The New York Herald Newspaper, February 12, 1852, Page 2

SPEECH OF THE HON, LEWIS CASS ON American Intervention in Earope, On Tuesday, Mr. Cuanxe’s Non-intervention re- solutions being called up, Mr. Cass (dem.), of Michigan, took the floor, and spoke as follows:— Mr. Presipent:—The substitute I propos for the resolutions of the honorable Senator from Khode Island, (Mr. Clarke,) leaves the field of discussion as broad agit foundit. And that is broad enough te embrace all the questions which so strongly ox- cite Ls interest Sha carapeprensl ple at We present moment, arising out rant act 0! arbitrary power by which indepandents and froe- dom were wrested from Hungary ; an interest ren- dered yot more powerful by the presence and the nce of that remarkable man, who is now telling through our land, in barning words, the story of his country’s wrongs—words that fall on ready ears and go to kindling hearts. My objec- tions to the original proposition no: to the great truths it enunciates—truths drawn from our own State papers of the best on of the republic, for to their eternal justice I yield a cheerful ac- jence—but to the narrow application it is de- ned to make ofthem. They met, and were in- tended to meet, the circumstances of the country, eonnected with our right to the now posi:ion we had assumed, as a member of the family of na- tions, and with occurrences which took place not long s{terw: but they went nofurther. The obligations which quent events might impose upon us, in relation to ambitious pretensions, in- eompatible with the public law, and the indepen- dence of nations, they neither foresaw nor defined. And thus is itthat we must push our inquiry be- ond these limits, before we reach the great ques- Zien of our true oa and policy now in face of us. There is always a class of persons, sir, who believe there can be no firm views where there are no hard words, and with whom menacing langua; measure of firmness. I need not say here foundation there is for such an opinien, in er in national life. But I observe that this etand- ad has been applied to my substitute in some of tae journals, which have found it wanting Mr. ident, it does not comport with the character or position of the United States, to deal in monace with their co-equals of the world. It becomes them to express their views plainly, and with the same respect to others which they claim for themselves, and to maintain them firmly when they come to act. This substitute declares unequivocally an opinion upon a groat question of public law, and there it etops, leaving us free to determine upon our course when the time comes. It makes known our deep concern at the violation of a great principle—which ox- pression, you well know, sir, the usual pbrase- ology in national communications for conveying a marked disapprobation of any measure whi sh is peculiarly unacceptable. It is a strong conven- tional condemnation of the proceeding. In the brief examination | propose to give to the subject before us, with a view to practical results rather than to profitless speculations, | have no intontion of entering into the vexed question of the origin of | international law, nor into the true grounds of the obligations by which civilized communities are required to eubmit to it. [ assume at once tho duty of all christian people to recognise its binding force, and to aid its operation, so far as thoy can properly do it. Certainly we cannot trace back this code to a universal legislative origin, as we can trace back a municipal statute to its local source. It grew out of the necessity of regulating the intercourse between independent countries, in ace andin war, and traces of its existence may e found in the earliest recorded annals of nations At began by assuaging the horrors of war, and by restraining the cruelties of barbarous conquerors ; and by degrees, from a fow simple maxis, it has become an elaborate system, coextensive with civilization, and appealing not less to the sense of interest than to that of morality, by substituting fixed and just principles for those wayward passions which, without euch an arbiter, would make tne world but ene vast theatre of ca: e. The elemen- tary commentaries of wise a learned men, the decisions of enlightened jurists, and the discussions ef able statesmen, have built up the syetem, and it is a beautiful monument of tha progress and im- roved condition of society. for it has not been a ‘ed and immutable code, but has accommodated itself to the advancing opinions and necessities of the world. Few and meager were at first its provi. sions, like the wants it was designed to meet, but as these increased it increased with them, till it has become one of the most useful, if not one of the proudest works of the human intellect. And let no one reproach it with inutility or imbecility, because it is not always a barrier against interest and ambi- tion, but rather let us be thaakful that it is eo often appealed to, and so often effectual in restraining the turbulent passions of our nature. And such is ‘the force of public opinion in this, the day of its strength, that even when the provisions of interna- tional law are evaded or negleoved, its obligati mae never indeed, denied, but constructions for se'fish purposes are put upon it—forced and false, it is true, but a tribase to its worth, i its injunctions are practicall well becomee us and the pri institutions to profess our fealty to this great code of public morality, and not merely to pro feee it, but prove it by our acts and declarations, and labor to enforce its obligations and its observance. it ie a curious subject to trace the changes it has a undergone, even in very late years, almost all of | which are marked by the progress of just opinions, and by meliorations honorable to the epirit o age. stisagreat engine for good, but powerlesa for evil—a barrier agains: injustice and oppreseion, asserting the empire of reason over tha’ of force. The time bas come when we have a3 much right and as much power to speak authoritatively on this eubjoct, as any other nation on the face of ‘lobe. Ali we want, while professing the duty jience, is, that other nations ehould equally obey it. There is none so high a6 to be above its obligations; and none so low as to be beneath its protection. We believe in the right and in the capacity of man for self-governmet, not that he is everywhere prepared for institutions like ours; we know, while we regret, that he is not; but we believe that be is everywhere fitted even now, for takiag some part in the administra- tion of political affairs, greater or less, in proportion to his experience and condition, and that every- where, with time aud practice, he may improve himself and his government, till both become ag free as the state of society will permit. And, cer- tainly, the expression of the warm hope, that this time will come, and come speedily, is consisten: with every respect for other powers. We right te interfere in their internal concerns. While we are firm believers in our owa political faith, we enter into no crusade to estabiish it olsewhere. Propagandism ie no part of our creed, unless it be that progagandiem which works its own way by the force of example, thus inviting the oppressed na- | tions of the earth to do as we have done, and to be as free and happy as we are. ut we cannot be in- different to the condition of the human rac3, how- ever widely scattered. A desire for its improvement, morally aud materially, is a sentiment natural to man. And an American can hardiy shut himee/f up in his own selfsh egotism, thanking God inthe spirit of the Pharisee, that his country is better cff than any other, and be indifferent to tho oppression, and degradation, and mivery, which centuries of bad government have entailed upon go | large a portion of the e Unless