Appendix
IMPRESSMENT.
Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton.
Department of State, Washington, August 8, 1842.
My Lord,--We have had several conversations on the subject of impressment, but I do not understand that your Lordship has instructions from your government to negotiate upon it, nor does the government of the United States see any utility in opening such negotiation, unless the British government is prepared to renounce the practice in all future wars.
No cause has produced to so great an extent, and for so long a period, disturbing and irritating influences on the political relations of the United States and England, as the impressment of seamen by British cruisers from American merchant-vessels.
From the commencement of the French Revolution to the breaking out of the war between the two countries in 1812, hardly a year elapsed without loud complaint and earnest remonstrance. A deep feeling of opposition to the right claimed, and to the practice exercised under it, and not unfrequently exercised without the least regard to what justice and humanity would have dictated, even if the right itself had been admitted, took possession of the public mind of America, and this feeling, it is well known, co-operated most powerfully with other causes to produce the state of hostilities which ensued.
At different periods, both before and since the war, negotiations have taken place between the two governments, with the hope of finding some means of quieting these complaints. At some times, the effectual abolition of the practice has been requested and treated of; at other times, its temporary suspension; and at other times, again, the limitation of its exercise, and some security against its enormous abuses.
A common destiny has attended these efforts; they have all failed. The question stands at this moment where it stood fifty years ago. The nearest approach to a settlement was a convention proposed in 1803, and which had come to the point of signature, when it was broken off in consequence of the British government insisting that the narrow seas should be expressly excepted out of the sphere over which the contemplated stipulation against impressment should extend. The American Minister, Mr. King, regarded this exception as quite inadmissible, and chose rather to abandon the negotiation than to acquiesce in the doctrine which it proposed to establish.
England asserts the right of impressing British subjects, in time of war, out of neutral merchant-vessels, and of deciding by her visiting officers who, among the crews of such merchant-vessels, are British subjects. She asserts this as a legal exercise of the prerogative of the crown; which prerogative is alleged to be founded on the English law of the perpetual and indissoluble allegiance of the subject, and his obligation under all circumstances, and for his whole life, to render military service to the crown whenever required.
This statement, made in the words of eminent British jurists, shows at once that the English claim is far broader than the basis or platform on which it is raised. The law relied on is English law; the obligations insisted on are obligations existing between the crown of England and its subjects. This law and these obligations, it is admitted, may be such as England may choose they shall be. But then they must be confined to the parties. Impressment of seamen out of and beyond English territory, and from on board the ships of other nations, is an interference with the rights of other nations; is further, therefore, than English prerogative can legally extend; and is nothing but an attempt to enforce the peculiar law of England beyond the dominions and jurisdiction of the crown. The claim asserts an extra-territorial authority for the law of British prerogative, and assumes to exercise this extra-territorial authority, to the manifest injury and annoyance of the citizens and subjects of other states, on board their own vessels, on the high seas.
Every merchant-vessel on the seas is rightfully considered as part of the territory of the country to which it belongs. The entry, therefore, into such vessel, being neutral, by a belligerent, is an act of force, and is, prima facie, a wrong, a trespass, which can be justified only when done for some purpose allowed to form a sufficient justification by the law of nations. But a British cruiser enters an American merchant-vessel in order to take therefrom supposed British subjects; offering no justification, therefore, under the law of nations, but claiming the right under the law of England respecting the king's prerogative. This cannot be defended. English soil, English territory, English jurisdiction, is the appropriate sphere for the operation of English law. The ocean is the sphere of the law of nations; and any merchant-vessel on the seas is by that law under the protection of the laws of her own nation, and may claim immunity, unless in cases in which that law allows her to be entered or visited.
If this notion of perpetual allegiance, and the consequent power of the prerogative, was the law of the world; if it formed part of the conventional code of nations, and was usually practised, like the right of visiting neutral ships, for the purpose of discovering and seizing enemy's property, then impressment might be defended as a common right, and there would be no remedy for the evil till the national code should be altered. But this is by no means the case. There is no such principle incorporated into the code of nations. The doctrine stands only as English law, not as a national law; and English law cannot be of force beyond English dominion. Whatever duties or relations that law creates between the sovereign and his subjects can be enforced and maintained only within the realm, or proper possessions or territory of the sovereign. There may be quite as just a prerogative right to the property of subjects as to their personal services, in an exigency of the state; but no government thinks of controlling by its own laws property of its subjects situated abroad; much less does any government think of entering the territory of another power for the purpose of seizing such property and applying it to its own uses. As laws, the prerogatives of the crown of England have no obligation on persons or property domiciled or situated abroad.
"When, therefore," says an authority not unknown or unregarded on either side of the Atlantic, "we speak of the right of a state to bind its own native subjects everywhere, we speak only of its own claim and exercise of sovereignty over them when they return within its own territorial jurisdiction, and not of its right to compel or require obedience to such laws, on the part of other nations, within their own territorial sovereignty. On the contrary, every nation has an exclusive right to regulate persons and things within its own territory, according to its sovereign will and public polity."
The good sense of these principles, their remarkable pertinency to the subject now under consideration, and the extraordinary consequences resulting from the British doctrine, are signally manifested by that which we see taking place every day. England acknowledges herself overburdened with population of the poorer classes. Every instance of the emigration of persons of those classes is regarded by her as a benefit. England, therefore, encourages emigration; means are notoriously supplied to emigrants, to assist their conveyance, from public funds; and the New World, and most especially these United States, receive the many thousands of her subjects thus ejected from the bosom of their native land by the necessities of their condition. They come away from poverty and distress in over-crowded cities, to seek employment, comfort, and new homes in a country of free institutions, possessed by a kindred race, speaking their own language, and having laws and usages in many respects like those to which they have been accustomed; and a country which, upon the whole, is found to possess more attractions for persons of their character and condition than any other on the face of the globe. It is stated that, in the quarter of the year ending with June last, more than twenty-six thousand emigrants left the single port of Liverpool for the United States, being four or five times as many as left the same port within the same period for the British colonies and all other parts of the world. Of these crowds of emigrants, many arrive in our cities in circumstances of great destitution, and the charities of the country, both public and private, are severely taxed to relieve their immediate wants. In time they mingle with the new community in which they find themselves, and seek means of living. Some find employment in the cities, others go to the frontiers, to cultivate lands reclaimed from the forest; and a greater or less number of the residue, becoming in time naturalized citizens, enter into the merchant service under the flag of their adopted country.
Now, my Lord, if war should break out between England and a European power, can any thing be more unjust, any thing more irreconcilable to the general sentiments of mankind, than that England should seek out these persons, thus encouraged by her and compelled by their own condition to leave their native homes, tear them away from their new employments, their new political relations, and their domestic connections, and force them to undergo the dangers and hardships of military service for a country which has thus ceased to be their own country? Certainly, certainly, my Lord, there can be but one answer to this question. Is it not far more reasonable that England should either prevent such emigration of her subjects, or that, if she encourage and promote it, she should leave them, not to the embroilment of a double and contradictory allegiance, but to their own voluntary choice, to form such relations, political or social, as they see fit, in the country where they are to find their bread, and to the laws and institutions of which they are to look for defence and protection?
A question of such serious importance ought now to be put at rest. If the United States give shelter and protection to those whom the policy of England annually casts upon their shores,--if, by the benign influences of their government and institutions, and by the happy condition of the country, those emigrants become raised from poverty to comfort, finding it easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake in the enjoyment of all civil rights,--if all this may be done, (and all this is done, under the countenance and encouragement of England herself,) is it not high time that, yielding that which had its origin in feudal ideas as inconsistent with the present state of society, and especially with the intercourse and relations subsisting between the Old World and the New, England should at length formally disclaim all right to the services of such persons, and renounce all control over their conduct?
But impressment is subject to objections of a much wider range. If it could be justified in its application to those who are declared to be its only objects, it still remains true that, in its exercise, it touches the political rights of other governments, and endangers the security of their own native subjects and citizens. The sovereignty of the state is concerned in maintaining its exclusive jurisdiction and possession over its merchant-ships on the seas, except so far as the law of nations justifies intrusion upon that possession for special purposes; and all experience has shown, that no member of a crew, wherever born, is safe against impressment when a ship is visited.
The evils and injuries resulting from the actual practice can hardly be overstated, and have ever proved themselves to be such as should lead to its relinquishment, even if it were founded in any defensible principle. The difficulty of discriminating between English subjects and American citizens has always been found to be great, even when an honest purpose of discrimination has existed. But the lieutenant of a man-of-war, having necessity for men, is apt to be a summary judge, and his decisions will be quite as significant of his own wants and his own power as of the truth and justice of the case. An extract from a letter of Mr. King, of the 13th of April, 1797, to the American Secretary of State, shows something of the enormous extent of these wrongful seizures.
"Instead of a few, and these in many instances equivocal cases, I have," says he, "since the month of July past, made application for the discharge from British men-of-war of two hundred and seventy-one seamen, who, stating themselves to be Americans, have claimed my interference. Of this number, eighty-six have been ordered by the Admiralty to be discharged, thirty-seven more have been detained as British subjects or as American volunteers, or for want of proof that they are Americans, and to my applications for the discharge of the remaining one hundred and forty-eight I have received no answer; the ships on board of which these seamen were detained having, in many instances, sailed before an examination was made in consequence of my application.
