And

from taking those islands from her, since she was their enemy, in a public war, and since she pertinaciously, and unreasonably, as we think, insists on maintaining the war; and since these islands offered an obvious object of attack. Was not this, Sir, a very proper argument to be urged to Spain? A copy of this despatch, it seems, was sent to the Senate in confidence. It has not been published by the executive. Now, the alleged inconsistency is, that, notwithstanding this letter, the President has interfered to dissuade Mexico and Colombia from attacking Cuba; that, finding or thinking that those states meditated such a purpose, this government has urged them to desist from it. Sir, was ever any thing more unreasonable than this charge? Was it not proper, that, to produce the desired result of peace, our government should address different motives to the different parties in the war? Was it not its business to set before each party its dangers and its difficulties in pursuing the war? if now, by any thing unexpected, these respective correspondences have become public, are these different views, addressed thus to different parties and with different objects, to be relied on as proof of inconsistency? It is the strangest accusation ever heard of. No government not wholly destitute of common sense would have acted otherwise. We urged the proper motives to both parties. To Spain we urged the probable loss of Cuba; we showed her the dangers of its capture by the new states; and we asked her to inform us on what ground it was that we could interfere to prevent such capture, since she was at war with those states, and they had an unquestionable right to attack her in any of her territories; and, especially, she was asked how she could expect good offices from us on this occasion, since she fully understood our opinion to be that she was persisting in the war without or beyond all reason, and with a sort of desperation. This was the appeal made to the good sense of Spain, through Russia. But soon afterwards, having reason to suspect that Colombia and Mexico were actually preparing to attack Cuba, and knowing that such an event would most seriously affect us, our government remonstrated against such meditated attack, and to the present time it has not been made. In all this, who sees any thing either improper or inconsistent? For myself, I think that the course pursued showed a watchful regard to our own interest, and is wholly free from any imputation either of impropriety or inconsistency.

There are other subjects, Sir, in the President's message, which have been discussed in the debate, but on which I shall not long detain the committee.

It cannot be denied, that, from the commencement of our government, it has been its object to improve and simplify the principles of national intercourse. It may well be thought a fit occasion to urge these improved principles at a moment when so many new states are coming into existence, untrammelled, of course, with previous and long-established connections or habits. Some hopes of benefit connected with these topics are suggested in the message.

The abolition of private war on the ocean is also among the subjects of possible consideration. This is not the first time that that subject has been mentioned. The late President took occasion to enforce the considerations which he thought recommended it. For one, I am not prepared to say how far such abolition may be practicable, or how far it ought to be pursued; but there are views belonging to the subject which have not been, in any degree, answered or considered in this discussion. It is not always the party that has the power of employing the largest military marine that derives the greatest benefit from authorizing privateers in war. It is not enough that there are brave and gallant captors; there must be something to be captured. Suppose, Sir, a war between ourselves and any one of the new states of South America were now existing, who would lose most by the practice of privateering in such a war? There would be nothing for us to attack, while the means of attacking us would flow to our enemies from every part of the world. Capital, ships, and men would be abundant in all their ports, and our commerce, spread over every sea, would be the destined prey. So, again, if war should unhappily spring up among those states themselves, might it not be for our interest, as being likely to be much connected by intercourse with all parties, that our commerce should be free from the visitation and search of private armed ships, one of the greatest vexations to neutral commerce in time of war? These, Sir, are some of the considerations belonging to this subject. I have mentioned them only to show that they well deserve serious attention.

I have not intended to reply to the many observations which have been submitted to us on the message of the President to

this House, or that to the Senate. Certainly I am of opinion, that some of those observations merited an answer, and they have been answered by others. On two points only will I make a remark. It has been said, and often repeated, that the Presi dent, in his message to the Senate, has spoken of his own power in regard to missions in terms which the Constitution does not warrant. If gentlemen will turn to the message of President Washington relative to the mission to Lisbon,* they will see almost the exact form of expression used in this case. The other point on which I would make a remark is the allegation that an unfair use has been made, in the argument of the message, of General Washington's Farewell Address. There would be no end, Sir, to comments and criticisms of this sort if they were to be pursued. I only observe, that, as it appears to me, the argument of the message, and its use of the Farewell Address, are not fairly understood. It is not attempted to be inferred from the Farewell Address, that, according to the opinion of Washington, we ought now to have alliances with foreign states. No such thing. The Farewell Address recommends to us to abstain as much as possible from all sorts of political connection with the states of Europe, alleging as the reason for this advice, that Europe has a set of primary interests of her own, separate from ours, and with which we have no natural connection. Now the message argues, and argues truly, that, the new South American states not having a set of interests of their own, growing out of the balance of power, family alliances, and other similar causes, separate from ours, in the same manner and to the same degree as the primary interests of Europe were represented to be, this part of the Farewell Address, aimed at those separate interests expressly, did not apply in this case. But does the message infer from this the propriety of alliances with these new states? Far from it. It infers no such thing. On the contrary, it disclaims all such purpose.