the many were made for the few, the governed for the gover- hors, our sympathies should be excited, as were those of Washington, for every people unfurling the banner of freedom, and a ‘(sod spoed them” be uttered, not only fn the effort to iinprove their po- litical system, put in the greater effort to maintain it, by improving the condition great body of those for whom governments eusuted. And mk noveay,asan English Parli tary orator said very recently for bis country, ‘that the spirit of our people is for freedom everywhere'” And may we not echo hie sentiment, and declare “that they would rest satisfied with seeing the wtima | ratw of European policy lodged in tho bayonet of the barbarian’ Even to the most superficial ob- server, the signs ofthe times are as portentous as they areinteresting. The accumulated oppreseions of ages, and the capacity of endarance stretched t ite utmost tension, now meet fave to face with existing power in @ struggle for life and death, and the contest will go on; though there may be fitful intervals of apparent repose, still it will go on till one or the othoris finally venquished. Why, sir, is it in human nature, isit in the ordination of a just God, that such tyranny as that which recently made prisoner of the mother of the illustrious Hun- garian exile, now exciting the sympathy of the American people, and was reported by that ast to have sent hor to the though the report, | be- Neve, wae unfounde of a deed of burbarity in the cat 8 oh pressed, whe it be th down trodder been we dom an won he rulers, and che rul however it may be che victory is obtaine written, as wit tory of our age; a are upheaving the the eastern conti mation. ‘Trials end 6 nations. Every y “ bat prepares them for anew contest; and stimulates them (o preate: exertio rte which ystems o of e | King of Pruss preparation and resistance what are their rights, quiet and maintained. Now, sir, t we want ‘bat freedom should have a fair battle fiold—that whenever a struggle is commenced to overthrow an arbitrary government, other despotic powers should with foreign bayonets decide the issue. Such is our desire; and this principle of non-interference is well established in the code of public law. It lies at the very foundation of national independence. | need net multiply proofs or illustrations of the truth of this doctrine. It was well laid down by Mr. Roebuck, in the English House of Commons, we have to deal was, thatin tho affairs of any coun- try there should be no external force or pressure.” Its recognition goes back to the time of the Ko- mang, for wo are told that when certain Cartha- (epane preferred charges against Hannibal, Scipio leclared that the Koman Senate would not be jus- tifiedin intermeddling in the affairs of Carthage. No one denies its SbUER HDS, here or elsewhere; and even while palpable violations of the principle take place by armed intervention to repress the efforts of freedom, they are attempted to be justified as exceptional cases which, admitting the general rule, depart from it only in consequence of some great necessity, that universal and eternal plea of arbitrary power. When the allied nations undertook their crusade against France, to put down the revolution, before the, passage of tho obnoxious decree, to which | shall refer by and by, I presume thore was not a publicist in Europe who would have hesitated to concede the general duty of non interference, even while he defended the in- conten (8 of democratio principles. And sigoally was this outrage rebuked by the consequences, overshadowed it with the French power, converting its fair plains into battle fields, from Lispon to Moscew. And thus was Poland blotted from the map of nations, while Frederick and Catharine published homilics upon law and morality, and regretted the unwelcome necessity which the cir- cumstances of that unhappy country imposed upsn them, to annex it to the dominions of the allied powers. And threo times was the world iasulted by these hypooritica! professions, before the whole of old Sarmatia was rescued from the danger of freedom and independence by partition and anoex- ation. There is one highly rernecesnls authority, and I know of no other (Vattel), who holds that, in a state of civil war, any other power may assist the party which it believes to be just. But it is obvious that such a principle would open every case to direct armed intervention, at the will of any foreign government, which has only to such & party has ee on its side, and [ aid it. Now, sir, this doctrine is contradicted, as well by reason as by the whole current of authorities. Wildman, one of the most recent, as well as one of the most able commentators on the law of nations, condemns the position of Vattel, into which, he says, he was led, by ‘a misconstruction of a passage ef Grotius,” and ‘that it is as little recon- cilable with reason as it is with precedent.” Ho examines the cases fully, and shows how erroncoua is this doctrino, and thus announces the result :— “ But this restriction of interferexce in favor of the cause of justice isan adsolate prohibition of inter- ference on the part of those who have no jurisdio- tion to determine the justice of the cause. Hence it follows that no foreign power has any righy to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent State.” Establish this doctrine of Vattel, and the Emperor Nicholas, who no doabt believes every des- potic cause a just one, would havea right to send his armies everywhere to repress the efforts of freedom. But the case of Hungary is strengthened—if strength were needed—by the authoritative declara. | tion of tho Emperor Nicholas, as to this very p: ciple of non-intervention inthe manifesto, he is- | sued, when the Russian armies crossed the frontier. | He there admits the right of “every State to ar- range its own political constitution according to its own mind,” and he admitted also the daty of | other powors ¢o ‘‘ refrain from interfering with any | alverations of the form of government, which such | States may think proper to make.” This admis- | sion is broad enough to cover the whele ground of national immunity ; kutit is accompanied with a reservation—that is the word:— “that in case the reaction of revolutions near him should tend to on- danger his own safoty, or the political equilibriam | on the frontiers of his empire, his majesty reserved to himeelf his full liberty of action.” Dark was the racle ef Delphi, but still darker is theoracte of | Russian power. We have all heard of the politisal | equilibrium of Europe, otherwise known #3 the | balance of power, that fertile source of war and oppression. But the political equilibrium on the frontiers of the Russian empire, is a new element in the public law of the world, and | dis- miss it for the investiga ‘ion of some future Grotius. As tothe reaction of a revolation, as contra-dis- tinguished from its direct action, eo as to be dan- gerous to neighbering States, | am utterly unable | to comprehend it, and take refuge in my igno-ance. I had supposed, before I saw this imperial declar- ation, that the first frenzy of arevolu more: | 8 always its most dangerous 3 nd that nm brought with it mere calmness and | security. What kind of a reastive power had | taken place in Hungary, during the brief interval between the commencement of the Haogarian strugg'e acd the Russian intervention, we ars not told, and it would be vain to inquire. But for wy- | eelf, sir, I aman utter unbeliever in any claim, | under the law of nations, by which this right of national immunity could be limited; and were suchaciaim has been practically aeser:ed, it has | been so because one party was weak and the other strong. Nations, like individuals, have an iades- tructible right of self defence againet unlawful danger, and if it should happen that one