Newspaper Page Text
the inquiries of the gentleman from Massachusetts, An*.
he moved to strike out the word " wine," and, sacodd, % of 64? 40' was inserted in the bill. At u?e l*j* wh?u the Committee on Terriloriea rej>ortrd t i* ?' > the latitude was correctly given us 64? 407, but by a m e, as he presumed, of the printer, it had w>w Prtntea 4JK. This wu lu? reason for striking out ?'!*??< An to the question whv 54? 40' had been nine ? committee in their report had thi* language .[? ? ? quoted the report, whiA -Uted that th- tbe ime afreed upon with Russia, in our treaty with that ower , b ?N8 ? ing not to come south of that line, and v/e no ?? treatv * uorlanc?of ihe-ubject, and, -ecend, hi- own positive p,?mse tTcall it up so i.oo? aa the Texas resolution should bave been disposed of. He "a- ?ot, however, anxious to press it through the House with a precipitancy unbecoming the magmtude oi the validity of the American title was concerned, Mr. B. entertained not a particle of doubt in regard to it; iior did he know one public man in all these United oUtea who entertained a doubt of it up to the latitude of 54? 40 Bui the Committee on Territories, when they projwsed to extend our laws up to that lme, had not imagined that they were in terfering in the abghtest degree with the pending negoOatiana respecting our title to the territory. Great Britain had extend ed her legal jurisdiction over the entire extent of liie territory, end wae exercising such jurisdiction there now. The United States, in doing the atune, was not in the least transcending what England herself had done first. Why might not we do it as well as sbe ? Our people were going into that country daily ; few of them entertained the smallest doubt of our right to the country, or they never would go there ; and tliey need ed the protection of out laws. If Great Britain was not pre vented by the treaty from erecting her courts not only, but her military post, and her fortifications all over the territory, w ^ was there in the treaty to prevent us liom doing the same Ought we still longer to lag behind ? He did not a?k thai. wc hhould do more than she had done ; but we surely mig o as much, and he trusted we should. ... . . This was uo violation of the existing atijHjJationa w*fn thm 1mk> ouuntrir?. Mr. B. never had believed thai, under the treaty of 1827 or that of 1818, Great Britain had ever acquir ed a right to joint occupancy with the United (States ol the Oregon Territory. . , . . ? ... The Committee on the Territories held the opinion that ever since 1812 we had had exclusive right to ita possession, and England never had divided that right with us. rhe sti pulation between the two nations engaged only that the En gliah should have the privilege of acceas to the rivers and streams and great highways of the country, to carry on their trade and their fisheries and for purposes of hunting. It never had been intended that they we^e to hold divided j<os sesiion with us. But, however that might be, if they had extended their laws over the territory, why might not we There might possibly occur some collision Itetwccn the two authorities; but when such an event should occur, if it ever did, it must be provided for. The question of probable col lision was ono which did not belong to that House ; it was a question pertaining to the Executive, and was referred to in the treaty of 1827. The Committee on the Territories be lieved they were acting within the legislative power ol ^on gress, and they left the Executive to act as he should deem it his duty to do, and to terminate the joint occupancy of the Ter ritory when he should think it proper. The committee had not interfered with another department of the Government. Besides, what difference could the insertion of this parallel of 54? 40' make ? None doubted our right to the territory at least between 42? and 49? < over that much of it we might without dispute extend our laws. The committee had pro ' posed to extend them over its whole extent up to .r?4? 40'. Hhould the negotiation terminate (of which he had not the remotest idka) in the loss of a portion of what we claimed, and a line ahould finally be agreed on which fell short of 54? 40', the dfect would only he to curtail, to that extent, our legislation ; but still the great body of the territory would jightfutyy be subject to our laws. So that, in any view of the possible consequences, Mr. B. could not imagine why the bill shoul/ not extend jurisdiction as far north as we claimed. Let the negotiation terminate as it would, there must still be a gr*at portion of the country to which Great Britain had no j usl claim at all. She claimed down to 42?, and exercised he/ jurisdiction accordingly. We claimed up to 54? 40 . Why should not we exercise ours that far ' His understanding wa3, that all claims to loundary were to be left to negotiation, and that the Territorial Government, when set up as the bill proposed, was of course to 1* subject to the result. But that this committee might be more lully apprized of the grounds on which the bill hail been presented by the Committee on the Territories, he would ask that a few page:; of the report rendered last session by that committee be now read. [The Clerk accordingly read from the report.] Mr. KING, of New York, asked whether he had rightly understood the chairman of the Territorial Committee to say that any portion of the territory claimed by us in Oregon was to I* ceded or surrendered up by negotiation ' ' Mr. BROWN replied that he had said no such thing. He bad not expreuned such to be bis expectation, but had disclaim ed it. His argument hacy been hyjiothetical merely, ami in tended to show that the possibility of a portion of the territory being hereafter given up would form no valid argument against the propriety of passing such a bill now ; because, at all events, there would be an ample portion left for our laws to operate on, and where they were greatly needed. Mr. KING said that so be had, in substance, understood the gentleman to sav, and he wished at once to repel any such idea. When the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Af fairs had opened the Texas debate he had assured the House that we had the means of settling any difference with Mexico by means of money, the bei-upinew of war. And he had as sured the House, moreover, that annexation would create no difficulty with Great Britain. Now, any gentleman who did ? not rely