OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. presentatives of the allies by letter of the 30th day of No- Resolved further, That it is the duty of this Republic to require of the government of France that her armed forces be withdrawn from the territories of Mexico. Resolved further, That it is the duty and proper office of this Republic now, and at all times, to lead such aid to the Republic of Mexico as is or may be required to prevent the forcible interposition of any of the States of Europe in the political affairs of that Republic. Resolved further, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be communicated to the government of Mexico the views now expressed by the two Houses of Congress, and be further requested to cause to be negotiated such treaty or treaties between the two Republics as will best tend to make these views effective. 1863, February 4-The resolutions were, on motion of Mr. SUMNER, laid on the table-yeas 34, nays 10, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Arnold, Carlile, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harding, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts-34. NAYS Messrs. Kennedy, Latham, McDougall, Powell, First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress. 1864, Jan. 11-Mr. MCDOUGALL offered this joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: IN RELATION TO THE OCCUPATION OF MEXICO. Resolved, &c., That the occupation of a portion of the territory of the Republic of Mexico by the armed forces of the government of France, with the purposes avowed by the government of France, is an act unfriendly to the Republic of the United States of America. SEC. 2. And be it further resolved, That it is the duty of the proper department of this Government to demand of the government of France the withdrawal of her armed forces from the Mexican territory within a reasonable time. SEC. 3. And be it further resolved, That in the event the government of France shall decline or refuse to so withdraw her armed forces, or shall fail to take measures to that effect, on or before the fifteenth day of March next, then it will become the duty of the Congress of the United States of America to declare war against the government of France. June 14-Mr. MCDOUGALL Sought to introduce this resolution, but objection was made: Resolved, That the people of the United States can never regard with indifference the attempt of any foreign power to overthrow by force or to supplant by fraud the institutions of any republican government on the western continent, and that they will view with extreme jealousy, as menacing to the peace and independence of their own country, the efforts of any such power to obtain any footholds for monarchical Governments sustained by foreign military force in near proximity to the United States. IN HOUSE. 1864, April 4-Mr. H. WINTER DAVIS, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported to the House of Representatives the following joint resolution, which was passed-yeas 109, nays none, as follows: ton, Herrick, Higby, Holman, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel The resolution is as follows: Government in Mexico, under European auspices. Relative to the substitution of monarchial for republican Resolved, dc., That the Congress of the United States are unwilling, by silence, to leave the nations of the world under the impression that they are indifferent spectators of the deplorable events now transpiring in the Republic of Mexico; and they therefore think fit to declare that it does not accord with the policy of the United States to acknowl edge a monarchical government, erected on the ruins of any republican government in America, under the auspices of any European power. IN SENATE. 1864, April 5-The resolution was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and it remained unreported at the close of the session. April 27-Mr. McDOUGALL offered a resolution that the Committee on Foreign Relations resolution printed above. be instructed to report to the Senate the joint May 28-Mr. MCDOUGALL offered a resolution that the committee be discharged from the subject, both of which went over. IN HOUSE. May 23-Mr. H. W. DAVIS offered this resolution, which was agreed to without a division: Whereas the following announcement appeared in the "Le gouvernement de Moniteur, the official journal of the French Government: l'Empereur a reçu du gouexplications satisfaivernement des Etats-Unis des santes sur le sens et la portée de la résolution prise par l'assemblée des représentans à Washington, au sujet des affairs du Mexico. "On sait, d'ailleurs, que le Sénat avait déjà ajourné indéfinement l'examen de cette résolution, à laquelle, dans tous les cas, le pouvoir sa sanction."