The Mosquito Protectorat e

It does not seem necessary to add arguments to those of the former American statement for the purpose of proving that the Mosquito Protecinrate has been abolished by the Convention. This point has nowhere been direelly met throughout the British statement by arguments drawn from the body of the Treaty ilself. Thèse remarks shatl, therefore , be confincd lo the topics presenied in the British statement.

In this discussion, as in the case of the Bay Islands, it ought ever to be borne in mind that it is the true construction of the Convention whîch is mainly to be ascertained .and enforced, and not the historieal circumstances and evenls which either preeederî or followed ils conclusion.

The admission is notized with satisfaction that the United States had not, under tbe Convention, acknowledged the existence of the British Prolectorate in Mosquito. This reïieves the argument from much ernbarrassment , and ibe Ameriean nego— tiator from the imputation of having done an act which would have been condemned by his country.

It is, also, repeatedly admitted that, although tbe British Government (to employ its own language) „did not, by the Treaty of 1850, abandon the right of Great Britain to protect the M osquitos, yet it did intend to reduce and limit that right.*' Had the statement proceeded one step further, and speciû ed in what mannet and to what extent the British Government intended to reduce and limit this right, the coutroversy on this point might then, l'or ail practical purposes, have been setlled. Wby? Because Lord Clarendon must have resorted to ihe Convention ilself for a spécification of the limitations impos ed on the Proteclorate, and this would have informed him that it shall never be used for the purpose of ,,occupyiog" „the Mosquito coast," „or of assurning or exercising domiuion over tbe same." Let Great Britain no longer employ it for thèse purposes; let ber cease to occupy this coast and exercise dom iniou over il; and,

Relations territoriales et autres. 239

allhough tins is not ail tbe Convention requires, for every essentîal object tbis would prove suffictent,

The British statement, slrangely enougb , first proceeds to discuss, at considérable length, what it terms „the spint" of tne . Trealy, which it says „must always be inferred from tbe circutnstances under which it takes place;" and afterwards, in a very few Hues, disposes of the great question of the true construction of its language. This entirely reverses the natural order of things. Vatlel informa us, in bis chapter on „the Interprétation of Trealies," tbat „the first gênerai maxim of interprétation is, rhat ît is not allowable to interpret what bas no need oî interprétation. When a deed is worded in clear and précise ternis; when its meaning is évident and ieads to no absurd conclusion ; there can be no reason for refusing to admit tbe meaning which such deed nalurally présents. To go elsewhere in search oi conjectures in order to reslricl or exiend it, is but a» attempt to élude il. if Ibis dangerous melhod be once admitted, there will be no deed which it will not render useless."

It was therefore incumbeol upon the British stalement first lo prove lhat the language of the Convention is obscure— a niost difficull tàsk— before it could properly resort to extraneous circumstanees to explain its meaning. Nevertheless , following the order of the stalement, a reply shall first be given to the circumstances adduced. .

But, as preliminary to thèse, the stalement branches oti into a déclaration „that Mr. Buchanan confounds the conditions of a sovereiguty and a protectorate , and, under this error, treals the agreement 'not to colonise, nor occupy, nor forlify, nor assume nor exercise dorninîon over,' as iucluding an agreement not to protect." Now adrnitting, for the sake.of argument, that thèse words do not include „an agreement not to protect," they do at least limit this protection so tbat it cannot be exercised for the purpose of occupviug, or exereising dominion over the Mosquito Coast. Let this be granted, and the United Slales need ask but Utile more. .

No foundation, however, is to be found in Mr. Buchanan s statement for the crilieism that be had confounded two thmgs so distinct in their uature as „a sovereignly and a prolectorale." Indeed, he does not even use the word „sovereigoty" in connection wilh this iopic througboul bis whole slatemeut. On ihe contrary, he ha* carefully confined himself to the language of the Convention itself, and employed only the words „occupy" or „assume or exercise dominion."