on the known disposition of the American Govern ment to assert and maintain their rights, might have supposed that the acquiesence of (treat Britain on the subject of Texas was to be purchased by a surrender of a portion of Oregon. When Mr. K. heard it insinuated that there was a j?osait>ility of such an event, and that there would still be enough of that territory left for our laws to operate upon, lie thought it his duty at once to protest against even the idea of such a state of things. Mr. BROWN said he was really at a loss to know how any thing he had said could have been so entirely misunder stood. He had declared his utter unbelief that negotiation would deprive us of the smallest portion of what we claimed; but he had gone into a supposititious case for argument sake. But did not the very notion of negotiation, as to the extent of our claim, imply the possibility that a line might be agreed on short of what we claimed ' If that was a simple impossibility, why negotiate ' He begged of the gentleman from New \ ork not to produce at the very outset a falsi? impression on the public mind. Mr. C. J. INGER80LL rose to explain. Mr. DUNCAN claimed the floor, but yielded it to Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York, for the purpone of his moving that the committee rise. Mr. C. J. IN0ER80LL said that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kijtb) had made a personal allusion to him, and a broad insinuation that required an answer. After soihe strife for the possession of the floor, an appeal, some confusion, and not a little laughter, the appeal was ne gatived, and Mr. Naaasoilt was suffered to explain. Mr. C. J. INGERSOI.l, then observed that the gentleman from New York over the way (Mr. Kim*) had repeated with deckled, and Mr. I. thought very decided emphasis <>l manner, what had passed in the early stage of the late 1 exas debate between the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. W i> Tiaor) and himself; and Mr. I. was supposed to have said that our pcace oouid he brought with Mexico. He never had naid or intended to say any such thing. When he had re marked that what was con side rod the hest sinew of war might arrange all question* in that quarter, the idea of Inlying our peace with any body had never so much as entered his head. Wc had various open questions with Mexico liesides this of Texas, and various conflicting interests to he settled between tfie two Governments [some laughter] in which money might be usfful. [Increased laughter.] But his notion had ever been that we ought to treat Mexico with the utmost forN-ar ance, gencrositv, and magnanimity. If she thought she had a claim on us, that wc ought not to resoit to mere naked pow er to settle it with her ? that possibly money might he used between the two countries [renewed laughter] as to her debta, and her lands, ami other matters?in shorty every ^thing else. [Roar*. A voice, "Ami what about England' ] Mr. I. *aid he was as little disposed to sell the right* of the united States as any man in the House or in the country. He had merely desired the floor to say this. Here the committee rose, and the House soon afterwards adjourned. This was on Monday ; and the saine blU contin ued to be debated to the end of the week, in which discussion the gentlemen named below took part, speaking in the order in which their names are mentioned < Messrs. DUNCAN, of Ohio, BELSER, of Alabama, and j BOWI.IN, of Missouri, successively took the floor in support of the bill?going very much at large into historical dctsils as to the discovery and settlement of Oregon and an investigation of our title to that Territory. Mr. THOMPSON then obtained the floor, and observed that as there had now been three speeches made, and all on , one side of the queation-[Mr. WENTWORTH. "There! is but one side to it"]?he would move that the committee do | now rise. Mr. THOMPSON occupied the floor dunng the hour allotted to him, in a speech in behalf of the bill before the committee, arguing to show that it might be paaaed without interfering with the .previsions of our existing treaty with England for the joint occupancy of the territory. It did no more than what the British had already done t and il thiawas a violation of the treaty, they had been tho first to violate it Mr. MeCLERNANI) followed on the same side of the question, taking substantially the same ground as his first point, and then going more particularly into the question of our title to the country. Mr. OWEN, though determined not to oppose the bill. nor to oppose any amendment to it, thought it more proper that twelve months' iiotice should be given according to uw treaty. U nughl be possible that this bill did not.Uansceu the letter of the treaty, but it certainly did the spirit ol tut instrument. Like tlione who preceded him, he lipid our tit t to be pel feci and complete, und believed that we might at thin time extend our jurisdiction as proposed, had we not hud our selves under restriction. If, however, this bill shouli pap. lie should follow it up by calling up the joint e" daring that the joint occujiauy ought to cease. ?e, 9* particularly to the land clause in the bill, and main n a in this respect it went further than thr British had gone. Mr. BROWN, ofTenne*?* chairman of the Cpmimttee on Territories, who hail introduced the bill, intimated his wil lingness to amend it by inserting the clause makingthe of land to our ciuaeua in Oregon aubject to the result ol die '^But'M^JWEN thought no settles would be satufitd with ' m/ j.