-Moniteur. exécutif n'eût point accordé Therefore, "The Emperor's Govern ment has received from that tory explanations as to the of the United States satisfacsense and bearing of the resolution come to by the House of Representatives at Wash ington relative to Mexico. "It is known, besides, that the Senate had indefinitely postponed the examination of that question, to which its sanction." in any case the executive power would not have given Resolved, That the President be requested to communiterest, any explanations given by the Government of the cate to this House, if not inconsistent with the public inUnited States to the Government of France respecting the sense and bearing of the joint resolution relative to Mexico, which passed the House of Representatives unanimously on the 4th of April, 1864. May 24-The PRESIDENT transmitted the folSecretary of State, in response to the resolution lowing correspondence, communicated by the of the House : OF STATE, WASHINGTON, APRIL 7, 1864. YEAS-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Alley, say that this resolution truly interprets the unanimous sen- | timent of the people of the United States in regard to Mexico. It is, however, another and distinct question whether the United States would think it necessary or proper to express themselves in the form adopted by the House of Representatives at this time. This is a practical and purely Executive question, and the decision of its constitutionality belongs not to the House of Representatives, nor even to Congress, but to the President of the United States. You will, of course, take notice that the declaration made by the House of Representatives is in the form of a joint resolution, which, before it can acquire the character of a legislative act, must receive, first, the concurrence of the Senate, and, secondly, the approval of the President of the United States; or, in case of his dissent, the renewed assent of both houses of Congress, to be expressed by a majority of two-thirds of each body. While the President receives the declaration of the House of Representatives with the profound respect to which it is entitled, as an exposition of its sentiments upon a grave and important subject, he directs that you inform the Government of France that he does not at present contemplate any departure from the policy which this Government has hitherto pursued in regard to the war which exists between France and Mexico. It is hardly necessary to say that the proceeding of the House of Representatives was adopted upon suggestions arising within itself, and not upon any communication of the Executive department; and that the French Government would be seasonably apprised of any change of policy upon this subject which the President might at any future time think it proper to adopt. MR. DAYTON'S LETTER, DATED PARIS, APRIL 22, 1864. SIR: I visited M. Drouyn de l'Huys yesterday at the department of foreign affairs. The first words he addressed to me, on entering the room, were: "Do you bring us peace, or bring us war?" I asked him to what he referred, and he said he referred more immediately to those resolutions recently passed by Congress in reference to the invasion of Mexico by the French, and the establishment of Maximilian upon the throne of that country. I said to him, in reply, that I did not think France had a right to infer that we were about to make war against her on account of anything contained in those resolutions; that they embodied nothing more than had been constantly held out to the French government from the beginning; that I had always represented to the government here that any action upon their part interfering with the form of government in Mexico would be looked upon with dissatisfaction in our country, and they could not expect us to be in haste to acknowledge a monarchical government, built upon the foundations of a republic which was our next neighbor; that I had reason to believe you held the same language to the French Minister in the United States. This allegation he did not seem to deny, but obviously viewed the resolutions in question as a serious step upon our part; and I am told that the leading secessionists here build largely upon these resolutions as a means of fomenting ill-feeling between this country and some others and ourselves. Mr. Mason and his secretary have gone to Brussels to confer with Mr. Dudley Mann, who is their commissioner at that place. Mr. Slidell, it is said, was to have gone to Austria, although he has not yet got off. SECOND LETTER FROM MR. DAYTON, PARIS, MAY 2, 1864, BEING IN REPLY TO MR. SEWARD'S OF APRIL 7. SIR: Immediately upon the receipt of your dispatch No. 525, I applied to M. Drouyn de l'Huys for a special interview, which was granted for Saturday last. I then said that I knew that the French government had felt some anxiety in respect to the resolution which had recently been passed by the House of Representatives, in reference to Mexico; and inasmuch as I had just received a copy of that resolution, together with the views of the President of the United States, I begged, if agreeable, to read to him your dispatch in reference to the latter. To this he assented, and as the shortest and most satisfactory mode, following out my instructions, I read to him that entire portion of your dispatch which applies to this subject, stating, at the same time, that I thought it was a remarkable illustration of the frankness and straightforwardness of the President. When the reading was closed, M. Drouyn de l'Huys expressed his gratification, and after asking some questions in regard to the effect of laying a resolution upon the table in the Senate, the conversation terminated. The extreme sensitiveness which was manifested by this government when the resolution of the House of Representatives was first brought to its knowledge has, to a considerable extent, at least, subsided. cerning Mexico, as you have reported it, is entirely approved. The resolution yet remains unacted upon in the Senate. Mr. Corwin was to leave Vera Cruz on the 3d instant nnder the leave of absence granted to him by this department on the 8th of August last. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch of May 2, (No. 461,) and to approve of your proceedings therein mentioned. We learn that Mr. Corwin, our minister plenipotentiary to Mexico, is at Havana, on his return to the United States, under leave of absence. asked June 4-Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, unanimous consent to make a written report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in response to the above message of the President. Mr. BROOMALL objected. June 6 He asked consent, and Mr. ARNOLD objected. He then moved to suspend the rules, which was rejected-yeas 43, nays 55, (two thirds being required,) as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ancona, Augustus C. Baldwin, Cox, Henry Winter Davis, Dawson, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Harding, Hirrington, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Holman, Jenckes, King, Knapp, Lazear, Le Blond, Long, Mallory, Marcy, James R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, Odell, Orth, Pendleton, Perry, Robinson, Ross, Scott, Spalding, Strouse, Sweat, Wadsworth, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White-43. NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Arnold, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Beaman, Blaine, Jacob B. Blair, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Coroth, Cole, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eliot, Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank, Gooch, Grinnell, Hale, Hotchkiss, John H. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Kelley, Orlando Kellogg, Littlejohn, Longyear, Marvin, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Charles O'Neill, Patterson, Perham, Price, Alexander II. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Shannon, Smithers, Thayer, Tracy, Upson, Ellihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Wilson, Windom-55. June 27-Mr. DAVIS made this report, which was ordered to be printed: The Committee on Foreign Affairs have examined the correspondence submitted by the President relative to the joint resolution on Mexican affairs with the profound respect to which it is entitled, because of the gravity of its subject and the distinguished source from which it emanated. They regret that the President should have so widely departed from the usage of constitutional governments as to make a pending resolution of so grave and delicate a character the subject of diplomatic explanations. They regret still more that the President should have thought proper to inform a foreign government of a radical and serious conflict of opinion and jurisdiction between the depositories of the legislative and executive power of the United States. No expression of deference can make the denial of the right of Congress constitutionally to do what the House did with absolute unanimity, other than derogatory to their dignity. They learn with surprise that, in the opinion of the President, the form and term of expressing the judgment of the United States on recognizing a monarchical government in posed on a neighboring republic is a "purely executive question, and the decision of it constitutionally belongs not to the House of Representatives, nor even to Congress, but to the President of the United States." This assumption is equally novel and inadmissible No President has ever claimed such an exclusive authority. No Congress can ever permit its expression to pass without dissent. It is certain that the Constitution nowhere confers such authority on the President. The precedents of recognition, sufficiently numerous in this revolutionary era, do not countenance this view: and if there be one not inconsistent with it, the committee have not found it. All questions of recognition have heretofore been debated and considered as grave questions of national policy, on which the will of the people should be expressed in Congress assembled; and the President, as the proper medium of for eign intercourse, has executed that will. If he has ever anticipated its expression, we have not found the case. The declaration and establishment of the independence of the Spanish American colonies first brought the question Government of the United States; and the precedents then of recognition of new governments or nations before the set have been followed ever since, even by the present Ad Mr. SEWARD's responses of May 9 and May 21: Sm. Your dispatch of April 22 (No. 454) has been received. What you have said to M. Drouyn de l'IIuys on the sub-ministration. ject of the resolution of the House of Representatives con The correspondence now before us is the first attempt to OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. depart from that usage, and deny the nation a controlling deliberative voice in regulating its foreign policy. The following are the chief precedents on recognition of new governments, and the policy of the United States Government on that topic: On the 9th of February, 1821, Henry Clay moved in the House of Representatives to amend the appropriation bill by the following clause: "For an outfit, and one year's salary, to such minister as the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, may send to any government of South America, which has established and is maintaining its independency on Spain, a sum not It failed. exceeding $18,000.” On the 10th of February, he moved that the House of Representatives participates with the people of the United States in the deep interest which they feel for the success of the Spanish provinces of South America, which are struggling for their liberty and independence, and that