"It is certain that some of those who have applied to me are not American citizens, but the exceptions are, in my opinion, few, and the evidence, exclusive of certificates, has been such as, in most cases, to satisfy me that the applicants were real Americans, who have been forced into the British service, and who, with singular constancy, have generally persevered in refusing pay or bounty, though in some instances they have been in service more than two years."
But the injuries of impressment are by no means confined to its immediate subjects, or the individuals on whom it is practised. Vessels suffer from the weakening of their crews, and voyages are often delayed, and not unfrequently broken up, by subtraction from the number of necessary hands by impressment. And what is of still greater and more general moment, the fear of impressment has been found to create great difficulty in obtaining sailors for the American merchant service in times of European war. Seafaring men, otherwise inclined to enter into that service, are, as experience has shown, deterred by the fear of finding themselves erelong in compulsory military service in British ships of war. Many instances have occurred, fully established by proof, in which raw seamen, natives of the United States, fresh from the fields of agriculture, entering for the first time on shipboard, have been impressed before they made the land, placed on the decks of British men-of-war, and compelled to serve for years before they could obtain their release, or revisit their country and their homes. Such instances become known, and their effect in discouraging young men from engaging in the merchant service of their country can neither be doubted nor wondered at. More than all, my Lord, the practice of impressment, whenever it has existed, has produced, not conciliation and good feeling, but resentment, exasperation, and animosity between the two great commercial countries of the world.
In the calm and quiet which have succeeded the late war, a condition so favorable for dispassionate consideration, England herself has evidently seen the harshness of impressment, even when exercised on seamen in her own merchant service, and she has adopted measures calculated, if not to renounce the power or to abolish the practice, yet at least to supersede its necessity by other means of manning the royal navy more compatible with justice and the rights of individuals, and far more conformable to the spirit and sentiments of the age.
Under these circumstances, the government of the United States has used the occasion of your Lordship's pacific mission to review this whole subject, and to bring it to your notice and that of your government. It has reflected on the past, pondered the condition of the present, and endeavored to anticipate, so far as might be in its power, the probable future; and I am now to communicate to your Lordship the result of these deliberations.
The American government, then, is prepared to say that the practice of impressing seamen from American vessels cannot hereafter be allowed to take place. That practice is founded on principles which it does not recognize, and is invariably attended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such formidable magnitude, as cannot be submitted to.
In the early disputes between the two governments on this so long contested topic, the distinguished person to whose hands were first intrusted the seals of this department[1] declared, that "the simplest rule will be, that the vessel being American shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such."
Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotiations, and a careful reconsideration, now had, of the whole subject, at a moment when the passions are laid, and no present interest or emergency exists to bias the judgment, have fully convinced this government that this is not only the simplest and best, but the only rule, which can be adopted and observed, consistently with the rights and honor of the United States and the security of their citizens. That rule announces, therefore, what will hereafter be the principle maintained by their government. In every regularly documented American merchant-vessel the crew who navigate it will find their protection in the flag which is over them.
This announcement is not made, my Lord, to revive useless recollections of the past, nor to stir the embers from fires which have been, in a great degree, smothered by many years of peace. Far otherwise. Its purpose is to extinguish those fires effectually, before new incidents arise to fan them into flame. The communication is in the spirit of peace, and for the sake of peace, and springs from a deep and conscientious conviction that high interests of both nations require this so long contested and controverted subject now to be finally put to rest. I persuade myself that you will do justice to this frank and sincere avowal of motives, and that you will communicate your sentiments in this respect to your government.
This letter closes, my Lord, on my part, our official correspondence; and I gladly use the occasion to offer you the assurance of my high and sincere regard.
DANIEL WEBSTER.
LORD ASHBURTON, &c., &c., &c.
* * * * *
Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster.
Washington, August 9, 1842.
Sir,--The note you did me the honor of addressing me the 8th instant, on the subject of impressment, shall be transmitted without delay to my government, and will, you may be assured, receive from them the deliberate attention which its importance deserves.
The object of my mission was mainly the settlement of existing subjects of difference; and no differences have or could have arisen of late years with respect to impressment, because the practice has, since the peace, wholly ceased, and cannot, consistently with existing laws and regulations for manning her Majesty's navy, be, under the present circumstances, renewed.
Desirous, however, of looking far forward into futurity to anticipate even possible causes of disagreement, and sensible of the anxiety of the American people on this grave subject of past irritation, I should be sorry in any way to discourage the attempt at some settlement of it; and, although without authority to enter upon it here during the limited continuance of my mission, I entertain a confident hope that this task may be accomplished, when undertaken with the spirit of candor and conciliation which has marked all our late negotiations.
It not being our intention to endeavor now to come to any agreement on this subject, I may be permitted to abstain from noticing at length your very ingenious arguments relating to it, and from discussing the graver matters of constitutional and international law growing out of them. These sufficiently show that the question is one requiring calm consideration; though I must, at the same time, admit that they prove a strong necessity of some settlement for the preservation of that good understanding which, I trust, we may flatter ourselves that our joint labors have now succeeded in establishing.
I am well aware that the laws of our two countries maintain opposite principles respecting allegiance to the sovereign. America, receiving every year by thousands the emigrants of Europe, maintains the doctrine suitable to her condition, of the right of transferring allegiance at will. The laws of Great Britain have maintained from all time the opposite doctrine. The duties of allegiance are held to be indefeasible; and it is believed that this doctrine, under various modifications, prevails in most, if not in all, the civilized states of Europe.
Emigration, the modern mode by which the population of the world peaceably finds its level, is for the benefit of all, and eminently for the benefit of humanity. The fertile deserts of America are gradually advancing to the highest state of cultivation and production, while the emigrant acquires comfort which his own confined home could not afford him.
If there were any thing in our laws or our practice on either side tending to impede this march of providential humanity, we could not be too eager to provide a remedy; but as this does not appear to be the case, we may safely leave this part of the subject without indulging in abstract speculations having no material practical application to matters in discussion between us.
But it must be admitted that a serious practical question does arise, or, rather, has existed, from practices formerly attending the mode of manning the British navy in times of war. The principle is, that all subjects of the crown are, in case of necessity, bound to serve their country, and the seafaring man is naturally taken for the naval service. This is not, as is sometimes supposed, any arbitrary principle of monarchical government, but one founded on the natural duty of every man to defend the life of his country; and all the analogy of your laws would lead to the conclusion, that the same principle would hold good in the United States if their geographical position did not make its application unnecessary.
The very anomalous condition of the two countries with relation to each other here creates a serious difficulty. Our people are not distinguishable; and, owing to the peculiar habits of sailors, our vessels are very generally manned from a common stock. It is difficult, under these circumstances, to execute laws which at times have been thought to be essential for the existence of the country, without risk of injury to others. The extent and importance of those injuries, however, are so formidable, that it is admitted that some remedy should, if possible, be applied; at all events, it must be fairly and honestly attempted. It is true, that during the continuance of peace no practical grievance can arise; but it is also true, that it is for that reason the proper season for the calm and deliberate consideration of an important subject. I have much reason to hope that a satisfactory arrangement respecting it may be made, so as to set at rest all apprehension and anxiety; and I will only further repeat the assurance of the sincere disposition of my government favorably to consider all matters having for their object the promoting and maintaining undisturbed kind and friendly feelings with the United States.
I beg, Sir, on this occasion of closing the correspondence with you connected with my mission, to express the satisfaction I feel at its successful termination, and to assure you of my high consideration and personal esteem and regard.
ASHBURTON.
HON. DANIEL WEBSTER, &c., &c., &c.
[Footnote 1: Mr. Jefferson.]
* * * * *
THE RIGHT OF SEARCH.
Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett.
Department of State, Washington, March 28, 1843.
Sir,--I transmit to you with this despatch a message from the President of the United States to Congress, communicated on the 27th of February, and accompanied by a report made from this department to the President, of the substance of a despatch from Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Fox, which was by him read to me on the 24th ultimo.
Lord Aberdeen's despatch, as you will perceive, was occasioned by a passage in the President's message to Congress at the opening of its late session. The particular passage is not stated by his Lordship; but no mistake will be committed, it is presumed, in considering it to be that which was quoted by Sir Robert Peel and other gentlemen in the debate in the House of Commons, on the answer to the Queen's speech, on the 3d of February.
The President regrets that it should have become necessary to hold a diplomatic correspondence upon the subject of a communication from the head of the executive government to the legislature, drawing after it, as in this case, the further necessity of referring to observations made by persons in high and responsible stations, in debates of public bodies. Such a necessity, however, seems to be unavoidably incurred in consequence of Lord Aberdeen's despatch; for, although the President's recent message may be regarded as a clear exposition of his opinions on the subject, yet a just respect for her Majesty's government, and a disposition to meet all questions with promptness, as well as with frankness and candor, require that a formal answer should be made to that despatch.
