tional power. He, in his treaty, exercised the power. I have not. And he, having exercised it, having pledged the faith of the nation to do the act, I have a right to call upon him to show the authority, under the Constitution of the United States, to make a guaranty · jointly with England for the benefit of English subjects as well as American citizens; and when he proves the existence of that power, he has proved the right of the government to do the same thing for the benefit of America and American citizens, omitting England and British subjects.

Sir, as I before said, I have no fondness for this special pleading about the peculiar provisions of a treaty, when the real point was the extent of the privilege which we should accept. Now, sir, I was in favor of an exclusive privilege, and I will tell you why. I desired to see a canal made; and when made, I desired to see it under the control of a power enabled to protect it. I desired to see it open to the commerce of the whole world, under our protection upon proper terms. How was that to be done, except by an exclusive privilege to ourselves? Then, let us open it to the commerce of the world on such terms and conditions as we should deem wise, just and politic. Could we not do this as well by our volition as England could in conjunction with us? Would it not be as creditable to us as a nation to have acquired it ourselves, and then opened it freely, as to have gone into a partnership by which we should have no control in prescribing the terms upon which it should be opened? And besides, if the grant had been made to us, and we had accepted it, and then thrown it open to the commerce of all nations on our own terms and conditions, we held in our hands a right which would have been ample security for every nation under heaven to keep the peace with the United States. The moment England abused the privilege by seizing any more islands, by establishing any more colonies, by invading any more rights, or by violating any more treaties, we would use our privileges, shut up the canal, and exclude her commerce from the Pacific. We would hold a power in our hands which might be exercised at any moment to preserve peace and prevent injustice. Peace and progress being our aim, we should still have continued to be the only government on earth whose public policy from the beginning has been justly and honestly to enforce the laws of nations with fidelity toward all the nations. Sir, when you surrendered that exclusive right, you surrendered a great element of power, which in our hands would have been wielded in the cause of justice for the benefit of mankind.

I was not for such a restrictive policy as would exclude British vessels from going through the canal, or the vessels of any other nation which should respect our rights. I would let them all pass, as long as they did not abuse the privilege; close it against them when they did. I insist that the American people occupy a position on this continent which rendered it natural and proper that we should exercise that power. I have no fear of a war with England. 1

have none now. War should be avoided as long as possible. But, sir, you need have no apprehension of a war with her, for the reason that if we keep in the right, she dare not fight us, and she will not, especially for anything relating to American affairs. She knows she has given a bond to keep the peace, with a mortgage on all her real estate in America as collateral security, and she knows she forfeits her title to the whole, without hope of redemption, if she commits a breach of the bond. She will not fight unless compelled. We could have fortified that canal at each end, and in time of war could have closed it against our enemies, and opened it at our own pleasure. We had the power of doing it; for the Hise treaty contained provisions for the construction of fortifications at each terminus and at such points along the line of the canal as we thought proper. We had the privilege of fortifying it, and we had the right to close it against any power which should abuse the privilege which we conferred.

Then, sir, what was the objection to the acceptance of that exclusive privilege? I do not see it, sir. I know what were the private arguments urged in times which have gone by, and which I trust never will return; that England and other European powers never would consent that the United States should have an exclusive control over the canal. Well, sir, I do not know that they would have consented, but of one thing I am certain, I would never have asked their consent. When Nicaragua desired to confer the privilege, and when we were willing to accept it, it was purely an American question with which England had no right to interfere. It was an American question about which Europe had no right to be consulted. Are we under any more obligation to consult European powers about an American question than the allied powers were, in their Congress, to consult us, when establishing the equilibrium of Europe by the agency of the Holy Alliance? America was not consulted then. Our name does not appear in all the proceedings. It was a European question, about which it was presumed America had nothing to say. This question of a canal in Nicaragua, when negotiations were pending to give it to us, was so much an American question, that the English government was not entitled to be consulted. England not consent! She will acquiesce in your doing what you may deem right so long as you consent to allow her to hold Canada, the Bermudas, Jamaica, and her other American possessions. I hope the time has arrived when we will not be told any more that Europe will not consent to this, and England will not consent to that. I heard that argument till I got tired of it when we were discussing the resolutions for the annexation of Texas. I heard it again on the Oregon question, and I heard it on the California question. It has been said on every occasion whenever we had an issue about acquiring territory, that England would not consent; yet she has acquiesced in whatever we had the courage and the justice to do. And why? Because we kept ourselves in the right. England was so situated with her possessions on this continent, that she dare not fight in an

unjust cause. We would have been in the right to have accepted the privilege of making this canal, and England would never have dared to provoke a controversy with us. I think the time has come when America should perform her duty according to our own judgment, and our own sense of justice, without regard to what European powers might say with respect to it. I think this nation is about of age. I think we have a right to judge for ourselves. Let us always do right, and put the consequences behind us. But, sir, I do not wish to detain the Senate upon this point, or to prolong the discussion. I have a word or two to say in reply to the remarks of the senator from Delaware upon so much of my speech as related to the pledge in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, never to annex any portion of that country. I objected to that clause in the treaty, upon the ground that I was unwilling to enter into a treaty stipulation with any European power in respect to this continent, that we would not do in the future, whatever our duty, interest, honor, and safety, might require in the course of events. The senator infers that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwilling to give a pledge that we never would do it. He reminded me that there was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the stipulation, that in certain contingencies we would never annex any portion of that country. Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me of that provision. He has not forgotten how hard I struggled to get that clause out of the treaty where it was retained in opposition to my vote. Had the senator given me his aid then to defeat that provision in the Mexican treaty, I would be better satisfied now with his excuse for having inserted a still stronger pledge in his treaty. But having advocated that pledge then, he should not attempt to avoid the responsibility of his own act by citing it as a precedent. I was unwilling to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to come never to annex any more territory. I am content for the present with the territory we have. I do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico now. I did not wish to annex any part of Central America then, nor do I at this time.