it will give its constitutional support to the President of the United States whenever he may deem it expedient to recognize the sovereignty and independence of any of the said provinces. A motion to amend by the proviso "that this resolution shall not be construed to interfere with the independent exercise of the treaty-making power," and another, "that the House approves of the course heretofore pursued by the President of the United States with regard to the said provinces," were negatived. The resolution was adopted, and a committee appointed to lay it before President Monroe. The committee, on the 17th February, reported"That the President assured the committee that, in common with the people of the United States and the House of Representatives, he felt great interest in the success of the provinces of Spanish America, which are struggling to establish their freedom and independence, and that he would take the resolution into deliberate consideration, with the most perfect respect for the distinguished body from which it had emanated." So the House of Representatives took the initiative towards recognizing the new republics. The amendment to the appropriation bill would have been a legislative recognition. The resolution was a formal statement of the opinion of the House to the President, which he did not think beyond their constitutional authority. At the first session of the next Congress the House of Representatives, on motion of Mr. Nelson, of Virginia, resolved- "That the President of the United States be requested to lay before this House such conmunications as may be in the possession of the Executive, from the agents of the United States with the governments south of the United States, which have declared their independence, and the communications from the agents of such governments in the United States with the Secretary of State, as tend to show the political condition of those governments, and the state of the war between them and Spain, as it may be consistent with the public interest to communicate." President Monroe answered the application on the 8th of March in an elaborate message, of which the following extracts sufficiently show that he did not think recognition "a purely executive question," and that the decision of it constitutionally belongs, "not to the House of Representatives, nor even to Congress, but to the President of the United States :" "In transmitting to the House of Representatives the documents called for by the resolution of that House of January, I consider it my duty to invite the attention of Congress to a very important subject, and to communicate the sentiments of the Executive on it; that should Congress entertain similar sentiments, there may be such cooperation between the two departments of the Government as their respective rights and duties may require." "This contest has now reached such a stage, and been After narrating the events, he proceeds: "When we regard, then, the great length of time which "In proposing this measure, it is not contemplated to change thereby in the slightest manner our friendly relations with either of the parties." "The measure is proposed under a thorough conviction He would have announced his purpose to recognize the Far from that, he proposes for their consideration the policy of recognition; and, if they concur in that, aske them to make the necessary appropriations to carry it into effect. He consulted the will of the nation at the mouth of ConSo Congress understood him, for the papers and message gress, and proposed to concur in its execution. committee considered, in an elaborate report, the question were referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. That of independence of the republics, the policy and principles involved in their recognition, and on the 19th of March, 1822, they submitted it to the House. It concluded as folfollows: "Your committee having thus considered the subject referred to them in all its aspects, are unanimously of opinion that it is just and expedient to acknowledge the indeany reference to the diversity in the form of their governpendence of the several nations of Spanish America without ments; and in accordance with this opinion they respectfully submit the following resolutions: "Resolved, That the House of Representatives concur in the opinion expressed by the President in his message of the which have declared their independence, and are in the en8th of March, 122, that the American provinces of Spain joyment of it, ought to be recognized by the United States as independent nations. "Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to report a bill appropriating a sum not exceeding $100,000 to enable the President to give due effect to such recognition." It is, therefore, equally apparent that the House of Representatives of the 17th Congress was clearly of opinion with President Monroe that the question of recognition was not purely executive, but that it constitutionally belongs to Congress as well as to the President; that the Legislature gives effect to-each concurring in the act of recognition declares the will of the United States, which the Executive In obedience to that resolution the following bill, recogaccording to their respective constitutional functions. nizing the new nation, was reported and passed and approved on the 4th of May, 1862: "That for such missions to the independent nations on the be, and hereby is, appropriated a sum not exceeding $100,000, American continent as the President may deem