The words in the message at the opening of the session which are complained of, it is supposed, are the following: "Although Lord Aberdeen, in his correspondence with the American envoys at London, expressly disclaimed all right to detain an American ship on the high seas, even if found with a cargo of slaves on board, and restricted the British pretension to a mere claim to visit and inquire, yet it could not well be discerned by the Executive of the United States how such visit and inquiry could be made without detention on the voyage, and consequent interruption to the trade. It was regarded as the right of search, presented only in a new form and expressed in different words; and I therefore felt it to be my duty distinctly to declare, in my annual message to Congress, that no such concession could be made, and that the United States had both the will and the ability to enforce their own laws, and to protect their flag from being used for purposes wholly forbidden by those laws, and obnoxious to the moral censure of the world."
This statement would tend, as Lord Aberdeen thinks, to convey the supposition, not only that the question of the right of search had been disavowed by the British plenipotentiary at Washington, but that Great Britain had made concessions on that point.
Lord Aberdeen is entirely correct in saying that the claim of a right of search was not discussed during the late negotiation, and that neither was any concession required by this government, nor made by that of her Britannic Majesty.
The eighth and ninth articles of the treaty of Washington constitute a mutual stipulation for concerted efforts to abolish the African slave-trade. The stipulation, it may be admitted, has no other effects on the pretensions of either party than this: Great Britain had claimed as a right that which this government could not admit to be a right, and, in the exercise of a just and proper spirit of amity, a mode was resorted to which might render unnecessary both the assertion and the denial of such claim.
There probably are those who think that what Lord Aberdeen calls a right of visit, and which he attempts to distinguish from the right of search, ought to have been expressly acknowledged by the government of the United States. At the same time, there are those on the other side who think that the formal surrender of such right of visit should have been demanded by the United States as a precedent condition to the negotiation for treaty stipulations on the subject of the African slave-trade. But the treaty neither asserts the claim in terms, nor denies the claim in terms; it neither formally insists upon it, nor formally renounces it. Still, the whole proceeding shows that the object of the stipulation was to avoid such differences and disputes as had already arisen, and the serious practical evils and inconveniences which, it cannot be denied, are always liable to result from the practice which Great Britain had asserted to be lawful. These evils and inconveniences had been acknowledged by both governments. They had been such as to cause much irritation, and to threaten to disturb the amicable sentiments which prevailed between them. Both governments were sincerely desirous of abolishing the slave-trade; both governments were equally desirous of avoiding occasion of complaint by their respective citizens and subjects; and both governments regarded the eighth and ninth articles as effectual for their avowed purpose, and likely, at the same time, to preserve all friendly relations, and to take away causes of future individual complaints. The treaty of Washington was intended to fulfil the obligations entered into by the treaty of Ghent. It stands by itself; is clear and intelligible. It speaks its own language, and manifests its own purpose. It needs no interpretation, and requires no comment. As a fact, as an important occurrence in national intercourse, it may have important bearings on existing questions respecting the public law; and individuals, or perhaps governments, may not agree as to what these bearings really are. Great Britain has discussions, if not controversies, with other great European states upon the subject of visit or search. These states will naturally make their own commentary on the treaty of Washington, and draw their own inferences from the fact that such a treaty has been entered into. Its stipulations, in the mean time, are plain, explicit, and satisfactory to both parties, and will be fulfilled on the part of the United States, and, it is not doubted, on the part of Great Britain also, with the utmost good faith.
Holding this to be the true character of the treaty, I might, perhaps, excuse myself from entering into the consideration of the grounds of that claim of a right to visit merchant-ships for certain purposes, in time of peace, which Lord Aberdeen asserts for the British government, and declares that it can never surrender. But I deem it right, nevertheless, and no more than justly respectful toward the British government, not to leave the point without remark.
In his recent message to Congress, the President, referring to the language of Lord Aberdeen in his note to Mr. Everett of the 20th of December, 1841, and in his late despatch to Mr. Fox, says: "These declarations may well lead us to doubt whether the apparent difference between the two governments is not rather one of definition than of principle."
Lord Aberdeen, in his note to you of the 20th of December, says: "The undersigned again renounces, as he has already done in the most explicit terms, any right on the part of the British government to search American vessels in time of peace. The right of search, except when specially conceded by treaty, is a pure belligerent right, and can have no existence on the high seas during peace. The undersigned apprehends, however, that the right of search is not confined to the verification of the nationality of the vessel, but also extends to the object of the voyage and the nature of the cargo. The sole purpose of the British cruisers is to ascertain whether the vessels they meet with are really American or not. The right asserted has, in truth, no resemblance to the right of search, either in principle or practice. It is simply a right to satisfy the party who has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, that the vessel actually is what her colors announce. This right we concede as freely as we exercise. The British cruisers are not instructed to detain American vessels under any circumstances whatever; on the contrary, they are ordered to abstain from all interference with them, be they slavers or otherwise. But where reasonable suspicion exists that the American flag has been abused for the purpose of covering the vessel of another nation, it would appear scarcely credible, had it not been made manifest by the repeated protestations of their representative, that the government of the United States, which has stigmatized and abolished the trade itself, should object to the adoption of such means as are indispensably necessary for ascertaining the truth."
And in his recent despatch to Mr. Fox his Lordship further says: "That the President might be assured that Great Britain would always respect the just claims of the United States. That the British government made no pretension to interfere in any manner whatever, either by detention, visit, or search, with vessels of the United States, known or believed to be such, but that it still maintained, and would exercise when necessary, its own right to ascertain the genuineness of any flag which a suspected vessel might bear; that if, in the exercise of this right, either from involuntary error, or in spite of every precaution, loss or injury should be sustained, a prompt reparation would be afforded; but that it should entertain, for a single instant, the notion of abandoning the right itself, would be quite impossible."
This, then, is the British claim, as asserted by her Majesty's government.
In his remarks in the speech already referred to, in the House of Commons, the first minister of the crown said: "There is nothing more distinct than the right of visit is from the right of search. Search is a belligerent right, and not to be exercised in time of peace, except when it has been conceded by treaty. The right of search extends not only to the vessel, but to the cargo also. The right of visit is quite distinct from this, though the two are often unfounded. The right of search, with respect to American vessels, we entirely and utterly disclaim; nay, more, if we knew that an American vessel were furnished with all the materials requisite for the slave-trade, if we knew that the decks were prepared to receive hundreds of human beings within a space in which life is almost impossible, still we should be bound to let that American vessel pass on. But the right we claim is to know whether a vessel pretending to be American, and hoisting the American flag, be bona fide American."
The President's message is regarded as holding opinions in opposition to these.
The British government, then, supposes that the right of visit and the right of search are essentially distinct in their nature, and that this difference is well known and generally acknowledged; that the difference between them consists in their different objects and purposes: one, the visit, having for its object nothing but to ascertain the nationality of the vessel; the other, the search, by an inquisition, not only into the nationality of the vessel, but the nature and object of her voyage, and the true ownership of her cargo.
The government of the United States, on the other hand, maintains that there is no such well-known and acknowledged, nor, indeed, any broad and generic difference between what has been usually called visit, and what has been usually called search; that the right of visit, to be effectual, must come, in the end, to include search; and thus to exercise, in peace, an authority which the law of nations only allows in times of war. If such well-known distinction exists, where are the proofs of it? What writers of authority on public law, what adjudications in courts of admiralty, what public treaties, recognize it? No such recognition has presented itself to the government of the United States; but, on the contrary, it understands that public writers, courts of law, and solemn treaties have, for two centuries, used the words "visit" and "search" in the same sense. What Great Britain and the United States mean by the "right of search," in its broadest sense, is called by Continental writers and jurists by no other name than the "right of visit." Visit, therefore, as it has been understood, implies not only a right to inquire into the national character, but to detain the vessel, to stop the progress of the voyage, to examine papers, to decide on their regularity and authenticity, and to make inquisition on board for enemy's property, and into the business which the vessel is engaged in. In other words, it describes the entire right of belligerent visitation and search. Such a right is justly disclaimed by the British government in time of peace. They, nevertheless, insist on a right which they denominate a right of visit, and by that word describe the claim which they assert. It is proper, and due to the importance and delicacy of the questions involved, to take care that, in discussing them, both governments understand the terms which may be used in the same sense. If, indeed, it should be manifest that the difference between the parties is only verbal, it might be hoped that no harm would be done; but the government of the United States thinks itself not justly chargeable with excessive jealousy, or with too great scrupulosity in the use of words, in insisting on its opinion that there is no such distinction as the British government maintains between visit and search; and that there is no right to visit in time of peace, except in the execution of revenue laws or other municipal regulations, in which cases the right is usually exercised near the coast, or within the marine league, or where the vessel is justly suspected of violating the law of nations by piratical aggression; but, wherever exercised, it is a right of search.
Nor can the United States government agree that the term "right" is justly applied to such exercise of power as the British government thinks it indispensable to maintain in certain cases. The right asserted is a right to ascertain whether a merchant-vessel is justly entitled to the protection of the flag which she may happen to have hoisted, such vessel being in circumstances which render her liable to the suspicion, first, that she is not entitled to the protection of the flag; and secondly, that, if not entitled to it, she is, either by the law of England, as an English vessel, or under the provisions of treaties with certain European powers, subject to the supervision and search of British cruisers. And yet Lord Aberdeen says, "that if, in the exercise of this right, either from involuntary error, or in spite of every precaution, loss or injury should be sustained, a prompt reparation would be afforded."
