The instructions of Clay to the envoys, dated May 8th 1826, are very full, embracing all possible questions of dis

cussion.

"The assembling of a congress at Panama," it is declared, "composed of diplomatic representatives from independent American nations will form a new epoch in human affairs."

The commissioners were to press the object of "devising means to preserve peace in future among the American nations themselves, and with the rest of the world;""to bring up the arrears of civilization, as applied to the ocean, to the same forward point which it has attained on land. *** And to bring forward the proposition to abolish war against private property and non-combatants upon the ocean;" "a definition of blockade;" "the mutual regulation of commerce and navigation;" "to propose a joint declaration of the several American states, each, however, acting for and binding only itself, that within the limits of their respective territories no new European colony will hereafter be allowed to be established; " to dissuade the republics of Mexico and Colombia from attempting the conquest of Cuba and Porto Rico. The question of an interoceanic canal was to be discussed; and if "the work should ever be executed so as to admit of the passage of sea vessels from ocean to ocean, the benefits of it ought not to be exclusively appropriated to any one nation, but should be extended to all parts of the globe upon the payment of a just compensation or reasonable tolls." In the opinion of the President, Hayti was not yet in a position to be recognized as independent. The propriety of free toleration of religion was to be pressed upon the other American states.

On account of the delay caused by the protracted debates in congress, the envoys of the United States did not take part in the Panama Congress. Mr. Anderson, our minister to Colombia, died before reaching the place of meeting, and Mr. Sergeant did not leave the United States.

The representatives of Colombia, Central America, Peru, and Mexico met at Panama on the 22d of June, 1826. Chili, Brazil, and Buenos Ayres were not represented, although their governments approved of the movement. England and the Netherlands sent Mr. E. Dawkins and Colonel VanVeer respectively to watch the proceedings.

After holding ten meetings, the congress agreed to "a treaty of perpetual union, league, and confederation" between the republics represented, and providing for the adhesion to it of other American states within the space of one year. The treaty was a defensive and offensive alliance for the primary purpose of mutually guaranteeing the integrity of the new states, and was therefore an alliance of which the United States could have had no interest in becoming a party. And, indeed, of the Spanish-American states, Colombia alone ratified the treaty. Bolivar, the originator of the congress, was dissatisfied with the outcome; and the political disturbances of the years succeeding that of 1826 prevented a renewal of the project.

Before separating, the congress had provided for a meeting the next year at Tacubaya, near the city of Mexico; and this time the envoys of the United States, Mr. Sergeant and Mr. Poinsett-appointed in place of Mr. Andersonwere on hand; but the delegates from the Spanish-American states did not appear. Thus ended the first attempt to form an alliance of American states. The Monroe Doctrine was forgotten for the time; and the Spanish-Americans were left to work out their destiny in their own way, and to acquire by long training in the school of experience the capacity for selfgovernment which they lacked at that time.1

AMERICAN CONGRESSES, 1847-1882.

Although the Panama Congress failed to accomplish any of the objects for which it had been assembled, yet the SpanishAmericans did not relinquish the idea of a general union of their states. And a brief notice of the subsequent attempts toward that end will be given here.

1. The Congress of Lima, 1847. The Republics of Bolivia,

1 The documents and details of the Panama Congress are given in full in the 4th volume (Historical Appendix) of the proceedings of the International American Conference. See also: Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States, II., 467; American Review and Whig Journal, January, 1846; A W. Young: American Statesman, 352; Am. State Pap., VI., 834-910; Benton's Debates, VIII.; Benton's View, I.; Webster's Works, III., 178; Niles's Register.

Chili, Ecuador, New Granada, and Peru met by their representatives at Lima, 1847, for the purpose of "maintaining their independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and of entering into such other compacts as might be conducive to promote their common welfare." The result of their labors were a treaty of confederation, a treaty of commerce and navigation, a consular convention, and a postal treaty. But these treaties, like those of Panama, became dead letters.

2. The Continental Treaty of 1856. This was a treaty entered into at Santiago, in 1856, by the Republics of Peru, Chili, and Ecuador, for the purpose of cementing a substantial union, etc., and promoting moral and material progress. Other states were to be invited to join the league. It never became law. It shows a spirit of hostility to the United States, it is said, on account of the Walker expeditions of those days.