But I cannot close my eyes to the history of this country for the last half century. Fifty years ago the question was being debated in this Senate whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on the west bank of the Mississippi, and it was then contended that we could never with safety extend beyond that river. It was at that time seriously considered whether the Alleghany Mountains should not be the barrier beyond which we should never pass. At a subsequent date, after we had acquired Louisiana and Florida, more liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that perhaps we might venture to establish one tier of States west of the Mississippi but in order to prevent the sad calamity of an undue expansion of our territory, the policy was adopted of establishing an Indian Territory, with titles in perpetuity, all along the western borders of those States, so that no more new States could possibly be created

in that direction. That barrier could not arrest the onward progress of our people. They burst through it, and passed the Rocky Mountains, and were only arrested by the waters of the Pacific. Who then is prepared to say that in the progress of events, having met with the barrier of the ocean in our western course, we may not be compelled to turn to the north and to the south for an outlet. How long is it since the gentleman from Delaware himself thought that the time would never arrive when we would want California? I am aware that he was of that opinion at the time we ratified the treaty, and annexed it.

MR. CLAYTON.-How?

MR. DOUGLAS.-By his voting for Mr. Crittenden's resolutions declaring that we did not want any portion of Mexican territory. He will find his vote in this volume which I hold in my hand. I am aware that he belonged to that school of politicians who thought we had territory enough. I have not forgotten that a respectable portion of this body, but a few years ago, thought it would be preposterous to bring a country so far distant as California, and so little known, into the Union. But it has been done; and now since California has become a member of the confederacy, with her immense commerce and inexhaustible resources, we are told that the time will never come when the territory lying half way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions will be desirable. Central America is too far off, because it is half way to California, and on the main, direct route on the very route upon which you pay your senators and representatives in Congress their mileage in coming to the capitol of the nation! The usual route of travel, the public highway, the halfway house from one portion of the country to the other, is so far distant that the man who thinks the time will ever come when we will want it, is deemed a madman!

MR. CLAYTON.-Does the senator apply those sentiments to me? I do not think so.

Mr. Douglas.—I simply say that such an opinion was indicated by the vote of the gentleman on the resolution of Mr. Crittenden.

MR. CLAYTON.-The senator is entirely mistaken on that point. MR. DOUGLAS-In order to save time, I waive the point as to the senator's vote, although it is recorded in the volume before me, and he can read it at his leisure. But I am not mistaken in saying that the senator on yesterday did ridicule the idea that we were ever to want any portion of Central America. He was utterly amazed, and in his amazement inquired where were these boundaries ever to cease. He wanted to know how far we were going, and if we expected to spread over the entire continent. I do not think we will do it in our day, but I am not prepared to prescribe limits to the area over which Democratic principles may safely spread. I know not what our destiny may be. I try to keep up with the spirit of the age, to keep in view the history of the country, see what we have done, whither we are going, and with what velocity we are moving, in order to be

prepared for those events which it is not in the power of man to thwart.

You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limits of this giant republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will be onward to a limit which I will not venture to describe. Why the necessity of pledging your faith that you will never annex any more of Mexico? Do you not know that you will be compelled to do it; that you cannot help it; that your treaty will not prevent it, and that the only effect it will have will be to enable European powers to accuse us of bad faith when the act is done, and associate American faith and Punic faith as synonymous terms? What is the use of your guaranty that you will never erect any fortifications in Central America; never annex, occupy, or colonize any portion of that country? How do you know that you can avoid doing it? If you make the canal, I ask you if American citizens will not settle along its line; whether they will not build up towns at each terminus; whether they will not spread over that country, and convert it into an American State; whether American principles and American institutions will not be firmly planted there? And I ask you how many years you think will pass away before you will find the same necessity to extend your laws over your own kindred that you found in the case of Texas? How long will it be before that day arrives? It may not occur in the senator's day nor mine. But so certain as this republic exists, so certain as we remain a united people, so certain as the laws of progress which have raised us from a mere handful to a mighty nation, shall continue to govern our action, just so certain are these events to be worked out, and you will be compelled to extend your protection in that direction.

Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day. I am not impatient of the time when it shall be realized. I do not wish to give any additional impulse to our progress. We are going fast enough. But I wish our public policy, our laws, our institutions, should keep up with the advance in science, in the mechanic arts, in agriculture, and in everything that tends to make us a great and powerful nation. Let us look the future in the face, and let us prepare to meet that which cannot be avoided. Hence I was unwilling to adopt that clause in the treaty guaranteeing that neither party would ever annex, colonize, or occupy any portion of Central America. I was opposed to it for another reason. It was not reciprocal. Great Britain had possession of the island of Jamaica. Jamaica was the nearest armed and fortified point to the terminus of the canal. Jamaica at present commands the entrance of the canal; and all that Great Britain desired was, inasmuch as she had possession of the only place commanding the canal, to procure a stipulation that no other power would ever erect a fortification nearer its terminus. That stipulation is equivalent to an agreement that England may fortify, but that we never shall. Sir, when you look at the whole history of that question you will see that England, with her far-seeing, sagacious policy,