use for themselves the country in their possession, but not the right of sovereignty or eminent domain over it."

Mr. Marcy, Sec, of State, to Mr. Ingersoll, June 9, 1853. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. "The British Government denies that it has yielded anything by that (1850) treaty in regard to its protectorate of the Mosquito Indians. It,. however, professes a willingness, as I understand, to withdraw that protectorate if the Government of Nicaragua can be induced to treat the Mosquitos fairly and allow them some compensation for the territory now claimed by them for the relinquishment of their occupancy, and forthe peaceable surrender of it to Nicaragua. Admitting these Indians to be what the United States and Nicaragua regard them, a savage tribe, having only possessory rights to the country they occupy, and not the sovereignty of it, they cannot fairly be required to yield up their actual possessions without some compensation. Might not this most troublesome element in this Central American question be removed by Nicaragua in a way just in itself, and entirely compatible with her national honor? Let her arrange this matter as we arrange those of the same character with the Indian tribes inhabiting portions of our own territory."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Borland, June 17, 1853. MSS. Inst., Am. St. "The United States Government, in its correspondence with the British Government, has denied the pretensions set up for the people at San Juan de Nicaragua (or Greytown) to any political organization or power derived in any way or form from the Mosquitos."

Ibid.

"The protectorate which Great Britain has assumed over the Mosquito Indians is a most palpable infringement of her treaties with Spain, to which reference has just been made, and the authority she is there exercising under pretense of this protectorate is in derogation of the sov ereign rights of several of the Central American States and contrary to the manifest spirit and intention of the treaty of April 19, 1850, with the United States.

"Though ostensibly the direct object of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty was to guarantee the free and common use of the contemplated shipcanal across the Isthmus of Darien, and to secure such use to all nations by mutual treaty stipulations to that effect, there were other and highly important objects sought to be accomplished by the convention. The stipulation regarded most of all, by the United States, is that for discontinuing the use of her assumed protectorate of the Mosquito Indians, and with it the removal of all pretext whatever for interfering with the territorial arrangements which the Central American States may wish to make among themselves. It was the intention, as it is obviously the import, of the treaty of April 19, 1850, to place Great Britain under an obligation to cease her interpositions in the affairs of Central America

and to confine herself to the enjoyment of her limited rights in the Belize. She has by this treaty of 1850 obligated herself not to occupy or colonize any part of Central America or to exercise any dominion therein. Notwithstanding these stipulations she still asserts the right to hold possession of and to exercise control over large districts of that country and important islands in the Bay of Honduras, the unquestionable appendages of the Central American States. This jurisdiction is not less mischievous in its effects, nor less objectionable to us, because it is covertly exercised (partly at least) in the name of a miserable tribe of Indians, who have in reality no political organization, no actual Government, not even the semblance of one, except that which is created by British authority and upheld by British power."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, July 2, 1853. MSS. Inst. Gr.
Brit.

"So far as I am aware, this Government has never had occasion to take the question of the proprietorship of those (the Mosquito) islands into consideration. I cannot say, beforehand, what would be the opinion of the Department on the subject, as we make it a rule to express no opinion upon a hypothetical case.

"It is obvious, however, from the names of the islands, that they were discovered by the Spaniards. Though this, unaccompanied by actual occupancy, may not have imparted to Spain any right of ownership to the exclusion of the citizens or subjects of other countries, yet, as the islands lie within a short distance of the Mosquito coast, it is quite probable that, if they had, for any purpose, been visited by persons not owing allegiance to Spain, she might have endeavored to prevent this. It is more certain that she would have endeavored to prevent any other nation from occupying them for military or naval purposes. The rights of sovereignty possessed by Spain in Central America extended, as we claim, over the territory actually conquered or obtained by contract from the aborigines, as well as over that the Indian title to which had not been extinguished. The British Government contends that the Indian title to the Mosquito coast has never been extinguished; and partly on that ground asserts the right to protect the inhabitants of that coast. It is not unlikely that that Government might also contend that the islands to which you refer belong by right of proximity to the Mosquito shore and, therefore, that its right of protection extends to them also."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Thompson and Oudeshuys, Dec. 27, 1853.
MSS. Dom. Let.