It is not easy to perceive how these consequences can be admitted justly to flow from the fair exercise of a clear right. If injury be produced by the exercise of a right, it would seem strange that it should be repaired, as if it had been the effect of a wrongful act. The general rule of law certainly is, that, in the proper and prudent exercise of his own right, no one is answerable for undesigned injuries. It may be said that the right is a qualified right; that it is a right to do certain acts of force at the risk of turning out to be wrong-doers, and of being made answerable for all damages. But such an argument would prove every trespass to be matter of right, subject only to just responsibility. If force were allowed to such reasoning in other cases, it would follow that an individual's right in his own property was hardly more than a well-founded claim for compensation if he should be deprived of it. But compensation is that which is rendered for injury, and is not commutation, or forced equivalent, for acknowledged rights. It implies, at least in its general interpretation the commission of some wrongful act.
But, without pressing further these inquiries into the accuracy and propriety of definitions and the use of words, I proceed to draw your attention to the thing itself, and to consider what these acts are which the British government insists its cruisers have a right to perform, and to what consequences they naturally and necessarily tend. An eminent member of the House of Commons[1] thus states the British claim, and his statement is acquiesced in and adopted by the first minister of the crown:--
"The claim of this country is for the right of our cruisers to ascertain whether a merchant-vessel is justly entitled to the protection of the flag which she may happen to have hoisted, such vessel being in circumstances which rendered her liable to the suspicion, first, that she was not entitled to the protection of the flag; and, secondly, if not entitled to it, she was, either under the law of nations or the provisions of treaties, subject to the supervision and control of our cruisers."
Now the question is, By what means is this ascertainment to be effected?
As we understand the general and settled rules of public law, in respect to ships of war sailing under the authority of their government, "to arrest pirates and other public offenders," there is no reason why they may not approach any vessels descried at sea for the purpose of ascertaining their real characters. Such a right of approach seems indispensable for the fair and discreet exercise of their authority; and the use of it cannot he justly deemed indicative of any design to insult or injure those they approach, or to impede them in their lawful commerce. On the other hand, it is as clear that no ship is, under such circumstances, bound to lie by or wait the approach of any other ship. She is at full liberty to pursue her voyage in her own way, and to use all necessary precautions to avoid any suspected sinister enterprise or hostile attack. Her right to the free use of the ocean is as perfect as that of any other ship. An entire equality is presumed to exist. She has a right to consult her own safety, but at the same time she must take care not to violate the rights of others. She may use any precautions dictated by the prudence or fears of her officers, either as to delay, or the progress or course of her voyage; but she is not at liberty to inflict injuries upon other innocent parties simply because of conjectural dangers.
But if the vessel thus approached attempts to avoid the vessel approaching, or does not comply with her commander's order to send him her papers for his inspection, nor consent to be visited or detained, what is next to be done? Is force to be used? And if force be used, may that force be lawfully repelled? These questions lead at once to the elemental principle, the essence of the British claim. Suppose the merchant-vessel be in truth an American vessel engaged in lawful commerce, and that she does not choose to be detained. Suppose she resists the visit. What is the consequence? In all cases in which the belligerent right of visit exists, resistance to the exercise of that right is regarded as just cause of condemnation, both of vessel and cargo. Is that penalty, or what other penalty, to be incurred by resistance to visit in time of peace? Or suppose that force be met by force, gun returned for gun, and the commander of the cruiser, or some of his seamen be killed; what description of offence will have been committed? It would be said, in behalf of the commander of the cruiser, that he mistook the vessel for a vessel of England, Brazil, or Portugal; but does this mistake of his take away from the American vessel the right of self-defence? The writers of authority declare it to be a principle of natural law, that the privilege of self-defence exists against an assailant who mistakes the object of his attack for another whom he had a right to assail.
Lord Aberdeen cannot fail to see, therefore, what serious consequences might ensue, if it were to be admitted that this claim to visit, in time of peace, however limited or defined, should be permitted to exist as a strict matter of right; for if it exist as a right, it must be followed by corresponding duties and obligations, and the failure to fulfil those duties would naturally draw penal consequences after it, till erelong it would become, in truth, little less, or little other, than the belligerent right of search.
If visit or visitation be not accompanied by search, it will be in most cases merely idle. A sight of papers may be demanded, and papers may be produced. But it is known that slave-traders carry false papers, and different sets of papers. A search for other papers, then, must be made where suspicion justifies it, or else the whole proceeding would be nugatory. In suspicious cases, the language and general appearance of the crew are among the means of ascertaining the national character of the vessel. The cargo on board, also, often indicates the country from which she comes. Her log-books, showing the previous course and events of her voyage, her internal fitting up and equipment, are all evidences for her, or against her, on her allegation of character. These matters, it is obvious, can only be ascertained by rigorous search.
It may be asked, If a vessel may not be called on to show her papers, why does she carry papers? No doubt she may be called on to show her papers; but the question is, Where, when, and by whom? Not in time of peace, on the high seas, where her rights are equal to the rights of any other vessel, and where none has a right to molest her. The use of her papers is, in time of war, to prove her neutrality when visited by belligerent cruisers; and in both peace and war, to show her national character, and the lawfulness of her voyage, in those ports of other countries to which she may proceed for purposes of trade.
It appears to the government of the United States, that the view of this whole subject which is the most naturally taken is also the most legal, and most in analogy with other cases. British cruisers have a right to detain British merchantmen for certain purposes; and they have a right, acquired by treaty, to detain merchant-vessels of several other nations for the same purposes. But they have no right at all to detain an American merchant-vessel. This Lord Aberdeen admits in the fullest manner. Any detention of an American vessel by a British cruiser is therefore a wrong, a trespass; although it may be done under the belief that she was a British vessel, or that she belonged to a nation which had conceded the right of such detention to the British cruisers, and the trespass therefore an involuntary trespass. If a ship of war, in thick weather, or in the darkness of the night, fire upon and sink a neutral vessel, under the belief that she is an enemy's vessel, this is a trespass, a mere wrong; and cannot be said to be an act done under any right, accompanied by responsibility for damages. So if a civil officer on land have process against one individual, and through mistake arrest another, this arrest is wholly tortious; no one would think of saying that it was done under any lawful exercise of authority, subject only to responsibility, or that it was any thing but a mere trespass, though an unintentional trespass. The municipal law does not undertake to lay down beforehand any rule for the government of such cases; and as little, in the opinion of the government of the United States, does the public law of the world lay down beforehand any rule for the government of cases of involuntary trespasses, detentions, and injuries at sea; except that in both classes of cases law and reason make a distinction between injuries committed through mistake and injuries committed by design, the former being entitled to fair and just compensation, the latter demanding exemplary damages, and sometimes personal punishment. The government of the United States has frequently made known its opinion, which it now repeats, that the practice of detaining American vessels, though subject to just compensation if such detention afterward turn out to have been without good cause, however guarded by instructions, or however cautiously exercised, necessarily leads to serious inconvenience and injury. The amount of loss cannot be always well ascertained. Compensation, if it be adequate in the amount, may still necessarily be long delayed; and the pendency of such claims always proves troublesome to the governments of both countries. These detentions, too, frequently irritate individuals, cause warm blood, and produce nothing but ill effects on the amicable relations existing between the countries. We wish, therefore, to put an end to them, and to avoid all occasions for their recurrence.
On the whole, the government of the United States, while it has not conceded a mutual right of visit or search, as has been done by the parties to the quintuple treaty of December, 1841, does not admit that, by the law and practice of nations, there is any such thing as a right of visit, distinguished by well-known rules and definitions from the right of search.
It does not admit that visit of American merchant-vessels by British cruisers is founded on any right, notwithstanding the cruiser may suppose such vessel to be British, Brazilian, or Portuguese. We cannot but see that the detention and examination of American vessels by British cruisers has already led to consequences, and fear that, if continued, it would still lead to further consequences, highly injurious to the lawful commerce of the United States.
At the same time, the government of the United States fully admits that its flag can give no immunity to pirates, nor to any other than to regularly documented American vessels. It was upon this view of the whole case, and with a firm conviction of the truth of these sentiments, that it cheerfully assumed the duties contained in the treaty of Washington; in the hope that thereby causes of difficulty and difference might be altogether removed, and that the two powers might be enabled to act concurrently, cordially, and effectually for the suppression of a traffic which both regard as a reproach upon the civilization of the age, and at war with every principle of humanity and every Christian sentiment.
The government of the United States has no interest, nor is it under the influence of any opinions, which should lead it to desire any derogation of the just authority and rights of maritime power. But in the convictions which it entertains, and in the measures which it has adopted, it has been governed solely by a sincere desire to support those principles and those practices which it believes to be conformable to public law, and favorable to the peace and harmony of nations.
