S PEECH
oF
HON. J. A. MCDOUGALL,
IN THE
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
On Tuesday, February 3d, 1863.
BALTIMQRE... PRINTED BY JOHN MURPHY & CO.
PUBLISHERS, BOOKSELLERS, PRINTERS AND STATIONERS,
MARBLE BUILDING, 182 BALTIMORE STREET.
1863.








SPEECH.
The Senate having under consideration the resolutions submitted by Mr. McDOUGaLL,
on the 19th of January last, concerning our relations with France and MexicoMr. McDOUGALL said:
Mr. PRESIDENT: I should have preferred to have had the resolutions to which
I now call the attention of the Senate presented by some older Senator than mysell; and particularly by some Senator whose relation to the Administration at
present in authority would have secured to the subject of the resolutions a more
general and careful consideration. I have, however, been compelled to think that
gentlemen have purposely and persistently shut their eyes to the position France
has assumed, not only towards Mexico, but towards this Government; and it is
only after grave consideration, impelled by the strongest sense of duty, that I have
asked of Congress the expression of its opinion on the subject.
I assure Senators that I have not presented these resolutions with any partisan
purpose. 1 have not the shadow of a disposition to assault those to whom first
and most immediately belongs the initiative in this business. It is perhaps true
that special circumstances, and the more immediate concern of our people on the
Pacific coast in the movements of France, furnish reasons why I should have
watched French policy more carefully, and why I should feel more alarmed at its
development, than most of' those belonging either to the executive or legislative
departments of the Government.
I do not hope to present all the facts and considerations that move me to my
conclusions; if time permitted, the subject embraces too wide a field for any mere
oral discussion. The most I have promised to myself has been to call the attention of Congress and the Government to the subject, and secure that consideration
and action which I believe have been much too long delayed.
I have affirmed in these resolutions that the movement of France against
Mexico is in violation of the known and recognized rules of international law, in
violation of the treaty made at London between England, Spain, and France, in
violation of repeated assurances given by France to this Government; and I now
further affirm and will endeavor to satisfy the Senate that both the treaty and the
assurances of which I speak were made on the part of France with the definite
purpose of misleading and deceiving this Government; that they were designed as




4
a fraud upon us, and that we have been misled, deceived, and defrauded to the
very point of jeopardy by the Machiavelli who is now Emperor of the French.
What I have affirmed I shall now proceed to maintain as briefly as I find possible. I have said that this movement of France upon Mexico is in violation of the
rules of international law. The true right and the extent of the right of France is
briefly and well stated in a letter written by our minister at London to Mr. Seward,
dated November 1, 1861, in which he says:
"There can be no doubt that, as it regards Europe, the voice of all the independent
American nations is the same. They want no dictation, nor any resumption of their
old relations. If they fail in performing their honest' engagements, they make themselves liable in their property, but not in their persons or their political rights. Any
attempt to transcend that broad line of distinction is a mere appeal to force, which can
carry with it no obligation one moment beyond the period when it may be successfully
overthrown. And the principle is broad enough to make the maintenance of it in one
country equally the cause of all the rest."
It is unnecessary to elaborate the views expressed by our minister. The attempt in this civilized age, in this age of law, to make war upon and to overthrow
a weak Government under the pretense of enforcing the payment of a money
debt, is one that would not be dared by any other person than the dark, ambitious,
and unscrupulous head of the French Government.
The terms of the treaty made at London are, I presume, familiar to Senators.
Permit me, however, to call their attention to the second article; it reads:
"ART. 2. The high contracting parties bind themselves not to seek for themselves, in
the employment of the coercive measures foreseen by the present convention, any
sscc~uirz-ititiA d  ty Itilmy,,m sn nezzlss wiswntsze wnd  By % estsz;St in ty&    2AN  tequ Wz
affairs of Mexico any influence of a character to impair the right of the Mexican nation
to choose and freely to constitute the form of its own Government."
It was understood that if Mexico did not to the extent of her reasonable ability
adjust and provide for the respective claims of the three Powers, they would
seize upon so much of the impost revenues of Mexico as would satisfy their
demands. Further than this neither England nor Spain undertook to go; when
France developed a policy foreign to this purpose they protested and withdrew.
France, having used England and Spain to disguise her purposes, cover her
landing, and establish her footing in Mexico; having committed England  and
Spain to what in them was folly but in France was ambition, the French movement is immediately changed into one of conquest and dominion.
That this attempt at conquest is a violation of the treaty of London and the
assurances given to this Government, is a truth admitting of no discussion; but
more than this; for it there is no shadow of justification or excuse. The fact is
patent that this course France had determined on from the first; France had been
dealing falsely with the allies and had dealt falsely with us; when the time was
ripe she uncloaked herself, showing the brigand from top to toe.
And now, Mr. President, before entering upon particulars, and that the course
of my remarks may be better understood, and as it is sufficiently understood that




it was not a pecuniary enterprise that led France into Mexico, I will state
what I undertand has induced this flagrant outrage upon public law, pledged faith,
and the rights of a neighboring republic, and what I understand to be the programme of France, so far as it can be understood from what we know. The present
constitutional government of Mexico is to be overthrown.  Almonte, or some
other instrument of French authority, is to be made temporary chief of the republic. France is to claim of the Government thus represented $27,000,000, together
with the expenses incurred in the prosecution of the present war, say $100,000,000
more. Mexico has no means with which to pay this or any such amount.
France will take territorial indemnity; that is, the Isthmus of Tehauntepec and the
adjacent territory, the States bordering on the Rio Grande, Lower California,
Sonora, and Sinaloa. This accomplished, the temporary chief, with the aid of
what is known as the Church party in Mexico, supported by the bayonets of the
French Emperor, will pronounce an Austrian prince Emperor of the Mexican
people under the protectorate of Austria and France. This done, and while this
is being done, France will confederate with the rebellion in the South. Even
now I do not doubt such movement is in progress, if not consummated. She
will then directly seek the possession and control of the territories south and west
of the Mississippi river. It will not be long before the front of an undisguised
enemy will be exhibited to this Republic; and simultaneous with that will be the
attempt to seize upon all there is of our Republic on the shores of the Pacific.
With the possession of the northern Pacific States of Mexico, and California and
Oregon, together with the other possessions of France in the Pacific and the
Indian ocean, she aims at the command of the ancient East, that vast country the
exhaustless wealth of which has built up successively the richest and most powerful States of Europe, and to but a portion of which Great Britain is chiefly indebted for her ascendency both on sea and land, India has been the prize of
many States. China is now the great prize of the nations. The three great
Powers, Russia, France, and England, like three giant birds of prey, have been
long hovering over that fated nation, watching each other and watching it.
France would be strong upon the Pacific, that, if she cannot seize all, she may at
least divide the prey.
In the time of the CTesars in the city of Rome was accumulated a great part of
the wealth of the known world. The unparalleled luxury of the Roman patricians of the first few centuries of our era took from Rome and'the luxurious cities
of the Mediterranean their gold and silver, much of which by caravans passed to
India, and through India to China, then known as the land of silks; and while it
is said that Nero had his house of gold, yet as early as the fifth century Rome
was destitute of the pre6ious metals. The precious metals, the moment they passed
into the territories of China, remained and continued a part of the fixed possessions
of the country. At the extreme of the world, holding all the rest of' mankind




6
barbarous, she only communicated with them to dispose of such things as in exchange for gold and silver would add to her wealth. The precious metals they
never parted with; so that for at least eighteen centuries this process of accumulation has been continued. There is probably more gold and silver in the fobrms of
moneyed wealth now in China than in all the States of Europe and America
combined.
It is not strange that France should regard China with an avaricious eye. The
French Emperor needs some such spoil as this to sustain his young authority and
support his vast ambition. To accomplish this result, he needs a commanding
position on the Pacific. He appears to be in the way of obtaining it, with our
consent and at our sacrifice.
I have advanced these opinions as the general policy of France rather out of the
regular line of argument; but thinking, perhaps, that from this statement the facts
I shall present may be more readily applied.
I will now recur more directly to the questions presented by the resolutions. I
have charged that the French Government gave us false and fraudulent assurances
as to the intention of that Government toward Mexico.
It seems there was some anxiety felt by this Government on the subject of the
movement of the allies. Our ministers at Paris, London, and Madrid were instructed to inquire as to the intention of the several Powers. In pursuance of instructions, Mr. Dayton called upon M. Thouvenel, French Minister of Foreign
Affairs, and under date of September 27, 1861, Mr. Dayton writes Mr. Seward:
"He [M. Thouvenel] assured me, however, that whatever England and France
might do, it would be done in reference to realizing their money debt only, and that
they had no purpose whatever to obtain any foothold in Mexico, or to occupy permanently any portion of its territory. He repeated this with emphasis. He furthermore
stated, explicity, that should Spain come in, as one of the Powers acting in concert
with France and England, for her claims, it would be with a distinct understanding
that she, too, should not attempt to hold any part of the territory. I was somewhat
particular in my inquiries upon this point, because I could not forbear the belief that
Spain might look to a reassertion of her former rule over Mexico or some part of it."
Here is a distinct assurance to the Government of the United States through its
accredited minister, that France would do nothing more than assert her claim for
her money debt. Again, on' the 31st of March, 1862, in a letter from Mr. Dayton
to Mr. Seward, he gives an account of another conversation on the subject with
M. Thouvenel:
" I then referred M. Thouvenel to your dispatch (No. 121) in reference to the action
of the allies towards Mexico. He said France could do no more than she had already
done, and that was to reassure us of her purpose not to interfere in any way with the
internal government of Mexico. That their sole object was to obtain payment of their
claims and reparation for the wrongs and injuries done to them."
Other assurances of a similar nature were continued to' be given from time to
time, evidently satisfying our amiable minister at the French Court, that Louis
Napoleon was the most innocent and harmless man alive.




7
And now that our right to proper and truthful assurances may be well understood, I will call the attention of the Senate to an official correspondence between
this Government and that of France, in 1826, during the Presidency of Mr. Adams,
and while Mr. Clay presided over the State Department, Mr. Brown our minister
at Paris, and M. Damas French Minister of Foreign Affairs. Our minister, in
writing to Mr. Clay, states a conversation with the French minister, as follows:
" I then, in the most delicate and friendly manner, alluded to the French squadron
which had appeared in the West Indies and on the American coast last summer, and
stated that my Government would expect that, in case France should again send out
a naval force disproportionate in the extent of its armament to the ordinary purpose
of a peace establishment, its design and object should be communicated to the Government of the United States. The Baron de Damas answered, that the vessels comprising that squadron had been stationed at different places, where the number on each
station was not more than sufficient for the service of protecting French commerce and
their West India islands; that it had become necessary definitely to settle the relations
between France and St. Domingo; that this squadron was hastily collected for that object, and that the nature of the service required secrecy. He said that it was not only
right in itself, but had been customary with the French Government to communicate
to friendly Governments, in time of peace, the objects of considerable fleets sent on distant service; that the peculiar circumstances in the instance I had alluded to had
occasioned a departure from the rule, but that, in future, the United States should be
duly apprised of the objects of every such squadron sent into their vicinity."
This was the policy of Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, akin to the doctrine proclaimed by Mr. Monroe in 1823. In a letter to Baron Damas, Mr. Brown says:
PARIS, January 2, 1826.
" Sir: In the month of July last I had the honor to state to your excellency, with the
utmost frankness, the views of the President of the United States in relation to the
Spanish islands of Cuba and Porto Rico. I informed you that the United States could
not see with indifference those islands passing from Spain to any other European power; and that the United States desired no change in their political or commercial condition, nor in the possession which Spain had in them. In the conference with which
your excellency honored me on this day, I repeated the same assurances, and added,
in a spirit of friendship, and with a view of guarding beforehand against any possible
difficulties on the subject which might arise, that my Government could not consent to
the occupation of those islands by any other Europern power than Spain, under any
contingency whatever."
Was this a declaration of war? The French Minister of Foreign Affairs was
told distinctly that this Government would not consent to the exchange of the authority of Spain for that of France or any other Government over Cuba and Porto Rico.
It was, then, the right of this Government to be informed, and to be truthfully
informed, as to the purposes of France in Mexico; and nothing but purposes hostile to this Government can be inferred from deceitful and false representations.
This right in us France admits; it follows France has purposely wronged us;
France is hostile.
And now, Mr. President, as to the particular proof of the original bad faith of
the French Government.  I am inclined to think my assertion sufficiently sustained by the recently published letter of the French Emperor to General Forey,
to be found in the morning papers, and which I shall read now, as having peculiar point in it so far as we are concerned. I will read his language:




8
"There will not be wanting people who will ask you why we go to lavish men and
money for the establishment of a regular Government in Mexico. In the present state
of the civilization of the world the prosperity of America is not a matter of indifference to Europe; for it is she who feeds our manufactories and gives life to our commerce. We have an interest in this, that the Republic of the United States be powerful and prosperous; but we have none in this. that she should seize possession of all
the Mexican Gulf, dominate from thence the Antilles, as well as South America, and
be the sole dispenser of the products of the New World."
France makes war to restrain our progress; she makes war upon a sister republic bordering upon our weakest and most valuable possessions; and I am told
no voice must be raised here, either of warning to France, of sympathy for
Mexico, or for counsel among ourselves. For myself, I will, for one, raise my
voice not merely to warn, but to denounce, and I here denounce the proceedings
of France as the most flagrant robber outrage that has been attempted by any
modern civilized State; an outrage that challenges the condemnation of every
other civilized State, and demands our interference; and if what I have to say
fails at the present moment to reach the ears of those to whom I most immediately address myself, I will still trust it may be heard when there is some power and
will in this Government to maintain the right.
It will require no skill in argument to justify any form of denunciation against
France. She has made the truth of her own falsehood and wrong so patent that
it cannot be disguised.
The relations of Almonte, the Mexican refugee, to this Government must be
well known. As the confederate of Slidell and Mason, and as one of the conspirators in Europe against the integrity of the Union, he has played a conspicuous
part. He is well known,4o have been a bitter enemy of this Government ever
since he was made prisoner at the battle of San Jacinto. Driven from Mexico in
1857, he visits Europe to engage foreign arms in the overthrow of the constitutional Government of his country. To the Government of Spain he proposes
the re-establishment of Spanish authority in Mexico. To Louis Napoleon he
proposes the establishment of a monarchy under French protection. A shrewd
and adroit politician, he secures a favorable hearing at both the courts of France
and Spain. Spain dreams of her old dominion. France projects an Austrian
alliance. The third Napoleon has a notion similar to that of the first Napoleonan Austrian alliance, to be confederated with the oldest dynasty in Europe; to
unite herself with the Power to which belongs the iron crown of' Charlemagne; to
join in firm alliance with the first Catholic Power in Europe. Such motives and
such ambition drove Josephine into widowhood, and perhaps Napolean I into
exile, and it is not beyond the range of possibility that the present emperor may
find that in this his ambition has overleaped itself.
That the French Emperor undertook from  the first to overturn the present
Government and establish Maximilian upon a throne in Mexico is now openly
avowed. In furtherance of this and other views, Almonte was taken under




9
French protection; but for his illness at the time he would have sailed with the
French fleet. On his arrival in Mexico, he was escorted by French troops into
the interior, against the remonstrances of the representatives of both the Spanish
and English Governments. Under the protection of French bayonets, he had
himself proclaimed chief of the republic. He was made, by the French authorities,
the instrument to excite domestic revolution in aid of the arms of France. These
facts appear in the diplomatic correspondence of this Government. in relation to
Mexican affairs furnished by the Secretary of State to this Congress. The same
protection was afforded to the Padre Miranda, and was attempted in favor of
Miramon, and would have been effeeted but for the violent interference of the
English admiral. These facts are sufficient to prove that France designed overturning the existing Government, and purposed to deceive this Government by
assurances to the contrary. But the climax of French outrage is to be found in
the false and fraudulent pretexts set up by France as the justificaiion of her proceedings.
The entire monyed claim which France had any right to set up against Mexico
amounted to but $190,000. A Swiss banker by the name of Jecker, by a fraudulent arrangement with the French minister resident in Mexico and Miraimon, then
the insurgent chief in possession of the capital, advanced to Miramon $750,000,
for which Miramon caused to be issued $15,000,000 of Mexican bonds. The
full payment of the $15,000,000 was one of the peremptory demands of the French
Government. France made a further claim of $12,000,000 on general account,
without item or specification, for wrongs done French citizens. The representatives of' England and Spain protested against these claims as without the shadow
of justice.  England and Spain asked only a fair adjustment of actual
claims, and a reasonable provision for payment. France not only demanded the
$27,000,000, but whatever she might choose to claim as indemnity on account of
her military operations. France demanded, and knew she was demanding, not
only what was unjust, but what Mexico could not by any possibility perform.
The English representatives consulted with the home Government, and the English Government remonstrated with the French. But the French Government
persisted. Great Britain and Spain withdrew from the alliance, settled amicably
their claims on Mexico, and withdrew from the Mexican territories, leaving France
alone to pursue her long-determined scheme of conquest.
The outrageous nature of the French claim exhibited against Mexico can best
be understood from an examination of the French ultimatum presented to the
allies, and which first opened their eyes to the duplicity of the French Government. This ultimatum will be found in the English Blue Book, sent by the
Queen to Parliament, in which the correspondence relating to this subject is
much more full than in the correspondence furnished to Congress.
I call the attention of the Senate to this paper. It exhibits an outrage too great




10
to be characterized. It not only offends the common Sense of justice of mankind, but deserves execration every where and by all men. There is a further
strange fact about this ultimatum.  It appears to have been presented to the
English and Spanish representatives, and when repudiated by them, without any
demand in fact upon Mexico, or any effort at adjustment, France prepares for
war. 1 will read the entire paper, fobr I wish this Government and people to understand the character of this Emperor of the French and his Government; what
Mexico may expect, and what we too may expect, if' his power proves equal to
his will for mischief.
"The undersigned, representatives of France, have the honor, as stated in the collective note addressed this day to the Mexican Government by the plenipotentiaries of
France, England, and Spain, to draw up as follo ws the ultimatum of which they have
received orders in the name of the Government of his Majesty, the Emperor, to demand
the pure and simple acceptance by Mexico"ART. 1. Mexico engages to pay France a sum of $12,000,000, at which amount are
calculated the total French demands consequent upon events which have occurred up
to July last, with the exceptions stipulated in articles two and four below. As regards
those events which have taken place since the 31st July last, and of which a special
reservation is here made, the amount of the claims against Mexico, to which they may
give rise, will be fixed hereafter by the plenipotentiaries of France.
"ART. 2. The sums still due under the convention of 1853, which are not included in
article one above, shall be paid to the rightful claimants in the form and allowing the
terms of payment stipulated in the said convention of 1853.
"ART. 3. Mexico shall be held to the full, loyal, and immediate execution of the
contract concluded in the month of February, 1859, between the Mexican Government
and the firm of Jecker."
That is, they shall be held to a full and immediate payment of $15,000,000, for
which Miramon only had received $750,000, by a fraudulent contract between
himself, the French minister, and Jecker.
"ART. 4. Mexico is pledged to the immediate payment of the $11,000 forming the
balance of the indemnity which was stipulated for in favor of the widow and children
of M. Ricke, Vice Consul of France at Tepic, assassinated in October, 1859.
"The Mexican Government shall further, and according to the obligation already
contracted by them, deprive of his rank and appointments, and punish in an exemplary manner, Colonel Rojas, one of the assassins of M. Ricke, with the express condition that Rojas shall not again be invested with any employment, command, or public
functions whatsoever.
" ART. 5. The Mexican Government also engages to search out and to punish the authors of the numerous murders committed upon Frenchmen, and especially the mur.
derers of M. Davesne."
Observe, it is stated generally, "numerous murders,"
"ART. 6. The authors of the attacks committed on the 14th of August last against
the minister of the Emperor, and o/~he outrages to which the representative of France
has been exposed in the first part of the month of November, 1861, shall be subjected
to exemplary punishment; and the Mexican Government shall be bound to afford to
France and to her representative the reparation and satisfaction due by reason of these
deplorable excesses."
No such attack had, in fact, been made. They deal in general terms, and the
reason why they deal in general terms is more patent from an examination of all
the various provisions of this ultimatum:




"ART. 7. In order to insure the execution of the above articles five and six, and the
punishment for all the outrages which have been or which may be committed against
the persons of the Frenchmen residing in the republic, the minister of France shall
always have the right of being present, whatever the case at issue, and by such representative as he may designate for that purpose, at all proceedings instituted by the
criminal courts of the country.
"The minister shall possess the same right with regard to all criminal prosecutions
instituted against his countrymen."
No criminal court can sit in Mexico for all time to come without a representative of the French Government on the bench. This is worse than the Austrians
in Venetia.
"ART. 8. The indemnities stipulated in the present ultimatum shall bear a legal annual rate of interest of six per cent., to date from the 17th of July last and until their
complete payment.
"ART. 9. As a guarantee for the accomplishment of the financial and other conditions laid down in the present ultimatum, France shall have the right of occupying the
ports of Vera Cruz, of Tampico, and such other ports of the republic as she shall think
fit; and of there establishing commissioners designated by the imperial Government,
whose duty it shall be to take care that those Powers which have a legal claim shall
receive such funds as are to be levied for their benefit on the produce of the maritime
custom houses of Mexico, in fulfillment of the foreign conventions, and that French
agents shall receive those sums which are due to France."
That is, France may occupy every port of Mexico.
"The commissioners in question shall, besides, be invested with the power of reducing, either by one-half or in a smaller proportion, according as they may judge advisable, the duties at present levied in the ports of the republic."
That is, they may reduce the duties to a nominal sum, postpone the payment
of this debt forever, hold Mexico in a sort of peonage, commanding all her seaports, and, in fact, having her in absolute possession.
"It is expressly understood that merchandise which has already paid import duty
shall in no case and on no pretext whatsoever, be subjected by the supreme Government
or by the State authorities, to any additional custom duty, inland or otherwise, exceeding the proportion of fifteen per cent. on the duties paid on importation."
That is, France, having seized on all revenue derived from duties on imports,
prevents Mexico from imposing any internal revenue on whatever foreign goods
may be introduced, and can at her will break down all Mexican manufacturers.
"ART. 10. All measures which shall be judged necessary for regulating the apportionment among the parties interested of the sums levied upon the produce of the customs,
as well as the manner and the periods of the payment of the indemnities above stipulated, as also for guarantying the execution of the conditions of the present ultimatum
shall be framed in concert with the plenipotentiaries of France, England, and Spain."
This shows the character of that French faith in which it seems our minister at
Paris and our Government here have so implicity trusted.  With such a demand
insisted upon by the French Government, and which is used only to drive off the
allies, and is not even presented to Mexico; with such perfidy not only exhibited
toward Mexico, but also toward ourselves, what may we not anticipate from
France? We can anticipate nothing less than war. I insist that she is waging




12
substantive war upon us now. It requires less than a prophet to predict open War
the moment France has completed the required preparations for the onslaught.
Mr. President, I think I may be permitted to say that it is somewhat strange we
should be found furnishing facilities to France to aid her in subjugating Mexico,
while, at the same time, we have denied to Mexico like facilities. I do not understand it. It is said Mexico wants arms: France transportation.  We cannot
afford to part with arms. Let me ask, does not this Government require transportation as much as arms? If I am correctly inf)rrned, we have quite as great a
demand for mules as fbr muskets to carry on our operations against the rebels.
Before proceeding further, however, in connection with the French ultimatum,
I will refer to the Blue Book for a letter from Earl Cowley, at Paris, to Lord
Russell, as to how the claims on Mexico were to be adjusted. It is of a piece
with the ultimatum. Repeating his conversation with M. Thouvenel, Earl Cowley says:
"His excellency [M. Thouvenel] took this occasion to say that he could not consent
to the appointment of a mixed commission, as had been suggested at one of the conferences at Vera Cruz, to arbitrate upon the demands of the three Governments; but he
could not be averse to a proposal emanating from M. de Saligny, that a French commission, consisting of the French secretary of legation, the French consul at Vera
Cruz, and a French merchant, should decide upon the merits of French claimants. If,
after inquiry, it should be found that the aggregate amount of claims admitted by that
commission was less than $12,000,000,.of course that sum would be diminished in proportion."
The $12,000,000 of claims were not to be referred to any mixed commission, as
an English and a French commission for example, but to three persons named:
the secretary of Minister Saligny, who had been mixed up in these claims, the
French consul at Vera Cruz, under his control, and a French merchant also under
his control. This was the way in which justice was to be administered to Mexico
at the point of French bayonets.
"I asked M. Thouvenel why M. de Saligny should not pursue the course adopted by
Sir Charles Wyke is his project of ultimatum, and be satisfied with an engagement on
the part of the Mexican Government, that all just claims not yet sent in should be
paid. It must be admitted that M. Thouvenel's answer admits with difficulty of reply.
What reliance, he asked, could be placed in any engagements of the kind after the
experience which the allies had of Mexican faith? But I observed you must in some
way or other trust a Mexican Government, for you do not suppose that the country is
rich enough to pay off at once all the demands already made upon it, to say nothing
of those which you have in store. Do you mean to remain there until every farthing
shall have been paid? Our conversation terminated by M. Thouvenel observing, that
while the Governments were discussing at home, events were marching in Mexico, and
that it was very difficult to send instructions relating to matters which had occurred
two months before the comments on them could be read."
This discussion is too plain to afford room for comment.
The charge d'affaires of Mexico in Washington, in complaining to our Government of the attitude and course of this Government toward France and Mexico, is
informed by our Secretary that he was not advised that war existed between
France and Mexico. I desire to call the attention of the Senate to a letter written




more than a year since by our minister at London to Mr. Seward. Mr. Adams
writes:
"You will doubtless have had your attention drawn before this time to the course
which the Mexican intervention is taking. On the reception of the news of the landing of the Spanish force and its occupation of Vera Cruz, the announcement is made of
the outfit of a French force designed to follow up the advantage. It is no longer concealed
that the intention is to advance to the capital, and to establish a firm government, with
the consent of the people, at that place. But who are meant by that term does not appear. This issue is by no means palatable to the Government here, though it is difficult to imagine that they could have been blind to it. Feeble murmurs of discontent
are heard, but they will scarcely be likely to count for much in the face of the obligation
under which the action of the Emperor in the Trent case has placed them. The military occupation will go on, and will not cease with the limits now assigned to it. It is
not difficult to understand the nature of the fulcrum thus obtained for operations in a
new and a different quarter, should the occasion be made to use it. The expedition to
the city of Mexico may not stop until it shows itself in the heart of the Louisiana
purchase."
This letter was certainly a word of warning to our Secretary. The English
Blue Book, to which the Secretary must have had access, shows that the French
authorities regarded it as war from the time of the landing at Vera Cruz. This
they have long since avowed. The letter of the minister is full of warning  as to
what is French policy. It would be well if Senators would carefully consider the
substance of this letter. What with him was opinion has already proved to be
fact, to the extent of the attempt by French officials, the representatives of, the
French Government, to obtain Texas by negotiation, with the Texan authorities
in rebellion. The letter of our minister has the sound of different metal from the
reply of our Secretary, who says;
"I shall carefully observe the progress of affairs in Mexico. If, indeed, our own
Union were likely to fall, and the southern portion of the United States were to pass
under a European protectorate, we could have small ground to hope that we could save
Mexico from European reconquest and subjugation."
Again, taking counsel of his fears:
"But with reassurances of our own safety, comes up to us an absolute confidence that no
part of the continent will lose republican institutions and self-government."
This is a strange letter in the presence of the warning of Mr. Adams and the
facts already developed in Mexico. That France designed the establishment of a
monarchy in Mexico was understood in diplomatic circles throughout Europe, and
was common tea-table gossip throughout the United States. It had been particularly stated in the English Parliament, and was not in terms denied anywhere.
I have before me a work, entitled "Mexico in 1861-62,"' by Mr. Lempriere, an
English gentleman, in which is quoted a part of a debate in Parliament on this
subject. This subject is one that may be debated in the British Parliament, but
not in the American Senate. In the House of Commons, Mr. Fitzgerald remarked:
" Had her Majesty's Government no warning of those views being held by the French
Government? M. Thouvenel, in one of his despatches, said:'We do not wish to inter



14
fere; but we think that the presence of our forces there will give that moral support to
the monarchical feeling which we believe to exist, and that there will be a chance and
opportunity for the establishment of a new and regenerated Government."'
Mr. Fitzgerald in complaining that before the treaty of London England was
advised of the policy of France to establish a monarchy, at least to reorganize the
Government in Mexico. He goes on to say:
"It was idle to say, when Almonte was constantly coming to this country, and communicating with the Government and with public bodies, and after the language of M.
Thouvenel-it was idle to say that.the Government had not a distinct warning that it
was the intention of the French Governmet to interfere in the internal affairs of
Mexico, and possibly to establish a new form of Government."
I will now leave the question as to what this Government should have known,
and return to the subject of French faith, as I wish there to be no misunderstanding as to the facts upon which I rest my conclusions. I have before me a letter
from Admiral Dunlop written to Vice Admiral Sir A. Milne, under date of March
4, 1862, a portion of which I will read.
"SIR: With reference to a letter to you from the Secretary of the Admiralty, relative
to a large party in Mexico being in favor of a monarchial form of government, and that
there is an intention of calling the Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian to the throne, I
have the honor to inform you that the subject having been mentioned to me by Vice
Admiral Jurieu de la Gravidre, when I first met him at Havana, I have taken every
means in my power to ascertain whether their are any good grounds for supposing that
any influential party in Mexico is in favor of a monarchy, and the information I have
obtained from the best sources within my reach leads me to suppose that the only party
in Mexico at all in favor of a monarchy is the Church party, and that merely because
it sees no other prospect whatever of regaining influence with the Mexican people.
" 2. The Church party embraces all that is bigoted and fanatical in the country, and
is therefore retrogressive in policy and at variance with the spirit of the age; and it is
detested by a great majority of the people, who are in favor of a liberal policy."
I read this that it may be understood what were the views of an English monarchist in regard to the true sentiments of the Mexican people, and to show whether or
not it is true that the Emperor Napoleon III is in fact lending aid to the majority
of that people for the purpose of' establishing a firm Government. Now, let me
read from a letter of Earl Russell to Sir Charles Wyke, on the same question, as
to the policy of the French Government:
" The difference which has arisen between the French Government on the one side,
and the British and Spanish Governments on the other, is greatly to be deplored; yet
it is to be remarked that it is a difference rather as to facts than as to principle.
The French embassador, by order of his Government, signed most willingly the convention of the 31st of October, by which the allies pledged themselves not to interfere
with the right of the people of Mexico to choose their own form of government. But
the emperor and his Government appear to be persuaded that the name of Ferdinand
Maximilian put forth by General Almonte, will produce a general burst of enthusiasm
in Mexico, and a universal adhesion to that prince in the provinces. Now, either this
is an error, or it is not."
*      *      *      *      *       *      *       *      *      *
"The only apprehension of a serious kind which I entertain is, that the French
general, anxious for the cause of monarchy and of Catholic unity, may lend the aid of
the French arms to the reactionary party in Mexico, and thus give fresh life to the
civil war, which appears at present to have almost died away."




15
When the civil war had, in fact, died away; when the regular constitutional
Government was in full authority; when all the leading men of the reactionary
party had been driven forth into exile, then comes the French Government, apparently with the support of England and Spain, to overturn the Government that
had then the appearance of stability, and certainly had constitutional form and
authority. France comes forward to overthrow that Government, and establish a
monarchy in its stead. This purpose again appears more particularly from the
proces verbal had at Orizaba, after the difference between the allies, for the purpose (f preserving the causes of their several complaints and difference. I quote
from he Blue Book. "The Count de Reus "-the same with General Prim, the
Spanish commander"The Count de Reus then questions M. de Saligny respecting a personal transaction;
the itter appears to have said to Colonel Menduina, Governor of Vera Cruz, and to M.
Cores, consul for Spain in the port, that the Count de Reus only found fault with the
pro-cts of Mexican monarchy in favor of the Archduke because he himself aspired to
get himself crowned Emperor of Mexico; and he appears even to have declared that
be possessed proof of this. The Count de Reus exclaims loudly against such an assertion, and summons his colleague to give explanations on the subject, adding that such
an absurb report in the mouth of the public would not have possessed any importance,
but that coming from M. de Saligny it required a serious aspect; and that, lastly, if
the proofs existed of this he insisted on their production.
"The French commissioner remembers, it is true, having spoken in this sense; but
he only repeated what was publicly reported."
The minister, Saligny, here admits he had stated that the only reason why the
Count de Reus found fault with Maximilian, was that he, De Reus, wished to be
king himself, admitting his own position and that of his Government by the very
statement. It was well understood that this was French policy at an early day,
and the proof of it runs through both the American and English correspondence
on Mexican affairs. It is strange our Secretary could not see it. It is, then, unquestionably true that France, first averring to the world and assuring us that she
had no purpose to more than collect a mere money debt due French citizens, at
the same time designed, under cover of false, fraudulent, and unfounded pretexts,
the subjugation of Mexico, and the placing upon a throne to be established in
Mexico an Austrian prince.
I think I have done with so much of the discussion. I will now discuss what
I regard as other points of French policy.
France has no country affording a home supply of the precious metals. It is
otherwise with Russia, Austria, and England, as also with this Republic. France
has no considerable colonial possessions to which she can direct her own emigrating population and at the same time add to the strength of France. She has no
such countries tributary as are India, Australia, and Canada to England. From
the time of Richelieu she has sought to build up a colonial and commercial policy,
from and by which to derive wealth and strength to the central State, and during
the same time to secure a country producing largely the precious metals, with a
riew to control both their use and direction. In the pursuit of her policies, France




16
has always been the most unscrupulous and aggressive of the modern European
States.
What cause had France for her assault upon the Sandwich Islands, except to get
the possession of a certain commanding commercial position in the Pacific ocean?
What for her assault upon the natives of the Society Islands? What for her taking
possession of the island of New Caledonia, when it was not her right by discovery
or by any of the laws of nations? What for her aggressive war against the Annamites, the people of Cochin China? What for her outrageous assault upon the
King of Siam but two or three years since? What, but a determination to get
certain commanding positions without regard to right, without regard to lay, but
for the benefit and strength of the central Government of France? What rigl.t had
France in Africa; and for what purpose, but to gratify the mob of Paris, wa, that
brave Prince of the desert, Abdel Kader, brought from his native plains a captive,
as was once a British king to grace a Roman triumph 2 Perhaps he contemphtes
making Juarez, the distinguished patriot and chief of the Mexican republic, a simlar
exhibition, with which to feast the eyes of French curiosity. All these several acts
of invasion have been made regardless of right, without it be the robber's right; and
the Crime of robbery is not dinminished because done in the name of kings or emperors.
I will now approach matters nearer home. The possession of the territories, now
part of the United States on the' Pacific, was contemplated by the first Napoleon.
The French voyageurs and trappers from Canada and Louisiana, traveled, trapped
and hunted from the Russian possessions in the north to the Gulf of California.
Among these persons, our own mountain men, and even the Indian tribes, are still
to be found the evidences of his policy. In 1839 Marshal Soult, then Prime Minister to Louis Philippe, detached M. Duflot de Mofras from the Legation at Madrid,
and assigned him to the legation in Mexico, with instructions to examine and report
upon the value and condition of the Pacific coast from the Gulf of California north.
His work was published in Paris in 1844, in two volumes. His business was to
ascertain the facilities and advantages of planting French establishments upon that
coast. The advantages to France for commercial purposes, particularly in relation
to the prospective trade with China and Japan, in securing a position in California
and Oregon, as well as the islands of the Pacific, are set forth in the strongest terms.
In writing of California he says:
" It is evident to us that California may belong to whatever nation may choose to send
there a sloop-of-war and two hundred men."
And again:
"Of all this vast extent of country, comprised between the equator and Behring's
straits, the sou:hern part of Oregon and Upper California form the portion which by its
central position seems destined to acquire the greatest importance."
Here, what was temptation for the French King is now infinitely more tempting
to the French Emperor.




17
In 1850 the French Government, under the pretext of disbanding and providing for
a portion of the Garde Mlobile, fitted out and sent to California a large body of these
experienced soldiers, who were immediately taken under the protection and patronage
of M. Dillon, then French consul at San Francisco. The heavy emigration of our
own people from this side of the mountains was not then anticipated by France.
The political nature of this movement has been well understood in California. A
large body of experienced French veterans, supported by a large French emigration,
an emigration favored by the Government of France, under the management of the
French representative, a man of consummate address and talent, was sufficient to
arrest the attention of even a looker-on in California. The people of San Francisco
had some taste of the quality of these gentlemen of the sword in the unfortunate
disturbances of 1856. These French soldiers, to a man, took up arms against the
authorities and the laws, and a wilder and fiercer set of desperadoes never established
any reign of terror. They insisted on taking the city prison by assault, they demanded a wholesale slaughter of obnoxious citizens, and particularly the city and
State officials, and from  the first, until finally disbanded, their watchword was
revolution. Their demand for lives, and a revolutionary movement throughout the
State, alarmed every good citizen connected with the movement, of which they
made so prominent a feature, and but for this timely alarm they would have caused
the streets of the city of San Francisco to run red with blood. But France has not
rested with establishing a military and physical power in California; in addition to
this military nucleus and a large French emigrant population, she has promoted the
establishment of a French moneyed power in that State. Through the system of
moneyed associations organized in Paris, the capital to be used in California, that
State is almost as badly mortgaged to the French as Mexico was to the Church and
the monasteries. I state these things not merely to indicate French policy oni the
Pacific, but to show further that France is now a latent power in our Pacific
possessions.
But there is more to be said in this connection.
The expedition started, in 1852, by the French Count de Raoousset-Boulbon was
at the instance of the French consul, one of the ablest diplomats France has ever
had abroad; and it met with the direct countenance and assistance firom the French
minister plenipotentiary in Mexico. De Raousset-Boulbon organized his well-armed
party of Frenchmen in California, went down to Sonora, boasting to a friend of mine
in San Francisco that, if successful in his undertaking, he would  "send a ship to
France which would buy the empire."  He quarreled with the Mexican Governor
of Sonora, attacked him in Hermosillo, the principal city of the State, and captured
the place. He was, however, too weak in numbers to hold the State, and did not,
as he probably expected, find the people ready to accept his rule; so he:made terms
with Governor Blanco, extortel a sum of money from him  sufficient to defray the
expenses of his party back to California, and temporarily abandoned Sonora, predicting a speedy return, with better results.




