspondence which preceded it, he would have taken the treaty as a man who has passed a long and restless night, turning and tossing in his bed, snatches at day an hour’s disturbed repose. But she would not ratify it; she would not consent to be bound by it; and she has liberated us from it. Is it wise to renew the negotiation, if it is to be recommenced, by announcing to her at once our ultimatum? Shall we not give her the vantage ground? In early life he had sometimes indulged in a species of amusement, which years and experience had determined him to renounce, which, if the committee would allow him to use it, furnished him with a figure—shall we enter on the game, with our hand exposed to the adversary, whilst he shuffles the cards to acquire more strength? What has lost us his ratification of the treaty? Incontestably, our importunity to procure the ratification, and the hopes which that importunity inspired, that he could yet obtain more from us. Let us undeceive him. Let us proclaim the acknowledged truth, that the treaty is prejudicial to the interests of this country. Are we not told, by the secretary of state, in the bold and confident assertion, that don Onis was authorized to grant usmuchmore, and that Spaindarenot deny his instructions? The line of demarcation isfarwithin his limits? If she would have then granted us more, is her position now more favorable to her in the negotiation? In our relations to foreign powers, it may be sometimes politic to sacrifice a portion of our rights to secure the residue. But is Spain such a power, as that it becomes us to sacrifice those rights? Is she entitled to it by her justice, by her observance of good faith, or by her possible annoyance of us in the event of war? She will seek, as she has sought, procrastination in the negotiation, taking the treaty as the basis. She will dare to offend us, as she has insulted us, by asking the disgraceful stipulation, that we shall not recognise the patriots. Let us put aside the treaty; tell her to grant us our rights, to their uttermost extent. And if she stillpalters, let us assert those rights by whatever measures it is for the interest of our country to adopt.
If the treaty were abandoned; if we were not on the contrary signified, too distinctly, that there was to be a continued and unremitting endeavor to obtain its revival; he would not think it advisable for this house to interpose. But, with all the information in our possession, and holding the opinions which he entertained, he thought it the bounden duty of the house to adopt the resolutions. He had acquitted himself of what he deemed a solemn duty, in bringing up the subject. Others would discharge their’s, according to their own sense of them.