proper, there to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwiso appropriated." The approval of that law completed the recognition of the new nations. The sending ministers to some or all of tial to or connected with the fact of recognition. Ministers them was a matter of executive discretion, not at all essenwere appointed to Mexico, Colombia, Buenos Ayres, and Chili, on the 27th of January, 1823. None was appointed to Peru till May, 1826; yet it is certain Peru was as much recognized by the United States as the other governments from the 4th of May, 1822. This great precedent has governed all that follow it. The acknowledgment of the independence of Texas stands next in our history. It is a most instructive precedent, strictly following the forms observed respecting the governments of Spanish America. On the 18th of June, 1836, on the motion of Henry Clay, the Senate adopted the resolution "That the independence of Texas ought to be acknowledged by the United States whenever satisfactory information shall be received that it has in successful operation a civil government capable of performing the duties and fulfilling the obligations of an independent power." The House of Representatives, on the 4th of July, 1836, second: adopted a resolution in the same words; and added a "That the House of Representatives perceive with satis measures to ascertain the political, military, and civil confaction that the President of the United States has adopted dition of Texas."-(Congressional Globe, 1st session 24th | whether the President sent diplomatic representatives or Congress, pp. 453, 486.) Those resolutious were not formal acknowledgments of a government of Texas; the report of the Senate Committee showed the circumstances were not sufficiently known; and both Senate and House awaited further information at the hands of the President. On the 2d December, while communicating the information, President Jackson accepted the occasion to express to Congress his opinion on the subject. The following pasзages are very instructive, touching the authority to recognize now States: "Nor has any deliberative inquiry ever been instituted in Congress, or in any of our legislative bodies, as to whom belonged the power of recognizing a new State; a power, the exercise of which is equivalent, under some circumstances, to a declaration of war; a power nowhere expressly delegated, and only granted in the Constitution, as it is necessarily involved in some of the great powers given to Congress, in that given to the President and Senate to form treaties and to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, and in that conferred on the President to receive ministers from foreign nations." "In the preamble to the resolution of the House of Representatives, it is distinctly intimated that the expediency of recognizing the independence of Texas should be left to the decision of Congress. In this view, on the ground of expediency, I am disposed to concur; and do not, therefore, think it necessary to express any opinion as to the strict constitutional right of the Executive, either apart from, or in conjunction with, the Senate over the subject. It is to be presumed that on no future occasion will a dispute arise, as none has heretofore occurred, between the Executive and Legislature in the exercise of the power of recognition. It will always be considered consistent with the spirit of the Constitution and most safe that it should be exercised, when probably leading to war, with a previous understanding with that body by whom war can alone be declared, and by whom all the provisions for sustaining its perils must be furnished. Its submission to Congress, which represents in one of its branches the States of this Union, and in the other the people of the United States, where there may be reasonable ground to apprehend so grave a consequence, would certainly afford the fullest satisfaction to our own country, and a perfect guarantee to all other countries, of the justice and prudence of the measures which ought to be adopted." After forcibly stating why he thought "we should still stand aloof," he closed with the following declaration: "Having thus discharged my duty, by presenting with simplicity and directness the views which, after much reflection, I have been led to take of this important subject, I have only to add the expression of my confidence that if Congress should differ with me upon it, their judgment will be the result of dispassionate, prudent, and wise deliberation; with the assurance that, during the short time which I shall continue connected with the Government, I shall promptly and cordially unite with you in such measures as may be deemed best fitted to increase the prosperity and perpetuate the peace of our favored country." The concurrent resolutions of the Senate and House of Representatives, and that message of President Jackson, leave no doubt that the views which presided over the recognition of the South American Governments still prevailed, and that the President was as far from asserting as Congress from admitting that the recognition of new na tions and the foreign policy of the United States is a purely Executive question. The independence of Texas was finally recognized in pursuance of the following enactment in the appropriation bill of the second session of the Twenty-Fourth Congress which appropriates money For the outfit and salary of a diplomatic agent to be sent to the republic of Texas, whenever the President of the United States