ma is either a government, a branch of government, or a confederacy of governments; and that the United States, by attending there, united themselves with such confederacy. The Congress is not what it is thus described, but simply a consultative meeting of diplomatic agents from independent governments. But were it what it is described, the attendance there of a minister from the United States would no more bind us to such a confederacy, than the attendance of a minister at the court of any single power, binds us to that power.

To the objection that all the objects aimed at by the Congress could be attained by separate negotiation with each State there represented, it is replied that neither so convenienly, so rapidly, nor so surely, could separate negotiations be concluded between States so geographically remote, and 'in various respects so politically different, as in an assembly of diplomatic agents promptly communicating with each other, counsel, information and argument.

Another objection that neither the subjects of discussion, the power of the ministers, the mode of organizing the Congress, nor of deciding questions in it, were defined with sufficient distinctness to justify the United States in attending, is met by the statement that this is merely a consultative assembly-where no one without his consent, is to be bound by the decision made-and as from the very nature and circumstances of the meeting, it would be impossible to define beforehand the precise topics to be discussed, or the precise form in which the body should be organized or deliberate, it was not reasonable to expect or require that the whole programme should be arranged and agreed upon in advance.

The hazard to our neutrality by attendance so far as Spain was concerned could not be as great as by the more positive act, long before adopted, of acknowledging the new States, and trading with them on the footing of independence, in direct contravention of the colonial laws of Spain. If this were not, as it could not justly be, considered by Spain a breach of our neutrality, assuredly the fact of sending representatives to a Congress of diplomatic agents from those States, could not be so considered-more especially as it was expressly stipulated on our behalf, and agreed to by the other States, that our ministers were not to take any part in the discussion or adoption of

measures of war between those States and Spain. On the contrary, it was made known to Spain through our minister there, that one of the objects of the attendance of the United States at Panama was to use our influence in behalf of peace and humanity, and for the termination of the contest between Spain and her former colonies, on terms mutually honorable and advantageous.

Nor do the Committee attach weight to the apprehension expressed, that, by attendance at the Congress, the United States may be involved in entangling alliances with some of the new States. In the first place, all project or purpose of said alliance is expressly disclaimed by the President; but if it were not, alliances cannot be framed with any nation, except with the consent and approbation of the Senate; and if there be no danger of entangling alliances by sending a minister direct to a foreign power, much less can there be in sending one to join in a mere assembly of other ministers-mere agents, and not themselves powers or governments.

But, says another objection, this Congress is an unprecedented measure. Truly so-and alike unprecedented are the position of this hemisphere and the circumstances which have suggested the Congress-eight new States suddenly taking a place among nations. But because unprecedented, is it therefore wrong or dangerous? Far otherwise. It is an assembly, not of banded oppressors-not of conquerors and kings, to cut and carve a world among themselves, without regard to any popular rights-but of the representatives of free States, anxious to establish a common basis for civil, social and international intercourse. It is an assembly to assert and secure the rights of the people, and not to strengthen the power of monarchs-the ministers who will be present are of limited power-of no authority to commit their governments to any measures-but bound to refer back to the authority which delegated them, whatever propositions or plan of mutual or general operation may be suggested. The reasoning drawn from a fancied analogy between this Congress and the Congress of European Sovereigns and Ambassadors, is wholly fallacious. It is not the act of assembling and treating together that constitutes the danger of these last-named Congresses, but the character and quality of those assembled, and the objects effected or aimed at.

Having thus disposed of all the objections to the mission, the Committee go on to expatiate on the advantages to be anticipated from it.

From the nature of the case, as well as from the terms of the invitation, the discussions of Panama would embrace all subjects of importance

To the new States as among each other

Or as between them and Spain-

Or of interest directly to us, in our connection with them.

These three classes of subjects, in different degrees, are all of deep concern to the United States. With the second, indeed, except as mediators, we could have no connection, for it was of express stipulation that we were not to take part in any matter that might hazard our amicable relations with Spain.