The American Government have never trealed the protectorate claîmed by Great Brilain as ooe which could be recognised by public law. They well kuew, from the savage and degraded characler of the Mosquito lndians, that no Trealy of Protection could exist between Her Brilannic Majesly and the King of the Mosquilo Indiaus, such as is recognised among civilized nations. Under such a Trealy the protecied Power reserves to itself the right of adminis'tering its own Government — a right which il was impossible for Ihe Mosquilos to exercise. This nominal proip^orate must therefore, from the nature

240 Amérique centrale.

of thiogs, be an absolute submission of thèse Indians to the British Government, which, in fact, it has ever been.

For thèse reasons the American stalement has everywhere treated Great Britain as in possession of (he Mosquito Coast, and in the exercise of dominion over it, in the same manacr as though she were ils undisputed owner, and has conteoded that she is bound by the Treaty to wilhdraw from this possession and the exercise of this dominion. This is the substance — ail the rest is mere form. In this point of view it is wholly iramaterial whelher the relations of the Mosquito Indians towards Great Britain be calied a protectorate, a subrnission, or by any olher name. The great objecl of the Convention, as «nderstood by the Government of the United States, is, that she should cease „to oecupy" the Mosquito Coast, no matter by what name or under what claim it is retained.

The leading, indeed it may al m os t be said the only, circumstance adduced to illustrate „ihe spirit" of the Convention, and to bear upon ils construction, is a correspondence which took place at London in November 1849, between Mr. Laurence and Lord Pal mers ton. It is thus sought to convert this preliminary correspondence, which occurred months before the Convention was concluded, into the means of changing and limiting the meaning of the language afterwards ernployed by the actual negotiators. By such means ail agreements between private parties and ail Treaties between sovereign States, might be annuiled. When the final agrëement is once concluded, the préliminaires become useless. Like the scaffolding of a building, they are cast aside afler the édifice has been erected.

But even if such a process were legitimate, there is nothing in this correspondence which, so far from weakening, does not forlify the construction placed upon the Convention by the Government of the United States. Mr. Laurence first asks Lord Palmerston, as the primary object, ,,whether the British Government intends to oecupy or colonize Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America;" and then inquires whelher the British Government will unité with the United States in guaranleeing the neutrality of a ship-canal, railvvay, or other communication to be open to the world , and corn ni on to ail nations." lu reply, Lord Palmerston says ,?that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to oecupy or colonize Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America;" and he also gave an equaliy eatisfactory answer to the second inquiry of Mr. Laurence.

Now what inference does the British statement draw from this language? It is, that as the correspondence which, it is alleged, was before the negotiators, does not refer to the Mosquito Protectorate by name, therefore ihey must have intended that this should remain untouched by the Treaty. But no inference can prevail against a positive fact. If the correspondence be silent in regard to the Protectorate, not so the Convention. This expressly embraces it, and déclares, „nor will either [of the Parties] make use of any protection which either afibrds or may afford, or any alliance which either has or may have, to or with aay

Relations territoriales et autres. 241

State or people for tbe purpose of [erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of] occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same."

But eyen if tbe Convention bad not contained this express stipulation in regard to the Mosquito Protectorat, and bad simply provided for carrying into effect the intention expressed by Mr. Laurence and Lord Palmerston, that neither of the Parties should „occupy or colooize" „the Mosquito Coast,4' this would, it is conceived, have been abundantly sufficient to bring (ireat Brilain to withdraw frora its occupation.

In point of fact, it resulted from abundant caution alone, tbat the clause just quoted from the Convention was superadded; prohibiting Great Brilain, whether under tbe name of a , protection" or „alliance," from „occupying" „the Mosquito Coast," or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same".

