SPEECH

IN REPLY TO MR. WEBSTER UPON THE NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY, THE RIGHT OF SEARCH, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CAROLINE.

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 9, 1846.

[At the Session of Congress 1845-46 the discussion of the Oregon question called up the general subject of the international relations of our government and that of Great Britain; as well regarding the questions then open as those of previous controversy. The settlement of the Northeastern boundary; the Caroline or McLeod case; the right of search, &c., were freely examined and commented on by many members of both houses.

Mr. Dickinson, in his speech on the resolution for terminating the joint occupancy of Oregon, delivered in the Senate February 24th and 25th, 1846, referred briefly to the course of the government on these subjects, and in several particulars, criticised and condemned it. In speaking of the McLeod case he alluded to statements made by Hon. C. J. Ingersoll in the House of Representatives relative to the action taken therein by the Administration, Mr. Webster being then Secretary of State. On the 5th and 6th of April following, Mr. Webster addressed the Senate in an elaborate defence of the Treaty of Washington and in explanation of the other subjects referred to, with which he had been connected as a member of the government. He denied and denounced in strong terms the statements made by Mr. Ingersoll, and complained of the use made of them by Mr. Dickinson; his speech being characterised, in these respects, by a good degree of vehemence. Mr. Dickinson replied, with equal earnestness, in the speech here given.

The passages between the two Senators in this debate, are understood to be the "occurrences" alluded to with regret by Mr. Webster in his admirable and magnanimous letter addressed to Mr. Dickinson at the close of the Session of 1850, and by the latter in a corresponding spirit, in his reply thereto.]

ON taking my seat in this distinguished body, Mr. Presi dent, but little more than one year since, I could not have believed that I should so soon be forced into a discussion so far personal as the one to which I find myself compelled by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts.* I came here regarding this body as one of the most dignified upon earth; as the great conservative branch of our happy government, and this chamber as the last place which should be desecrated by the strifes and controversies which too often mingle their poisonous influences with the affairs of human life. I came prepared to extend to all, and to receive in turn the courtesy and consideration which the station demands: but, though it has not heretofore been alleged against me that I have transcended the proprieties of debate, I am now called upon to defend myself, in terms which, I humbly conceive, should never find a place in the official intercourse of Senators. However little to my taste Mr. President, may be discussions of this character; however profitless, fruitless and even improper I may regard them, I have no alternative and shall not shrink from the contest. But in doing so, I shall, I trust, neither go beyond nor fall short of the issue presented.

On the 24th and 25th days of February last, in the exercise of official privilege and duty, I had the honor to address the Senate upon the Oregon question; and, as it became a subject of inquiry whether any portion of the territory claimed by the United States should be yielded to Great Britain for a compromise, I endeavored to show that in most of our negotiations with that power, she had arrogantly asserted and maintained her pretensions; and that, in a spirit of concession, we had yielded for the sake of peace, and that hitherto the concessions had been, if not entirely, too much upon our side. In pursuing this train of argument, and urging it as a reason why this course should not be repeated, I alluded to the treaty and negotiations fixing the northeastern boundary, and argued that it was a clear concession to the British government, not only in yielding up a portion of the soil and jurisdiction of Maine, bnt in omitting to settle other questions of controversy then existing between the two governments, which could and ought

*MR. WEBSTER.

pur

to have been disposed of,-and mentioned the Oregon question, the right of search and the case of McLeod. But I spoke of that negotiation as public history-as the action of Government, not of the individuals who administered it for the pose of borrowing the painful experience of the past for the benefit of the present and the future, and without employing a reproachful word or making an unkind allusion, and I have nothing to retract or modify.

The speech was delivered in the presence and hearing of the Senator from Massachusetts, and full opportunity was afforded him at the time to correct anything I said, either in language or sentiment, and it seems he now only takes exception to "statements" in my speech; for he says in regard to myself:

"Mr. President, I will now take some further notice of what has been said by the member from New York, (Mr. Dickinson.) I exceedingly regret-truly and unfeignedly regret, that the observations of the gentleman make it my duty to take some notice of them. Our acquaintance is but short, but it has not been unpleasant. I always thought him a man of courteous manners and kind feelings; but it cannot be expected that I shall sit here and listen to statements such as the honorable member has made on this question and not answer them. I repeat, it gives me great pain to take notice of the gentleman's speech."

This, then, Mr. President, acquits me of discourtesy elsewhere, and I will now, with the indulgence of the Senate, show that the Honorable Senator had no provocation by reason of anything which that speech contains; for I refer to it and to all I said upon the subject, and defy the severest criticism to point to an erroneous statement or a discourteous expression.

The following were my specifications:

1st. I charged that the Ashburton treaty gave to Great Britain much more territory than a map in her Foreign Office showed she was entitled to; and that we paid to Maine and Massachusetts for it some three hundred thousand dollars.

2d. That no reparation was obtained for the destruction of the Caroline and the murder of Durfee by British subjects, and that the Federal government interfered with the ordinary course of justice in New York, and endeavored to prevent a trial of McLeod upon the merits, though charged with and indicted for the murder of Durfee, a citizen of that State.

3d. That the infamous right of search, by British cruisersanother name for impressment-claimed and offensively asserted by Great Britain, and practically exercised over our merchantmen, was waived in the negotiation and passed over to the future, with this declaration of British right standing before the world. And,

4th. That the Oregon question, which could and ought to have been settled with the north-eastern boundary, was left where it was found.

These several points I sought to establish by reference to the political and documentary history relating to them, and I refer to what I then said for a more extended notice.

But the Honorable Senator complains that I incorporated into my speech an extract from a speech of Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in the House of Representatives. Mr. Ingersoll, in a speech delivered on the floor of the House on the 9th of February last, made certain statements touching the McLeod affair, and the action of the Federal government concerning it, through the then Secretary of State. That speech was reported at length at the time, in the public papers which circulate throughout the Union and are sent to Europe. Mr. Ingersoll is a person of eminence and distinction, extensively known, and now occupying one of the most commanding positions in the Representative Government. The Senator from Massachusetts must have seen and read his remarks at the time they were reported; and yet he interposed no denial whatever, but suffered the statement to circulate, from the 9th to the 24th of February, unnoticed and uncontradicted. While speaking of the extraordinary submission of our government to that of Great Britain in the case of McLeod, the destruction of the Caroline, and the murder of Durfee, I alluded to the statement of Mr. Ingersoll that the counsel of McLeod had been paid from the Treasury. The Senator emphatically denied such payment, but denied nothing further, although I offered to yield him the floor. Some two or three weeks afterwards, in publishing a pamphlet edition of my speech, and having been frequently called on for copies of Mr. Ingersoll's speech, to which I had alluded, I cut an extract from his reported speech and appended it as a note to mine. This was done after the speech of Mr. Ingersoll had been more than a month in circula

tion, not for the purpose of making it a part of mine, for I expressly declared that I knew nothing concerning the statement, but for the convenience of those who might wish to understand the allusion. I neither added to nor detracted from the statement of Mr. Ingersoll, leaving it to stand upon its own high authority, and accompanying it with the denial of the Senator from Massachusetts, precisely as it was made. And this has been alleged by the Senator as a cause of complaint!

I now propose, Mr. President, to review briefly the remarks of the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts, and to notice more fully than I have heretofore done, the settlement of the north-eastern boundary, and the general subject of the Ashburton treaty. And first, the subject of the boundary. The Senator informs us that when he became invested with the diplomatic insignia, he found this matter exceedingly embarrassed by the correspondence of previous administrations; and after citing portions of its history he proceeds:

"Really, Sir, is not this a most delightful prospect? Is there not bere as beautiful a labyrinth of diplomacy as one could wish to look at of a summer's day? Would not Castlereagh and Talleyrand, Nesselrode and Metternich, find it an entanglement worthy the labor of their hands to unravel? Is it not apparent, Mr. President, that at this time the adjustment of the question, by this kind of diplomacy, if to be reached by any vision, required telescopic sight?"

This, Mr. President, was the condition of the north-eastern boundary question, as related by the Honorable Senator. So complex was its entanglement that its mere contemplation would afford employment for a summer's day. Its intricacy would have baffled the diplomatic skill of all the noted negotiators of modern times. Castlereagh and Talleyrand, Nesselrode and Metternich, would have been unable to thread the mazes of this diplomatic labyrinth which the Senator disposed of by wholesale and with a single dash of the pen.

The Honorable Senator enumerates the illustrious line of Presidents, from Washington to Van Buren, and shows that each in his turn had vainly endeavored to put at rest this vexed question. Yes, Mr. President, the immortal Washington, the Father of our country, he who was first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen ;-he who fought the