but to the acts and declarations of his authorized agents, either expressly or tacitly approved, to ascertain if there is a sufficient basis on which to rest this confidence.

I grant you, sir, the President has told us, that the motive of the attendance of our ministers at the Congress of Panama, is neither to contract alliances, nor to engage in any undertaking, or project, importing hostility to any nation. But is this the plain import of the invitation given to him? Is this the obvious result of his acceptance of that invitation? These ministers, too, tell us, that we are not to be required to do any thing which may commit our neutrality, but they tell us, in the same breath, that we are expected to do that, which must commit our neutrality.

We are not to be required to commit our neutrality. No, sir. But we are expected to stipulate a contingent alliance with these states, against Spain, and any other European power, which may interfere in the pending war. Is not this to commit our neutrality? How has the President met this pretension? Has he repelled it? No, sir. The ministers of those states assert, that the stipulation of the terms of this contingent alliance, is a subject of" common interest;" that it is of "immediate utility" to those states; that it is expected our representatives will have "express instructions in their credentials" on this point. These assertions called upon the President to speak out. Did he meet and repel this pretension? Sir, this would have justified our confidence. Was he silent? Then he abandoned us. There is a silence, which is as impressive and as binding as any language. He has been little observant of diplomatic correspondence, who has not perceived with what studied care, pretensions which it is not intended to admit, even although they may relate to subjects entirely collateral, are stated and repelled.

But the President was not silent, and he did not repel this pretension. On the contrary, the secretary of state, acting under his immediate eye, distinctly affirm

ed it. The ministers of those republics tell him that this question, of the mode of resistance to European interference, will arise before this Congress; that it is a question of common interest to the nations of America; that it is expected, that our ministers will have express instructions, on this point, in their credentials; and, without denying, and thereby admitting, the truth of these assertions, and the reasonableness of this expectation, the secretary answers, that our commissioners "will be fully empowered and instructed, on all questions likely to arise in the Congress, on subjects, in which the nations of America have a common interest. Can it be doubted, then, that the Spanish American states have a right to expect that our ministers will be instructed to act upon the subject of resistance to European interference, and to concert with them, the means of giving to our combined resistance, the utmost possible force?"

When, therefore, I am required to act upon faith, in the spirit of unlimited confidence, I say, the occasion does not authorize it-the evidence forbids it. When I am told, that the President will not commit our neutrality, I answer, that he has already manifested his determination to put it to the hazard of events. I appeal from the President, to the President; from what he has said to us, to what he has said to these ministers, and to what he has omitted to say, when the occasion required him to speak, and to speak plainly. But this is not the whole case.

The declarations of our minister to Mexico, place this subject beyond all controversy. He asserts it, even more broadly than the Spanish American ministers themselves, more strongly than consistently with a just pride, with a proper degree of self-respect, they could have asserted it. According to these declarations, if any European power shall interfere in the pending war between Spain and these states, we are not only to fly to their aid, to make common cause with them, in the struggle, but we are, yes, sir, we are to bear the brunt of the contest. Now, I ask you,

sir, do you, does any man believe, that the American people understand this thing, or that understanding, they will submit to it? If this be true, the blood and treasure of this people, aye, our own blood and treasure are to be freely spent in defence of Spanish American liberty. We are to be their champions, if need be, against Europe in arms.

Under what circumstances is this declaration made? Is it to manifest our "profound sensibility" to the welfare of these new republics? No, sir. It is made in the spirit of a cold and calculating policy, for the advancement of our own interests, with little idea that we should be called to fulfil it-a huckstering bargain, to secure certain advantages in a commercial treaty.

Does any one pretend, I have not heard it suggested here, that these declarations of our minister at Mexico, were unauthorized by the President? The answer is obvious. Such an assertion would itself be unauthorized. Whether we look to the character of the minister, or to the evidence before us, the same conclusion is forced upon us. I deny the title of any man to credit, who shall assert the contrary, on the documents before us. The fact that such a declaration had been made, was distinctly communicated to the secretary of state. Was the minister rebuked for it? Was the pledge disavowed? Was he instructed to recall it? No, sir. His conduct was approved. He remains at this moment in the same important station, enjoying the full confidence of the government.