country is expored to imminent peril, from the proceedings of another, whether in a state of revolution or internal quiescence, it has certainly the right to adopt ali proper means of protection But the danger of opinions, or, in ovher words, the principles upea which a government shall be found- ed, can give no just cauge of offence—uniess, indsed, there is a Quixotic attempt to carry them cise by direct interference. No one accuses Hungar: of such folly. Sbe had enough to do, without con- tees | herself the armed champion of propagan- ism as unworthy of serious consideration, and will re- mark, that the power which claims aright to act in opposition to an acknowledged principle of public law, on the ground of a peculiar exception, should establieh its case to every reasenable mind. Is the independence itself, which is sought, a jast cause of offence! Surely not, for thas right is conceded by the very proposition, and without it there could never bea revolution. Is just offence given by the melioration of existing institutions! Jt is eyually certain that auother power cannot object to | such a change, for in that case there could | be no revolution, which might not be put down by | the foreigner, unless the political sys of the country Were stationury orretrograding, which would be utterly incompatible with every re jonary effort. As to Hungary, her people sou, nde pendence, and they sought to introduce free tations, though | do not understand that it was ever | hould be a | determined whether the government constitutional monarchy or a republic. Bat the establishment of a republican government is com- patible not enly with the public Jaw of the world, but with the condition of Europe, where governments have existed from the ea t ages, aud some of them are yet struggling to maintain their position. Almost'in the centre o Exropeis the republic ct Switze d, and tbe peror Nicholas was himself a party to the fc tion of the republic of Cracow, in contact wi! | own dominions, perhaps because it wae a email o: which he could contro! at pleasure. But, sir, i useless to pursue this investigat! if the liussian Empire was indeed in imminent danger | from the improper conduct of tho Hangaris, patriots, it is for the defenders of Russian injustice to show What dasger docs the Emperor Ni- ume to apprehend io his public appeal to Why, sir, he talke about ‘what is now doing and preparing in Hungary,” as ene dangering bis safety, as though the straggling re- Volutic nists had not work enough to do without at- tacking | He talks also about the new State being ed on the basis of anarchy,” ard | ‘imbued with that hostile spirit, which the Huu- | Barian chiefs have against Hussia,” av farnishieg motives for interference, to protect “ his Polish avd on bian provinces, from the scourge of a pro- oge But, sir, this is not the only document, which pro fesaes to make known the views of the emperor opon thissubject. He bad before, at the very oom- moncement of the troubles in Hungary, issued a kind of appeal, or rather an annuaciation of his ins | tentions to the Russian people, in which the real cu fe his fpectre that haunted him, is made kaown with unmistakeable pre and | the epirit of liberty. this charac | clarati be says:—* Insurrection | the ofivpring of France, so German frontier, and have spre j themselves every nation with an audacity which hag gs new force in proportion to the concessio: governments. This desolating plague at last at- tacked our allice, the poror of Austria and the » and ay, in its blind fury, n naces our Russia, which God has confide | caro.” All this, when div i ticiem, and tranelated ini | kenge, means, that many of the nations of Europe re etruggling for free institutions, with a vigor of ‘pose proportioned to the high prize before them; P but that God’s vicegerent warns his faithful sub- ects against the danger of indulging ia any such dreams of freedom, for if they did they would suroly | awaken to their own destruction. It is not a little | curious, however, to find, that in the manifesto | explaining the views of the Russian government, at | that time, thore is no claim whatever to arrest there m tain ar movements among the inde- pendent nations of the earth by armed interven- tion The purpore of the Emperor is avowed to be to encounter gur onermics, from whatever pido net be permitted to take part in the contest, and | when he said, “‘Theimpertant principle with which | vasion, as a measure of self defence, against the | which for twenty years weighed upon Europe, and | ere, | But, sir. I dismiss these political subterfuges, | ism, which means to convalse them,” &9. | the | . | nowncing wh name, and verritory.”” Marching into country, and taking part in an internal conflict there, is # new stratagetic eperation in the defence | Sheds of profesions and pretensions ts" the sitio | cords of professions ns to ma) fact, that Russia intervened by an armed force te | put down independence freo institutions in | Hungary, and for no other reason but because the | Emporor was determined that his people should not | have the example before them ofa powerful nation, acquiring freedom and independence by their own exertions. I am not going into the ang | of the | Hungarian effort to break the yoke of Austrian | despotism. Suffice it to say, that the ple of Hungary had enjoyed their nationality ae thou- | sand years, and more recently, while ackaowledg- | ing allegiance with Austria to the same com- | amon sovereign, have been connected with that | country only by this mutual bond, and have | been wholly separate in political Fights, and | in the administration of government. For causes as just as ever drove a people to arms, the people of Hungary threw off their allegiance to the Austrian | Emperor, and resuming their independence, esta- blished a government of their own, and for a time maintained it successfully, and would have se main- tained it to the end, had not the Russian sovereign, making common cause with his Austrian brother, marched his armies across the frontier, and thus extinguished the liberties and the hopes of Hun- | gary. And we are told by a British Seoretary of g 7 bi | State for Foreign Affairs, in his place in the House of Commons, and uncontradicted, too—far different from some of the representations or rather misre- | presentations made in this country—that ho firmly | believed {rom information he had received, ‘* that | in this war between Austria and Hungary, there is enlisted on the side of Hungary the hearts and souls of the whele people of that country.” And well might there be this unanimity, when they had to deal with the Austrian government, whish, as an eminent English review remarks, ‘‘never swerved trom its treacherous and frente polisy.” That it adheres to the ‘latter with unshaken tona- city, the deeds of cruelty yet going on against tho unfortunate Hungerians sufficiently demonstrate. And that treachery is as active an element as ever in the administration of the Austrian monarchy, is shown by a ttate parte which a recent arrival has Brough us, and which is one of the coolest examples of a breach of public faith that the world has wit- nessedfor many an age—aye, and of contempt, too, for its feelings and opinions. During the progress of the Hungarian atruggle, and while its aspect wai most threatening, tho Austrian Emperor granted a constitution to his states, to satisfy and conciliate them, by whieh their condition was sensibly me- fiorated. Bat the danger has passed away, and with it tho sense of justice, while power has resumed its natural instincts, and the following document, iesued January Ist, 1852, tells the tale of treachery to ne everlasting diegrace of the Austrian govern- mont :— We. Francis Jorepb. by the grace of God Emperor of Austria. In consequence of our ordinance of the 20th of