In référence to the ^literal meaning of the Convention," which is cerlainly the main point, the British statement occupies but a few lines, and avoids any direct discussion of the language which it employs. Indeed, the construction for whirb the Government of the United States contends is substantially admitled. The statement, after quoting the provisions of the Article, and conlending that it „clearly acknowiedges the possibiliiy of Great Brilain or the United States affording protection to Mosquito, or any Central American State," concèdes that whilst il was noi tbe intention of the Parties to prohibit or abolish, it was their intention „to lirnit and restrict such Protectorale." l.ct there be no dispute about words upon so grave a question. How did tbe Convention limit and reslrict this Protectorat*?? It does this, as before observed, by prohibiting bolh parties frora using „any protection which either affords," for ihe purpose of occupying or exercising dominion over the Mosquito Coast.

Throughout that portion of the argument arising ont of the correspondence belween Mr. Laurence and Lord Palmerston, and indeed in other parts of it, the British statement has treated the joint protection of the two Governmenis to the Nicaragua Canal , as though this were the principal and almost the only feature of the Convention. Such expressions as lliese are employed : — ,/fhe mere Prolectorate of Great Brilain, stripped of ihosc ettributes which affectée! the construction and the Ireedom of the proposed Canal, was of small conséquence lo the Uniled States."

It is again treated as „a matter of indifférence, so far as the Canal is concerned , as lo whether the porl and lown of San Juan are under the modified Prolectorate of Great Brilain or under ihe Government of Nicaragua."

And again— „The praclical différence between Great Brilain and ihe United States, wilh regard to the only muiually important portion of Mosquito, namely , that portion to which the construction and condition of the Canal which formed the origin and basis of the Treaty of 1850 applies, is very small indeed," etc.

Nout>. Recueil gén. Tome XV, Q

Amérique centrale.

Thèse are but very partial and limited expositions of the molives which gave birth to the Convention, lt cousecrated a policy far more exteoded and libéral. The Convention was nol confined to a single route, but embraced ail the routes, whether for railroads or canals, throughoul Central America. To employ ils own language, it agreed to extend ihe protection of ihe two Governmenls „by Treaty stipulations to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects Norlh and South America, and especially to the iuteroceanic communications, should the same prove to be practicable, whelher by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by tbe way of Tehuantepec or Panama." Over ail such routes Great Britain and the United Slaies bave bouud themselves to cast the aegis of their protection , not for their own exclusive benefit, but for lhat of ail the commercial nations of the earth. h was to avoid ail jealousies belween themselves, as well as those which might arise agaiust either or both on the part of other nations, that they agreed not uierely lhat neither of them would erect fortifications on the single route o the San Juan or in ils neighbourhood, but also that neither would direclly, or by virtue of any protectorate or alliance, „occupy, or fortify, or colonise, or assume or exercise any domiuiou over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any paît ol Central America." Wilhout this latter provision, the former would bave beeo vain. Tbe prohibition of occupation was tberefore co-extensive with the whole territory over which such cauals or railroads might pass.

Viewing the Treaty in the Hght of ils own extended and 1 libéral provisions, it was a mattei of some surprise lhat the Bntish slatement should have confined itself merely to a proposition for the two Governments to enter into some arrangement whereby Great Britain may withdraw her Proleclorate from the port and harbour of Greytown and the northern bank of the San Juan, ihus leaviug the residue of the Mosquito Coast in ils présent condition.

The Government of the United States can become a partj to oo such arrangement. It stands upon the Treaty which it bas already eoochided, firmiy believing that under Ibis Great Britain should more tban four years ago have ceased to occupy or exercise dominion over the whole and every part of the Mosquito Coast. It cannot, Iherefore, now enter into any new stipulation confined to the port of Greytown and the northern bank oî !>an Juan. Such an agreemeot could only lead to fresh ^"jplieations, and, besides, would be a tacit admission, which the United States cannot make, that tbe Convention of 1850 did not embracc the entire Mosquito Coast, as well as every olher portion of Central America. AU that the Government of the United States deem il proper to do , under existing cueumsiances. is lo persist in rtieir effort to induce Great Britain to withdraw from the enlire coast. This objèct once accompUshed, the Irealy will theu bave ils full and beoelicent eflecr. The two Power* can rhen proceed in harmony to procure from the proper Central American States the establishment of two iree ports, oue at

