tween him and Bulwer, but settled in his own mind to his satisfaction. Great Britain was to retain her protectorate over the Mosquito Coast, but in name only. She was to be the merely nominal or titular protector of the Mosquitos, renouncing all right to the use of force. This was accomplished, he thought, by the provisions, as finally worded, of Article I. Elated with this flattering delusion, he wrote privately to Lawrence:

April 22, 1850. Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer concluded a treaty with me on the 19th instant, which you will remember, was the anniversary of the Lexington and Concord affair. The treaty is honorable to both countries. It is very like the projet I sent to you; but it additionally provides that neither party shall make use of any protection or alliance for the purpose of occupying, fortifying, colonizing, or assuming or exercising any dominion whatsoever, over any part of Central America or the Mosquito Coast, so that our friends over the water can neither occupy, etc. to protect nor protect to occupy etc. You will ask what becomes of the protectorate? I answer "stat nominis umbra," it stands the shadow of a name. Use all your good offices to persuade Lord Palmerston to agree to the treaty. My friend Bulwer is evidently somewhat uneasy lest Palmerston should censure him for consenting to so much, but Bulwer could not have possibly made any treaty with me on any better terms for England.2

According to Sir Henry Bulwer, "the treaty

1 For correspondence, etc., on this point see Appendix C.

2 Clayton Papers, IX, 1661.

left the protection existing, but forbade it to be used for the purpose of dominion." He held that it could be used to protect the Mosquitos in the maintenance of their sovereignty, should it ever be assailed or contested, that the employment of British troops in Central America for that purpose would not constitute either occupation or dominion as understood in the treaty.

American statesmen generally did not agree, either with Sir Henry Bulwer or with Clayton. They understood that Great Britain was required to abandon her protectorate altogether, in name as well as in substance, leaving the Mosquitos to take care of themselves, under the sovereignty of Nicaragua and of Honduras. Both parties to the treaty agreed never to "exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America." The United States held that the so-called protectorate of the Mosquito Coast was "dominion." The question then was this: Does a prohibition to exercise dominion prohibit continuing to exercise it; does it require the abandonment of actual dominion? It may be admitted as a general principle that sovereignty or dominion cannot be surrendered by implication, that it cannot be renounced except in express terms. But this principle contemplates bona fide, legitimate sovereignty or dominion; it is at least a debatable question whether it applies to such irregular, illegitimate influence

as that exercised by Great Britain on the Mosquito Coast, which she did not pretend herself to be sovereignty, which she denied to be dominion, which she called a protectorate.

The political relation of protector and protected is not a new one. It grows out of contract. It implies sovereignty in each party, for when the sovereignty of the lesser merges in that of the greater the peculiar relation ceases.1

One reason why the United States would not recognize Mosquito sovereignty was that it involved Indian rights of eminent domain, of land ownership. Great Britain might have a title which extinguished or excluded that of an American Republic, but no American statesman would admit that such title could be held by a tribe of Indians.

As to the Mosquito title, the United States could not possibly recognize that, without abandoning a principle as old as their existence, for you know, we never acknowledge any right in an Indian in any part of America, except a mere right of occupancy, always liable to be extinguished (that's our technical word for it) at the will of the discoverers. We could not recognize such a title in any case without admitting the illegality of the tenure by which we hold all the lands in our country.2

Lord Palmerston, while admitting the general doctrine for which the United States contended,

1 Lawrence to Clayton, April 19, 1850.

2 Clayton to Lawrence, May 2, 1850.

held that the case of the Mosquitos was sui generis and stood upon its own peculiar circumstances.1 Clayton took little or no account of this attitude of the British Government. About a year after he had been informed of it he wrote:

Having always regarded an Indian title as a mere right of occupancy, we can never agree that such a title should be treated otherwise than as a thing to be extinguished at the will of the discoverer of the country. Upon the ratification of the treaty Great Britain will no longer have any interest to deny this principle which she has recognized in every case in common with us. "Stat nominis umbra," for she can neither occupy, fortify or colonize, nor exercise dominion or control, in any part of the Mosquito Coast or Central America. To attempt to do either of these things after the exchange of ratifications, would inevitably produce a rupture with the United States.2

Great Britain's policy in the Mosquito country was really intervention, the essence of which is illegality, even when acceptable to the party in whose behalf it is carried out. But the intervention in this case was a form of dominion.

This government [Mosquito] was not only British in personnel, but was administered according to British customs. It was also dependent upon Great Britain for the maintenance of its authority. If that did not amount

1 Rives to Clayton, Sept. 25, 1849.

2 Clayton to Squier, May 7, 1850.

to an occupation with the exercise of dominion, it is difficult to understand what could.1

Neither Great Britain nor the United States was to "assume or exercise dominion." What is the meaning of this phrase? If it were "assume and exercise dominion" it might be interpreted as a single idea comprehending both the initiation and the maintenance of dominion. But the connective or indicates that there are two ideas which are to be distinguished from each other. The natural distinction to be made between assuming dominion and exercising dominion is that assuming means to begin and exercising means to continue. It would thus seem that continuing to exercise dominion is as explicitly prohibited as beginning to exercise it; that the prohibition applies to existing as well as to impending dominion; that it is meant to be present or immediate, not merely prospective, in its operation. Great Britain held that as regards occupation, dominion,

1 Travis.

It is alleged that a British consul or agent resides in Mosquito who "may oftentimes be called upon to give his opinion or advice to the Mosquito Government." But it is notorious and from the degraded character of the Indians it cannot be otherwise, that the Mosquito Government is exclusively the British Government exercised through the agency of this Consul residing in Mosquito. Is is through him that the British Government, in the name of this mere shadow of a king, captured the seaports of his neighbors by the employment of British forces alone, and exercises dominion over the entire so-called Mosquito Coast. (Buchanan to Clarendon, July 22, 1854.)