But in the other two classes we have many and strong common interests. As near neighbors, several of these states, accordingly as they are prosperous and peaceful in their intercourse with each other and with ourselves, or otherwise, become objects of great solicitude to us. One of these has an immense landed frontier on our territory, and, together with the next two in geographical position, lies on those waters into which the great internal communications of the United States are discharged. With these and with the other new States we have highly important commercial connections, and it is therefore matter of great interest to us how they shall stand towards each other. If a common feeling of mutual interests and mutual friendships shall prevail, all will increase in prosperity. On the other hand, dissension between them respecting boundaries or other vexed questions, would at once be injurious to the parties engaged, and to the other States, as well as to the United States, from the interruption of that commerce which their peaceful growth and industry could not fail to foster and enlarge. These obvious truths could not fail of producing marked effect in such a Congress; and it is not too much, probably, to say, that if it had been in session with the general concurrence of the new States, and the full coöperation of this country, the unhappy war actually existing between Brazil and the Provinces of La Plata, respecting the possession of the Banda Oriental, would have been prevented by the mediation of the ministers there assembled. To the work of media

tion, in all such cases, the United States would come as the most disinterested, as well as powerful party; and the chance, in a single instance, of being able to avert or terminate a war, would of itself constitute a sufficient motive for accepting the invitation. We do not obtrude ourselves as umpires; but being invited where sectional differences are to be discussed, and the benefit of our presence, counsel and experience being invoked, no maxim of the most cautious prudence bids us stand aloof. Next to peace on our own part, the peace and prosperity of these new States are our leading interest, and the policy of maintaining peace through friendly mediation is entirely congenial with the principles and feelings of the people of the United States, and sanctioned by their practice.

Among the topics calculated deeply to engage our attention, in the existing state of affairs, is the condition of Cuba and Porto Rico. Those rich islands, the former so near our very borders, that the Moro, which commands the entrance to Havana, may be considered a fortress at the mouth of the Mississippi. The probability that this island may become the scene of a struggle between Spain and one or more of the new States-and of all the horror of such a struggle, conducted with forces inadequate on either side to complete success, but sufficient to lead to anarchy and a servile war-would alone justify the United States in attending a Congress where their presence and exhortations might avert so great a calamity-so imminent a danger. It is well said by the Committee that," if the United States, after being invited to attend a conference of ministers of the powers by whom that invasion is projected, had declined to be present, they would have incurred a deep responsibility for whatever disastrous effects our friendly interposition might have averted. or delayed."

The direct intercourse between the new Republics and ourselves, would form a special subject of deliberation at the Congress. Our aim, from the earliest foundation of the government, in our intercourse with foreign nations, has been to establish reciprocal, liberal and uniform commercial relations with all. The benefit of our experience in this cause has been specially invoked, and "to refuse an attendance when urged, on this ground, would be to neglect, perhaps, the fairest opportunity which the history

of the world has offered, of giving a wide and prompt diffusion to liberal doctrines of public law."

After thus considering the whole case on the grounds of political expediency, and the principles of our diplomatic intercourse, the Committee add the expression of their concurrence in the sentiments of the President, that sufficient inducement, independent of all other, to accept the invitation, would be found in the desire to meet, in the spirit of kindness and friendship, an overture made in that spirit, by three sister republics of this hemisphere."

Towards these republics our policy from the outset has been frank, liberal, and disinterested. Dismissing all jealousies, and disdaining all fears-instead of holding back when those States cast off the safe and enervating despotism of Spain, which rendered them such harmess neighbors for us-we, the first, stretched our hands out to welcome them among the nations. We ourselves assisted to break down the barrier which position had heretofore given us-of being alone on this continent without rivals or dangerous neighbors. We have aided the growth of Republics, some of which must be great and strong. The policy thus entered upon we must pursue, and bind to us by the bonds of common interest, of similar institutions, and of a frank and liberal intercourse, those who under a different treatment, might become dangerous rivals or enemies.

From all which considerations, the Committee thus conclude:

posed mission to its consummation, it was opposed on party grounds; and those who were already organizing to put down the administration of J. Q. Adams, though it should be "pure as the angels," seized upon this topic as one concerning which, regardless of the high interests of country which it involved, they hoped to make an unfavorable impression on the people.