Relations territoriales et autres. 243

each end of the Canal , and successfully to interpose their good offices to seule ail existing disputes concerning boundanes between the States. It is mauifest, however, that notmng of this kind can be accomplished , there cao be no seulement of Central American affairs, whilst Great Britaiu shall persist in expressing a détermination to remaid in possession, under the name of a Protectorate, of the whole coast of Nicaragua on the Carribean Sea.

The Earl of Clarendon has been aîready informed tbat the Government of the United States, from motives of humaçity, are willing to unité with Great Britain in inducing the State ot Nicaragua to assign a suitable poriiou of her teintory for the ioccupancy of the misérable remnant of the Mosquito tube. Ihw, however, upon the principle, always recognised by Greal Brikain and the United States in the treatment of their own Indians, that the ultimate dominion and absolute sovereigniy belong to Nicaragua; the Mosquilo* having a righl of mère occupancy to be extinguisbed only bv the State of Nicaragua.

How unfortunate is the condition of Nicaragua! Her tille to ail the territorv embraced within the limils of the ancient Proviuce of Nicaragua is perfect. This shc has acquired not onlv by a suceessful révolution, but sbe hoids it under a solernn treaty with Spaio. This Treaty, conciuded at Madrid on the 25th*July, 1850, recognises her sovereignty and independence, as well as her right „over the American lerritory situaied betwen the Atlantic and Pacific Sea," and „from sea to sea, " „with Us adjacent islands, known bcfore under the dénomination ol the Province of Nicaragua, now Repubîic of the same name.'4 And yei her easteru coast is covered, in ils whole extenl, by the Mosquilo Protectorate, and she is deprived of every oullel to the Carribean Sea. Her port of San Juan has been &eued by British troops, and that of Blowfields is the résidence ol the Kiug of the Mosquitos and the seat of the British domïnion.

An effort has been made to assimilate the case of the British Protectorate over the Mosquitos to that of Enghshmen and Americans acting as Ministers to the King ol Sandwich Islands But there is no parallel between the cases. The inhabitants ot the Sandwich Islands are not degraded savages, but a Christian peuple, and ihe Government of their King has been recoguized by the principal Powers of the earth. He possesses the right to select loreigners for his Ministers, as other Sovereigns have frequently done; but thèse are totally independeni of their own Governmenis.

Il is alleged that a British Consul or Agent résides m Mosquilo who „may oftentimes be led upon to give his opinion or advice to the Mosquilo Government." But it is nolorious and from the degraded character of ihe Indians U cannot be otherwise, that the Mosquito Governmenl is exciusively the British Government exercised through the agency of lh»s Consul. It is through him that the British Governmenl, in the name of this mere shadow of a King, captured the sea-porls ol his neighbours, by ihe employmeot of British forces alone, and

Amérique centrale.

exercises dominion over the entire so-oalled Mosquito Coast. We have tbe nothingness of ihe Mosquito Government and the King graphically delineated by Iwo eminent British staiesmeo of tbe présent Cabinet. Truly this Government is but „a fiction" : whilsl that of Great Brilain is the substanlial reality.

The British statement , after defining the gênerai distinction between „sovereignty" and „defence" or „protection," présents the conséquences which might arise if an agreement „not lo occupy or exercise dominion,*' should prohiba eilher party from the performance of certain enurneraled acts eilher for or against the Central American States.

As thèse remarks are merely hypotheiical, and do not seem to bave any direct bearing upon the great question pending between tbe parties, il is deemed uunecessary to prolong this statement by a reply to them seriatim. They may be well or ill-founded; but il is inconcevable in what manner they bear upon the simple question under the Treaty, whicb is, shali Great Britain continue to occupy or exercise dominion over ihe Mosquito Coast? not what acts she may perform without a violation of the Convention, after she shall have wilhdrawn from this occupation, and the exercise of this dominion.