may receive satisfactory evidence that Texas is an independent power, and shall deem it expedient to appoint such minister." That law was approved by President Jackson. Not only is this exclusive assumption without countenance in the early history of the Republic, but it is irreconcilable with the most solemn acts of the present Administration. The independence of Hayti is nearly as old as that of the United States; it antedated that of the South American republics, and the republic of Liberia has long been recognized by European nations. Both were first recognized by act of Congress, approved by President Lincoln on the 5th of July, 1862, which enacted "That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint diplomatic representatives of the United States to the republics of Hayti and Liberia respectively. Each of the representatives so appointed shall be accredited as commissioner and consul general, and shall receive the compensation of commissioners," &c., &c. That was a formal recognition of those republics by law, not. Quite in the spirit of these precedents is the well-considered language of the Supreme Court: "Those questions which respect the rights of a part of a foreign empire which asserts and is contending for its independence, belong more properly to those who can declare what the law shall be, who can place the nation in such a position with respect to foreign powers as to their own judgment shall appear wise, to whom are entrusted its foreign relations, than to that tribunal whose power as well as duty is confined to the application of the rule which the legislature may prescribe for it." But the joint resolution of the 4th of April does more than declare the refusal of the United States to recognize a monarchical usurpation in Mexico. It declares a general rule of policy, which can be authentically and authoritatively expressed only by the body charged with the legislative power of the United States. “Resolved, dc., That the Congress of the United States are unwilling, by silence, to leave the nations of the world under the impression that they are indifferent spectators of the deplorable events now transpiring in the republic of Mexico; and they, therefore, think fit to declare that it does not accord with the policy of the United States to acknowledge a monarchical government erected on the ruins of any republican government in America, under the auspices of any European power." The committee are of opinion that this authority, to speak in the name of the United States, has never, before the correspondence in question, been considered a purely executive function. The most remarkable declaration of this kind in our history, which events seem now likely to make of as grave practical interest as when it was uttered, is President Monroe's declaration in his message of the 2d December, 1823: "With the governments which have declared their inde pendence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, after great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition, for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." But though always the accurate expression of the feelings of the American people, it was not regarded as the settled policy of the nation, because not formally declared by Congress. By the administration of President John Quincy Adams, which followed, it was treated as merely an execu tive expression on behalf of the people, which Congress alone could elevate to the dignity of a national policy by its formal adoption. In 1826, Mr. Poinsett, the minister to Mexico, baving used language supposed to commit the United States to that policy in behalf of Mexico, a resolution was promptly introduced into the House of Representatives and adopted on the 27th of March, 1826 "That the Committee on Foreign Affairs inquire and report to this House upon what authority, if any, the miniter of the United States to the Mexican republic. in his official character, declared to the plenipotentiary of that gov ernment that the United States have pledged themselves not to permit any other power than Spain to interfere either with their (the South American republics) independence, or form of government," &c., &c.-2 Cong. Deb., 19th Con., 1st sess., p. 1820.) Mr. Poinsett hastened to explain by his letter of the 6th of May, 1826, to Henry Clay, then Secretary of State: "I cannot rest satisfied without stating explicitly that, in the observations I made during my conference with the Mexican plenipotentiaries, I alluded only to the message of the President of the United States to Congress in 1823 "That message, dictated, in my opinion, by the soundes policy, has been regarded both in Europe and America as a solemn declaration of the views and intentions of the Erecutive of the United States, and I have always considered that declaration as a pledge, so far forth as the language of the President can pledge the nation, to defend the new American republics from the attacks of any of the powers of Europe other than Spain. That the people of the United States are not bound by any declarations of the Executive is known and understood as well in Mexico, where the govern ment is modelled on our own political institutions, as in the United States themselves. But in order to correct any er roneous impressions these words might have made on the minds of the Mexican plenipotentiaries, I explained to them in the course of our conference this morning their precise meaning: that the declaration of Mr. Monroe in his message of 1823, to which I