There is one other point, Sir, on which common justice requires a word to be said. It has been alleged that there are material differences as to the papers sent respectively to the two houses. All this, as it seems to me, may be easily and satisfactorily explained. In the first place, the instructions of May,

* Sparks's Washington, Vol. XII. p. 92.

1823, which, it is said, were not sent to the Senate, were instructions on which a treaty had been already negotiated; which treaty had been subsequently ratified by the Senate. It may be presumed, that, when the treaty was sent to the Senate, the instructions accompanied it; and if so, they were actually already before the Senate; and this accounts for one of the alleged differences. In the next place, the letter to Mr. Middleton, in Russia, not sent to the House, but now published by the Senate, is such a paper as possibly the President might not think proper to make public. There is evident reason for such an inference. And, lastly, the correspondence of Mr. Brown, sent here, but not to the Senate, appears from its date to have been received after the communication to the Senate. Probably when sent to us, it was also sent, by another message, to that body. These observations, Sir, are tedious and uninteresting. I am glad to be through with them. And here I might terminate my remarks, and relieve the patience, now long and heavily taxed, of the committee. But there is one part of the discussion, on which I must ask to be indulged with a few observations.

Pains, Sir, have been taken by the honorable member from Virginia, to prove that the measure now in contemplation, and, indeed, the whole policy of the government respecting South America, is the unhappy result of the influence of a gentleman formerly filling the chair of this House. To make out this, he has referred to certain speeches of that gentleman delivered here. He charges him with having become himself affected at an early day with what he is pleased to call the South American fever; and with having infused its baneful influence into the whole counsels of the country.

If, Sir, it be true that that gentleman, prompted by an ardent love of civil liberty, felt earlier than others a proper sympathy for the struggling colonies of South America; or that, acting on the maxim that revolutions do not go backward, he had the sagacity to foresee, earlier than others, the successful termination of those struggles; if, thus feeling, and thus perceiving, it fell to him to lead the willing or unwilling counsels of his country, in her manifestations of kindness to the new governments, and in her seasonable recognition of their independence, — if it be this which the honorable member imputes to him, if it be by this course of public conduct that he has identified his name

with the cause of South American liberty, he ought to be esteemed one of the most fortunate men of the age. If all this be as is now represented, he has acquired fame enough. It is enough for any man thus to have connected himself with the greatest events of the age in which he lives, and to have been foremost in measures which reflect high honor on his country, in the judgment of mankind. Sir, it is always with great reluctance that I am drawn to speak, in my place here, of individuals; but I could not forbear what I have now said, when I hear, in the House of Representatives, and in this land of free spirits, that it is made matter of imputation and of reproach to have been first to reach forth the hand of welcome and of succor to new-born nations, struggling to obtain and to enjoy the blessings of liberty.

We are told that the country is deluded and deceived by cabalistic words. Cabalistic words! If we express an emotion of pleasure at the results of this great action of the spirit of political liberty; if we rejoice at the birth of new republican nations, and express our joy by the common terms of regard and sympathy; if we feel and signify high gratification that, throughout this whole continent, men are now likely to be blessed by free and popular institutions; and if, in the uttering of these sentiments, we happen to speak of sister republics, of the great American family of nations, or of the political system and forms of government of this hemisphere, then indeed, it seems, we deal in senseless jargon, or impose on the judgment and feeling of the community by cabalistic words! Sir, what is meant by this? Is it intended that the people of the United States ought to be totally indifferent to the fortunes of these new neighbors? Is no change in the lights in which we are to view them to be wrought, by their having thrown off foreign dominion, established independence, and instituted on our very borders republican governments essentially after our own example?

Sir, I do not wish to overrate, I do not overrate, the progress of these new states in the great work of establishing a wellsecured popular liberty. I know that to be a great attainment, and I know they are but pupils in the school. But, thank God, they are in the school. They are called to meet difficulties such as neither we nor our fathers encountered. For these we ought to make large allowances. What have we ever known like the