"The political condition of what is called the Mosquito Kingdom has for several years past been a matter of discussion between the United States and Great Britain. This Government has uniformly held that the Mosquito Indians are a savage tribe, and that though they have rights as the occupants of the country where they are, they have no

sovereign or political authority there, and no capacity to transfer to individuals an absolute and permanent title to the lands in their possession, and that the right of eminent domain-which only can be the source of such title-is in certain of the Central American States.

"If the emigrants (persons purposing to settle in the Mosquito Kingdom) should be formed into companies, commanded by officers, and furnished with arms, such organization would assume the character of a military expedition, and being hardly consistent with professions of peaceful objects, would devolve upon this Government the duty of inquiring whether it be not a violation of our neutrality act."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kinney, Feb. 4, 1855. MSS. Dom. Let.

Great Britain had not, at the time of the convention of April 19, 1850, "any rightful possessions in Central America, save only the usufructuary settlement at the Belize, if that really be in Central America; and at the same time, if she had any, she was bound by the express tenor and true construction of the convention, to evacuate the same, so as thus to stand on precisely the same footing in that respect as the United States."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dallas, July 26, 1856. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. Supra, § 150 f. [The whole of this instruction is of great importance, and should be carefully studied in this connection.]

The "statement for the Earl of Clarendon," by Mr. Buchanan, United States minister in London, dated January 6, 1854, given in the Brit. and For. St. Pap. for 1855-56, vol. 46, contains the following passages:

"It would be a vain labor to trace the history of the connection of Great Britain with the Mosquito shore and other portions of Central America previous to her treaties with Spain of 1783 and 1786. This connection doubtless originated from her desire to break down the monopoly of trade which Spain so jealously enforced with her American colonies, and to introduce into them British manufactures. The attempts of Great Britain to accomplish this object were pertinaciously resisted by Spain, and became the source of continual difficulties between the two nations. After a long period of strife these were happily terminated by the treaties of 1783 and 1786, in as clear and explicit language as ever was employed on any similar occasion; and the history of the time rendered the meaning of this language, if possible, still more clear and explicit.

"Article VI of the treaty of peace of 3d September, 1783, was very distasteful to the King and Cabinet of Great Britain. This abundantly appears from Lord John Russell's 'Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox.' The British Government, failing in their efforts to have this article deferred for six months, finally yielded a most reluct ant consent to its insertion in the treaty.

"Why this reluctant consent? Because Article VI stipulates that, with the exception of the territory between the river Wallis or Belize and the Rio Hondo, within which permission was granted to British subjects to cut log-wood, all the English who may be dispersed in any other parts, whether on the Spanish continent ("continente Espagnol"), or in any of the islands whatsoever dependent on the aforesaid Spanish continent, and for whatever reason it might be, without exception, shall

retire within the district above described in the space of eighteen. months, to be computed from the exchange of ratifications.'

"And the treaty further expressly provides, that the permission granted to cut logwood shall not be considered as derogating, in any wise, from his [Catholic Majesty's] rights of sovereignty' over this logwood district; and it stipulates, moreover, 'that if any fortifications should have been actually heretofore erected within the limits marked out, His Britannic Majesty shall cause them all to be demolished, and he will order his subjects not to build any new ones.'

"But, notwithstanding these provisions, in the opinion of Mr. Fox, it was still in the power of the British Government 'to put our [their] own interpretation upon the words "continente Espagnol," and to deter mine, upon prudential considerations, whether the Mosquito shore comes under that description or not.'

"Hence the necessity for new negotiations which should determine, precisely and expressly, the territory embraced by the treaty of 1783. These produced the convention of the 14th of July, 1786; and its very first article removed every doabt on the subject. This declared that "His Britannic Majesty's subjects, and the other colonists who have hitherto enjoyed the protection of England, shall evacuate the country of the Mosquitos, as well as the continent in general, and the islands adjacent, without exception,' situated beyond the new limits prescribed by the convention within which British subjects were to be permitted to cut, not only logwood, but mahogany and all other wood; and even this district is indisputably acknowledged to belong of right to the Crown of Spain.'