Will any profound examiner of dates assert, that there is no evidence of this approbation; that the letter of Mr. Clay to Mr. Poinsett, of the 9th of November, 1825, is not an answer to that from Mr. Poinsett, in which he informs the secretary, that he had made this declaration to the Mexican government? Sir, I concede the fact; but how will it avail our opponents ? Certainly this letter was answered before the 16th of January, 1826, when the documents referred to were communicated to the senate. If, in that answer, the conduct of Mr. Poinsett was disapproved, why has it

not been produced to us? If the President has not given to it his sanction, why has he not told us so? It would be quite as easy as to make the general declaration, that the proposed mission is not intended to commit our neutrality, in the face of evidence which, in our view, incontestably proves the reverse. But could the conduct of Mr. Poinsett have been disapproved? In the letter from Mr. Clay, of which I have just spoken, after inveighing against the inconsistency of the Mexican government, in a spirit of indignation, he exclaims: "No longer than about three months ago, when an invasion by France, of the island of Cuba, was believed at Mexico, the United Mexican government promptly called upon the government of the United States, through you, to fulfil the memorable pledge of the President of the United States, in his message to Congress, of December, 1823. What they would have done, had the contingency happened, may be inferred from a despatch to the American minister at Paris, a copy of which is herewith sent, which you are authorized to read to the plenipotentiaries of the United Mexican States." Here, then, is a distinct avowal, by the secretary himself, of the existence of a pledge on the part of this government, which authorized the assertion of Mr. Poinsett-not of a mere declaration of policy, which the United States were free to pursue or abandon, but of a pledge, which they were bound to redeem; which the Mexican government had recently, through that very minister, called upon them to redeem, and which they had been willing, if the occasion had required it, to redeem; and, to prove to the Mexican government their willingness to have done so, Mr. Poinsett was furnished with the necessary evidence, which he was authorized to exhibit to the plenipotentiaries of that government. This chronological discovery cannot, therefore, avail.

But perhaps it will be said, this was only an argument made use of by our minister, a mere diplomatic movement, in the progress of the negotiation. Before we yield to this profound suggestion, let us consider.

that the value of the argument, depends on the truth of the fact which it asserts. Let us remark, too, to what a condition our cabinet would be reduced, by the indiscreet zeal of its friends. If, in their view, the fact be untrue, the assertion of it, as the foundation of an argument to induce the Mexican government to do the act required of them, was an imposture, which the executive of the United States has not disavowed, and which he has, therefore, adopted. But he is not liable to this imputation. If there be truth in evidence, he admits the existence of this pledge, so far as a President of the United States is competent to give it.

With what reason, then, do gentlemen call upon us to give our sanction to this nomination, in faith and confidence that the executive will not commit our neutrality, in the face of this manifest determination on his part, to say the least of it, to commit that neutrality to the hazard of events, to chain our destinies to the car of Spanish American fortune; to make the peace and quiet of this people, to depend on the councils of any single cabinet in Europe, whose chief may think fit to draw his sword, in the assertion of the divine right of Spain?

But does this pledge exist? Is this government bound by a contract so disastrous? If it be so, fides servanda est. But, I deny the fact. I deny that this celebrated pledge, as the secretary has denominated it, has any existence but in the imagination of the visionary. Let us, for a moment, examine it. If genuine, it will bear inspection. It is described by the secretary, as the memorable pledge of the President of the United States, in his message to Congress of December, 1823. Now the President had no authority, by his own act alone, to pledge the United States to a foreign power. He did not intend to do so. It was a mere declaration of the policy, which, under given circumstances, he believed it proper for the United States to pursue. It did not bind him. It did not bind Congress. They declined to respond to it. No foreign