This growing fear of the United States appears in a communication of the government of Costa Rica to that of Colombia, in 1862. "There are parties there [in the United States] whose doctrines can be fatal for our not yet well-established nationalities, and we must neither forget the lessons of the past nor lose sight of the fact that the cessation of the vandalic filibustering expedition of 1855 and the following to 1860 was due to the intervention, although tardily carried into effect, on the part of Europe.

"Under this aspect of the question, if our Republics could have the guaranty that they have nothing to fear from the United States of North America, it is indubitable that no other nation could be more useful and favorable to us. Under the shelter of her powerful eagles, under the influence of her wise institutions, and under the spur of her astonishing progress, our newly-born nationalities should receive the impulse which they now need. * * *

"In view of the above considerations, the idea has occurred to my government that a new compact might be draughted by which the United States should bind themselves solemnly to respect, and cause others to respect, the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the sister Republics of this continent; not to annex to their territory, either by purchase or by any other means, any part of the territory of the said Republics."

3.

The Congress of Lima, 1864. At this congress, which met upon the invitation of Peru, the following States were represented: Bolivia, Chili, Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, the Argentine Republic, and Venezuela. The object, according to the letter of invitation, was to form a Latin American Union, and to "organize into only one family" the different Republics which had been Spanish.

Colombia, in accepting the invitation, expressed "the opinion that the United States ought not to be invited, because their policy is adverse to all kinds of alliances, and because the natural preponderance which a first-class power, as they are, has to exercise in the deliberations, might embarrass the action. of the congress."

The congress met on the 14th of November, 1864, the anniversary of the birth of Bolivar; but the results of its labors. do not appear to have had any more permanent effects than those of previous congresses.

4. The proposed Congress of Panama, 1881. The object of this congress, of which Colombia was the prime mover, was to make a treaty for the settlement of international disputes by arbitration. All the independent Spanish-American states except Hayti replied to the invitation of Colombia; and for the most part the acceptance was enthusiastic. The Argentine Republic, however, replied that her government did not believe that arbitration alone was an adequate means for the settlement of Spanish-American controversies.

The congress was not held, as intended, owing to the war which at this time broke out between Chili on the one side and Peru and Bolivia on the other.

5. The proposed Congress at Washington, 1882. This was a conception of Mr. Blaine's, while Secretary of State in 1881. The following circular letter on the subject explains the reasons for taking it up :

"DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

"WASHINGTON, November 29, 1881. "SIR: The attitude of the United States with respect to the question of general peace on the American continent is well known through its persistent efforts for years past to avert the evils of warfare, or, these efforts failing, to bring positive con

flicts to an end through pacific counsels or the advocacy of impartial arbitration.

"This attitude has been consistently maintained, and always with such fairness as to leave no room for imputing to our government any motive except the humane and disinterested one of saving kindred states of the American continent from the burdens of war. The position of the United States as the leading power in the New World might well give to its government a claim to authoritative utterance for the purpose of quieting discord among its neighbors, with all of whom the most friendly relations exist. Nevertheless, the good offices of this government are not and have not at any time been tendered with a show of dictation or compulsion, but only as exhibiting the solicitous goodwill of a common friend..

"For some years past a growing disposition has been manifested by certain states of Central and South America to refer disputes affecting grave questions of international relationship and boundaries to arbitration rather than to the sword. *

"The existence of this growing tendency convinces the President that the time is ripe for a proposal that shall enlist the good-will and active co-operation of all the states of the Western Hemisphere, both north and south, in the interest of humanity and for the common weal of nations.

"Impressed by these views, the President extends to all the independent countries of North and South America an earnest invitation to participate in a general congress, to be held in the city of Washington on the 24th day of November, 1882, for the purpose of considering and discussing the methods of preventing war between the nations of America.” * * *

Of the South American states, Chili, Colombia, the Argentine Republic, Peru, Hayti and San Domingo made no reply; Nicaraugua and Bolivia answered that they would take the matter into consideration; Costa Rica wished to wait for the action of Colombia; the others accepted the invitation.

Owing to the international complications in South America, the proposed congress of 1882 was indefinitely postponed. The letter of Mr. Frelinghuysen to the ministers of the United States in those countries, withdrawing the invitations, dated August 1, 1882, is in part as follows: