There had been submitted by Mr. Buchanan to Lord Clarendon on the 6th of January, 1854, a detailed statement of the views of the United States, which was not answered until the 2d of May following. On the 22d of July Mr. Buchanan made an elaborate reply, containing a historical review of all the matters in dispute. It reduced the whole controversy respecting the Clayton-Bulwer treaty to the following points:
What, then, is the fair construction of the article? It embraces two objects. 1. It declares that neither of the parties shall ever acquire any exclusive control over the ship canal to be constructed between the Atlantic and the Pacific, by the route of the river San Juan de Nicaragua, and that neither of them shall ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the same or in the vicinity thereof. In regard to this stipulation, no disagreement is known to exist between the parties. But the article proceeds further in its mutually self-denying policy, and in the second place, declares that neither of the parties ‘will occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume, or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America.’
We now reach the true point. Does this language require that Great Britain shall withdraw from her existing possessions in Central America, including ‘the Mosquito coast?’ The language peculiarly applicable to this coast will find a more appropriate place in a subsequent portion of these remarks.
If any person enters into a solemn and explicit agreement that he will not “occupy” any given tract of country then actually occupied by him, can any proposition be clearer, than that he is bound by his agreement to withdraw from such occupancy? Were this not the case, these words would have no meaning, and the agreement would become a mere nullity. Nay more, in its effect it would amount to a confirmation of the party in the possession of that very territory which he had bound himself not to occupy, and would practically be equivalent to an agreement that he should remain in possession—a contradiction in terms. It is difficult to comment on language which appears so plain, or to offer arguments to prove that the meaning of words is not directly opposite to their well-known signification.