Opinions are referred to said to have been expressed byMr. Webster concerning lhe Convention; but this is to be expounded according to ils own text, and not by the mere incidents! dicta of any mao, no matter how erainent,

And here ail has been said which either directly or remotely touches the mei ils of the Mosquito question; but as several other topics have been introduced, it would be improper to pass them over in silence.

Tbe statement déclares in référence to tbe Mosquito Prolectorate, that Great Britain „will not enter inlo any expianalion or defence of her conduct with respect to acts committed nearly forty years ago."

Be it so. Such an expianalion is not solicited by the United States. Still it is but just to observe that the British Government first set lhe example of discnssîng their ancient right to the Mosquito Proteclorate ; and this is the only reason given in lhe former American statement for presenting ,,lhe views of the Government of the United States on the subject."

It is highly satisfaclory , however, to observe that the British statement, iostead of relying upon acts of the Eoglish on tbe Mosquito Coast for centuries , limits thèse within a period of less than forty years anterior lo ihe présent date. It i» possible that the former American statement may bave done some good in effecting this charge, by causine Lord Clarendon to re- examine the Treaties of 1783 and 1786, and to refer lo the history of the lime, in which additional proof has been found, not now necessary lo be presented, io confirmation of the construction placed upon thèse Treaties by lhe American Government. It would still have been interesling as a bistorical fact tp learn at what time „nearly forty years ago,'* under what circumstances, and upon what ternis, Great Britain a gain enlered upon Mos-

Relations territoriales et autres. <J45

quito, after having acknowiedged ihe sovereigntv of Spain over it in 1783 and 1786, and surrendered it lo that Power.

The British statement proceeds to allège, thai since the Peace of 1815 Old Spain had never raised any question with the British Government respecting the Mosquito Protectorate. This is doubtless the case, because Old Spain, from the intimate relations of frîendship which had existed between the two Governments since their Treaty of Alliance in 1809, could not have sn-spected that Greal Britain was renewiog her connection wilh the Mosquitos; and soon after „the acts committed by her nearly forty hears ago," the Spantsh-Àmerican revolutionary war commeuced, which would naturally prevent the Spanish Government from bestowîng its attention on a matter so comparativeïy unimportant.

The statement rhen dénies that by the British Treaty with Mexico of 1826, Greal Britain had recognized the right of the Central American Stales, having achieved their independence, to the territories respectively included witbin their boundaries, as thèse had formerly existed under Old Spain. As this point has already been discussed in a former portion of the présent statement, it is not now necessary to add anything on this subject lo what has already been said.

But again, argues the British stateroeut, even supposing that thèse States did inherit the rights of Old Spain, they made no remonstrance „for many years after the Protectorate of Great Britain over Mosquilo had been a fact well known to thcra." Surelv the British Government does not mean to contend thaï the omission of thèse feeble States, agilaled in ihe first place by a revolutionary war , and afterwards by domeslic dissensions, to make such remonstranc«s, would confer upon Great Britain the right to deprive them of their territory. Besides , if it were necessary lo go into the question, it might be proved that not many but ou\y a few years had elapsed before thèse States did remonslrale againsl the eucroachmenls of Great Britain.

The statement next asserts that although the Government of the United Stales knew of the existence of the British Protectorate in 1842, yet they did not complain of it until the end of 1849. And from this what is to be inferred? The United Statcs had no right, under any Treaty with Greal Britain, to interfère in this question unlil April 1850. But even if they had been direclly interesied in the territory as Nicaragua was , is there any statute of limitations among nations, which, after fiix years of unlawful possession, depiives the true owner of his territorial rights? Had the United States inlerfered in this question before the conclusion of the Convention of 1850, this could only have been done under the Monroe doctrine, and then they would have been informed , as they have already been in the British statement, that this doctrine „can only be viewed as the dicturn of the dislinguished personage ^rho delivered it 5 but Her Majestv'* Government cannot admit that doctrine as an international axiom which ought to regulate the couduct of Euiopean Stales."