Both houses of Congress, with a remarkable degree of unanimity, have made express provisions for carrying into effect the eighth article of the treaty. An American squadron will immediately proceed to the coast of Africa. Instructions for its commander are in the course of preparation, and copies will be furnished to the British government; and the President confidently believes, that the cordial concurrence of the two governments in the mode agreed on will be more effectual than any efforts yet made for the suppression of the slave-trade.
You will read this despatch to Lord Aberdeen, and, if he desire it, give him a copy.
I am, Sir, &c., &c.
DANIEL WEBSTER.
EDWARD EVERETT, ESQ., &c., &c., &c.
[Footnote 1: Mr. Wood, now Sir Charles Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
* * * * *
LETTERS TO GENERAL CASS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
Mr. Webster to General Cass.
Department of State, Washington, August 29, 1842.
Sir,--You will see by the enclosed the result of the negotiations lately had in this city between this department and Lord Ashburton. The treaty has been ratified by the President and Senate.
In communicating to you this treaty, I am directed by the President to draw your particular attention to those articles which relate to the suppression of the African slave-trade.
After full and anxious consideration of this very delicate subject, the government of the United States has come to the conclusion which you will see expressed in the President's message to the Senate accompanying the treaty.
Without intending or desiring to influence the policy of other governments on this important subject, this government has reflected on what was due to its own character and position, as the leading maritime power on the American continent, left free to make choice of such means for the fulfilment of its duties as it should deem best suited to its dignity. The result of its reflections has been, that it does not concur in measures which, for whatever benevolent purpose they may be adopted, or with whatever care and moderation they may be exercised, have yet a tendency to place the police of the seas in the hands of a single power. It chooses rather to follow its own laws with its own sanction, and to carry them into execution by its own authority. Disposed to act in the spirit of the most cordial concurrence with other nations for the suppression of the African slave-trade, that great reproach of our times, it deems it to be right, nevertheless, that this action, though concurrent, should be independent, and it believes that from this independence it will derive a greater degree of efficiency.
You will perceive, however, that, in the opinion of this government, cruising against slave-dealers on the coast of Africa is not all which is necessary to be done in order to put an end to the traffic. There are markets for slaves, or the unhappy natives of Africa would not be seized, chained, and carried over the ocean into slavery. These markets ought to be shut. And, in the treaty now communicated to you, the high contracting parties have stipulated "that they will unite, in all becoming representations and remonstrances, with any and all powers within whose dominions such markets are allowed to exist; and that they will urge upon all such powers the propriety and duty of closing such markets effectually, at once and for ever."
You are furnished, then, with the American policy in regard to this interesting subject. First, independent but cordially concurrent efforts of maritime states to suppress, as far as possible, the trade on the coast, by means of competent and well-appointed squadrons, to watch the shores and scour the neighboring seas. Secondly, concurrent, becoming remonstrance with all governments who tolerate within their territories markets for the purchase of African negroes. There is much reason to believe that, if other states, professing equal hostility to this nefarious traffic, would give their own powerful concurrence and co-operation to these remonstrances, the general effect would be satisfactory, and that the cupidity and crimes of individuals would at length cease to find both their temptation and their reward in the bosom of Christian states, and in the permission of Christian governments.
It will still remain for each government to revise, execute, and make more effectual its own municipal laws against its subjects or citizens who shall be concerned in, or in any way give aid or countenance to others concerned in this traffic.
You are at liberty to make the contents of this despatch known to the French government.
I have, &c.
DANIEL WEBSTER.
LEWIS CASS, ESQ., &c., &c., &c.
* * * * *
Mr. F. Webster to General Cass.
Department of State, Washington, October 11, 1842.
Sir,--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 17th of September last, requesting permission to return home.
I have submitted the despatch to the President, and am by him directed to say, that although he much regrets that your own wishes should, at this time, terminate your mission to the court of France, where for a long period you have rendered your country distinguished service, in all instances to its honor and to the satisfaction of the government, and where you occupy so favorable a position, from the more than ordinary good intelligence which is understood to subsist between you, personally, and the members of the French government, and from the esteem entertained for you by its illustrious head; yet he cannot refuse your request to return once more to your home and your country, so that you can pay that attention to your personal and private affairs which your long absence and constant employment in the service of your government may now render most necessary.
I have, Sir, to tender you, on behalf of the President, his most cordial good wishes, and am, &c.
FLETCHER WEBSTER, Acting Secretary of State.
LEWIS CASS, ESQ., &c., &c., &c.
* * * * *
Mr. Webster to General Cass.
Department of State, Washington, November 14, 1842.
Sir,--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 3d of October, brought by the "Great Western," which arrived at New York on the 6th instant.
It is probable you will have embarked for the United States before my communication can now reach you; but as it is thought proper that your letter should be answered, and as circumstances may possibly have occurred to delay your departure, this will be transmitted to Paris in the ordinary way.
Your letter has caused the President considerable concern. Entertaining a lively sense of the respectable and useful manner in which you have discharged, for several years, the duties of an important foreign mission, it occasions him real regret and pain, that your last official communication should be of such a character as that he cannot give to it his entire and cordial approbation.
It appears to be intended as a sort of protest, a remonstrance, in the form of an official despatch, against a transaction of the government to which you were not a party, in which you had no agency whatever, and for the results of which you were no way answerable. This would seem an unusual and extraordinary proceeding. In common with every other citizen of the republic, you have an unquestionable right to form opinions upon public transactions, and the conduct of public men; but it will hardly be thought to be among either the duties or the privileges of a minister abroad to make formal remonstrances and protests against proceedings of the various branches of the government at home, upon subjects in relation to which he himself has not been charged with any duty or partaken any responsibility.
The negotiation and conclusion of the treaty of Washington were in the hands of the President and Senate. They had acted upon this important subject according to their convictions of duty and of the public interest, and had ratified the treaty. It was a thing done; and although your opinion might be at variance with that of the President and Senate, it is not perceived that you had any cause of complaint, remonstrance, or protest, more than any other citizen who might entertain the same opinion.
In your letter of the 17th of September, requesting your recall, you observe: "The mail by the steam-packet which left Boston the 1st instant has just arrived, and has brought intelligence of the ratification of the treaties recently concluded with Great Britain. All apprehensions, therefore, of any immediate difficulties with that country are at an end, and I do not see that any public interest demands my further residence in Europe. I can no longer be useful here, and the state of my private affairs requires my presence at home. Under these circumstances, I beg you to submit to the President my wish for permission to retire from this mission, and to return to the United States without delay."
As you appeared at that time not to be acquainted with the provisions of the treaty, it was inferred that your desire to return home proceeded from the conviction that, inasmuch as all apprehensions of immediate differences with Great Britain were at an end, you would no longer be useful at Paris. Placing this interpretation on your letter, and believing, as you yourself allege, that your long absence abroad rendered it desirable for you to give some attention to your private affairs in this country, the President lost no time in yielding to your request, and, in doing so, signified to you the sentiments of approbation which he entertained for your conduct abroad. You may, then, well imagine the great astonishment which the declaration contained in your despatch of the 3d of October, that you could no longer remain in France honorably to yourself or advantageously to the country, and that the proceedings of this government had placed you in a false position, from which you could escape only by returning home, created in his mind.
The President perceives not the slightest foundation for these opinions. He cannot see how your usefulness as minister to France should be terminated by the settlement of difficulties and disputes between the United States and Great Britain. You have been charged with no duties connected with the settlement of these questions, or in any way relating to them, beyond the communication to the French government of the President's approbation of your letter of the 13th of February, written without previous instructions from this department. This government is not informed of any other act or proceeding of yours connected with any part of the subject, nor does it know that your official conduct and character have become in any other way connected with the question of the right of search; and that letter having been approved, and the French government having been so informed, the President is altogether at a loss to understand how you can regard yourself as placed in a false position. If the character or conduct of any one was to be affected, it could only be the character and conduct of the President himself. The government has done nothing, most assuredly, to place you in a false position. Representing your country at a foreign court, you saw a transaction about to take place between the government to which you were accredited and another power, which you thought might have a prejudicial effect on the interest of your own country. Thinking, as it is to be presumed, that the case was too pressing to wait for instructions, you presented a protest against that transaction, and our government approved your proceeding. This is your only official connection with the whole subject. If after this the President had sanctioned the negotiation of a treaty, and the Senate had ratified it, containing provisions in the highest degree objectionable, however the government might be discredited, your exemption from all blame and censure would have been complete. Having delivered your letter of the 13th of February to the French government, and having received the President's approbation of that proceeding, it is most manifest that you could be in no degree responsible for what should be done afterward, and done by others. The President, therefore, cannot conceive what particular or personal interest of yours was affected by the subsequent negotiation here, or how the treaty, the result of that negotiation, should put an end to your usefulness as a public minister at the court of France, or in any way affect your official character or conduct.
It is impossible not to see that such a proceeding as you have seen fit to adopt might produce much inconvenience, and even serious prejudice, to the public interests. Your opinion is against the treaty, a treaty concluded and formally ratified; and, to support that opinion, while yet in the service of the government, you put a construction on its provisions such as your own government does not put upon them, such as you must be aware the enlightened public of Europe does not put upon them, and such as England herself has not put upon them as yet, so far as we know.