^R^GBRBOLL opposed the bill as involving a breach of goo,I faith. He objected not only to the grant* o land, but to the whole project of establishing a erritorial Government. He considered Una aa very indiscreet, when the negotiation* were far advanced and probably near a close. Such a proceeding might put au abrupt end to them and lead to war It wm robbing a coordinate bjranch of the Govern ment of the exercise of ita appropriate power. It* tendency was to excite a war spirit, and the whole measure was unne cessary and premature. He was for waiting till the negotia tion was ended. Mr. HAMLIN, of Maine, supported the bill with a good deal of warmth, deprecated British rajmcity and ambition, and especially British diplomacy, which had led to a dismember ment of the State of Maine, without her a|>probatioii, and against her consent. He referred to the extension of British jurisdiction over our citizens, and the alleged execution ol some of them in Canada, nnd argued strenuously l?th for the passage of this bill and for immediate notice to the British Go vernment that the joint occupancy must censc. Mr. ELMER was ready to give the notice ; was o|v posed to waiting for Uie clow- of the negotiation, which hail dragged quite long enough already ; and wa* ready to extend our jurisdiction in Oregon, provided it was limited to American citizens. Ah the bin now stood, it was in direct violation of the treaty. He deuied the authenticity ol' the re port that the British luul executed any of our citizen*, or had so much as pretended to extend jurisdiction over them. On the contrary, they had suffered our settlers to setup a govern merit of their own within Hound of the British cannon. Had they laid hands on our citizens, it would be on our part good cause of war; and if we attempted to do the same, it would be equally good cause of war on their side. He suggested several particulars in which the bill ought to be amended. The question was now taken on the pending motion of Mr. Brown, to strike out " nine," in the first section ; which was agreed to. Mr. AARON V. BROWN, chairman of the Committee on Territories, from which the bill was reported, sent to the table, and had read for information, the following amendments, which, at the proper time, he will propose to the bill: Add to the 40th section? Provided, ahvaya, That the future grants of land contemplated by this act shall be subject lo the settlement of anv dispute now pending between Great Britain and the United States in rela tion to their respective claims. * , Add to the bill the following section : And whereas, by a Convention entered into between his Bri tannic Majestv and the United States of America, it was stipu lated and agreed that anv country on the Northwest coast ot America, to tlx- westward of the Stony Mountains, should tie free ami open to the citizens and subjects of the two Powers, it licing competent, however, to either ol the contracting 1 ow - ers, in case either should think fit at any time alter the 20th of October, 1W8, on giving due notice of twelve months to the other contracting party, to annul and abrogate this convention : lit it therefore enacted, Tliat nothing in this act shall Im; so construed as to close or obstruct any of the harbors, bavs, and creeks', or the navigation of rivers within the territorial limits of the Territory hereby organized, or any jmrt of the country that niav be claimed bv either partv on the Northwest coast ot America, between the 4'id degree and 54th degree 40 min utes of north latitude, against the vessels, citizens and subjects of Great Britain, agreeably to the provisions ot the 3d article of the Convention of '20th October, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, until the termination ol the said stipulation of said Convention. Mr. A. V. BROWN also proposed to add to the 30th sec tion of the bill the following proviso : Prvviiled, ahvayn, Thst in cases where any British subject, resident of trading in said Territory ol Oregon, shall be arrest ed, chanced with die commission ol any misdemeanor or telom, the same sliall be delivered over to the neaivst tribunal ol the British Government having jurisdiction over the offence tins lirovision not to applv after die period ot twelve months trom any notice which maybe givin by the United States, as contem plated by the third article of the Convention now subsisting be tween the two countries in relation to saul I erritorj . Mr. HUNT, of New York, entered into an argument to nliow that the present bill amounted to an infraction of our ! treaty stipulations, and opposed it as implying a violation ol the national faith. He went into some pretty severe observa tions on the lust of territory and spirit of conquest, contend ing that we had quite as much territory already as could lie well governed in our Republic. Mr. MORRIS, of Ptennsylvania, after avowing his full be lief in the validity of our title, and discoursing on the grasp ing character of the British policy, opposed the adoption of the bill until the notice stipulated in the treaty respecting Oregon should first hnv?; t*?rn K'"-" H. hid no t?xprrUtian? from further negotiations ; but he thought this bill was unnecessary. It looked rather like a plan to extend Executive patronage, inasmuch as it provided an apparatus of Government not needed by a few settlers in a rude country. The people did not need any interference from us. They were able to set up a Government of their own. It was our duty, however, to protect them till then ; and when they should have passed the infancy of their existence as a community, he would make them a present of the country, for he did net entertain the re motest idea that Oregon was ever to liecome a l*rt of Uie American Confederacy. Mr. DOUGLASS next took the floor, and went with much warmth into a reply to the speech of Mr. Moaais, whom he charged with having virtually proposed a dissolution of the Union by alienating an important portion of our territory. He denied that the Rocky Mountains presented any more for midable natural barrirr to justify such separation than the Al leghanies did to justify a separation of the States in the Mis sissippi valley from those on the Atlantic. He deprecated the idea of abandoning the settlers, and compelling them to set up a Government of their own. He insisted that the bilHin plied no violation of treaty, and proposed no more than Lug land had already done. He contended that we ought to ad vance as far at least as she hail done. He had no hope trom negotiation, and dwelt on the necessity of bringing the ques tion to a close by taking a decided stand, and insisting upon our rights. If war came, let it come ; but the best way to avoid it was to prepare ourselves to meet it, and to demand nothing more than we might rightfully insist on. Mr. SEVERANCE ojipo?*d the bill. Should such a sys tem of government be established, then revenue would be re quired, custom-house* must be set up, and the tarifl enforced, which would lead to immediate collision. He thought the whole plan unnecessary, was for letting the settlers alone, and allowing them to make the cx|>criment of free trade. Nobody would disturb them ; and, until they were assailed, he was for letting things remain as they were, and suffering the joint oc cupation to continue. Mr. ADAMS complained of the precipitancy with which the l-ill was pa-.