August lest, our Council of Mipisters and our Council of the Empire have applied themselves to a thorough examine- tion of the constitution of March 4, 1849, and seeing that it results from the deliberations which have taken place, that this constitution is not adapted to the posi- Uon of the Austrian empire, and cannot be executed in its entire arrangement, we consider it our duty. as the sovereign, after havirg well considered all these reasons, te abrogate the said constitution of March 4, 1849. Punic faith was the by-word of antiquity for any political treachery standing prominently forward ia the history of human deception. Austrian faith will hereafter be entitled to the same unonviable distinction. ‘* Put not your trust in princes,” says the book of inspiration, and woe betide the people, says the book of history, whose rights depend upon the pleasure or the passions of a sovereign, inetead of being dependent on their own energy and intelligence. Although in the retrospect of the Hungarian revolution, our indignation is heightened 4 the oppression of the strugglin people, and , the justice cf their cause, sti were these doubtful, instead of being palpablo to all the world, the conduct of the foreign aggressor would acarcely be the less culpable, nor the less in violation of the law of nations, which says to the powers of the earth, when an internal attempt is made to change or to throw off a government, let the parties alone, the question belongs to them. Undoubtedly in the progress of these in‘er- nal contests every nation must judge for itself, when it will recogni#e the independenve of the party claimisg it, and this judgment will depend on the circumstances of the case. Formerly, euch a re- cognition, before an acknowledgment by the pre- existing goveroment, was considered an act of war, and even in.our own revolutionary contest, suca was the view of England in relation to the coa- duct of France: but in this, as in many other cates, a decided melioration has taken p! and such an ket now gives no just cause of offence Well, Ruse'a iatervened, wita an iron hand; and why! Allthe world knowe, and alroaty history bas writren it upon that neither princes nor their adherents can obi: erate. If ever words wero used to conceal thoughts, they are 50 used in [us- tian diplomacy. Her armies marched t sh the eflorte ef an oppressed people; te put down the struggles of almost despsiriog men, who sought, in the Iapguage of Mr. Jetivrson, their long lost frecdom; they marched, not even to propagase the Peseeien of despotism, but to establish its power, lest a rumor might cross the Carpathian mountains, and tell the bearded Muscovite that thoro was such a thing as liberty in the world, ana men, wno peril- led life and fortune to obtain it. Civilized man | everywhere feels and knows that such were the ob- | jects; and public opinion in France, in England, | and in this country, and wherever else the tongue | or the press wae free onough to proclaim it, has | announced and condemned this flagrant usurpation, boldly conceived and executed, but hypocritically defended by false representations. Never couid | there be a more palpable illustration of the remark | of Grotius, that ‘Some wars are foanded upon | real motives, and others only upon colorable pra- | texts.” And especially if he had added some pre- | texts without color. AsIdo not intend to argue | with any man who believes, after the facts | have referred to, that Russi had any other motive in | this crusade then to prevent the establishment ef a | free government in her neighborhood, | shall as- sume, with every observer of her policy, that such | was her reason for passing the frontier, and for restoring the Austrian sway. Here was a gross infraction of the law of nations, striking, not only | oe liverty, but at public independence, and especially offensive to the free States of the world, both by the violaton of a great principle dear to them, and by the example of an armed in- tervention to put down all personal freedom in Hungary, and to threatem it wherever else its mani- festations might be near enough to be uaweloome to the Russian Czar. Under these circumstances, | What might the other powers of the earth say or | do by which their opinions or intentions migat bo ; made known in this grave conjecture! as it their duty to look on, not only the witnesses of injustice, without the means of redressing it, but acquicscing by their silence, in this monstrous out- | Tage, and in the pretensions which led to it, till tho | despotic sovereigns might interpolate this right of | interference into the code of public law, and thus | aeeume to exercise & surveillance over the other go- vernments ofthe world. Tho system of interna | tional law would not be worth the papor on which of | it is written, if such examples of contempt for the | feclinge and rights of mankind admitted neither re- sistance nor remonstrance. ** Con | Bentham, in his forcible language, « | notorious injustice invites fresh injustice; | is nowhere more trae thaa in the cares ct of nat And we find that the right ef indepen- | dent powers to express their opinions upon grave | questions of public law, when that law bas been vio- ] lated, bas been eo often and so openly exercised, that | no doubt can exist of the right, and, i deed, of the | duty of thusacting, when the nature and the gravity of the circumstances require sucha moasure. Tha | declarations of interest and opinion are more or io: | formal and imposin epending on the magni- | tude of the ocei © and the consequences in- volved in it ey most frequently relate to | Subjects directly interesting to the parties, and arisng out of their intercommunisation with each other; but often te qucstions affecting na- tions generally, and where the principles and the facts hear directly, or in their consequences, upon | the welfare of the political world, Of the former, itisnot necessary to speak, as chey are of daily occurrence in our own history, and in that of every other power. But the right to take part in the latter has been co strangely brought into quostion during recent dissuasions in this ‘country, that it may be well to look “tothe law and to the testi- mony.” Itis the interest of each nation that tho rights of all should be respected, because tho Bpec- | tator of injustice of to day may bo ite vietim to- | morrow, aud nono of tho barriers against ambition nie | and tyranny can be broken down without danger | to the civilized world. 4 or lese, nearer or more rom circumstances of the partic | and all are, therefore, c« | averting it. If anger may be greater depending on the t exists for all, d in checking or @ manifesto an- 3 believe to be a a principles of the pub’ ration by iis acta, or eu- emeclves to give authority to is tho world to look on, indig | gerous innova its own aésumption: nantly until precedent usurp the place of p And acquiescence is appealed to in support ef the new pretension! There is not a civilized nation on tho face of tho earth, which bas not, time and again, given its opinion upon questions of public law, in some form more or les® imposing. In correspondence, in protocole—-in declarations—jn manifestoes--in protests—and in whatever modo aational represen- tations are made and received. Why, sir, Lord Palmerston, direoting the foreign affairs of Eng- land, upon this very subject, said: “I donot think the preservation of poage is in any degreg endaa- by the exzpre: - Re pe inHangery, = inother Hepggy il course, alluding to the proposition, then before the House of Commons, to oall for the papers in relation to the Kussian intervention, with & View to the judgment of the House. But here we are told, touch not, taste not, handle not, or reat Will be thedanger thereof. Sometimes the terest involved in questions like this is imm diate and