It may become necessary hereafter to publish your letter, in connection with other correspondence of the mission; and although it is not to be presumed that you looked to such publication, because such a presumption would impute to you a claim to put forth your private opinions upon the conduct of the President and Senate, in a transaction finished and concluded, through the imposing form of a public despatch, yet, if published, it cannot be foreseen how far England might hereafter rely on your authority for a construction favorable to her own pretensions, and inconsistent with the interest and honor of the United States. It is certain that you would most sedulously desire to avoid any such attitude. You would be slow to express opinions, in a solemn and official form, favorable to another government, and on the authority of which opinions that other government might hereafter found new claims or set up new pretensions. It is for this reason, as well as others, that the President feels so much regret at your desire of placing your construction of the provisions of the treaty, and your objections to those provisions, according to your construction, upon the records of the government.
Before examining the several objections suggested by you, it may be proper to take notice of what you say upon the course of the negotiation. In regard to this, having observed that the national dignity of the United States had not been compromised down to the time of the President's message to the last session of Congress, you proceed to say: "But England then urged the United States to enter into a conventional arrangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her in measures for the suppression of the slave-trade. Till then we had executed our own laws in our own way. But, yielding to this application, and departing from our former principle of avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, we stipulated in a solemn treaty, that we would carry into effect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would employ for that purpose."
The President cannot conceive how you should have been led to adventure upon such a statement as this. It is but a tissue of mistakes. England did not urge the United States to enter into this conventional arrangement. The United States yielded to no application from England. The proposition for abolishing the slave-trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an American proposition; it originated with the executive government of the United States, which cheerfully assumes all its responsibility. It stands upon it as its own mode of fulfilling its duties, and accomplishing its objects. Nor have the United States departed, in this treaty, in the slightest degree, from their former principles of avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, because the abolition of the African slave-trade is an American subject as emphatically as it is a European subject; and indeed more so, inasmuch as the government of the United States took the first great steps in declaring that trade unlawful, and in attempting its extinction. The abolition of this traffic is an object of the highest interest to the American people and the American government; and you seem strangely to have overlooked altogether the important fact, that nearly thirty years ago, by the treaty of Ghent, the United States bound themselves by solemn compact with England, to continue "their efforts to promote its entire abolition," both parties pledging themselves by that treaty to use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object.
Again, you speak of an important concession made to the renewed application of England. But the treaty, let it be repeated, makes no concession to England whatever. It complies with no demand, grants no application, conforms to no request. All these statements, thus by you made, and which are so exceedingly erroneous, seem calculated to hold up the idea, that in this treaty your government has been acting a subordinate, or even a complying part.
The President is not a little startled that you should make such totally groundless assumptions of fact, and then leave a discreditable inference to be drawn from them. He directs me not only to repel this inference as it ought to be repelled, but also to bring to your serious consideration and reflection the propriety of such an assumed narration of facts as your despatch, in this respect, puts forth.
Having informed the department that a copy of the letter of the 24th of August, addressed by me to you, had been delivered to M. Guizot, you proceed to say: "In executing this duty, I felt too well what was due to my government and country to intimate my regret to a foreign power that some declaration had not preceded the treaty, or some stipulation accompanied it, by which the extraordinary pretension of Great Britain to search our ships at all times and in all places, first put forth to the world by Lord Palmerston on the 27th of August, 1841, and on the 13th of October following again peremptorily claimed as a right by Lord Aberdeen, would have been abrogated, as equally incompatible with the laws of nations and with the independence of the United States. I confined myself, therefore, to a simple communication of your letter." It may be true that the British pretension leads necessarily to consequences as broad and general as your statement. But it is no more than fair to state that pretension in the words of the British government itself, and then it becomes matter of consideration and argument how broad and extensive it really is. The last statement of this pretension, or claim, by the British government, is contained in Lord Aberdeen's note to Mr. Stevenson of the 13th of October, 1841. It is in these words:--
"The undersigned readily admits, that to visit and search American vessels in time of peace, when that right of search is not granted by treaty, would be an infraction of public law, and a violation of national dignity and independence. But no such right is asserted. We sincerely desire to respect the vessels of the United States, but we may reasonably expect to know what it really is that we respect. Doubtless the flag is prima facie evidence of the nationality of the vessel; and, if this evidence were in its nature conclusive and irrefragable, it ought to preclude all further inquiry. But it is sufficiently notorious that the flags of all nations are liable to be assumed by those who have no right or title to bear them. Mr. Stevenson himself fully admits the extent to which the American flag has been employed for the purpose of covering this infamous traffic. The undersigned joins with Mr. Stevenson in deeply lamenting the evil; and he agrees with him in thinking that the United States ought not to be considered responsible for this abuse of their flag. But if all inquiry be resisted, even when carried no further than to ascertain the nationality of the vessel, and impunity be claimed for the most lawless and desperate of mankind, in the commission of this fraud, the undersigned greatly fears that it may be regarded as something like an assumption of that responsibility which has been deprecated by Mr. Stevenson....
"The undersigned renounces all pretension on the part of the British government to visit and search American vessels in time of peace. Nor is it as American that such vessels are ever visited; but, it has been the invariable practice of the British navy, and, as the undersigned believes, of all navies in the world, to ascertain by visit the real nationality of merchant-vessels met with on the high seas, if there be good reason to apprehend their illegal character....
"The undersigned admits, that, if the British cruiser should possess a knowledge of the American character of any vessel, his visitation of such vessel would be entirely unjustifiable. He further admits, that so much respect and honor are due to the American flag, that no vessel bearing it ought to be visited by a British cruiser, except under the most grave suspicions and well-founded doubts of the genuineness of its character.
"The undersigned, although with pain, must add, that if such visit should lead to the proof of the American origin of the vessel, and that she was avowedly engaged in the slave-trade, exhibiting to view the manacles, fetters, and other usual implements of torture, or had even a number of these unfortunate beings on board, no British officer could interfere further. He might give information to the cruisers of the United States, but it could not be in his own power to arrest or impede the prosecution of the voyage and the success of the undertaking.
"It is obvious, therefore, that the utmost caution is necessary in the exercise of this right claimed by Great Britain. While we have recourse to the necessary, and, indeed, the only means for detecting imposture, the practice will be carefully guarded and limited to cases of strong suspicion. The undersigned begs to assure Mr. Stevenson that the most precise and positive instructions have been issued to her Majesty's officers on this subject."
Such are the words of the British claim or pretension; and it stood in this form at the delivery of the President's message to Congress in December last; a message in which you are pleased to say that the British pretension was promptly met and firmly resisted.
I may now proceed to a more particular examination of the objections which you make to the treaty.
You observe that you think a just self-respect required of the government of the United States to demand of Lord Ashburton a distinct renunciation of the British claim to search our vessels previous to entering into any negotiation. The government has thought otherwise; and this appears to be your main objection to the treaty, if, indeed, it be not the only one which is clearly and distinctly stated. The government of the United States supposed that, in this respect, it stood in a position in which it had no occasion to demand any thing, or ask for any thing, of England. The British pretension, whatever it was, or however extensive, was well known to the President at the date of his message to Congress at the opening of the last session. And I must be allowed to remind you how the President treated this subject in that communication.
"However desirous the United States may be," said he, "for the suppression of the slave-trade, they cannot consent to interpolations into the maritime code at the mere will and pleasure of other governments. We deny the right of any such interpolation to any one, or all the nations of the earth, without our consent. We claim to have a voice in all amendments or alterations of that code; and when we are given to understand, as in this instance, by a foreign government, that its treaties with other nations cannot be executed without the establishment and enforcement of new principles of maritime police, to be applied without our consent, we must employ a language neither of equivocal import nor susceptible of misconstruction. American citizens prosecuting a lawful commerce in the African seas, under the flag of their country, are not responsible for the abuse or unlawful use of that flag by others; nor can they rightfully, on account of any such alleged abuses, be interrupted, molested, or detained while on the ocean; and if thus molested and detained while pursuing honest voyages in the usual way, and violating no law themselves, they are unquestionably entitled to indemnity."
This declaration of the President stands: not a syllable of it has been, or will be, retracted. The principles which it announces rest on their inherent justice and propriety, on their conformity to public law, and, so far as we are concerned, on the determination and ability of the country to maintain them. To these principles the government is pledged, and that pledge it will be at all times ready to redeem.
But what is your own language on this point? You say, "This claim (the British claim), thus asserted and supported, was promptly met and firmly repelled by the President in his message at the commencement of the last session of Congress; and in your letter to me approving the course I had adopted in relation to the question of the ratification by France of the quintuple treaty, you consider the principles of that message as the established policy of the government." And you add, "So far, our national dignity was uncompromitted." If this be so, what is there which has since occurred to compromit this dignity? You shall yourself be judge of this; because you say, in a subsequent part of your letter, that "the mutual rights of the parties are in this respect wholly untouched." If, then, the British pretension had been promptly met and firmly repelled by the President's message; if, so far, our national dignity had not been compromitted; and if, as you further say, our rights remain wholly untouched by any subsequent act or proceeding, what ground is there on which to found complaint against the treaty?