-ed and the debute curtailed, after the House had ordered a book on the subject, and had called on the Lx ecutive for information, but had got neither the book nor an answer to the call. He then gave his general views on the subject of the bill, a full report of which is in pre paration. He was for passing a joint resolution direct ing the President to give notice to Great Britain that the joint occupancy of Oregon must be terminated m twelve months from this time. This he thought the most likely mode of bringing the pending negotiation to a point After that notice had l<ecn given he should not object to the passage ot the present bill with some modifications, and expressed a hop.-thst in this manner we might obtain possession, d no of the whole that we claimed, at least a very large part ot It, without war. But to pas* the bill in Us present form, with out that notice, must lead to war, if it was not itscll a w ar measure. mwinr. . Mr. A. V. BROWN spoke in reply, explaining and vindi cating the course of the committee, referring to existing au thorities of an official character, which contained sufficient information on the whole subject, without waiting lor Mr. Greenhmv's book, which was but a revised edition of that work which hud Wen published long ago. If the gentleman i from Massachusetts was now ready to act, why did he com-1 plain of the House for not waiting for more information 1 Mr. I B. explained the amendment which the Committee on Terri toriee proposed to offer, and insisted that the bill did not go as far as the British legislation had already gone. Their laws made noexeeptkai in favor of American citizens i this bill did ex cept in favor of British subject*. An American charged with crime was sent some three thousand miles to lie tried in ('ana da i a Bntish settler charged with the same offence was hand ed over to the British courts on the spot. He contended that the hill should bepeaaed first and notice given afterwards. There i* a branch of the Dnrrvcracy in Bradford county, Pennsylvania, it seems, and the worthies comprising that l*and held a meeting a few days since, at which they breathed ?'daggers of wrath and hoe-handles of spite" upon poor Rhode Island. The meeting solemnly resolved that the case of Doit was clearly decided by the last election ! Letters were written on the subject to Mr. ^ an Buren and Col. Johnson, the latter of whom says, in reply, that Dorr's case wn? deci ded, inter alia*. Mr. Van Buren fights ahy of that question, but ex|iresscs an immense amount of sympathy for "thc^er ?ecutcd Dorr." Rhode Island had l>ettcr l?cniii to build forti fication- Bradford county and the Pewter Mug will he upon tier before she knows it?A'. Y. Cuur. and Lnquirtr. I WASHINGTON. '*? Liberty uid Uuluu, now and ttue?er, one aud Iums parable." SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1845. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE U. STATES. That our country in at this moment in a position of imminent peril, through the proposed action of Congress in regard to Texas, no man in his senses can deny. That we may escape it through the wibdont of the Senate?or survive it through the providence of CJod, should that body give its sanc tion to the measure presented to it by the House of Representatives?we are far from despairing. Yet can we not reconcile to our sense of its mere mag nitude the levity discoverable in the actions and language of most of our contemporaries who sup port it. With them Texas seems to be considered as a rich boon which we have only to put lorth our hand and seize; its acquisition as a wedding garment which we have but to don, and straightway sit down to a sumptuous feast. To us, this wedding garment is the shirt of Nessus ; coveted in the prospect, but pregnant with disease, dangerous un doubtedly, and possibly iatal, to our political con stitution. In this view of the Texas project, we refer to it, of course, in its present shape, as a measure be yond the constitutional competency ol Congress, the consummation of which will be effected, if at all, through a wide breach in the Constitution to which we are indebted, as a people, lor all the blessings and all the exemptions from evil that we enjoy. Of the value of these blessings and these exemptions, which we are invited rashly to put at hazard, no more striking illustration rould be pre sented than is furnished by the living and actually present examples of the Republic:} south ol us? even of that one of them nearest to us?at this moment in convulsion, its soil reeking with blood of civil war. Too soon may such be our late also, if, regardless of the lessons of experience, we suffer our foreign policy to yield to every im pulse of the moment, even to the extent ol dis membering empires, seizing upon provinces which do not belong to us, and extending our legislation over territory as foreign to us and as little within our proper sphere of government as the mountains in the moon. Looking beyond the great paramount objection of want of power in Congress to make the proposed "annexation" of Texas, we deprecate the measure, not merely because ol its at lea* l apparent inconsis tency with that public faith oi\ the maintenance of which materially depends the national honor, but because it proposes an entire departure from our professed and hitherto uniform and invariable policy of non-interference in the afl'ai.rs of foreign nations or peoples. It is now for the first time proposed to do what Washington in his Farewell Address most solemnly warned his countrynuxn never to do; that is, to 44 quit our own to stand on foreign ground." We are about to engage, not only without provo cation, but without the shadow of an excuse? the poor pretences of political necessity, humani ty, &c. being abandoned to general contempt and ridicule?in a war with a Power with whom wc have an existing treaty of limits, of peace, and ol amity ; which limits it is proposed to pass, which peace to break, and which amity, in all probability, to convert into an inextinguishable enmity. We are about by force, moreover, to take possession ol territory to which it is as absurd to say that we can acquire any right or title by an act of Congress, as it would be to say that a man may become pos sessor of his neighbor's farm because he covets it. And all this we are about to do at the sacrifice of that good name, bereft of which we shall be 44 poor