"I said to Don Andres Bello by letter of the 3d of December:
"—— is of opinion, and his government also, that the great American rivers, whose navigation is of interest to various nations, ought to be considered as prolongations of the sea, open to all the world, by natural right, and without the necessity of special treaty stipulations, the Amazon being in this category.
"How far will this doctrine, which modifies substantially the principles set forth by the Congress of Vienna, be acceptable?
"He replied to me on the 14th. In the question of the freedom of the Amazon and its tributary rivers, I coincide with the opinion of —— to which you refer. The high station and importance, tending to the general benefit, which commerce has taken in international affairs, and which cannot fail to be higher and greater every day, ought to lead to modifications in the doctrines of international law, which you know is not a stationary or stereotyped science. It has always lent itself to the variable exigencies of civilization; and being progressive, it will accept new principles, or, rather, new applications of old principles to present circumstances; faithful to its primitive intention of moderating the antagonism of nationalities; of overthrowing the barriers of a too exclusive spirit; of embodying the Christian sentiment in international relations; and of fraternizing the people.
"'I would undertake with pleasure a new exposition of the laws of nations in this relation, but I have not time. Mors atris circumvolat alis. Others with greater knowledge and strength, will take charge of this beautiful subject.'
"I have a real pleasure in transcribing for you the opinion of the patriarch of South American literature—the publicist, venerated amongst us for his knowledge and his virtues—an opinion so much in accordance with ours, and which, I have no doubt, will have its weight in the decision of the Granadian Congress, against the Brazilian treaty of navigation lately concluded at Bogota, and disapproved by the general sentiment of my countrymen."
We have now the facts of the case before us. Of the five Spanish American republics who own tributaries of the Amazon, two have made exclusive treaties with Brazil regarding their navigation, and I have shown that there is a prospect that the legislative power of one of them (New Granada) will not ratify the treaty; of the action of one, (Venezuela,) I know nothing, though I believe that, by general law, the navigation of all of her rivers is free. Two (Bolivia and Ecuador) have refused to make an exclusive treaty with Brazil; have issued decrees declaring their tributaries of the Amazon open to the navigation and commerce of the world, and are stretching out their hands asking foreign aid for the development of the great resources of their respective countries. The question comes up, has Brazil the right, under the circumstances, to close the highway to the navigable waters of these countries, and thus deny them what they conceive to be their rights?
It has been argued that this is no business of ours; that it belongs to those Spanish American republics to obtain from Brazil the right of way to and from their ports as we did from France and Spain in the case of the Mississippi; but the argument is not a good one; it leads to no practical results; the cases are not parallel. We were, from the first, a maritime and commercial people. We had ships and seamen; and an outlet for the productions of the Mississippi valley was of so vital importance to us as to make us ready, if necessary, to go to war with France on that question. With the Spanish American republics, on the contrary, "Le jeu n'en vaut pas la chandelle." They have no ships or seamen, and no means of making either, and a war between them and the powerful empire of Brazil would be hopeless. The navigation of the Amazon, restricted to themselves alone, would be valueless to them. We have a greater interest in the matter; for, although the benefit derived from trade and an exchange of commodities is reciprocal, yet we should have (on account of our geographical position with regard to the mouth of the Amazon, and our skill in the construction and management of the river steamboat) nearly all the carrying trade. They have done all they could. Desirous to develop the resources of their country, and to improve their social condition, and knowing that they can do nothing of themselves in the way of trade and commerce, they hold out their hands to us; they throw open their ports to the commerce of the world; and they invite all people to come, offering as inducements, privileges, lands, and money. I think, then, it belongs peculiarly to us to consider whether they have the right to give the invitation, and we the right to accept it.
Let us suppose a case in illustration of this. Suppose that the St. Lawrence were navigable from the sea to the lakes; and that we were to invite the nations of Europe to a free trade with our ports of Buffalo, Cleveland, and Detroit, offering them money, grants of lands, and great advantages if they should come. It seems to me that it would be unwise and improper in us to enter into controversy with England on this point; and that it would be clearly the business of the invited nation, if they desired to come, to demand of that country the right of way to and from these ports.
Although the opening of the navigation of the Amazon would redound greatly to our advantage, I am very far from desiring that we should enter into controversy, far less into hostile controversy, with Brazil. She is an American nation; she is a friendly nation; she is next to ourselves in power and wealth on this continent. There are great reciprocal advantages in the trade between the two countries, though far the greatest on her side; and there is a sort of bond between us, in the fact that we are both slaveholding nations. Yet, I do think that in her broadly and openly expressed fear of us, she is doing us a wrong, standing in the way of our just rights, and I think that this sentiment should be strongly expressed by our people and our government.