important—sometimes it is remote aad unimportant; but in the practical relations of indo- pendent powers, great questions may arise, whieh may eventually affect the whole commonwealth of nations. far its own interests may be touched by the preten- sions advanced, and what course true policy re- quires it should take. It is not necessary that the evil day should be upon it, before it makes known its disapprobation, for in that ease aggressions would be eternal, or war the onl, them. The anaunciation of the objects of the quintuple treaty, awakened the liveliest solicitude of the Amorican people; and their determination to resist it to the last extremity, was made knowa, though they had then sustained no injury a3 the treaty had not been ratified; and tl fs demonstration peerenied, its ratification, and saved them m a perilous contest. No man ever condemned the Exeoutive for laying down in an authoritative manner our views of the laws of nations upon the subjects embraced in that treaty, and denouncing pretensions, equally dan- erous te our rights andour honor. It may bo said, deed, that the danger we had to apprehend from such an interpolation into the true code of public law was imminent, and justified prompt and ener- gotio measures. It was so, and we were, therefore, epared to take far more decided steps, than would expedient in a less prossing exigency. But the principle remains the same. We proclaimed our opinion uy at question of public law, because a pretension had been advanced incompatible with the independence of nations, and in which all were interested. And are notall interested in the great right of elf control, in the right of establis! > maintaining, and changing their governments at pleasure, without the interference of any other earthly power? [tis not probable that the Rus- sian Emperor, even in his wildest dreams of unli- censed power and ambition, ever contemplated sending his Cossacks to put down free institutions among us, though he put them down in Hungary, for Hungary wa; within his reach and within hi wer. But we have adireot interest, a material interest, if you disclaim every principle of action but the utilitarian jiple, the benefits of com- mercial intercourse, in the prosperity, and stability, and independence of nations, by which the resources and commerce of countries are increased, and in the maintenance of the great principles which protect these rights. But I agree with one of the most in- dependent of the public men of Engiand, Mr. Roe- buck, that higher considerations may ay in- fluence our actions, and that “ we should not bind up all our feelings in the interchange of commo- dities, or the sordid quostion of profit or loss. He believed thore was something more in the souls of tho people than that.” And the sentiment, ad- vanced by Lord Palmerston, that a great country should not ‘‘be a passive and mute spectator of everything that he on around,” deserves our commendation and concurrence. There i3 not @ page of modern diplomatic history in which may not be read the ou:lines I have already referred to of national conduct. Bat a strange error scems to prevail respecting one branch of this subject, which it is necessary to ex- amine ; not from the Soepert it derives from reason or authority, but irom the confidence with which it is urged, and because, if not corrected, it may ‘alyze the national action in all time te come. efore, however, I advert to it, I may be per- mitted to say that the discussions which have taken place, here and elsewhere through the country, manifest a very unreasonable jealousy of the good faith and sound discretion of the American people. I suppose a man could hardly be found in this broad land, however sensitive he may bo on the subject of our foreign policy, who fears the wrath or the power of the Russian or of the Anstrian Emperor, should wo assert a great fact, now passed into hie tory, that tho rights and independence of nations havo been flagrantly violated in the case of Hun- ary, and should we declare the principle of public few which ought to have protected that unfortunate anes Weil, then, if we fear no such danger abroad, where is the danger we do fear! It is at bome, sir. We cannot shut our oyes to that truth. The signs all around us indicate, with unerring certainty, that the apprehension felt and avowed is directed not to others, but to ourselves. One would really suppose there was imminent danger, if thie claim to assert an equal right to adjust questions of the law of nations is once established, taat this great republic would deal with war as a child deals with a plaything, and that it would rush into it. with blind haste, restrained by no con- siderations of duty or expediency. Lot this ap- prehension be dismissed. This is one of the last dangers we haveto fear. The honor and welfare of tha country are tafe in the custody of the people, and we need not hesitate to assert our just rights, leet the people should betray their own trust. Al most seventy years have passed away since tho acknowledgement of our independense, and in that time we bave had but two wars deserving the tame of such. Whereis there another na*ion, great oremall, which can say vae same for its own moderation? So much for the effuct of a satu- tary public opinion upon the policy of & country. Hut, to return to the erroneous doctrine, which has been eo widely and so confidently spread, aud which seeks to deter us from expressing any opinion upon the Jaw of naticns by an apprehension of the con- sequences, and by whish it is maintained, that in all cases where a nation makes such a declaration, it is bound to support ite views by war, if these are not acquiesced in, or it will lose ite own selt respoct, and subject itself to the contumely of the world. There is not the least foundation in reason, or authority, or precedent, for such an assumption. It is as gratuitous, as it is untenable. And yet this position is repeated here and elsewhere, from one end of the country to the other, as though it were written upen every page of des 7 treatise on the law of nations, and many a man, whodoes not doubt our right to express an opixion upon queations of pub- lic Jaw, as these arise inthe world for consideration, doubts the expediency of exercising it, lest we should be driven to war to supportit. Mr. Pre | sident, I have already said that the particular | form in which a nation makes known its views, | from the most common diplomatic note to the | most solemn protest, neither adds to nor takes | from ite responsibility or obligation. lt appears be assumed that thero is some peculiar pagna- us quality attached to a protest which neces- jatily leads to armed action. Thisis notso. A | public declaration in that form no more impo: on the nation making it the duty of vindicating it by arms, than the every day representations which the usual diplomatic intercourse renders | necessary. To bo sure, the proceeding is moro solemn, as the subjects generally are more grave, and it goes forth to the world under circumstances of deliberation, which give to such declarations more than usual importance. But that they are necessarily follewed by war, whenever they fail in the reeult, is contradicted by all the diplomatic | experience of modern times. A very faw re- ferences will place this subject beyond dispute. | Before | advert to them, however, let me remark, that I find a part of my task, that of establishing | that a declaration upon questions of public law is a legitimate mode of national action, anticipated | and taken out of my hands by the resolution of the | Senator from Kbode Island’ (Mr. Clarke), which practically admits this right by the very enua- ciation of many principles of the law of nations. And, allow mo further to remark, that if a protest, which is truly an act, and a selemn one too, of ne tienal