« PrécédentContinuer »
United States of America, on the one part, or that of the Paraguay Government, on the other, shall have given notice of its intention of terminating the same.
(Ex. Jour., vol. 9, pp. 216, 316.)
March 9, 1854.
On the treaty with Mexico, Mr. Mason reported as follows:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the treaty between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, of the 30th December, 1853, report the same to the Senate with the following amendments:
Article 1, after the word “lake,” at the end of the first clause, insert Provided, That “the most northern part of the Gulf of California” mentioned in this article shall be indicated by a parallel of latitude to be drawn at the distance of one marine league from the most southern point of the island called “Montague Island,” as the same is laid down on the chart of “the reconnaissance of the Colorado River,” by George H. Derby, lieutenant, United States Topographical Engineers, December, 1850, which chart, attested by the signature of the Secretary of State of the United States, and bearing the seal of the Department of State of the United States, for greater certainty, is hereto annered.
Article 2, line 10, strike out the word "obligation” and insert obligations.
Article 2, line 12, after the word “Guadaloupe," insert And the thirty-third article of a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation between the United States of America and the United Mexican States concluded at Merico on the 5th day of April, in the year 1831.
Article 2, line 12, strike out the word "has” and insert have.
Article 4, line 33, after the word “and," insert whichsoever place of meeting may be designated.
And the committee recommend that the amendments proposed by the President be agreed to by the Senate with the addition and modification specified in their proper places in the said amendments as following, viz:
Article 2, at the end thereof, add the following: And the Government of Mexico agrees that the stipulations contained in this article to be performed by the United States shall be reciprocal, and Mexico shall be under like obligations to the United States and the citizens thereof as those hereinabove imposed on the latter in favor of the Republic of Mexico and Mexican citizens.
Article 3, strike out the whole of the same and insert the following in lieu thereof:
ARTICLE 3. In consideration of the grants received by the United States and the obligations relinquished by the Mexican Republic pursuant to this treaty, the former agree to pay to the latter the sum of fifteen millions of dollars in gold or silver coin at the Treasury in Washington, one-fifth of the amount on the exchange of ratifications of the present treaty at Washington and the remaining four-fifths in monthly installments of three millions each, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum until the whole be paid, the Government of the United States reserving the right to pay up the whole sum of fifteen millions at an earlier date, as may be to it convenient.
Here the committee recommend the addition of the following, viz:
That the last monthly installment as aforesaid be reserved by the Government of the United States until the boundaries prescribed in article 1 be "established” as provided for in said article.
Article 3, second clause, as proposed by the President, viz:
The United States also agree to assume all the claims of their citizens against the Mexican Republic which may have arisen under treaty or the law of nations since the date of the signature of the treaty of Guadalupe.
Here the committee recommend the insertion of the following modification, viz:
Including any just and proper indemnity to the holders of the socalled concession to Garay (being citizens of the United States), the character of which is known to the correspondence between the two Governments, but not to include compensation for any loss of anticipated profits.
The second clause of article 3, as proposed by the President, then proceeds as follows, viz:
And the Mexican Republic agrees to exonerate the United States of America from all claims of Mexico or Mexican citizens which may have arisen under treaty or the law of nations since the date of the treaty of Guadalupe, so that each Government in the most formal and effective manner shall be exempted and exonerated of all such obligations to each other respectively.
The following are the remaining amendments proposed by the President, viz: Article 8, after the word "attempts," in the twenty-eighth line of the printed copy, strike out the residue of the article, in the following words, viz: “They mutually and especially obligate themselves, in all cases of such lawless enterprises which may not have been prevented through the civil authorities before formation, to aid with the naval and military forces, on due notice being given by the aggrieved party of the aggressions of the citizens and subjects of the other, so that the lawless adventurers may be pursued and overtaken on the high seas, their elements of war destroyed, and the deluded captives held responsible in their persons and meet with the merited retribution inflicted by the laws of nations against all such disturbers of the peace and happiness of contiguous and friendly powers; it being understood that in all cases of successful pursuit and capture the delinquents so captured shall be judged and punished by the Government of that nation to which the vessel capturing them may belong, conformably to the laws of each nation.”