18
In those days Santa Anna was playing, or attempting to play, in Mexico the same
game so successfully carried on by Louis Napoleon in France. Santa Anna commenced his progress by adopting the title of "Serene Highness," and doubtless had
the high approval of Louis Napoleon's minister in Mexico. The wily and sagacious
chieftain summoned the bold and talented De Raousset-Boulbon to his capital, and
appointed him colonel in the Mexican army; and with this commission he returned
to California, with the purpose of organizing a French force of three thousand men
for the occupation of Sonora, Lower California, and Sinaloa, and thus to gain the
control of the sea of Cortes. As was well stated by the Revue des deux Mondes,
"perhaps he himself dreamed of the empire of Mexico."
The enlistment, organizing, and arming of this force proceeded in California under
the patronage of Monsieur Dillon, the French consul, and that of Santa Anna's vice
consul at the same port. The attention of our Government was attracted to the
movement, and General Wool promptly took measures to ascertain its bearings and
its extent. Dillon became alarmed and published a proclamation, carefully worded
which, while it would save the appearance of complicity on the part of the French
Emperor, would not seriously injure the prospects of the enterprise. He cautioned
all French subjects to carefully abstain from joining any expedition which would
place them out of the reach of their Government's protection, but at the same time
professed in private to see nothing illegal in De Raousset's enterprise. A large
ship, the Challenge, one of the best ships that ever sailed from our harbor, had been
chartered, and was nearly ready for sea, when the American Government seized
her. The Mexican vice consul was arrested and tried before the United States district court for a violation of the neutrality laws.
The French consul, Dillon, was subpenaed to appear before the judge of the
United States district court. He refused to appear and give his testimony. The
judge issued his warrant or writ of attachment against his person to bring him before the court; and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations will remember how fiercely Monsieur Sartiges fought out with Mr. Secretary Marcy the
indignity claimed to have been heaped on the Government of France, because
it had been sought to make Dillon a witness concerning an expedition of which he
had been the master spirit. It is true, France repudiated that in her public journals, but those persons who then lived in the country, and who understood the records of the courts of justice of the day, knew that the reverse of those French
statements was the truth; that it was an expedition gotten up to take Sonora by
the French Government, using the same force that had been sent out originally
from the Garde Mobile to revolutionize and take possession of California. Of the
whole force, only about three hundred Frenchmen were on board the ship Challenge
at the time of her seizure. This party only sailed. Our Government had acted deficiently in maintaining her neutrality laws to that extent in this instance.




19
And here I must with sadness allude to the action of our Government at that
time, which allows of a suspicion that even then treason was lurking in the hearts
of men high in place and power. Mr. Jefferson Davis was then Secretary of War.
The vigorous action of General Wool against the breakers of the law of neutrality
was disapproved by the Secretary, and he was so hampered by the contradictory
action of the War Department that his power for wholesome action in the matter
was nearly destroyed. The Challenge stole from the harbor of San Francisco while
De Raousset-Boulbon was under surveillance by the military authorities. Further
recruiting for the expedition was abandoned, and subsequently the leader, taking
advantage of a storm, escaped on a small vessel, and after a long and severe voyage,
joined his battalion in Guaymas, Sonora. At that time General Yanez was military commandant of the Mexican forces in Sonora. A patriotic man, he was opposed to the projects of Santa Anna, and, while he obeyed the order of the central
power to receive the French troops under Colonel De Raousset-Boulbon, he carefully
abstained, on the one hand from assigning them to any separate duty apart from the
Mexican soldiers, and on the other hand, he caused them to be promptly paid every
week to prevent any pretexts for mutiny. De Raousset found himself, therefore,
confined to performing garrison duty in a sea-port town, instead of holding an indepedent command in the sparsely populated interior, where he could easily consummate his plans of conquest. The battalion remained inactive week after week, the
colonel applying almost daily for orders. But the Mexican general maintained his
policy, treating the French commander with all the respect due to his grade, and
issuing orders to him and his troops in connection with the native officers and soldiers. Finally De Raoussett demanded that he should be furnished with artillery
and sent to the frontier. The general quietly informed him that when he desired
his services on -the frontier he would give him his orders and prescribe his armaments. Hopeless of success by other means, so long as Yanez held command in
Sonora, De Raoussett-Boulbon boldly mutinied, seized two pieces of artillery, and
attempted to take possession of the place. His soldiers, almost Jo a man, fought
desperately under his orders, but after a severe conflict the Mexican troops, with the
assistance of the local militia, triumphed, and the count surrendered himself and
party as prisoners, he nobly refusing to make terms for himself, but providing that
his soldiers should be well treated and sent out of the country. He was condemned
and shot at Guaymas, on the 12th of August, 1854, and his men were soon sent
back to California by the Mexican Government.
Thus ended, disastrously, the second attempt of France for the conquest of northwestern Mexico, which she is now attempting with larger and more certain means,
and in a more direct manner.
The consul Dillon, whose particular business it had been for many years to superintend French interests on the Pacific, was now withdrawn from San Francisco, and
made consul general of the West Indies. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec, a canal




20
through Nicaraugua, and a more direct movement upon Mexico, induced the French
Emperor to change the base of his operations from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. France had determined to control Mexico. The idea of a French-Austrian
monarchy may have been an after-thought. The skillful and fraudulent diplomacy
of France deceived England and Spain into a partial co6peration, and deceived
this Government into a polite, if not submissive, acquiescence. It would seem that
with all her cunning arts and disciplined arms, France has thus far failed. If it is
true, as reported, that the French troops have been twice defeated, and the French
fleet driven from the little port of Acapulco, perhaps it may prove wise for the ambitious Emperor to consider whether or not, while he is endeavoring to subjugate the
free people of Mexico, his own people may not undertake to subjugate him. Still,
it may be true that now, in the face of defeat, he will not dare abandon his enterprise; we, indeed, are informed that fifteen thousand of the Imperial Guard, the
choicest troops of France, are ordered out as reinforcements. The city of the Montezumas is nevertheless still in the distance; and I trust that long before its streets
and palaces, are commanded by French artillery, if Mexico needs aid, she may receive sufficient aid from this Republic.
This question of our duty to render efficient aid to Mexico is no mere question of
the Monroe doctrine. If the rule laid down by Mr. Monroe in his messages of December 1823 and 1824 is a wise and just one, demanded by a just consideration
both of our rights and interests, it follows, by a much stronger reason, that the duty
is now devolved upon this Government to protest against and, if necessary, resist by
force of arms the extension of the power and policies of France, with the monarchial institutions of Europe, over the neighboring republic of Mexico.
There has been much dispute of late years as to the extent of the Monroe doctrine,
and exactly as to what condition of facts it applies. In 1856 it was claimed to apply to the affairs of Central America by some of our public men; by others it was
denied; but the doctrine, as laid down and applied by Mr. Monroe, has become established law, not disputed on this continent, and it has from time to time been
acquiesced in by the principal States of Europe.
The Spanish American States had achieved a successful revolution, ahd established
in the place of Spanish rule republican institutions. The alliance of European Powers, known as the Holy Alliance, looked to the maintenance of legitimacy everywhere, and claimed the " undoubted right to take a hostile attitude in regard to those
States, in which the overthrow of the Government may operate as an example.''
The recovery of the revolted colonies of Spain was embraced in the scope of their
determination; and in 1823 the Conde de Ofalia, Spanish minister of foreign affairs,
addressed a circular letter to the Courts of Paris, St. Petersburg and Vienna, in the
name of his " august master," inviting a conference at Paris, to the end that the allies
might aid his Catholic Majesty " in adjusting the affairs of the revolted countries of




America."  To this conference Great Britain was invited, but declined in most unequivocal terms.
President Monroe, in his message in 1823, speaking of the Spanish American colonies, whose independence we had already recognized, remarks:
"We owe it to candor and to the amicable relations existin, between the United
States and those Powers (allies) to declare that we should consider any attempt on their
part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace
and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have
not interfered, and shall not interfere; but with the Governments who have declared their
independence, and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration, and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the
purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European Power, in any other light than as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United Statds."
In the same message, the President further remarks:
"It is impossible that the allies should extend their political system to any portion of
either continent (North or South Amnerica) withomut endangearinq oulrpeace and happiness."
~ *    "It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition
in any form with indifference."
Again, in his message of 1824, President Monroe, speaking of the Spanish American States, remarks:
" But in regard to our neighbors our situation is different. It is impossible for the European Governments to interfere in their concerns, especially in those alluded to, which
are vital, without affectingr us; indeed, the mbtive which might induce such interference
in the present state of the war between the parties, if a war it may be called, would appear
to be equally applicable to us."
The last expression I quote is the same in substance with the warning given by
our Minister at London, Mr. Adams, and which I have already quoted. It is the
same principle and doctrine maintained by the succeeding Administration of President Adams, in the correspondence with the French Government to which I have
also referred, and the full justice of which was then admitted by France.
As a complement to the quotations I have made from  President Monroe, I will
read a scrap of history from the North American Review, for April, 1856. The
writer has been referring to the period when Spain had applied to the allies for their
cooperation in recovering the revolted Spanish American colonies:
" At this juncture of events, and just before the annual opening of the English Parliament, the message of President Monroe arrived in Europe, and by its well-weighed and
explicit language on Spanish-American affairs, coupled with the refusal of England to take
part in the proposed congress,'effectually put an end to the project of assembling one
similar to those which had met at Vienna, Aixla-Chapelle, Laybach and Verona.' Such,
at least, is the testimony of Mr. Stapleton, in his' Political Life of the Right Honorable
George Canning.' Mr. Broughamn, in his address on the king's speech at the opening of
the parliamentary session on February 3, 1824, spoke of the arrival in Europe of President
Monroe's message as an event by which'the question with regard to South America, he
believed, was disposed of, or nearly so, and than which no event had ever dispersed greater
joy, exultation and gratitude, over all the freemen of Europe.' At a later day in the same
session, on the 18th of March, Lord John Russell contrasted its'decided language' with
the fluctuating policy of the British ministry as represented at Verona."
The policy indicated by Mr. Monroe has continued to be the fixed, uniform and
unbending policy and law of conduct of this Government down to the time of




22
the movement of the allies under the treaty at London and the present French
movement. The political necessity of adhering to it has not been disputed in this
country, while its wisdom has been admitted and commended as well in Europe
as America.
Is it radical weakness in our Government; is it want of will in those who
administer our Government; is it because we are weaker to maintain a policy than
we were forty years ago; is it because we cannot, should not, or will not, that we
seem to ignore the wisdom and experience of the past and yield a cardinal doctrine
approved, and well approved, for near one half a century?
I see no radical weakness in the Government; we are stronger now for foreign
war than we were forty years ago. We can lend all the aid required to maintain
the integrity and independence of Mexico. In 1823, the Holy Alliance, the combined strength of the continental Powers of Europe, threatened interference. We
firmly advised them, in substance, "then you are at war with us."  All Europe
paused, and then abandoned the projected enterprise. France now stands alone;
and I undertake to say, that if all continental Europe was now combined in the
common purpose of subjugating Mexico, and placing a European prince upon the
Mexican throne, with all our domestic difficulties upon our shoulders, we still are
strong enough to maintain ourselves and Mexico. Our difficulties do not change
the rule of our duty, nor relieve us from resisting, to the extremity of most sanguinary war, the overthrow of a republic on our borders by the arms of a European
potentate, and the establishment in its place of a European monarchy. Let those
who, taking counsel of their fears, and having the power to act in this matter, yet
tamely and silently yield, and particularly countenance such disastrous results,
await the time, soon to come, when France shall strike direct at us; and I assure
them they will find the wilderness and the desert places more comfortable for them
than national council halls or places where our people most do congregate.
The States of Europe are not so strong against us as some seem to fear. The
emperors and kings of Europe stand in slippery places. The present power of
France or Austria is not possessed, even if at present commanded by either emperor.
To truly possess the power they seek to continue to command, demands that the
experiment of free government on this continent shall prove a failure, and to secure
the result of such a failure is now nearer to the interests, and commands more of the
consideration of those two emperors and their counselors, than either the affairs of
Italy or the balance of Europe. Mexico is to-day less the object of the present
French aggression than the dismemberment and overthrow of the powerful Republic
of the United States of America. When anarchy shall have fully taken the place
of the order that once prevailed throughout our States their thrones will cease to
tremble. This Republic has been the example to all the lovers of freedom throughout the world. To it is attributed the several revolutions in France and all the
struggles of Germany to realize free government. It is not strange that in this time




23
of our tribulation they should seek to demonstrate the insufficiency of republican
institutions for the maintenance of an organized and powerful State. At any day a
question may be raised between emperor and people. I believe that question will be
raised in France whenever for just cause this Republic is forced into a war with the
administration of the emperor.  But, independent of this, should it prove true that
this Republic, the most prosperous the world has seen, the people of which enjoyed
every blessing government could provide, has been destroyed, has failed to maintain
unity with order, and ha, sunk into anarchy, thile  who will deny that a monarchy
and a nobility are not necessities? The oppressed multitudes will cease to struggle
up against oppression.  There will be no place upon which even the philosopher
will dare to plant his foot. He cannot even dream of free government now or in
the years to come.
I have heard it stated that Louis Napolaon is friendly to this Government; that
those who control French governmental action are favorable to this Republic. I
have heard it stated that our Secretary of State, who directs our correspondence
with France, relies upon the friendly assurances of the representative of the French
Court at Washington. The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in
objecting to this discussion, tells us France is constant in her expressions of friendship. Mr. President, if gentlemen are not smitten with judicial blindness; if they
can observe anything of the public movements of the day, they cannot fail to'see
that equally with the leaders of rebellion in the South, the Emperor of France is
our determined and dangerous enemy. What is true of the Emperor is true of his
Court. Senor de la Fuente, the late minister of Mexico at Paris, upon his return
truly reported that if one of our citizens being in Paris should claim that this
Republic enjoyed the favor of France he would be laughed at for his ignorance.
From the day Napoleon ascended to power as emperor, he has, in fact, exhibited a
hostile aspect. As early as 1855 the desire of the emperor to break peace with this
country was openly asserted to some of our officers in Paris by French officials high
in place and power. Napoleon wants cotton fields, gold fields, fields for home
emigration, a transit by the Isthmus to the Pacific; the commanding position on
the Pacific; access to and the control of eastern commerce; above and beyond all
this, he desires to see the free institutions of this Republic overthrown. Texas,
Louisiana west of the Mississippi, and the Terre Caliente of Mexico, will answer for
his cotton fields. California and Sonora will answer for his gold fields, as well as
for his home emigration. Either Tehuantepec or Nicaraugua will answer for his
transit to the Pacific. The Pacific coast from Mazatlan to the Columbia, with the
great bay of San Francisco, secures him, as against any power in the world, the
command of the Pacific and the direction and control of the trade of China andl
Japan. When Louis Napoleon shall have been permitted to do these things w
shall have ceased to be a nation.




24
I shall now, Mr. President, approach more particularly the relation of California
Oregon, Arizona and to the French possession of Mexico. The States of Sonora and
Lower California border on our possessions. They both possess salubrious climates;
both abound in mineral wealth; and the extensive and fertile valleys of Sonora are
capable of supporting a numerous population; they embrace both sides of the Gulf
of California, which they command as well as the mouth of the Colorado. Guaymas is one of the best ports on the Pacific, convenient for trade between Europe and
the East by the way of Cape Horn or the Isthmus. If Sonora and Lower California
become French territories, the port of San Diego is nearer by land to the French
possessions by four hundred miles than is San Francisco. The southern part of our
State of California is none too loyal, and many of our disaffected citizens have
moved down into Arizona and Sonora. Our coast is without even harbor defenses;
we could not at San Francisco accomplish what is reported as performed at Acapulco.
As for field artillery, small arms and ammunition, we have scarcely sufficient for the
purposes of our Indian frontier. It may be substantially affirmed that we are bare
of anything like means for even defensive war. A large French fleet is now visiting
the ports of Mexico and California, and to-day commands our coast. It has been
stated for months, and i; has not been contradicted, that eight thousand French
troops have sailed for Sonora. With eight thousand veteran troops and a well
appointed fleet what may we not have to fear, particularly for the city of San
Francisco, the harbor of San Diego, and the entire southern half of the State? The
important port of San Diego, once rivalling San Francisco, is at any time at their
mercy.
A glance at the map will show that France can land troops and their supplies on
the Colorado within five days' easy march of San Diego, threatening its rear. How
is such a movement to be resisted? Where are the fortifications or intrenchments
or cannon to guard San Diego from such an attack? Where are the men and thearms which at a month's notice, even, not to say one week's notice, could be collected to oppose such a movement? They do not exist. San Diego once taken, France
would have an excellent safe harbor through which her forces might be indefinitely
reinforced and supplied by sea. And thence an army could move up our coast,
capturing every port in California from the rear, and rendering useless expensive
sea-coast fortifications.
California is strong in brave men, but weak in material of war-weak in the
means of producing that material. We have certainly not arms enough in California to arm ten thousand men. I do not believe we have any more arms than are
now in the hands of the troops who have been called into the Federal service. We
have no rifled field artillery; we have no founderies for cannon; we have no powder
mills; we have none of the preparations for war. With Arizona in hostile possession, with the forts of western Mexico in possession of hostile fleets sufficiently powerful to prevent communication by sea between Panama and California, how could