indeed." In comparison with that good name, of what value were the lands of Texaii, the mines of Mexico, the plunder of the World ? In the face of objections so grave as these, it is enough to excite one's 44 implacable disgust" to see the Richmond Enquirer, the fruitful parent of ab stractions innumerable, the constructionist so strict as to dispute with Congress the exercise of pow. ers admitted and adjudicated to it by all authorities worthy of respect, leaping and gambolling in its joy at the partial success of this new claim of power for Congress, as though it were a triumph won for the strict constructionists instead of the Texas specula tors ; and talking to us as 44 glibly " about the 44 Fed eral school" and the 44 Federal " party, as though any Federalist, the most latitudinarian that lived, ever dreamt of stretching the powers of Congress to the exU?nt that the Enquirer itself now does, when it claims the right to seize upon foreign empires under the clausc in the Constitution which says that41new States may be admitted by the Congress into this j Union." Shade of 44 Jolui Taylor of Caroline!" Spirit of44 the Resolutions of '98!" Only think of this ! As if the Fathers of the Republic would for I a moment have entertained an idea so extravagant a* that 44 new States" could be admitted into the Union formed out of territory not at the time belong ing to the United States ! To cut this matter short, however, and tie down the Enquirer to its own rule of construction, we demand of the Editor to 44 put his finger on the clause in the Constitution" which confers upon Congress any power whatever to le gislate upon foreign ground; to extend the laws of the United States over foreign lands; to march ar mies upon thcin, otherwise than in the prosecution of lawful war; to any clause in the Constitution, in fine, authorizing the proposed legislation for Texas, which would not authorize Congress to exercise any power whatever within the range of omnipotence. If the Editor of the Enquirer can show no war rant in the Constitution for such action, we seal his j lips at once by applying to him his own test. Let him, then, so far as concerns this question, hence forth be dumb! But the purpose for which we have taken pen in hand is of more consequence than the consistency of the Richmond Enquirer, or the elasticity of con science of the Simon Pures in politics. What we design to-day is to fortify by historical authority the ground upon which we condemn the measure of 44 annexation" in the manner now and heretofore proposed, as being against die established policy of the United States?as abandoning, for the j first time, the principle of non-intervention in civil warn, by which our foreign policy has always here tofore been regulated and controlled. We go back nineteen years to the date of the Pa nama Mixtion, the discussion upon which shows that this policy, admitted on all hands to be that best adapted to the circumstances of this country, was most insisted upon by those who opposed our participation even in counsel with the South Ame rican Republic*, then in every thing but recognition by Spain as independent as they are now, on the ground that it would be a breach of neutrality on our part, such as woild involve us in u war with Spain, and possibly vith other Powers. Our object is not here to revive the question as to the merits of that Mission, but only to show upon what grounds it war opposed by statesmen whose arguments are entitlld to great weight with many of those gentleman who will now hardly suffer even the plainest provisions of the fundamental law of our own country to stand in the way of a war with Mexico for the pui|ose of 44 annexing" Texas. The debate in th) Senate upon this question grew out of a Report of the Committee on Foreign Re lations against theexpcdiency of sending Ministers to represent the United States at the Congress of American Nation! proposed to be held at Panama, and is reported A large in Vol. II. of the Register of Debates, each Senator having prepared his own speech, delivered in conclave, for publication. The Report (in the same volume) of the Com mittee on Forjign Relations, from the pen of Mr. Tazewell, much commended by those of his own party, is a paper drawn up with the ability which might be expected from that gentleman, and is of a grave au(i statesmanlike character. In that report, as well as in all the speeches on the same side of the question, we ffnd passages well worthy of being recalled to the public atten tion at the present moment, of which, as apt to the occ*sion, we quote the following, stating, in concise and distinct terms, Mr. Tazewell's opinion of the true foreign policy and duty of the United States: 44 The first question which suggested itself to the 4 committee, at the very threshold of their investi ? gation, was, what cogent reasons now existed for 4 adopting this new and untried measure, so much ? in conflict with the whole course of policy uni 4 foruly and happily pursued by the United States 4 front almost the very creation of this Government 4 to the present hour ? By the principles of this 4 policy, inculcated by our wisest statesmen in for 4 mer days, and ajrproved by the experience of all 4 subsequent time, the true interest of the United 4 States was supposed to be promoted by avoiding 4 all entangling connexions with any other nation 4 whatsoever. Steadily pursuing this course, while 4 they have been desirous to manifest the most cor 4 dial good will to all nations, and to maintain with 4 each relations of perfect amity, and of commerce, 4 regulated and adjusted by rules of the most fair, 4 equal, and just reciprocity, the United States have 4 hitherto sedidously abstained from associating 4 themselves in any other way, even with those na 4 dons for whose welfare the most lively sensibi ? lity has been at all times felt and otherwise 4 manifested/' The following passage of the same report applies with prodigious force to the whole scope and tenor of our late diplomatic intercourse with the authori ties of Mexico, whom we have undertaken to in struct in matters which belong exclusively to their own discretion : * " The United States have not certainty the right, 4 and ought never to feel the inclination, to dictate * to others, who may differ with them upon this 4 subject; nor do the committee see the expediency 4 of insulting%other States, with whom we art 4 maintaining relations of perfect