intervention, especially as it points to a par- ticular power and a particular measare, carry with it no necessary obligation for armed action Cer- tainly a declaration of oar principles, common to all, cannot impose a higher duty upon the party making it. When, however, @ nation, as somes times happens, distinctly announces in its protest | that niescence in its demand, or war, is the only alternative, in such a case it anticipates its couree, in the event of refusal, and must go to its beli- | gerent work. These hostile menaces are, however, rare. | believe that England adopted this decisive step when there was reagon to apprehend that some of the European continental powers contem- plated aiding Spain in the subjugation of the Amo- rican States, once her colonies. And now for tho recedentt:—In 1783 France protested against be invasion of Holland by the Prussians. Even the old monarchy then advocated the cause of national independence. But the Prussians marched on, and rom any farther action. In 1814 Lord Castleragh the final extinction of all that then remained of Pelend, a8 a nation; but Poland is oxtinguished— or, rather, | trust, the fire of liberty is only smoth- ered there, for the present, to break out into a bright tlame beroafier—and England looked on, silent and inactive In 1820 England protested against the intervention of Austria in the affairs of Naples. But this pr lid not stop tle Austrian army, tor did it im othor measure. Inlike m het weon jed for theso anges in tho internal inst ates, with the menace of he a ther the Pyrenee: army. J: accompl pendence of Spain expired as the | ral gun, indeed, was fired from Ca loft her protest upon record, bu other memorial of her disapprobat land and France protested against the ocsupationof Cracow, but without effect and without war, “9 much f | Every power must judge for itself, how | remedy to resist | very | put down the liberal party, while France abstained | protested, in the name of his government, against | sions of opinion in regard to | found were it necessary—and now for authority: Sees Earn, whose experience in diplomat q will not be doubted, and who certainly was jealoxs enough of the honor of his country to take care she should net be placed in a false posi- tion, said, in the debate in the British House of Commons, on the subject of the invasion of Spain, that the British government had protested against | it. “But it is one thing,” he continu: | express an opinion, and another to adopt hostile proceedings to compel the three powers to undo what they hi done.” But according to this new reading of the duties of nations, when England declined to prevent by arms what the could not prevent by protest, she was faithloss to her own self-assumed obligations, and was dis- honored in the eyes of the world. Whether this claim of representation or remonstrance is derived, as it sometimes ia, from special treaties, or at other times from general principles, its obligations and ita consequences are the same, and by what acts it shall be followed, or whether by any, is simply a question of expedionoy, involving no considerations of duty orof honor. “t Manifostoes,” says Bentham, and such declarations are a kind of protest,” aro in common usage. A manifesto iadesigned to be read, either by the subjects of the State complained of, or by other States, or by both. It isan appeal to them; it calls for their opinion.” Such is the view of aman of s vigorous intellect, though with ® quaint style, which marred his usefalness, and who devoted a long life te all the kindred purauita bearing upon general as well as upon municipal law. He says that thedo declarations are appeals to opinion. A new school of expounders has arizen, which denounces them as eppeels to foroe. One of the most eminent and enlightened political writess of Europe, Voa Genz, while deploring the original tition of Poland, and the absence of any opposition to that iniquitous measure, remarks: “But no public demonstration, no energetic remonstrance, no audible disapprobation should have followed, these manifest symptoms of general relaxation and decay of strength, will not escape the observation of the future historian.” We cannot mistake the views of this st: an. After regretting that neither france nor England inter- posed efficaciously to prevent this d of shame, he regreta that no mar! testimony of disappro- bation was put upon record, to carry down @ con- temporaneous condemnation of such a flagrant out- rage to future times; and this is the universal judg- ment of the present day. Our own Load resents @ memorable example of the exercise of this right to declare a principle of national law. Mr. Mon- roe’s views on a similar question, solemnly an- nounced to Congress and the world, form a well known part of our political history. He denied to the European powers the right to intermeddle with the new governments of this hemisphere, and also the right to establish new colonies in any part of America. He did not, he could not, pledge his. ecanirvise o to war to maintain this sition. He wisely said nothing upon that sub- ject, leaving tothe fature the duties it might bring with it. His declaration is yet upon record, neither repealed nor disavowed, but remains as the expres- sion of the sentiments of the United States upon this subject. And though it has not been wholly efficacious, it has no doubt contributed, with other causes, to the stability of the inde pendence of the American States, and to check the spirit of coloni- zation. The conduct of France in the La Plata certainly violated these principles, as the preten- sions of England upon the Mosquito coast yet vio- late them; but there has been no war ta assert them. But it is easy to see, that with or without such a national declaration, our own interest would dictate to us, to watch with jealousy Europeanam- bitious designs upon the governments of the New World, aud to meet them with firmness. I trast that England will become sensible that she is making a dangerous experiment upon the inter- course of the two countries, and especially upon the forbearance of ours, when she pursaes measures incompatible with her own conventional obliga: 'y If tions, as well as with the principles laid down Mr. Monroe, to which she yiolded hor assent. the the maintenance of national independence, on this side of the Atlantic, is dear to ué, and tho in- terest we feel in it allows us to express our opi- nion upon its just inviolability, 1 see no reasen which torbids us to extend the same views else- where, a3 wo have material interests as well as na- tural sympathies connected with this immunity of all nations; and the course woshall adopt is therefore & question of expediency and not of principle. Cor- tainly solemn public doclarations of this nature should not, would not, indeed, often be made, for their frequent occarrence would impair if not destroy their moral effect. They should be reserved for thore extraordinary events affecting the honor and stability ofall ions which stand prominentiy tor- ward in the ry of the world—characteristics, in fact, of the age in which they occur. Let no man, therefore, sbject that such a conservative remedy, (for once the epithet is a just one,) will lead to abuge, or destroy itself by too frequont application. We ought neither to mistake ous position. nor ne- glect the obligations it brings with it. We have at length reached the condition of ons of the great owers of the earth, and yot we are but in the in- taney ofour career. The man yet lives woo was living when a primitive forrest extended from the Alleghany tothe Rocky Mountains, trodden only by the Indian, and by the animals—his co-tenaats of @ world of vegetation, whom God had given to him fer his support. Then a narrow strip upon the sea coast, thirteen remote and dependent colonies, and