"Thus what was meant by the 'continente Espagnol' in the treaty of 1783, is defined, beyond all doubt, by the convention of 1786; and the sovereignty of the Spanish King over the Mosquito shore, as well as over every other portion of the Spanish continent and the islands adjacent, is expressly recognized.

"It was just that Great Britain should interfere to protect the Mosquito Indians against the punishment to which they had exposed themselves as her allies from their legitimate and acknowledged sovereign. Article XIV of the convention, therefore, provides that His Catholic Majesty, prompted solely by motives of humanity, promises to the King of England that he will not exercise any act of severity against the Mosquitos inhabiting in part the countries which are to be evacuated by virtue of the present convention, on account of the connectious which may have subsisted between the said Indians and the English; and His Britannic Majesty, on his part, will strictly prohibit all his subjects from furnishing arms or warlike stores to the Indians in general situated upon the frontiers of the Spanish possessions.'

"British honor required that these treaties with Spain should be faithfully observed; and from the contemporaneous history no doubt exists but that this was done; that the orders required by Article XV of the convention were issued by the British Government, and that they were strictly carried into execution.

In this connection a reference to the significant proceedings in the House of Lords on the 26th of March, 1787, ought not to be omitted. On that day a motion was made by Lord Rawdon that the terms of the convention of July 14, 1786, do not meet the favorable opinion of this House.' The motion was discussed at considerable length, and with great ability. The task of defending the ministry upon this occasion was undertaken by Lord Chancellor Thurlow, and was most trium

sovereign or political authority there, and no capacity to transfer to individuals an absolute and permanent title to the lands in their possession, and that the right of eminent domain-which only can be the source of such title—is in certain of the Central American States.

"If the emigrants (persons purposing to settle in the Mosquito Kingdom) should be formed into companies, commanded by officers, and furnished with arms, such organization would assume the character of a military expedition, and being hardly consistent with professions of peaceful objects, would devolve upor this Government the duty of inquiring whether it be not a violation of our neutrality act."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kinney, Feb. 4, 1855. MSS. Dom. Let.

Great Britain had not, at the time of the convention of April 19, 1850, "any rightful possessions in Central America, save only the usufructuary settlement at the Belize, if that really be in Central America; and at the same time, if she had any, she was bound by the express tenor and true construction of the convention, to evacuate the same, so as thus to stand on precisely the same footing in that respect as the United States."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dallas, July 26, 1856. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. Supra, § 150 f. [The whole of this instruction is of great importance, and should be carefully studied in this connection.]

The "statement for the Earl of Clarendon," by Mr. Buchanan, United States minister in London, dated January 6, 1854, given in the Brit. and For. St. Pap. for 1855-'56, vol. 46, contains the following passages:

"It would be a vain labor to trace the history of the connection of Great Britain with the Mosquito shore and other portions of Central America previous to her treaties with Spain of 1783 and 1786. This connection doubtless originated from her desire to break down the monopoly of trade which Spain so jealously enforced with her American colonies, and to introduce into them British manufactures. The attempts of Great Britain to accomplish this object were pertinaciously resisted by Spain, and became the source of continual difficulties between the two nations. After a long period of strife these were happily terminated by the treaties of 1783 and 1786, in as clear and explicit language as ever was employed on any similar occasion; and the history of the time rendered the meaning of this language, if possible, still more clear and explicit.

"Article VI of the treaty of peace of 3d September, 1783, was very distasteful to the King and Cabinet of Great Britain. This abundantly appears from Lord John Russell's 'Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox.' The British Government, failing in their efforts to have this article deferred for six months, finally yielded a most reluctant consent to its insertion in the treaty.

"Why this reluctant consent? Because Article VI stipulates that, with the exception of the territory between the river Wallis or Belize and the Rio Hondo, within which permission was granted to British subjects to cut log-wood, all the English who may be dispersed in any other parts, whether on the Spanish continent ("continente Espagnol"), or in any of the islands whatsoever dependent on the aforesaid Spanish continent, and for whatever reason it might be, without exception, shall