amity, by as< 4 cending the moral chair, and proclaiming from 4 thence mere abstract principles, the rectitude o 4 which each nation enjoys the perfect right of de * ciding for itself." And conclusively, upon the principle, the right, and the duty of non-intervention, Mr. Tazewell in this report, says : 44 In the opinion of this committee, there is no 4 proposition concerning which the people of the 4 United States are now and ever have been more 4 unanimous than that which denies, not merely the 4 expediency, but the right, of intermeddling with 4 the internal affairs of other States ; and, enpe 4 rially, of seeking to alter any provision they may 4 have thought proper to adopt as a fundamental 4 law, or may have incorporated with their politiral 4 constitutions." These passages from the report of the committee sufficiently establish the doctrine maintained by Mr. Tazewell, and the Senators his associates, of the duty of the United States to abstain from interfer ing, under whatever prctence of sympathy, morality, expediency, &c. between nations engaged in war for civil ascendency. In the Debate upon this report, we find the same sentiment expressed on all hands, but especially by those who opposed the mission. We begin, out of respect for the memory of a gallant gentleman, now no more, with the remarks of Mr. Hayke, who considered the holding counsel with these young Re publics, not yet recognised as independent by Sp>in, to be a palpable violation of our international ob ligations : 44 If the charactcr of the Congrers is belligerent," 4 said Mr. Hayne, 44 no neutral can lawfully be 4 there. If, for any purpose whatever, questions 4 connected with the further prosecution of the war 4 are to be there discussed and decided, our Minis 4 ters cannot take their seat* in the assembly with 1 out involving us bi/ that very act in the contest. 4 A strict and honorable neutrality must keep us out * of any meeting not having peaceful objects exclu 4 sire/y. The law of nations, in this respect, can 4 not differ from those rules of municipal law, found 4 ed in the common sense of mankind, which in 4 volve in a common guilt all who associate with 4 those engaged in any unlawful enterprise. It is 4 not permitted to individuals, nor can it be permit * ted to nations, to excuse themselves for acting ? with those engaged in belligerent enterprises, by 4 alleging that their own purposes are peaceful. * Sir, I hold that, if you go into council at all with 4 such Powers* uou become answerable for all their 4 acts." War, in the opinion of Mr. IIayne, must have been the inevitable result of our interfering in any manner between the new Republics and the Gov ernment of which they claimed to be independent, as appears by the following passage of his speech, every word and syllable of which, applied to the case between the United States and Spain, is precisely applicable to the existing relations between the United States and Mexico: 44 It has been well remarked by the committee, in 4 their report, that no nation (unless restrained by 4 their weakness) ever permitted such an interference 4 as we are about to attempt, without redressing the 4 wrong by trar. And surely, sir, we are not to 4 be called upon to violate our neutral obligations 4 towards Spain because Spain is weak ! If a sense ? of justice, and a due regard to our own. character 4 and our interests, should not restrain us from a ? measure of that kind, perhaps we may be influ 4 enced by the consideration that a violation of neu 4 tralitv on our part may lead to similar violations 4 on the part of the Powers of Europe, and that we 4 may thus be the means of destroying those whom 4 we mean to serve and hope to save." The fundamental POLICY of this Government, in the opinion of Mr. Hayne, was, never to inter- 4 fere in the concerns of other nation*), as appears from ' tiie following further passage of hiti speech : " The whole question may be resolved into this: 4 4 Are we prepared now to depart from the futulu- < 4 mental policy of this country, never to inter- < 4 FERE IN THE CONCERNS OK OTHER NATIONS ? Are , 4 we ready to einhark our fate with that of theSpan 4 ish American republics ? to become parties to an 4 4 A mericaa ('Oiifederaey* against the 4 European 4 Confederacy V Sir, it will not, it cannot be de 4 nied that die proposed measure is entirely out of 4 the course of ordinary diplomatic relations; it has 4 no precedent but in that ' great Alliance,' profane* 4 ly called 4 Holy,' and equally offensive to (Jod and 4 to man. , 44 We are about to violate the maxim of the Father 4 of his Country, which enjoins upon us, as the most 4 sacred of duties, 4 to cultivate peace and honest 4 friendship with all nations, entangling alliances 4 with none'?to equally violate the wise and pru 4 dent policy of the late President, of the benefits of ? which we have a glowing picture from the pen of 4 the Secretary of Suite in the documents now oil 4 your table. Shall we abandon this high and hon 4 orable ground to engage in a crusade, the end of 4 which no human being can foresee !" The next Senator in order, whose speech we shall quote, out of respect for the station which lie has filled, and in truth, for the consistency of his opinions on this subject, is the Ex-President, Mr. | Van BtTRKN; from whose speech we cite, without remark, because they speak for themselves, the following passages, to which others might be added if our space allowed : 441 yield to no man in my anxious wishes for 4 the success of the Spanish American States. 1 4 will go as far as 1 think any American citizen 4 ought to go, to secure to them the blessings ol 4 free government. I commend the solicitude which 4 has been manifested by our Government upon this 4 subject, and have, of course, no desire to discourage 4 it. But I am against all alliances, against all armed 4 confederacies, or confederacies of any sort. I 4 care not how specious, or how disguised ; come in 4 what shape they may, I oppose them." 44 What is the reason that foreign connexions 4 were deprecated by Washington, and have, since 4 his day, been avoided by our country ? It is be 4 cause, between foreign Governments and our own, 4 there are diversities in situation, interest, feeling, 4 prejudice, and views, which preclude the proba 4 bility of preserving the relations we may form with 4 them, and greatly increase the contingencies by 4 which our country may become involved with 4 others." Mr. Woodbury, the now distinguished Demo cratic Senator, was particularly zealous against any commitment of our neutrality by sending Ministers to attend the Council of the Southern Republics. Hear him : 44 W'here is the crisis, where the emergency, to 'justify such an extraordinary measure? 