her sister republics, the benefit of our experience in the great school of international politics. To refuse our attendance at the congress, when urged on this ground, would be to neglect to seize, perhaps, the fairest opportunity which the history of the world ever afforded, of giving a wide and prompt diffusion to liberal doctrines of public law. It would certainly put it out of our power to complain of any policy these states might adopt, however unfriendly toward our interests, and however vicious in principle.

"Such are the views of the committee, with respect to the several classes of subjects which will be discussed at this congress. It is a very obvious reflection, that our attendance may have a powerful effect in giving a character to the assembly itself. Our presence is particularly requested by one of the

new states, who have joined in the invitation on the ground of the importance and respectability' which would thence attach to the congress. The committee do not foresee the possibility that, under any circumstances, the congress could become an inconvenient or dangerous assembly. But if it be thought by any one, that evil consequences are likely to flow from it, the prospect of such consequences would furnish new reasons why we should be represented at it. Whatever opinions may be held of the expe

diency of such a meeting, in itself, it would seem that there could be but one opinion as to the duty of our attendance at the congress, to correct the pernicious tendency which it may be feared to have. To neglect to attend the congress, because it was a combination of unfriendly aspect, would be to neglect the ordinary preparations of defence, precisely because there was danger of war. Viewing the congress at Panama in this unfavorable light, (for which, however, the committee apprehend there is no reason,) no administration of the executive government would stand justified to the country, without taking measures, most promptly, to be informed of its proceedings. If not invited, to send authorised and accredited ministers, it would have been their duty to send private political agents.

"The committee have felt it their duty to consider this question, chiefly on strict grounds of political expediency, and in reference to the principle of our diplomatic intercourse. They, however, accord in sentiment with the president, that a sufficient inducement to accept the invitation would have been to meet in the spirit of kindness and friendship, an overture made in that spirit by three sister republics of this hemisphere.' It will not escape the consideration of this house, that the conduct of the

We are

United States, toward the new republics, has ever been regulated by the maxims of a frank and liberal policy. Had we acted toward them, even as we have felt it our duty to act toward Europe, our course would have been essentially different. Had our feelings toward them been the same as those which our political fathers have inculcated toward Europe, we should certainly have regarded it rather as an evil than a benefit, that so many new republics, of which the greater part must be powerful states, are rising into existence on the same side of the water as ourselves. henceforward to be without that which has formerly been regarded as the great bulwark of our national security, our geographical distance from every other powerful state. But we have not hesitated to break down this bulwark. We have gone to meet and welcome the new republics. We have ourselves assisted to exchange weak colonial, for powerful sovereign neighbors. As far as it depended on us, we have chosen to place the regions, on our immense southwestern frontier, beneath the government of vigorous republican institutions, instead of having them under the safe and enervating despotism of Spain. In the judgment of the committee, this has been a sound, a great, an auspicious policy. It was not rashly It was not rashly adopted it was long deliberated,

well weighed, and at length received its sanction in the unanimous voice of this house, and the acclamations of the people. From this policy it is now too late to recede. We cannot now do much to obstruct the growth of the new states; we can do every thing to conciliate and attach them, or to estrange and disgust them. The first course will promote the general cause of liberty, will perpetuate friendly relations between the two great portions of this continent, to the mutual advantage of both; and will render us more and more independent of Europe. The latter course will tend to revive in the new world, the false and pernicious maxims of the old; to teach neighboring republics to fix on each other the fatal name of natural enemies; to create piratical and border wars; to generate systems of exclusion ; and, finally, to establish, in this hemisphere, those political principles and habits which have caused the downfall of so many foreign states,made so many others stationary and languishing, and checked the growth of all. We are now to consider, whether we will take the first step in an unfriendly and repulsive policy, by refusing to accept the courteous invitation of three most respectable neighboring governments, tendered in a manner equally creditable to their

delicacy, and flattering to the Uni

the relations of the South American governments, with each other, or with foreign nations, such measures as the friendly disposition cherished by the American people towards the people of those states, and the honor and interest of this nation may require."

This amendment produced an animated and interesting debate, in which the whole policy of the measure was freely criticised, and ably defended.

Mr. M'Lane said, that he had endeavored to embody in this amendment, all those principles, by which the foreign intercourse of the country had been governed. He thought the subject of great importance, and standing without the sanction of any precedent. He would not condemn the measure; but still it came before the house under such circumstances, as to call for deliberation; and when the house did act, it should act free from all influence of the executive. This is the more necessary; because the house is called upon to share the responsibility of the measure.

If the president, after the senate had confirmed the nomination, had come to this house simply for an appropriation, he would have granted it without much inquiry; because the responsibility would have rested, where the constitution placed it,-upon the president. But the executive has thought pro

per not to assume the whole responsibility. He asks this house to share it with him. Such was his construction of the message. He was not about to censure this caution. The measure was of a nature to require prudence: but it is nevertheless true, that it is thus sent to the house, and the house must express an opinion. We cannot make the appropriation, without becoming parties to the measure. The president has asked for our opinion; and it is due to him, and to the country, that such opinion should be expressed.

His object in offering this amendment was, not to embarrass the measure, nor to tie up the hands of the executive. It is, on the contrary, to give him full latitude. It is to give our opinion. He may, nevertheless, act according to his own discretion, notwithstanding our opinion; but it will then be upon his own responsibility. If our opinion differs from his, it will be of service; and if it should be the same, it will do no harm. It will, on the contrary, sustain him in the eye of other nations. There are notions now floating in the public imagination, the tendency of which is to mislead our foreign functionaries; and it is proper that they should be brought into form, so that we may determine upon their correctness. Ever since the memorable message of Mr. Monroe, in 1823, he had