~25
the Government, using every endeavor, afford the relief of a single gun, musket, or
a round of ammunition to our State?
Is there not danger, then, in this movement of Napoleon? Is it not well to look
this danger full in the face and provide against it, rather than, through cowardice,
or prudence, if you please, to abstain from discussion and preparation lest we
should, perchance, offend the sensibilities of his Imperial Majesty of France?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Emperor of France is peculiarly
friendly to us and our institutions-rather a violent supposition, I think-yet is it
wise to give any foreign Power such a tempting opportunity to act upon our weakness?
I feel that I know the purposes of France toward this country, and particularly
her purpose to seize on California, and I regard it as my duty, as well as right, to
demand for the subject proper regard and proper action. French policy and purposes are understood in California as I understand them. - I will read an extract
from the most representative paper on our coast, the Sacramento Union, and a true
Union paper, as it purports to be.  The paper is of the date of December 15, 1862:
"The increase of the French naval force in the Pacific is not explained by the necessities
of a war between France and Mexico. A single war vessel at each port would answer the
purpose of a blockade. L'Echo de Pacifique, the French journal at San Frandisco, which
has enjoyed support and protection under our flag for about eleven years, speaks of the
approach of' our fleet,' and expresses the hope that' our admiral' will not be compelled
to adopt severe measures to check an alleged illicit traffic between San Francisco and the
Mexican ports. This is suggestive of the possibility of complications growing out of the
interference of these French men-of-war with American trade. And it is not improbable
that, if the situation were favorable, even the ready and convenient apology of our silky
Secretary would not save us from serious encroachment."'
The French consul at San Francisco is a very important officer and has charge of
all the French policy. He is not a mere commercial agent, but the representative of
the French Government, and the Journal I'Echo du PaciJique is his organ, and
speaks from his office:
"The proposed occupation of Sonora by a French division may have no significance
prejudicial to American interests; but if England were to send that number of troops to
Canada, her recognized colony, an explanation would be demanded. When we consider
the location of Sonora, and the turbulent element existing in southern California hostile
to our national Government, in connection with the concentration of a powerful French
fleet on this coast, we are forced to regard the situation as one that demands the earnest
attention of the Government and the adoption of prompt precautionary measures."
We regard this movement with great apprehension.  This paper expresses the
sentiments and apprehensions, if you please, of the people of California on the
subject.  We talk of those things we understand; and here I wish to state what I
have long observed, that we seem to understand everything that is east of us, scarce
anything that is west.  The gentlemen from the Atlantic seaboard seem  to understand more about what is transpiring in France and England thanr about anything
that is beyond the mountains.  By some law, which I will not undertake to ex



26
pound, our people hardly ever understand anything that is further west than they
have been. It has been and is a matter of grave and just complaint that the condition of California, its necessities, could not be understood at Washipgton; and
what has been formerly true is especially true so far as our present military conditioned is concerned, and particularly our danger from French aggression.
Because we have a change of Administration every four years and with it a change
of policy, our public men seem to think there is no such thing as state policies. The
old Governments of the world have their fixed and persistent policies, which even
revolutions do not change. Much of the present policy of France you may study
back to the time of Richelieu. To our neglect of something like fixed policies may
be traced our internal disturbances and the fact that France now threatens us. If
the Monroe doctrine had been firmly asserted in the fall of 1861, there would be no
French troops now in Mexico and no danger of a French invasion of our own territories. If letters of marque had been promptly issued, our volunteer force for the
ocean been promptly called out, there would have been no confederate pirates on
the high seas and no running of our blockades.
If the principles enunciated by President Jackson in his proclamation to the people of South Carolina had been reasserted in 1860 and 1861, the peace of the Union
would not have been disturbed. We have had sufficient policies instituted, but,
either through ignorance, or folly, or weakness, or wickedness, they have not been
pursued. Let me ask, what is the cause this has been so? Is this same want of
purpose or policy to continue?
Now, Mr. President, I have shown first that France has violated the law of nations,
as well laid down by our present minister at the British Court. I have shown by
paper and by record her violation of the terms of the treaty made at London, and
her repeated assurances given to this Government. I have shown that she has been
acting in fraud of this Government, and commenced with falsely stating her purposes. I have shown that she has undertaken, without cause and against every rule
of justice, by a course of proceeding which offends the common sense of justice of
mankind, to subjugate the people of Mexico for her own profit, and not only for that
purpose, but to prevent any increase of power on our part on this continent. I say
France has nothing to do with our increase of power on this continent, no more than
we have to do with her treaty as to whether she shall have Nice, or whether it shall
belong to the States of Italy. I have shown that she has committed herself to the
establishment in Mexico of a monarchy of the Austrian line. I have, I think, satisfactorily shown that, while establishing a monarchy in Mexico irrespective of the will
of the people, she has a policy which involves her own immediate occupation of a
part of the present territories of Mexico, and that she is now undertaking a policy
whereby she expects to seize a part of the domain which at the present time belongs
to this Confederacy. The fact which is not disputed, that her diplomatic agents




27
have been feeling the way to see whether they cannot get possession of Texas, independent of the southern confederacy, proves this. The fact that she has been
struggling for years to occupy California proves this. Her movements upon Sonora
prove this. Her treachery in getting fraudulent entry into Mexico proves all this,
and more.
With these facts before us, shall we tamely abandon a policy more important
than any one of our fundamental laws; a policy we had regarded as established,
and as essential to our own as well as all free institutions; a policy, the bare affirmation of which served as a perfect shield over the Spanish American States, sufficient
to protect them from the arms of banded continental Europe; a policy which a
great English statesman declared had " dispensed the greatest joy, exultation, and
gratitude over all the freemen of Europe?" Shall we, I say again, merely take
counsel of our fears, and yield not only an established policy, but a great principle,
the maintenance of which is demanded of us by the very laws of self-preservation?
For what shall we do this?  If any one says that either policy or necessity demands or requires such a course, I here deny the statement. We have not as yet
even remonstrated with France; but suppose we require of her the withdrawal of
her troops from Mexico, and the demand is denied; give arms, authority, and the
flag of the Union to the people of California, and California will send twenty thousand loyal, brave and tried men, men worthy to bear our flag; and when the folds of
that flag mingle and move with the standard of our sister republic against the French
invaders of this free continent, they will continue to move until the legions of the
robber emperor are driven into their ships or into the sea.
California has asked the permission to send ten thousand troops on this side to
aid our cause against the rebellion. The permission was denied. We have all the
force in California, so far as men and soldiers are concerned, that can be necessary
in giving sufficient aid to Mexico; but we want a fleet upon our coast; we want
harbor defence; but, above all, we want the requisite arms and munitions of war.
We have all the force requisite for ourselves and Mexico; give us but the facilities
and the authority to apply them.  When the French shall have either left their
bones in the mountain passes of Mexico or taken to the sea at Vera Cruz and Guaymas, our troops may, perhaps, do good service in Texas or elsewhere where the
Union cause needs soldiers.
No European Power can be strong on this continent. Our experience in 1776, and
again in 1812, is full proof of this; the French embarrassments in Mexico, thus far,
prove this. Four thousand miles of sea is a barrier not easily overcome. The
transportation of men is one thing, the transportation of material and supplies
another. France has undertaken a task greater, I think, than the estimate. It is
not certain but that Mexico may herself be equal to her necessities; but I do not
doubt that we can give all requisite aid without one half the sacrifice of life incurred
in any one of several of the battles of the rebellion.




Some gentlemen may be timid because our commerce will suffer-. So it will suffer 
and so will French commerce suffer; and so has our commerce suffered before, and
so must it suffer again, whenever we engage in war with a maritime State. This
will be no war for a punctilio; it will be for the maintenance of an essential principle; and if it involves the lying up of our entire commercial marine, it will prove
but a small sacrifice if the right be maintained. We must not sacrifice to our fears
or to our love of thrift either great principles or our nation's honor. But, in fact,
we are infinitely stronger upon the sea than ever before; but why not start out, as
of old, our volunteer Navy, unchain our old sea lions, and set them  on the track ofthe enemy? French commerce will be scarce upon the seas in a brief time. French
looms will need cotton more than they do now. We have in every port ships, and
sailors to man them; true sailors are all sea-soldiers. He who has battled fearlessly
with the tempest fears no human enemy; and our sailors are the first sea-warriors
of the world. France must carry on her land war upon our own continent; and
we can drive her from  the seas. I ask, then,, what is there to fear in war with
Frtance? Not half so much as from the preservation of a treacherous peace.
It is said a war with France will give aid and comfort to the South. I would
state the question differently: will it weaken this Government in its efforts to overcome this rebellion; or will it impair the chances of our ultimate success? However
some of the South might be comforted by the immediate fact, it is perfectly clear,
in my mind, that the war would lend strength to the Government, and essentially
promote its complete re-establishment., In my judgment, a war with France would
have a most healthy influence in that very direction. Its influence certainly would
be to unite firmly the people Qf all the loyal States, and renew that war spirit that
seems to have faded before military management and congressional legislation; and
observe, sir, this is at this time a consummation most devoutly to be wished.
There is another consideration. How would the truly democratic masses of the
South care to band with the Emperor of the French against the United States? I
am of the opinion that it would greatly impair, not aid, the home strength of the
rebellion. Independent of this, however, publish the full facts of the outrage of
France upon Mexico; publish this to the American people. Expose the fraud,
outrage and robbery being now committed by France in Mexico. Show what are
the designs of France upon us. Let France appear confederating with the South.
We will require no more drafting. We will need no borrowed enthtbsiasm. We
will be stronger against the rebellion with its allies than against the rebellion as it is.
And permit me to express the opinion that this assault on free institutions by the
French Emperor will detach from  the rebellion many true republicans, who from
this, taking warning, will seek the old standard and with us once more join hand in,
hand in the maintenance of the cause of free institutions.