Amérique centrale.

But it must not be inferred from what has been said that without this Conveotion the Government of the United States wodd not have eventually interfered, in obédience to the Monroe doctrine, to prevent, if possible, any portion of Central America from being permanently occupied or colonized by Great Britain. Neither is Lord Ciarendon correct in supposing that this doctrine is the mere „dîctumu of its distioguished aulhor. True, it has never been formally sanctioned byGongress; but when fîrst announced, more than thirty years ago, it was hailed with enlhusiastic approbation by the American people: and since lhat period the différent Présidents of the United States have repeated it in their Messages to Congress, and always with unmislakeable indications of public approbation. If the occasion reqnired , Mr. Bucbanan would cheerfully undertake the task of justrfying the wisdom and the sound policy of the Monroe doctrine, in référence to the nations of Europe, as well as to those on the American continent.

The British statement proceeds to enumerate several instances, corameucing in November 1847, extracted from the report of Mr. Clayton to the Président in July 1850, in which no answer was returned by the Government of the United States to appeals made by or on behalf of the State of Nicaragua for our interférence to arrest the progress of British encroachments in Central America. Sureîy the war then pending between the United States and Mexico was suflicient to account for this temporary omission, without attributing il to any indifférence to the proceedings of Great Britain against Nicaragua. But even before this war was finally terminated by a Treaty of Peace, and after the capture of San Juan by the British forces, Président Polk, in April 1848, gave a public pledge to the worltl , in strong terras , of his adhérence to the Monroe doctrine, as he had already done in two previous Messages. Besides, in December 1847, ne asked an appropriation from Congress to enable him to send a Minister to Guatemala ; and this Minister was accordingly dispatched with instructions, which have been pubïished, having distinctly in view the adoption of measures necessary to give effect to this doctrine in Central America.

The British statement, whilst admitting that, under the former principles and practice of European nations in regard to their treatment of the Indian races the Mosquitos would have no right to rank as an independent State , yet indicates that Great Britain has changcd her conduct in this respect.

As examples of great changes in other respects which have occurred in modem fîmes, and as an excuse or justification for her own change, the British statement cites the suppression of the African Slave Trade, and the establishment of the Republic of Liberia. Neither of thèse would seem to be very wonderful. They both occurred in the natural progress of events from the advance of civilisation, and the efforts of wise and benevolent men. But the British Government will have performed a miracle if they can convert the debased and degraded race of Mosquito Indians, such as they have been described without

Relations territoriales et autres. 247

contradiction in the American statement, mto çitizens or subiects of a realiy independent and sovereign nation.

The British statement also déclines to furnish the „grounds on which Her Majesty's Government made the capture of San Juan de Nicaragua ;« and it is therefore scarcely necessary to pursue this branch of the subject. If it were, it would be easy to add proofs to those contained m the former American statement, that this was never a Mosquito port m but always, together with the River San Juan, rightfully belonged to Spain, and afterwards to Nicaragua. Référence might be made to the report of Sîr William Wise, the commander of the British shîp of war „Sophie," who visnted the coast m 1820: and also to that of Mr. Orlando Roberts, who was carried as a prisoner up the San Juan in 1821. The latter describes the fort to which Captain Bonnycastle had referred, as then still mounting twelve pièces of large cannon, and contamine accommodation for 100 men. m

The two chapters in Crowe's central America , entitled „British Encroachments," might also be cited. Of thèse the author présents a striking history, from the lime orthe numerous and formidable but unsuccessful expédition of Great Britain against Spain in 1780, for the purpose of wrestmg from that Power the port and river of San Juan , until they were finally captured from Nicaragua in 1848, and then first became a part of the Mosquito Protectorate.