4 Why 4 quit our own to stand on foreign ground ?' Why 4 join our fortunes in any case, mufch less in a use ? less war, with Powers of another region, another ' tongue, another faith ? Have we become incom 4 petent to our self-defence ? Are we in need of 4 foreign 4 councils' and foreign 4 deliberations'' to 4 manage our own concerns ? Or are we so moon 4 struck, or so little employed at home, as, in the 4 eloquent language of our President on another oc 4 casion?when the sentiments expressed found a 4 response in every patriot heart?4 to wander 4 abroad in search of foreign monsters to destroy ?' 4 Speaking of America and her foreign policy, he i 4 observed : r ... " 8he has abstained from interference in the concern* ot 4 others, even when the conflict has lieen for principles to ' which she clings ax to the last vital drop which visit* the i 4 heart." , 44 Whenever the standard of freedom and independence ha* 4 been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her henedic 4 lions, and her prayers lie. But she goes not abroad in search 4 of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the free 4 dom and independence of ail. She is the c.ham|iion and 4 vindicator only of her own."?( AdtttMn Oration, Ath July, 1821.) 44 Thin is the first time" continued Mr. Wood bury, 44 that the Legislative Department of our 4 Government has ever been distinctly tr/tpea/ed to 4 for its sanction to the new notions thus ably de 4 nounced by him, and, if we now approve the Pa 4 nama Congress, whose chief object is to enforce 4 them, we at once adopt and approve the principle 4 that Spain has not, by such alliances as national 4 law warranls, and as were formed on both sides 4 in our own Revolution, any right to attempt to re 4 conquer and recolonize South America; and fur 4 ther, that she has not, by such sales as national ' law warrants, and as we ourselves have partaken, 4 any right to transfer Cuba or Porto Rico to any 4 Euroj>ean Power with whom she can agree upon 4 the purcha.sc money; and that these unprecedent 4 ed and unjust positions we are willing to maintain 4 at any sacrifice of blood and treasure." These were the opinions at that dav entertained by many of those public men who have been ready to rush into a war with Mexico on the ground that England was supposed to be negotiating with her for the independence of Texas ! Again, hear Mr. Woodbury : 44 Under all these circumstances, it is, in my 4 opinion, the solemn duty of the Senate not to ad 4 vise this mission ; the solemn duty of this nation, 4 under such doubt and peril, not to try, while ire 4 are well, to be better 44 Peace will .doubtless arrive as soon as those 4 belligerent Powers will enjoy leisure to engage 4 with utility in any peaceful improvements with 4 us. Inter arma silent leges; and it seems to me the 4 dictate of prudence now to remain contentedly at 4 home, without embarking in any new experiments 4 of diplomacy or of coalitions widi4 confederate belli 4 gerents'?to pay off as fast as possible the debts 4 of former wars?to husband our resources?to 4 encourage our States in the cultivation of the arts, 4 of manufactures, and of agriculture?to give due 4 protection to commerce?and retain for our motto, j 4 4 honest friendnhip with all nations, entangling al 4 liances widi none.'' " We might multiply quotations of the same cha racter ; but these are enough to show what has been the opinion of statesmen of all parties as to the true foreign policy of the United States. We will quote , the speech of only oue other Senator, and that for the purpose of expressing our sincere respect for 1 the constancy with which he maintains at this day \ the doctrines which he then advanced. We rc'fcr to 1 Mr. Bkrrikn. ( "Thus situated, (said Mr. B.) what is it that we ? owe to the Republic ? Is it to embark in quest ' 4 of novelty on the ocean of experiment? To yield < ? ourselves to the visionary and fantastic schemes 1 4 of political projectors?to the splendid but delu- ? ? sive suggestions of a wild and reckless ambi- , ? tion ? Is it not rather to preserve, to cherish, to i ? guard with more than vestal vigilance, that en- \ i largrd and liberal, but stable and self-dependent ' ? system of policy, which, by the blessing of God, * has conducted us to Our present happy and ? prosperous condition ? What is that policy ? ? Sir, it is the policy which guided the councils i 4 of Washington?which produced the celebrated! ? Proclamation of Neutrality, a measure which sav 4 ed us from the vortex of European contention?to ? which each successive Administration has adhered [ With fidelity?which Washington himself thua emphatically announced : 4 The great rule of con duct for us, in regard to foreign nation*, is, in ex tending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So 1 lar as we have already formed engagementa, let 1 them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here 1 let us stop.' " To these proofs of common consent, both as to the duty of the United States to observe neutrality iu all cases of wars between other Powers or differ ent portions of a once integral Power, and as to the necessary effect of a departure from that neutrality, we have only to add, in conclusion, the subjoined evidence that, up to the present Administration of this Government, the same principles have been uniform ly adhered to, and held to be the established policy of the United States : Extracifrom the Letter of Hon. John Forsyth to the Tex tun Minister's application, in 1837, for 44annexation " to the United States. 