In the concluding paragraph of the treaty, relating to the year of independence of the United States, strike out the word “seventyseventh” and insert seventy-eighth.
(Ex Jour., vol. 9, pp. 260, 261, 262.)
March 28, 1854.
Mr. Mason reported as follows:
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred communications from Senators in reply to the note of the Hon. David R. Atchison, President of the Senate, of the 25th February, written by order of the Senate of the 24th same month, have had the same under consideration, and now report:
The resolution of the Senate is as follows:
In Senate of the United States, in executive session, February 24, 1854. Resolved, That the President of the Senate be directed to address a note on behalf of the Senate to each Senator, putting the following interrogatories:
1. Whether he has any inforination which will enable the Senate to ascertain in what way, or by whose in trumentality, the treaty with Mexico, and that with Great Britain relating to the copyright, and the amendment to the latter offered by a Senator from Massachusetts, or either of them, which are now depending before the Senate, have been disclosed, in violation of the thirty-ninth rule, and been published in the public journals.
2. Whether he has any information that will enable the Senate to ascertain in what way, or by whose instrumentality, the debates in the Senate and the remarks made in debate by individual Senators whilst the Senate was in executive session on the nomination of George N. Sanders as consul at London, were in like manner disclosed, in violation of the rules of the Senate, and been published in said journals; and that at the end of one week after the date of said note he communicate the replies that are received to the same to the Senate in executive session.
And the note of the President of the Senate addressed to each Senator is as follows:
February 25, 1854.
D. R. ATCHISON,
President of the Senate, pro tempore. Replies have been received and were before the committee from all the Senators constituting the present Congress, except Mr. Mallory.
Mr. Mallory, it is believed, was absent when the resolution of the Senate was adopted, and has not yet returned to this city.
The committee have examined the replies that have been received, and they are all in the negative to the interrogatories.
One alone (Mr. Chase), after such reply in the negative, adds:
That a correspondent of the press informed me that he transmitted to the paper with which he was connected a copy of the Mexican treaty. He did not inform me, nor do I know, how or from whom he obtained it, certainly not from me or through me.
The committee return herewith the replies in writing of the Senators to the interrogatories, fifty-nine in number.
The committee recommend that the said replies be preserved by the Secretary of the Senate, that this report be recommitted to the committee, and that the annexed resolution be adopted by the Senate:
Resolved, That the report concerning the violation of the rules of the Senate, in the publication of certain treaties and the promulgation of debate held in executive session, be recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with power to examine on oath, touching the said violation of the rules, the officers of the Senate, the persons employed to execute the confidential printing of the Senate, and any others in this city whom they may deem it fit to examine, and to that end to send for persons and papers.
(Ex. Jour., vol. 9, pp. 271, 272, 273.)
June 13, 1854.
(Senate Report No. 195. ] Report submitted by Mr. Slidell, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, on a resolution relative to the abrogation of the eighth article
S. Doc. 231, pt 8-5
of the treaty with Great Britain of the 9th of August, 1812, providing for maintaining a naval force on the coast of Africa, etc. :
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the resolution submitted by Mr. Slidell on the 29th May, 1854, “that, in the opinion of the Senate, it is expedient, and in conformity with the interests and sound policy of the United States, that the eighth article of the treaty between this Government and Great Britain, of the 9th of August, 1842, should be abrogated; and that, should the President of the United States concur in this opinion, he be requested to signify to the Government of Great Britain, in conformity with the eleventh article of that treaty, the wish of this Government to terminate the said eighth article," have had the same under consideration, and now respectfully report:
That by the eighth article of the treaty with Great Britain, made at Washington on the 9th of August, 1812, commonly known as the Ashburton treaty, "the parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare, equip, and maintain in service, on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron, or naval force, of vessels of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry, in all, not less than eighty guns, to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of each of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade; the said squadrons to be independent of each other; but the two Governments stipulating, nevertheless, to give such orders to the officers commanding their respective forces as shall enable them most effectually to act in concert and cooperation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may arise, for the attainment of the true object of this article; copies of all such orders to be communicated by each Government to the other respectively.”