less than three millions of psople constituted what is now this vast republic, stretching across the continent, and extending almost from the nor- thern trepic to the Arctic circle. And tho man is now living who wiil live to sce one hundred and fifty millions of people free, prosperous, and intelli- gent, swaying the destinies of this country, and ex erting a mighty influence upon those of the world. And why not, Mr. President? Is it not likely to be more beneficially exerted than the influence now exercised by the despotic pore ofthe earth? No one can doubt this. Why, sir, even Vattel, en- lightened as he was, tells us that ** The law of na- tions is thelaw of sovereigns. It is prissipely for them and for their ministers that it ought to be written.” The age bas got far beyond this degrading doctrine. Tha: law was made for the great civilized community of the world and its obligation: and_ their violations will be judged by this high tribunal, and its voice will become, from day to day, louder and more efficacious. Let us aid it oy the expres: sion of our views, whenever questions arise interest ing to all the members of the great common vealth ofnations. There are no considerations of right or of expediency to restrain us from such a course; for as [ have shown, wo are just as free to actor forbear, after such a declaration, as before. Bat it has been asked, Why proclaim ‘hee opinion, un- less you mean to maintain it by the strong hand ? For the same reason that countless representations and remonstrances have beon made by indepondent powers, when they had reason to apprehend the adoption of measures hostile to the just principles of national intercommunication—to mark their disapprobation of the act and of the doctrine, that their silence might not be construed into acqui- escence, and that when, in the mutation of political affairs, the proper time should come, they might interpose effectually, if they ehould desire it, not | concladed by tho success of violence, nor by the | lapse of time ; that the power itself, contemplating the step, might pause, and review its position and its pretensions, and the consequences to which it might be led, not knowing, of course, what moa- sures might follow these appeals to its gense of right, should they fail to be effectual. And above all, that the public opinion of the world should be rightly | instructed, and brought to aid in these peace- ful efforts to preserve the rights of mankind. And let no man underrate the powor of this mighty engine for good. [t will go on, from conqnaring to conquer, till its influence is everywhere ostablisred and recognized. Lord Palmerston, when intorro- gated upon this Hungarian question, in the House of Commons, and speaking upon this very poi foreshadowed the objection, which meets us in this country—aye, and overwhelmed it—that thore is no use in thee public declarations, for they may be thrown back by an arbitrary power, which may say, using the language of that statesman:—‘ Your opinions are hut opinions, and you express them gainst our opinions, who have large armies at our command to back them. Which are strongest, | opinions or armies!” ‘* Sir,” he continues—and | | commend the noble sentiment to all who doubt the | progress of the age—“ Sir, my answer is, opinions | are stronger than armies. (Opinions, if they aro founded in truth and justice, will, inthe end, pre- | vail againet the bayonets of infantry, the fire of ar- | tillery, and the charges of cavalry.” And he adds, | that “armed with opinion, if that opinion is pro- nounced with truth and justice, wo (the psople of | the United States as well aa the people of Eagland) —wo aro indeed strong, and in the end likely to mako our opinions prevail.” Such sentiments as there, uttered in such a place, were not less honorable to the speaker than to the administration whose organ he was. And | who can say how often tho designs of ambi- precedente-and many more conid he | of other countries; and if our discus tion and injustice have been stayed or abandoned by energetic representations and by tho manifes- tations of public disapprobation ! [ have roferred to some cases where thoy failed; but tho class of those where they have been successsful is vastly more numerous—a tribute to the efficacy of ami- cable representations and an encouragemens to make them. It has boen said, in condemwnat in reproach of this effort, that the suffering people and v equally for tho assertion of ti is aeked snecringly, if not yon not extend your regards and your noh cases ? And as that is impossible ful result, a8 every ono kr. . Wo are, therefore, to set stilland do nothing, because we cannot do everything. Sach isno distate of wisdom or duty, either in political or ethical philosophy. Tao prudent statesman looks to what ia practicable as weil as to what is right, Tho principle embodied in the substitute is general and applicable to all cases of armed intervention in the i , with any ernal affairs D8 aad our x immediste action hi reference to the attack eee the reason is obvious and justifiable. are conditior the public mind, arising out of passing events, favorable to the consideration of questions, while others aro cast into the shade, and command no attention. The former is the state of things in relation to Hungary; to her rights and to her wrongs; and the principles thus brought up are attracting the attention of the world, and are discussed in conversation, in legislative asomblies, in the public journals, and in diplomatic correspondence, and they thus commend themselves to general consideration. And the facts have been of a nature to impart deep interest to the whole subject, and without somo degree of interest it were vain to endeavor to en- gage the public attention. Mr. President, what earthly tribunal has a better right than the Con- gress of the American people to pronounce opinion of the ple upon such subjects? [do not speak, lest I should be ascased of patriotic ex- aggoration, of those qualities, intellectual and moral, which are found here, and which are es- sential to a sound decision; but [ speak of its re- presentative capacity, as tho depository of mush of the power of a people, whose interest and feelings are Tatimately connected with the broadest pri ciples of freedom and independence. Other le- atures do not hesitate to speak out boldly ard ly. For several years, the Chamber of De- uties of Franco remonstrated in their anewer to jhe annual speech from the throne against the an- nihilation of Poland, and in 1840, in this emphatic lengua, os “In St the questions that divide the world, France invekes but justice; she demands only the respect due to all rights. Can she cease to recall to Europe those ef the ancient Polish nation, and the guarantees that repeated treaties gave to a generous people, whose mis- fortune time seems only to aggravate.’