had alluded, indicated only the course of policy the Executive of the United States was disposed to pursue towards these countries, but was not binding on the nation unless sanctioned by the Congress of the United States; and when I spoke of the United States OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. having pledged themselves not to permit any other power | occasions." And in reply to the resolution of inquiry of the 27th of March, Mr. Clay accompanied his instructions with the declaration-entirely in the spirit of Mr. Poinsett's letter"that the United States have contracted no engagement, nor made any pledge to the governments of Mexico and South America, or either of them, that the United States would not permit the interference of any foreign power with the independence or form of government of those nations. * * "If, indeed, an attempt by force had been made by allied Europe to subvert the liberties of the southern nations on this continent, and to erect upon the ruins of their free institutions monarchical systems, the people of the United States would have stood pledged, in the opinim of the Executive, not to any foreign State, but to themselves and their posterity, by their dearest interests and highest duties, to resist to the utmost such attempt; and it is to a pledge of that character that Mr. Poinsett above refers."-(2 Cong. Debates, 19th Congress, 1st session, App. 83, 84.) Such were the views of the administration of President John Quincy Adams, whose Secretary of State was Henry Clay, and whose minister to Mexico was Mr. Poinsett, upon the supremacy of the legislature in declaring the foreign policy of the United States, the diplomatic execution and conduct of which is confided to the President. passed in May an appropriation "for carrying into effect "He would ask two questions: First, Does not the Con- It is impossible to condense the elaborate message of President Adams of the 15th of March, 1826, dedicated to persuading Congress to concur in and sanction the Panama mission; but that message and the great debate which consumed the session in both Houses are unmeaning on the assumptions of this correspondence with the French government; and the consideration and approval of its recom-government had declared to some of the governments of mendations elevate President Monroe's declaration to the dignity and authority of the policy of the nation solemnly and legally proclaimed by Congress. That message was in reply to a resolution requesting the President to inform the House of Representatives "in regard to what objects the agents of the United States are expected to take part in the deliberations of that congress" -of Panama. Among the subjects of deliberation, the President enumerated the declaration of President Monroe above quoted and on that topic said: "Most of the new American republics have declared their entire assent to them; and they now propose, among the subjects of consideration at Panama, to take into consider ation the means of making effectual the assertion of that principle as well as the means of resisting interference from abroad with the domestic concerns of the American gov ernments. "In alluding to these means, it would obviously be premature at this time to anticipate that which is offered merely as matter for consultation, or to pronounce upon those measures which have been or may be suggested. The purpose of this government is to concur in none which would import hostility to Europe, or justly excite resentment in any of her States. Should it be deemed advisable to contract any conventional engagement on this topic, our views would extend no further than to a mutual pledge of the parties to the compact, to maintain the principle in application to its own territory, and to permit no colonial lodgments or establishments of European jurisdiction upon its own soil; and with respect to the obtrusive interference from abroad, if the future character may be inferred from that which has been, and perhaps still is, exercised in more than one of the new States, a joint declaration of its character and exposure of it to the world would be probably all that the occasion would require. "Whether the United States should or should not be parties to such a declaration may justly form a part of the deliberation. That there is an evil to be remedied needs little insight into the secret history of late years to know, and that this remedy may best be considered at the Panama meeting deserves at least the experiment of consideration." Upon this message, after elaborate debates, Congress "There was no reason why the ministers to Panama This view is, in the opinion of the committee, at once the The constitutional authority of Congress over the foreign relations of the United States can hardly be considered an open question, after the concurrent resolutions of Mr. Senator Sumner, adopted in the last Congress, it is believed, at the suggestion, certainly with the approval of the President, and by him officially notified to foreign governments, as the most authentic and authoritative expression of the national will respecting intervention, mediation, and every other form of foreign intrusion into the domestic struggle in the United States. The committee are not inclined to discuss theoretically questions of relative power. The Constitution is a practical, and not a theoretical instrument. It has been administered and construed by men of practical sagacity, and in their hands the voice of the people has been heard authori 1 |