By the eleventh article of the same treaty it is declared that the eighth article shall be in force for five years from the date of exchange of the ratification, and afterwards until one or the other party shall signify a wish to terminate it.
The policy of stipulations of this kind with any foreign power, may well be questioned on general grounds; but your committee do not think it necessary to enter upon so large and debatable a field of discussion, and will confine themselves to an examination of the question whether, admitting the propriety and expediency of the measure at the time of its adoption, with the imperfect or erroneous information then possessed, it be not proper and expedient now to abrogate it. It was then supposed that the most efficient mode of suppressing the slave trade was to employ numerous cruisers on the coast of Africa, and the very caption of the treaty indicates the results that were expected to be obtained by it. It is entitled “A treaty to define and settle the boundaries between the Territories of the United States and the possessions of Her Britannic Majesty in North America, and for the final suppression of the African slave trade,” etc. It was believed that the best point for the employment of a naval force for the attainment of an object which the people and Government of the United States desired quite as earnestly as Her Britannic Majesty and her subjects, was the coast of Africa. An experience of twelve years has demonstrated the fallacy of that opinion.
Large squadrons have been kept up during that period, by the two powers, at an euormous expense in money, and with a lamentable loss of life and destruction of the health of the officers and men employed in that noxious climate. And what has been the result? Let the record show. The British squadron comprises several steamers, counting, in all, 21 vessels, carrying about 300 guns and 3,000 men. The annual expense of the squadron is £706,454about $3,500,000. This is the expense proper of the squadron. That of auxiliary establishments on the coast, connected with this service, and which might otherwise be dispensed with, is estimated at from £300,000 to £500,000. Take the lowest figure and you have $1,500,000 to add to the direct cost of the squadron, making a total annual expenditure of $5,000,000. In 1845 alone the number of deaths of officers and men was 259, of officers and men invalided, 271.
The United States have 4 vessels and 80 guns on the coast of Africa, being about one-eighth of our whole naval force afloat; and, as the estimated expenditure of the Navy, after deducting special objects, such as transportation of the mail in steamships, improvement of navy-yards, etc., is $8,351,171, the annual cost of this squadron may be fairly calculated at $800,000, or $10,000 per gun. This, it will be observed, is considerable less than the cost per gun of the British squadron, which is about $11,700.
It is a subject of congratulation, however, that for the last four years the mortality of our officers and men employed on this service bears a favorable comparison with that of other stations. This the Navy Department attributes to the extraordinary sanitary measures adopted by the officers of the squadron.
France, at one time, obliged herself to keep up an equal force with Great Britain on the coast of Africa, say 26 vessels, but finding the engagement too onerous, she applied to the British Government for a modification of the treaty, which was conceded, and she now has only twelve vessels so employed. There are no precise data on which the expenditure of France can be established, but estimating it by the proportion of vessels employed, say 12 to 26, it would be about $1,600,000. The annual joint expenditure of England, France, and the United States thus appears to be $7,400,000.
Mr. Hutt, the chairman of the select committee of the House of Commons appointed to investigate this question, stated on the 19th of March, 1850, “that the number of slaves exported from Africa had sunk down, in 1842, the very year of the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, to very nearly 30,000. In 1843 it rose to 55,000; in 1846 it was 76,000; in 1847 it was 84,000, and was then in a state of unusual activity.” Sir Charles Hotham, who commanded for several years on the coast of Africa, and who is one of the most distinguished officers of the British navy, on his examination before the select committee, thus replied to queries propounded to him:
Was the force under your command in a high state of discipline, generally speaking?
I thought so.
Were your views carried out by the officers under your command to your entire satisfaction?
What was the result of your operations; did you succeed in stopping the slave trade?
Did you cripple it to such an extent as is, in your opinion, calculated to give to the slave trade a perinanent check?
Do you consider that the slave trade has been generally regulated by the strength and efficiency of the British squadron on the coast, or by the commercial demand for slaves?
I consider it is entirely dependent upon the commercial demand for slaves, and has little or no connection with the squadron.
You think that the present system is open to many grave objections on other accounts, and that it will not succeed?
Experience has proven the present system to be futile.