? It is _woll understood that the government of Louis Philippe was opposed to these 1 and that they gave serious offence to the Russian Emperor, who recalled his ambassador from the French court. But no counsels of timidity vailed with the members of the Chamber. put their remonstrance into the most solemn ferm, and spread it on record before the world, anawed by apprehensions like those which there seems to bea systematic effort to excite in the breastsof the American people. But it cannot be dose, Mr. President. You may persuade and convince our countrymen, but it isout of the power of mortal man to drive them from the maintenance of their rights by any considerations connected with the danger of their assertion. When I hear a good desl that is said at this day, 1 become more and more convinoed that the mon of tho revolution were peoalibely: fitted for the work of the revolution. aoe songht security and justice, not in precedent ut in for the Eistory of the world is filled with precedents of tyranny and oppression, while it does not contain a single example of a government like ours. Its establishment is a tribute due to wisdom, patriot- ism, and valor; not to antiquated notions, with no- thing to recommend them but their age. I believe if we had the work of the revolution and of the for- mation ofa government thvown upen us, we should not do half as well as bur fathers did. The Eng- lish House of Commons have, in different ways, and upon many occasions, extreme their opinions upon questions ef international law, by direct addresses to the crown, or by votes upon the conduct of minis- tera; and it will be a new doctrine there, that such proceedings give just cause of offence to other powers, or that thoy necessarily commit a nation to support them by war, when they fail as a remedy of peace. [ shall not turn over tho pages of English parliamentary history to seek examples of this nature, for they are familiar to all who are conversant with the British political annals; but there was a declaration made by Lord Palmer- ston upon one of these occasions, so justin itself and so applicable to this country, that I a am tempted to refer to it, and to commend it to the attention of all those who desire to inculcate the doctrine that we ought to live in a state of Chineso isolation from the political affairs of the world, in- different to events and te their effects upon the wel- fare of mankind. The British Seoretary of State measured the duty of his country by a far higher standard. He was not prepared, he said, to dunt that the independence of constitutional states, whether they were powerful like France or the United States, or of let lative political impor- tance, such as the minor e8 of Germany, ever could be a matter of indifference to the British Parliament, or, he should hope, to the British pub- lic. Constitutional states he considered to be the natural allies of this country; and who- ever might be in offise, conducting the affairs of Great Britain, he was per: led that no English ministry would perform its duty, if it were inattentive to the interest, of such States. As tothe feelings of the British Parliament and public, Lord Palmerston speaks ag one having authority; but as to the people of the United States, no authority is necessary to speak for them, be- cause their feelings are open to allthe world. And is the American Congress the enly free Legislature where such sentiments fisd no response, and the rights and laws of nations no efficient support? * r. Canning, upon a memorable occasion, not un- like the present in its relation to tho independence of nationr, well remarked, that ‘‘thoge persons seem to me to imagine, that under no posaible circum- stances can an honest man endeavor to keep his country upon a liao with the progress of political . Enowledge, and to adap‘ its course to the varying circumstances of the world Such an attempt is branded as an indication of mischiovousiatontions How accurately does this eminent man, in deécrib- ing the opposition that liberal efforts encountered in England, point out tho very opposition that simi- lar eforts encounter here, and the reproachos they bring withthem? He was for ** pre cing peeerees and noble sentiments into the service of his coun- try.” Weare rebuked for advocating such senti- . ments; and the everlasting fear that some terrible calamity is to befall us within the eourse of the next ten centuries, if we depart one inch from the trod- den path, paralyses many a clear head and many a sound heart, and sends them for refuge te tho stand still policy ; a policy unfit for the age, unacceptable to the American people, and un- worthy of our country and its institutions. It is far better to keep on tho line of political knowledge, as Mr. Canning terms the adaptation of tho feelings and poly of a nation to its true position, than to stand still upon the line of precedents, and let the world get far ahead of us, forgetting or fearing, in the language of a statesman, transferred from this chamber to the direction of our foreign affairs, the eqnal of Canning in genius and mental vigor, for- getting or fearing ‘“‘that we are in an age of pro- gress.” And we may well look round and ask each other, as oneof the noblest men that ever occupied a feat in this or in any other legislative body, bright in intellect, pure in purpose, splondid in his powers of eloquence, but now etruck down by Pro- vidence. to the regrot of his country, which has anticipated the jodgment of history by one univer- sal tribute of respect for his services and his worth —we may ask each other, as hoasked the logis- lators of a former day—‘ Arc the Representatives alone to be isolated from the common atmosphere of the world?” If we commit this error, we shall be isolated from the feolings and confidence of oar fellow citizens, and find, when too late, that we are unworthy exponents of their sentiments. Many objections, more or less plausible, have been pri tented to deter us from any action in this mat- - ter, but not one of them, with more sonti- dence or pertinacity, nor with loss regard to the true ciroumstances of our position than that which warns us that by sush a proceod- ing wo should violate alike the traditions of our policy and tho advice of our wisest states- men, and especially the injunctions of Washington and Jefferson. Never wero just recommendations more inappropriately applied, than in this attompt to apply the viows of those great men to tho cireum- stances in which we aro placed. Non-intervention, it is said, was the policy they maintained, and tho legacy they bequeathed to us; but ia it possible thava single American can be found, who belie7es that either of those patriots would eondemn the ciples ; and well is it that they did so, | declaration of his country’s opinion mpon a great question of public lav, because they condemned its interference with the affairs of other nations Why this is our affair, sir, an affzit as interesting to us as to any other community on the face of tho globe; one which involves the safety of independent States, and the true intent and obligation of the regulates their intercourse. What did ton say on this subject? Those are his “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent’ alliances with any portion of the foreign world “Henoe. therefore, it must be wuwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary viciseitades of her (European) police, or the ordinary circumstances or collisions of her friendships aad eamfies. These sentiments spoak for themselves, and aro commended, no less by the authority taat utters them, than by thoir own justice to the American people. Ingenuity itecif cannot tortare them into the service of the opposition to the preaont propo sition, one which seoks no alliances and avics for 10 artificial ties. It limits itself toa simple declare tion of opinion. But if the langaage employed by Washington reqnired any special fy for its true construction, it would be found in the history of hia administration, and in the peculiar diffioalttos encountered. It ia well known that the carly events of the Frer ch revo! excited @ powerful feoling in the United Siat | this feeling displayed it- self in strong attachme: > Krange, and in hostile demonstrations against England. The aid wo ra coi ved from the former power in one revolutionary struggle, and tho efforts of tho Frensh poopia to broak theiren yoko 1 had promed for centuri joined 0 conduct of F nd du to her retention of the Wostern oo notorious violation of our mariti } ciently account for this feeling, and ite tion greatly embarrassed the administration of Gen. Washington and rondoredt it very him, even with the woight of his ¢ was A poworful coadjutor in the work, to preserve that line of neutral policy, he bad Wisely adopted.