In fine, Mr. President, I am well assured that we have nothing of value to lose
by a French war. We have everything to gain, and for one I am unwilling to
avoid it.
There is another subject upon which I should remark. One of the resolutions
requests the President to communicate these views to the Mexican Government. If
we entertain them, why should they not be expressed to the Government of Mexico?
That would give them some moral aid, if nothing more; and then, why should we
not make a treaty with Mexico? In the first place, I woold have a reciprocity
treaty with Mexico, and then there would be no question raised by Secretary Stanton
or by Secretary Chase as to whether we might transact commercial exchanges generally between us and the Government of Mexico. The truth is, a reciprocity treaty
would be of infinite service to Mexico, while it would be of yet greater service to
ourselves. So far as I am concerned, I believe it is our duty to lend to Mexico
whatever aid she may require; not denying to her the privilege of buying our old
muskets, while giving to France the opportunity of buying transportation. I
believe it is our duty to lend her whatever aid may be necessary; that we should
spare her twenty thousand men. armed and equipped for war, or whatever number
might be required.
Why, sir, the present war is not felt in the great North, except in individual families. Last fall, when I traveled in the North and West, I went through towns and
villages and counties where there was no sign of war. It was only upon the great
highways that you observed it. The pressure of this war is not felt; you may say
it is scarcely known, except through the public press, in the States on the Pacific.
We can afford to do this for Mexico. It is our duty to do all this; and I say it is
of the first importance that we should assert our right and discharge our duty; and
in this, we make ourselves a stronger people.
I am one of those who think that our policy in the Trent case weakened the
moral power of this Government. If it were right that these commissioners should
be surrendered, they should have been surrendered by terms stipulated and agreed
upon between the representatives of the two Governments, so that Great Britain
might have been at least committed to a rule of international law. The surrender
was made as if we feared the shake of Earl Russell's head; they were surrendered
in the face of a demand in the form of a threat. Nations have as much strength in
their appearance of strength as they have in their armed legions.
I would have in this business the exhibition of something like national spirit,
pluck, if you please. France knows what our rights are, what our wrongs have
been; let her understand that we not only know them, but dare state them; (singular again, I repeat, this does not appear to have been done.)  Being stated well,
let our rights be firmly demanded. Is not this Government equal to this dignified
duty? If France hesitates to acquiesce in our just demands, advise France that we
espouse the cause of Mexico. If this be done, and properly done, I dare prophecy




30
that the diplomatic tune of the Emperor will be played upon a different instrument, and that he will be content to dismiss for the present from his mind great
visions of ambition, and trust to their realization at some more propitious season.
If France persists, then let war come; this is certain, we will have done something
to secure a decent respect from the other nations of the world.
I fear our Secretary regards Prince Talleyrand a proper pattern for a republican
diplomatist, and admires that skill by which words may be used to conceal our
thoughts, and that, in a too great effort to imitate his example, he has failed to say
anything; therefore, perchance, nothing has been said. For my part, I think the
sum of the science of American diplomacy may be found stated in the instructions
of General Jackson to Mr. McCauley when he sent him to Tripoli. McCauley protested against the appointment, as he knew nothing about the business; and if he
must go, he must have his instructions. The President replied, " your instructions
will be brief, sir. Ask for nothing but what is right, and submit to nothing that is
wrong."  The instructions proved sufficient: he continued in the discharge of his
duties in Egypt until the time of his death. I wish the Government would open a
school of diplomacy, and have the instructions culminate in the understanding and
meaning of the Jacksonian rule and full training in the manner of its practice.
Let us demand all our rights; let us discharge all our duties. This nation will
never die as long as she dares fearlessly to discharge the duties charged upon her,
as long as she dares firmly and with a true faith raise erect whatever be the burden
with which she may be charged. If we play the hare among animals we will be
killed by the wind of the first arrow. Resistance and will and consciousness of
power are the elements of strength; thus far we have been as weak as water. I
have raised the question whether this shall continue. I have presented a series of
resolutions, the justice and truthfulness of which cannot be disputed. Now, I desire your voices, Senators. Shall we advise tame submission, or shall we advise the
assertion of ourselves as a live nation? I trust at least a direct vote may be had on
the subject. I do not wish to see it buried by the legerdemain of legislation.








E'tabl'ished 1837.
| gutU' Xrenral!xn. iag n nubs ing hstablis munt,
BOOK, PAPER AND STATIONERY STORE,
Marble Building, 18P Baltimore street, Baltimore.
M B  D A L S awarded by the Maryland Institute, for Printing, Book-binding and  Bank Ciecks.
By the Metropolitan  Institute, Washington, a DIPLOMA  for superior Blank Books.
MURPT1Y  &  (). (1)I RERC
| XuarietTatr, 25tli~aprtt~ridE>sVI                          h $}aiinntrs,,g~~~ PP
WHOLESALE and RETAIL DEALERS IN                                       _,        L
t  OOIS &STX-TIONIERY.
Books, Paper, Blank Books, Stationery, &c.,.'                                         i~- ~-~ ~-~ ~7/~~ —— %-~~FOREIN 13UKS
Constantly on hand, a l a rge and well se le c t e d s t o ck of                   
BO  K01S I,N GE  ERA.l  LIT RE }ATtTB E, -.Ii)!
School, Classical, Miscellaneous and Juvenile Books, &c.   I                                URPY 
F 0 R E I G N  Bo O K S: a large and varied stock, to which constant ad-                         
ditions are made by direct importation.  Foreign Books imported to order.
Blank Books, Paper-,,                          Stationery, fc.
Comprising a large assortment of English, French, and American Letter, Cap and Note Papers, Envelopes,
Inks, Gold and Steel Pens, Copying Presses, Copying  Books, &c. &c., of the best qualities.
BLANK BOOKS, of every Description, made to Order, in superior styles.
BLANK BOOKS, with PRINTED HEADINGS, &c.
Made to order to any style, or pattern of Ruling, in a superior manner, at the shortest notice. Long experience, and
unsurpassed facilities, in having this class of work P r i n t e d, R u le d, P a g e d a n d B o un d, on T H E P R E M I S E S,
enable us to execute all orders in this line in a very superior style, at remarkably low rates.
MIURPHY'S UNALTERABLE STEREOGRAPHIC, and PLAIN BANK CHECKS,
In every variety; PR   M I S S ORY NOTE S, DRA FT S, BILLS OF E x HANGE, BILLS OF LAD ING,
BLANK DEEDS, CO'MMERCIAL and LIw  BLANKS,'&C. kept constantly on hand, or Printed to order.
ORDER    T7ey take pleasure in announcing that they have completed their  Keep constantly
RINT O  arr as gem en ts, by which they are now enabled to keep constantly on hand on hand and make
at short notice:   a Ilarge and choice assortnzent of everything required in connection    to order:
Ca-T-rds    [with the BooK  ANDp  STATIONERY BUSINESS.  They deem it un-    Ledgers
Cire.....ar.. |necessary to enlarge on the advantages, convenience, and saving of time and   Jo [  rnaI s
Circulars    Iec''ary                                                                  Jo i rn al8,
expeense, which this combination and concesetration of stock affords to Book-        _
Bill-Hcads..sellers, Colleges, Schools, Libraries, &c. &c., i7n being able to pur-    Day Books.. D r af t s  chase everything at tmeplace, at the very Lowest Rates, Wholesale and Retail.    Cash Books
Promissory Notes                                                                            Sales Books
Bank Checks       14i           &    XrfaaeataUaI          & zt  1     tx      U4tg,     Blottcrs
Bills Excharge                     K    INDING   ad  RULING                               Check Books
BOOKBINDING ard RULING,
Blank Deeds       f every descriptior, executed in the rey est nanner, at the lowest rates.  Copying Books
Cashiers' BlanXks    Having united with their Bookstore, in the same building, an extensive PRINT-  Bill Books
Bi4s of Lading  ING OFFICE and BooeBINsDERY, well supplied with the most approved materials   Receipt Books
Lose Blanks    and experienced workmen, enable them to offer superior advantages and induce-    Pass Books
Lao Briefs     ments for the prompt, careful and correct execution of every description of Book   Poc7ket Ledgers
B oo k,  asd Job Printi.g, Book-Bindinsg and Ruling, well worthy the attention of all  Hotel Registers
Pamphlets     who may require anything in this line.  WParticular attention paid to FINE  Copy Books.ags te   WORIK for Banking and other Institutions, Inserance, Railroad, Steamboat,      a'55   I
Can   R, Ofal classTesnsponrtation,  and other Joint Stock Companies, P  bric Otices, sc.  D o  c k c t eu     of
I                                       F
For nearly twenty years   il Road and Co7 nercial Printing have constituted an important branch  of our business.
-  r experience, combined  iti extensive facilities, cnsie   al sisting of the most approved M A C H I NE R, large fonts of TYPE,
o tle latestand most appron  I styles; B o  D E R s, E N G  A v t N G s, O R N A  E N T s, c. especially adapted for
BAIL ROAnD and COME.CAL WORK; also, large fonts of Figures, of all sietes, suitable for FREIGHT and
PA ssEN GE  T  RI FFr, TA BUL R WO iBc. &c., and keeping constantly on hand a large stock of CARD BonaDs
and PLAPERS, of all classes, enable us to offer unsurpassed facilities for the Prompt, Cheap and Correct execution of
every description of Rail Road and clommercial Printing, cBi., The most careful and prompt attention given to
orderi  Estimates and specimens furnished on application.e     J 0  N N E U R P H Y   &Z C 0.