In the Senate, Mr. Benton, Mr. Branch, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Van Buren, Mr. Woodbury, Mr. Tazewell, Mr. Hayne, Mr.W. R. King, (now minister in France,) were strenuous in opposition. They and their associates, in executive session, interposed all the obstacles which party tactics and party discipline could suggest; and when defeated there-after the nominations were confirmed, but while the appropriation bill was pending in the House

they transferred the subject to the legislative session, and therein indulged in most acrimonious and vindictive debate. In these debates John Randolph, the outpourings of whose unhinged mind and ill-regulated heart have, in some quarters, received the apotheosis of genius! was particularly prominent and particularly abusive; and from one of the speeches he then made arose the duel between him and Mr. Clay.

alliance have been shown to be unfounded; in a word, as the Congress will be regarded by the Executive of the United States, as purely a consultative meeting; and as the objects of consultation are of primary importance to the country, the Committee of Foreign Affairs are of opinion, that the mission to Panama ought to receive the sanction of the House of Representatives." Having thus laid before the readers of the Review the substance of the two conflicting Reports, we shall devote the residue of our space to an exhibition of the course of some of the prominent members of both Houses.

From the first annunciation of the pro

ous.

To these resolutions the President replied, that, the papers having been communicated by him in confidence to the Senate, upon their request so to receive them, and believing such confidential intercourse between the Executive and the Senate essential to the public interests, he "deemed it his indispensable duty to leave to the Senate itself the decision of a question involving a departure, hitherto, as he is informed, without example, from that usage.”

This reply furnished a new topic of opposition. Mr. Rowan, of Kentucky, proposed resolutions of censure on the

President for declining to decide whether or not the Senate ought to sit with open doors upon executive business! and refusing to consider farther the subject of the mission until the President should give his opinion as to the propriety of a public discussion! This resolution, after debate, was modified in various ways, all, however, designed to cast censure on the Executive, and to thwart his views; till at length, stripped of the offensive features, it was passed in a form asserting that, although" the Senate have the right to publish communications confidentially made, and to discuss the same with open doors, without the consent of the President," yet, in this case, as the President seemed to have objections thereto, and no present exigency required the exercise of that right-the Senate would proceed as heretofore, with closed doors.

Nothing daunted by defeat, Mr. Van Buren, on the 14th of March, submitted a series of resolutions adverse to the President's constitutional authority to institute the mission. We quote the second of these resolutions because of its remarkable application to the recent "association" of Texas with this Union-an association now supported by the very men who supported the annexed resolution, which, as will be seen, denies all authority to Congress to bring about such a result!

"Resolved, That the power of framing or entering (in any manner whatever) into any political association, or confederacies, belongs to the people of the United States in their sovereign character, being one of the powers which, not having been delegated to the Government, is reserved to the States or people, and that it is not within the constitutional power of the Federal Government to appoint deputies or representatives of any description to represent the United States in the Congress of Panama, or to participate in the deliberation, or discussion, or recommendation of acts of that Congress."

This resolution, with the others, was lost; but it received the votes of Messrs. Dickerson, Benton, Hayne, Wm. R. King, Macon, Randolph, Van Buren, Rowan, Woodbury, &c.

It is, taken altogether, a complete non sequitur; for, admitting as we do entirely, and as was probably done by those who voted against the resolution as a whole, the truth of the first deduction, it has no application whatever to the second, respecting the constitutional authority to

establish the mission to Panama, seeing that no "new political associations or confederacy" were then contemplated.

Finding all expedients vain, and that factious opposition in executive session produced no capital out of doors, the vote was taken on the same day, on the resolution of the Committee on Foreign Relations, declaring the mission inexpedient. It was negatived-ayes 19, noes 24. The ayes were Messrs. Benton, Berrien, Branch, Chandler, Cobb, Dickerson, Eaton, Findlay, Hayne, Holmes, Kane, King, Macon, Randolph, Rowan, Van Buren, White, Williams, Woodbury.

The nominations were then confirmed. The length to which this paper has been already protracted forbids our going into detail, and furnishing, as we intended, extracts from the speeches of the Senators who opposed the mission. It must therefore suffice to say, that Mr. Hayne of South Carolina, Mr. White of Tennessee, Mr. Van Buren of New York, and Mr. Woodbury of New Hampshire, particularly, resisted that object, which, among others, was to be embraced in the deliberations of the Congress-the renewed and more emphatic expression of Mr. Monroe's declaration that this continent, under the reservation of existing rights, was henceforth to be exempt from European interference or European colonization.

