but it is to his credit that it was so conducted as to avoid any serious complaint on the part of other governments. The encroachments of Great Britain on the Mosquito Coast, and other portions of Central America, drew from him some pointed declarations respecting the paramount interest of the United States in the Isthmus of Panama, and tending to broaden the application of the Monroe Doctrine. During this term a number of commercial treaties were made, one of which, that with New Granada, or Colombia, in 1846, has had special significance. Its Article 35 contains a stipulation whereby the United States agrees to "guarantee positively and efficaciously the perfect neutrality of the isthmus" [of Panama] and "the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory."

This is the nearest approach to an alliance or guar antee of sovereignty made by the United States since its release from the obligations of the treaty with France of 1778. The acquisition of California, and the construction by American citizens of a railroad across the isthmus made this guarantee an important one. Under the article cited it has been held that the United States is authorized and required to protect the transit of the isthmus from foreign invasion, and to compel Colombia to keep the transit free from domestic disturbance. Because of the failure or inability of Colombia to maintain the latter, the government of the United States has, on repeated occasions, sent its naval forces to the isthmus, and landed troops to preserve the peace and secure free transit.

One of the last diplomatic achievements in Mr. Polk's term was the negotiation of a postal convention between the United States and Great Britain, brought about by the rivalry of the steamship lines plying between New York and Liverpool.1 It marks the beginning of the long list of postal conventions which has made our communication with foreign nations so easy and rapid.

The administration of Polk closed under circumstances more flattering than any since the successful term of Monroe. He entered upon his duties with an ambition to attain four objects, the settlement of the Oregon dispute, the annexation of Texas, the acquisition of California, and a change in the tariff system, and in all of these he was completely successful.

Following the Democratic administration of Polk, the Whig party, recovering from the disappointment and disorganization of Tyler's defection, returned to power in 1849, under the presidency of General Zachary Taylor, a hero of the Mexican War. The annexation of Texas and the addition of the vast domain acquired through the Mexican War brought to the country perplexing and exciting questions in connection with slavery, and the administration was mainly absorbed with domestic affairs, but several interesting foreign matters received attention. John M. Clayton, called to the post of secretary of state, was not a man of commanding talent, in this respect falling below several of his recent predecessors; but he had long

1 5 Schouler's U. S. 124.

been a prominent member of the Senate, and was a gentleman of education and culture.

He is best known through the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1850, providing for a joint protectorate by the United States and Great Britain over the projected Nicaraguan Canal and for its complete neutralization, and also for an adjustment of questions respecting the British settlements of and protectorate claimed over certain portions of Central America. This negotiation and treaty will be further discussed in connection with the Monroe Doctrine,' and it will suffice now to say that from the date of its ratification it has been a constant source of discussion and disagreement, and has generally been regarded as the most serious diplomatic mistake in our history.

Taylor's death and the accession of Vice-President Fillmore brought about a change of cabinet, and Daniel Webster, for a second time, was intrusted with the management of our foreign relations. Cuba, which in the past fifty years has been such a perennial source of international trouble, was just then the exciting cause of difference with not only Spain, but also England and France. Fillibustering expeditions organized in American territory, with apparently little support among the resident Cubans, became so threatening that a proclamation against them was issued in 1849 by President Taylor, and, this proving insufficient, a further one was issued in 1851 by Fillmore. There was a widespread sympathy throughout the country for

1 Infra, chap. xii.

25 Richardson's Messages, 7.

s Ib. 111.

the movement, but it was strongest in the Southern States, largely inspired by a hope that it would result in annexation and the increase of the slave power. The efficacy of the neutrality laws was put to a severe test, and the Spanish government was constantly complaining of their lax enforcement. The governments of Great Britain and France, sympathizing with Spain, gave instructions to their naval officials to coöperate with the Spanish war vessels in preventing the landing of fillibustering expeditions, and this action led to vigorous protest from our government against the exercise of police powers by the English and French navies so near to American waters.1

At a later period in this administration Great Britain and France proposed to the United States a tripartite treaty guaranteeing the possession of Cuba to Spain, and a disavowal of any intention on their part to acquire the island. Edward Everett, then acting as Secretary of State, replied in a lengthy and able letter declining the proposal, which was accepted by succeeding administrations as a proper statement of our attitude on the status of Cuba.2

After the unsuccessful landing of several expeditions organized on American territory, the movement collapsed with the capture of the leader Lopez and his band, and the prompt execution of a large part of his force, which was mainly composed of Americans. This caused intense indignation in the United States, and at New Orleans the excited citizens in the form of a mob

1 S. Ex. Doc. No. 1, 32d Cong. 1st Sess. pp. 74-82.

2 1 Wharton's Int. Dig. 562.

attacked and demolished the Spanish consulate, the newspaper office, and various stores and shops of Spanish residents, without any attempt at restraint by the local authorities.

The Spanish minister at Washington, under instructions from his government, promptly made a demand of reparation for the insult to the flag and consulate, and of indemnity for the losses and injuries sustained from the mob by Spanish subjects. A correspondence with the Secretary of State followed, in which Mr. Webster, in a carefully written and able note to the Spanish minister, recognizing the outrage done to the consulate, offered to make due reparation on that account, but he claimed that the Spanish subjects were entitled to receive no other or greater protection than American citizens, and that they must resort to the local courts for redress of their injuries, either against the individuals who inflicted the wrongs or against the municipality which failed to protect them.1 As public sentiment was almost entirely on the side of the rioters, the remedy indicated was a virtual denial of redress. While this position has been sustained by such distinguished successors in the office as Evarts, Blaine, and Bayard as a correct statement of our domestic law, Mr. Webster's sense of justice did not allow him to leave the subject in that condition; and on his recommendation Congress, as a matter of grace and comity, voted an appropriation from the national treasury to

1 S. Ex. Doc. 1, 32d Cong. 1st Sess. vol. 1.

2 Evarts, Foreign Relations, U. S. 1881, p. 319; Blaine, Ib. 335; Bayard, Ib. 1886, pp. 158-167.