But your sentiments on this point do not concur with the opinions of your government. That government is of opinion that the sentiments of the message, which you so highly approve, are reaffirmed and corroborated by the treaty, and the correspondence accompanying it. The very object sought to be obtained, in proposing the mode adopted for abolishing the slave-trade, was to take away all pretence whatever for interrupting lawful commerce by the visitation of American vessels. Allow me to refer you, on this point, to the following passage in the message of the President to the Senate, accompanying the treaty:--
"In my message at the commencement of the present session of Congress, I endeavored to state the principles which this government supports respecting the right of search and the immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining those principles fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be fulfilled, I have thought it most consistent with the dignity and honor of the country that it should execute its own laws and perform its own obligations by its own means and its own power. The examination or visitation of the merchant-vessels of one nation by the cruisers of another, for any purposes except those known and acknowledged by the law of nations, under whatever restraints or regulations it may take place, may lead to dangerous results. It is far better by other means to supersede any supposed necessity, or any motive, for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant-vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point of national honor, as well as to affect the interests of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in accordance with the stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, but at the same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for violating the immunities of the American flag upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of nations, to enter into the articles now submitted to the Senate.
"The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of nations. It provides simply, that each of the two governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the slave-trade."
In the actual posture of things, the President thought that the government of the United States, standing on its own rights and its own solemn declarations, would only weaken its position by making such a demand as appears to you to have been expedient. We maintain the public law of the world as we receive it and understand it to be established. We defend our own rights and our own honor, meeting all aggression at the boundary. Here we may well stop.
You are pleased to observe, that "under the circumstances of the assertion of the British claim, in the correspondence of the British secretaries, and of its denial by the President of the United States, the eyes of Europe were upon these two great naval powers; one of which had advanced a pretension, and avowed her determination to enforce it, which might at any moment bring them into collision."
It is certainly true that the attention of Europe has been very much awakened, of late years, to the general subject, and quite alive, also, to whatever might take place in regard to it between the United States and Great Britain. And it is highly satisfactory to find, that, so far as we can learn, the opinion is universal that the government of the United States has fully sustained its rights and its dignity by the treaty which has been concluded. Europe, we believe, is happy to see that a collision, which might have disturbed the peace of the whole civilized world, has been avoided in a manner which reconciles the performance of a high national duty, and the fulfilment of positive stipulations, with the perfect immunity of flags and the equality of nations upon the ocean. I must be permitted to add, that, from every agent of the government abroad who has been heard from on the subject, with the single exception of your own letter, (an exception most deeply regretted,) as well as from every part of Europe where maritime rights have advocates and defenders, we have received nothing but congratulation. And at this moment, if the general sources of information may be trusted, our example has recommended itself already to the regard of states the most jealous of British ascendency at sea; and the treaty against which you remonstrate may soon come to be esteemed by them as a fit model for imitation.
Toward the close of your despatch, you are pleased to say: "By the recent treaty we are to keep a squadron upon the coast of Africa. We have kept one there for years; during the whole term, indeed, of these efforts to put a stop to this most iniquitous commerce. The effect of the treaty is, therefore, to render it obligatory upon us by a convention, to do what we have long done voluntarily; to place our municipal laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of Congress." Should the effect of the treaty be to place our municipal laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of Congress, it is sufficient to say that all treaties containing obligations necessarily do this. All treaties of commerce do it; and, indeed, there is hardly a treaty existing, to which the United States are party, which does not, to some extent, or in some way, restrain the legislative power. Treaties could not be made without producing this effect.
But your remark would seem to imply that, in your judgment, there is something derogatory to the character and dignity of the country in thus stipulating with a foreign power for a concurrent effort to execute the laws of each. It would be a sufficient refutation of this objection to say, that, if in this arrangement there be any thing derogatory to the character and dignity of one party, it must be equally derogatory, since the stipulation is perfectly mutual, to the character and dignity of both. But it is derogatory to the character and dignity of neither. The objection seems to proceed still upon the implied ground that the abolition of the slave-trade is more a duty of Great Britain, or a more leading object with her, than it is or should be with us; as if, in this great effort of civilized nations to do away the most cruel traffic that ever scourged or disgraced the world, we had not as high and honorable, as just and merciful, a part to act, as any other nation upon the face of the earth. Let it be for ever remembered, that in this great work of humanity and justice the United States took the lead themselves. This government declared the slave-trade unlawful; and in this declaration it has been followed by the great powers of Europe. This government declared the slave-trade to be piracy; and in this, too, its example has been followed by other states. This government, this young government, springing up in this new world within half a century, founded on the broadest principles of civil liberty, and sustained by the moral sense and intelligence of the people, has gone in advance of all other nations in summoning the civilized world to a common effort to put down and destroy a nefarious traffic reproachful to human nature. It has not deemed, and it does not deem, that it suffers any derogation from its character or its dignity, if, in seeking to fulfil this sacred duty, it act, as far as necessary, on fair and equal terms of concert with other powers having in view the same praiseworthy object. Such were its sentiments when it entered into the solemn stipulations of the treaty of Ghent; such were its sentiments when it requested England to concur with us in declaring the slave-trade to be piracy; and such are the sentiments which it has manifested on all other proper occasions.
In conclusion, I have to repeat the expression of the President's deep regret at the general tone and character of your letter, and to assure you of the great happiness it would have afforded him if, concurring with the judgment of the President and Senate, concurring with what appears to be the general sense of the country, concurring in all the manifestations of enlightened public opinion in Europe, you had seen nothing in the treaty of the 9th of August to which you could not give your cordial approbation.
I have, &c.
DANIEL WEBSTER.
LEWIS CASS, ESQ., &c., &c., &c.
* * * * *
Mr. Webster to General Cass.
Department of State, Washington, December 20, 1842.
Sir,--Your letter of the 11th instant has been submitted to the President. He directs me to say, in reply, that he continues to regard your correspondence, of which this letter is part, as being quite irregular from the beginning. You had asked leave to retire from your mission; the leave was granted by the President, with kind and friendly remarks upon the manner in which you had discharged its duties. Having asked for this honorable recall, which was promptly given, you afterward addressed to this department your letter of the 3d of October, which, however it may appear to you, the President cannot but consider as a remonstrance, a protest, against the treaty of the 9th of August; in other words, an attack upon his administration for the negotiation and conclusion of that treaty. He certainly was not prepared for this. It came upon him with no small surprise, and he still feels that you must have been, at the moment, under the influence of temporary impressions, which he cannot but hope have ere now worn away.
A few remarks upon some of the points of your last letter must now close the correspondence.
In the first place, you object to my having called your letter of October 3d a "protest or remonstrance" against a transaction of the government, and observe that you must have been unhappy in the mode of expressing yourself, if you were liable to this charge.
What other construction your letter will bear, I cannot perceive. The transaction was finished. No letter or remarks of yourself, or any one else, could undo it, if desirable. Your opinions were unsolicited. If given as a citizen, then it was altogether unusual to address them to this department in an official despatch; if as a public functionary, the whole subject-matter was quite aside from the duties of your particular station. In your letter you did not propose any thing to be done, but objected to what had been done. You did not suggest any method of remedying what you were pleased to consider a defect, but stated what you thought to be reasons for fearing its consequences. You declared that there had been, in your opinion, an omission to assert American rights; to which omission you gave the department to understand that you would never have consented.
In all this there is nothing but protest and remonstrance; and, though your letter be not formally entitled such, I cannot see that it can be construed, in effect, as any thing else; and I must continue to think, therefore, that the terms used are entirely applicable and proper.
In the next place, you say: "You give me to understand that the communications which have passed between us on this subject are to be published, and submitted to the great tribunal of public opinion."
It would have been better if you had quoted my remark with entire correctness. What I said was, not that the communications which have passed between us are to be published, or must be published, but that "it may become necessary hereafter to publish your letter, in connection with other correspondence of the mission; and, although it is not to be presumed that you looked to such publication, because such a presumption would impute to you a claim to put forth your private opinions upon the conduct of the President and Senate, in a transaction finished and concluded, through the imposing form of a public despatch, yet, if published, it cannot be foreseen how far England might hereafter rely on your authority for a construction favorable to her own pretensions, and inconsistent with the interest and honor of the United States."
In another part of your letter you observe: "The publication of my letter, which is to produce this result, is to be the act of the government, and not my act. But if the President should think that the slightest injury to the public interest would ensue from the disclosure of my views, the letter may be buried in the archives of the department, and thus forgotten and rendered harmless."
To this I have to remark, in the first place, that instances have occurred in other times, not unknown to you, in which highly important letters from ministers of the United States, in Europe, to their own government, have found their way into the newspapers of Europe, when that government itself held it to be inconsistent with the interest of the United States to make such letters public.
But it is hardly worth while to pursue a topic like this.