Any agreement on our part with the South American nations to proclaim this as the policy and resolute purpose of each and all, was denounced as a total departure from the established policy of our country-as beyond the constitutional authority of this government, and as offensive to the nations of Europe. Mr. Randolph, who, in the legislative session, spoke hour after hour and day after day about the mission, magnified the power of the European nations as unduly and unreasonably as he depreciated the character and insulted the feelings of the new American States.

By all the opponents of the mission, a system of American republics, framed for the protection of freedom-for the advancement of mutual, harmonious and liberal intercourse-and defensive, not by arms, but in spirit and purpose, against the pretensions of the monarchical system of Europe-the Holy Alliance—were ridiculed or denounced. No sympathy for struggling freemen on our own continent-no generous sentiment of a newworld destiny, and of corresponding

new-world duties-no self-relying consciousness that, as Americans, we are sufficient unto ourselves, and competent to discuss and to determine whether, and in how far, we will be governed by an old international code, adopted without our concurrence, and adapted to political conditions and circumstances widely different from our own. Party disguised from patriotism its true path-and though happily defeated in the main efforts, it did, indirectly, have the effect of paralyzing a proceeding which it could not wholly prevent.

In the House of Representatives, the same narrow spirit, the same factious opposition-claiming to speak in the name of country, and seeking to shelter itself under the mantle of Washington-was manifested. We select, by reason of his present eminence-then as little anticipated as now it is likely to be justified by results for special citation, the part taken by Mr. Polk.

On the 11th April, Mr. Polk offered the following resolutions:

"Resolved, That it is the constitutional right and duty of the House of Representatives, when called on for appropriations to defray the expenses of foreign missions, to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of such missions, and to determine and act thereon, as in their judgment may be most conducive to the public good.

66

Resolved, That it is the sense of this House that the sending of Ministers on the part of the United States to take part in the deliberations of the South American nations at Panama, would be a total departure from the uniform course of policy pursued by this government from the adoption of the Federal Constitution to the present period; and might, and in all probability would, have a tendency to involve the nation in "entangling alliances," and endanger the neutrality and relations of amity and peace, which at present happily subsist between the United States and the belligerent powers-Old Spain and the Southern Republics on this Continent.

66

Resolved, therefore, That it is inexpedient to send ministers on the part of the United States, to take part in the deliberations of the said Congress of South Ameri

can nations at Panama, and that it is inexpedient to grant any appropriations to defray the expenses of the said mission."

These resolutions were, on Mr. Polk's motion, referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

On the 20th, Mr. McLane's amendment, which went to cripple the mission by restricting the powers of the ministers,

and which, among other prohibitions, forbade them even "to discuss, consider or consult on any stipulation, compact or declaration binding the United States in any way, or to any extent, to resist interference from abroad with the domestic affairs of the aforesaid governments, or any measure which shall commit the present or future neutral rights or duties of the United States, either as may regard European nations, or between the several States of Mexico and South America,” was adopted by the House of Representatives by a vote of ninety-nine to ninetyfive-Mr. Polk, Mr. McDuffie, Mr. Hoffman, (now naval officer of New York,) Mr. Cambreleng, Mr. Verplanck, Mr. Ingham, and Mr. Kremer of Pennsylvania, together with the whole opposition, being in the affirmative.

The next day Mr. Polk addressed the House concerning his purpose to vote against the resolution, even with the amendment adopted at the previous sitting. That amendment did indeed assert the right of the House to a voice in the institution of a new foreign mission, and did declare that the ancient policy of the country to keep clear of all" entangling alliances" was not to be departed from. To these views Mr. Polk said he willingly adhered, and that, "however strong his sympathies in favor of liberty and republican institutions, in whatever part of the world they might make their appearance, the peace, the quiet and the prosperity of his own country were paramount to every other consideration." Mr. Polk then argued the right of the House of Representatives to a voice in the institution of foreign missions; and having insisted (contrary to the wellestablished practice of the government) that such was the true construction of the Constitution, he again reverted to the dangerous nature of the Panama Congress. "We have heard," said Mr. P.,

66

during this debate, a great deal about the fraternity of the Republics of the South; about the necessity of signifying our good feeling, and sympathies for the cause of freedom in which they are engaged, by extending to them the counsels of our experience, and uniting with them in the deliberations at Panama. have been repeatedly told, not only by gentlemen on this floor, but the idea bas been held forth in the documents which have lumbered our table, that this Congress at Panama was an American, a republican policy." Mr. Polk, after this

We