44 So long as Texas shall remain at war, while 4 the United States are at peace with her adversary, 4 the proposition of the Texan Minister Plenipoten 4 tiary necessarily involves the question or war 4 with that adversary. The United States are 4 bound to Mexico by a treaty of amity and coni 4 merce, which will be scrupulously observed on 4 their part, ho long as it can be reasonably hoped 4 that Mexico will perform her duties and respect 4 our rights under it. The United States might 4 justly be suspected of a disregard of the friendly 4 purposes of the compact, if the overture of General 4 Hunt were to be even reserved for future consid 4 oration, as this would imply a disposition on our 4 part to espouse the quarrel of Texas ivith Mexi 4 co?a disposition wholly at variance with the 4 SPIRIT or THE TREATY, WITH THE uniform POLICY 4 AND OBVIOUS WELF ARE OP THE UNITED STATES." FROM THE TEXIAN REPUBLIC. Texan and New Orleans papers, received here put us in possession of later accounts from Texas. The Congress of that Republic was expected to adjourn at the close of the present or in the begin ning of next month. The Committee of Finance had reported ad versely to the measure of free trade; though the subject of a reduction of the tarifl continued to be discussed, and the Finance Committees ol both Houses had made separate reports, varying but lit tle in substance, and both recommending 44 a very limited reduction of the tariff." A proposition had been brought forward to change the Constitution in reference to the naturalization of foreigners. A bill had passed the House to extend the time allowed for the introduction of emigrants under the privilege granted to Mr. Fisher. Considerable sickness was reported to be preva lent at Washington. Mr. John Hall,Chief Clerk of the Department of State, died on the 5th instant. Hon. J. W. Smith, Senator from Bexar, died on the 12th. Major Donelson, United States Min ister, had been ill, but was convalescent. President Joxi'.s has vetoed a bill which was passed by Congress for the removal of the public offices back to Austin immediately after its adjourn ment. The motives to this step on the part of the President appear to be, tliat he docs not agree with Congress in the opinion that the emergency, viz. the danger of being disturbed by an invasion from Mexico, which some time ago induced the removal of the Government from Austin has ceased to exist. The Galveston New* says that a bill recom mending the recall of all foreign ministers has passed the Senate by a vote of 10 to 3, and it is stated will pass the Iiouse by a large majority, ft is propos ed also to dispense with the office of Secretary of War and Marine, and the Treasurer, and to curtail the salaries of some other officers, so as to reduce the annual expenses of the Government to$120,000. The verdict of the court martial before which Commodore E. W. Moore was tried lias at last been made public. It closes with pronouncing it as their opinion that the accused is guilty of disobedi ence of orders in the manner set forth in certain of the specifications. We copy the following from the Galveston Civi lian of the 18th January : " Home doubt appeared to exist among persona not favorably diH|KMed toward* President Justs, aa to the sufficiency of the cause of his course, upon the first appcarance of hi? proclama tion revoking the exequator of General Dtrr Gik.t as Con sul at thin jiort. The subsequent conduct of Gen. Green, however, coupled with his unfortunate reputation for going into difficulties, has tended very far towards the removal of this impression , ami, whatever excuse he may have had in the transaction first imputed to him as an offence, his two pub lications since have certainly afforded the Executive all the justification he could have desired, if any more were requisite. The (wtroniung air which Gen. Green (himself a foreign func tionary of something below the first grade, and whose right to control or to participate in the exercise of the legislative or ex ecutive functions of our country is as foreign to the laws of nations as to the spirit of our own Government) has assumed? his "arting in concert" with the President?his observations about arresting "the progress of British influence upon our west ern and north western frontier," (a thing of the existence of which our citizens, in their simplicity, knew nothing,) "to prevent them [who getting pouset?iou of the country between the Nueces and Rio Grande, for the purpose of establishing a co lony of free hlaclu and runaway negroes upon which mat ters, he savs, " I supposed the President fully concurred in my views," are all matters which would excite the a*tonishinent of our citizens, could it once get the better of their incredulity. But the |?>ople of Texas have met and overcome too many real and tangible evils to be startled by sach phantoms as are here called up, and look on with an air of indifference and unbelief that would almost put a travelling mountebank to tho blush before his audience. When the " iriqwrtant fact*," which Gen. Green says he will in liis own time and way lay before the public, appear, the whole affair may wear another face, but it does not threaten at present to ** upset our two-horse (Jovernment." [ The above remarks are predicated upon the card published by <?en. Gar. cm in the Ktiiumal Remitter, in which be em' ploys the language quoted in the article.] ANNEXATION IN LOUISIANA. The subject of annexing Texas to the United States was introduced into the House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana on the 10th instant by a select committee, to which had I teen referred a portion of the (Jovernor's Message. This committee presented two nc|>orUi?that from the majority of it* members declaring it to be ?* inexpedient for the House to takn any action on the question of the annexation of Texas," mid the report of the minority declaring it to be " the anx ious wish of the people of Louisiana that Texas should be immediately annexed te the United States by all lawful and constitutional means." These reports having been made the order of the day for he 13th instant, the Minority report was on that day firxt aken up, and the entire sitting consumed in its discussion. But no vote was taken?an attempt to enforce the previous juestion having foiled by 26 yeas to 28 nays. On the following day a sulmtitute resolution was offered as ? compromise, which was adopted in the House by a vote of 38 to IB, and was subsequently concurred in by the Senate. Phis resolution is as follows i " RfMtlrfd, 4-r. That it is their <lelit>er?tc opinion that a ' majority of the people of Louisiana are in favor of the im ' mediate annexation of Texas to the United States by any ? lawful and constitutional means Provided, It be stipulated 'in the act of annexation that Texas shall enjty all the ' rights and privileges now secured to that portion of territory ' reded by France to the United States under the name of ? Louisiana, and lying south of 3fi degrees 30 minutes north 4 latitude."