You are pleased to ask: "Is it the duty of a diplomatic agent to receive all the communications of his government, and to carry into effect their instructions sub silentio, whatever may be his own sentiments in relation to them; or is he not bound, as a faithful representative, to communicate freely, but respectfully, his own views, that these may be considered, and receive their due weight, in that particular case, or in other circumstances involving similar considerations? It seems to me that the bare enunciation of the principle is all that is necessary for my justification. I am speaking now of the propriety of my action, not of the manner in which it was performed. I may have executed the task well or ill. I may have introduced topics unadvisedly, and urged them indiscreetly. All this I leave without remark. I am only endeavoring here to free myself from the serious charge which you bring against me. If I have misapprehended the duties of an American diplomatic agent upon this subject, I am well satisfied to have withdrawn, by a timely resignation, from a position in which my own self-respect would not permit me to remain. And I may express the conviction, that there is no government, certainly none this side of Constantinople, which would not encourage rather than rebuke the free expression of the views of their representatives in foreign countries."
I answer, certainly not. In the letter to which you were replying it was fully stated, that, "in common with every other citizen of the republic, you have an unquestionable right to form opinions upon public transactions and the conduct of public men. But it will hardly be thought to be among either the duties or the privileges of a minister abroad to make formal remonstrances and protests against proceedings of the various branches of the government at home, upon subjects in relation to which he himself has not been charged with any duty, or partaken any responsibility."
You have not been requested to bestow your approbation upon the treaty, however gratifying it would have been to the President to see that, in that respect, you united with other distinguished public agents abroad. Like all citizens of the republic, you are quite at liberty to exercise your own judgment upon that as upon other transactions. But neither your observations nor this concession cover the case. They do not show, that, as a public minister abroad, it is a part of your official functions, in a public despatch, to remonstrate against the conduct of the government at home in relation to a transaction in which you bore no part, and for which you were in no way answerable. The President and Senate must be permitted to judge for themselves in a matter solely within their control. Nor do I know that, in complaining of your protest against their proceedings in a case of this kind, any thing has been done to warrant, on your part, an invidious and unjust reference to Constantinople. If you could show, by the general practice of diplomatic functionaries in the civilized part of the world, and more especially, if you could show by any precedent drawn from the conduct of the many distinguished men who have represented the government of the United States abroad, that your letter of the 3d of October was, in its general object, tone, and character, within the usual limits of diplomatic correspondence, you may be quite assured that the President would not have recourse to the code of Turkey in order to find precedents the other way.
You complain that, in the letter from this department of the 14th of November, a statement contained in yours of the 3d of October is called a tissue of mistakes, and you attempt to show the impropriety of this appellation. Let the point be distinctly stated, and what you say in reply be then considered.
In your letter of October 3d you remark, that "England then urged the United States to enter into a conventional arrangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her in measures for the suppression of the slave-trade. Until then, we had executed our own laws in our own way; but, yielding to this application, and departing from our former principle of avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we would carry into effect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would employ for that purpose."
The letter of this department of the 14th of November, having quoted this passage, proceeds to observe, that "the President cannot conceive how you should have been led to adventure upon such a statement as this. It is but a tissue of mistakes. England did not urge the United States to enter into this conventional arrangement. The United States yielded to no application from England. The proposition for abolishing the slave-trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an American proposition; it originated with the executive government of the United States, which cheerfully assumes all its responsibility. It stands upon it as its own mode of fulfilling its duties and accomplishing its objects. Nor have the United States departed in the slightest degree from their former principles of avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American; because the abolition of the African slave-trade is an American subject as emphatically as it is a European subject, and, indeed, more so, inasmuch as the government of the United States took the first great step in declaring that trade unlawful, and in attempting its extinction. The abolition of this traffic is an object of the highest interest to the American people and the American government; and you seem strangely to have overlooked altogether the important fact, that nearly thirty years ago, by the treaty of Ghent, the United States bound themselves, by solemn compact with England, to continue their efforts to promote its entire abolition; both parties pledging themselves by that treaty to use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object."
Now, in answer to this, you observe in your last letter: "That the particular mode in which the governments should act in concert, as finally arranged in the treaty, was suggested by yourself, I never doubted. And if this is the construction I am to give to your denial of my correctness, there is no difficulty upon the subject. The question between us is untouched. All I said was, that England continued to prosecute the matter; that she presented it for negotiation, and that we thereupon consented to its introduction. And if Lord Ashburton did not come out with instructions from his government to endeavor to effect some arrangement upon this subject, the world has strangely misunderstood one of the great objects of his mission, and I have misunderstood that paragraph in your first note, where you say that Lord Ashburton comes with full powers to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion between England and the United States. But the very fact of his coming here, and of his acceding to any stipulations respecting the slave-trade, is conclusive proof that his government were desirous to obtain the co-operation of the United States. I had supposed that our government would scarcely take the initiative in this matter, and urge it upon that of Great Britain, either in Washington or in London. If it did so, I can only express my regret, and confess that I have been led inadvertently into an error."
It would appear from all this, that that which, in your first letter, appeared as a direct statement of facts, of which you would naturally be presumed to have had knowledge, sinks at last into inferences and conjectures. But, in attempting to escape from some of the mistakes of this tissue, you have fallen into others. "All I said was," you observe, "that England continued to prosecute the matter; that she presented it for negotiation, and that we thereupon consented to its introduction." Now the English minister no more presented this subject for negotiation than the government of the United States presented it. Nor can it be said that the United States consented to its introduction in any other sense than it may be said that the British minister consented to it. Will you be good enough to review the series of your own assertions on this subject, and see whether they can possibly be regarded merely as a statement of your own inferences? Your only authentic fact is a general one, that the British minister came clothed with full power to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion. This, you say, is conclusive proof that his government was desirous to obtain the co-operation of the United States respecting the slave-trade; and then you infer that England continued to prosecute this matter, and presented it for negotiation, and that the United States consented to its introduction; and give to this inference the shape of a direct statement of a fact.
You might have made the same remarks, and with the same propriety, in relation to the subject of the "Creole," that of impressment, the extradition of fugitive criminals, or any thing else embraced in the treaty or in the correspondence, and then have converted these inferences of your own into so many facts. And it is upon conjectures like these, it is upon such inferences of your own, that you make the direct and formal statement in your letter of the 3d of October, that "England then urged the United States to enter into a conventional arrangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her in measures for the suppression of the slave-trade. Until then, we had executed our own laws in our own way; but, yielding to this application, and departing from our former principle of avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we would carry into effect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would employ for that purpose."
The President was well warranted, therefore, in requesting your serious reconsideration and review of that statement.
Suppose your letter to go before the public unanswered and uncontradicted; suppose it to mingle itself with the general political history of the country, as an official letter among the archives of the Department of State, would not the general mass of readers understand you as reciting facts, rather than as drawing your own conclusions? as stating history, rather than as presenting an argument? It is of an incorrect narrative that the President complains. It is that, in your hotel at Paris, you should undertake to write a history of a very delicate part of a negotiation carried on at Washington, with which you had nothing to do, and of the history of which you had no authentic information; and which history, as you narrate it, reflects not a little on the independence, wisdom, and public spirit of the administration.
As of the history of this part of the negotiation you were not well informed, the President cannot but think it would have been more just in you to have refrained from any attempt to give an account of it.
You observe, further: "I never mentioned in my despatch to you, nor in any manner whatever, that our government had conceded to that of England the right to search our ships. That idea, however, pervades your letter, and is very apparent in that part of it which brings to my observation the possible effect of my views upon the English government. But in this you do me, though I am sure unintentionally, great injustice. I repeatedly state that the recent treaty leaves the rights of the parties as it found them. My difficulty is not that we have made a positive concession, but that we have acted unadvisedly in not making the abandonment of this pretension a previous condition to any conventional arrangement upon the general subject."
On this part of your letter I must be allowed to make two remarks.
The first is, inasmuch as the treaty gives no color or pretext whatever to any right of searching our ships, a declaration against such a right would have been no more suitable to this treaty than a declaration against the right of sacking our towns in time of peace, or any other outrage.
The rights of merchant-vessels of the United States on the high seas, as understood by this government, have been clearly and fully asserted. As asserted, they will be maintained; nor would a declaration such as you propose have increased either its resolution or its ability in this respect. The government of the United States relies on its own power, and on the effective support of the people, to assert successfully all the rights of all its citizens, on the sea as well as on the land; and it asks respect for these rights not as a boon or favor from any nation. The President's message, most certainly, is a clear declaration of what the country understands to be its rights, and his determination to maintain them; not a mere promise to negotiate for these rights, or to endeavor to bring other powers into an acknowledgment of them, either express or implied. Whereas, if I understand the meaning of this part of your letter, you would have advised that something should have been offered to England which she might have regarded as a benefit, but coupled with such a declaration or condition as that, if she received the boon, it would have been a recognition by her of a claim which we make as matter of right. The President's view of the proper duty of the government has certainly been quite different. Being convinced that the doctrine asserted by this government is the true doctrine of the law of nations, and feeling the competency of the government to uphold and enforce it for itself, he has not sought, but, on the contrary, has sedulously avoided, to change this ground, and to place the just rights of the country upon the assent, express or implied, of any power whatever.
The government thought no skilfully extorted promises necessary in any such cases. It asks no such pledges of any nation. If its character for ability and readiness to protect and defend its own rights and dignity is not sufficient to preserve them from violation, no interpolation of promise to respect them, ingeniously woven into treaties, would be likely to afford such protection. And as our rights and liberties depend for existence upon our power to maintain them, general and vague protests are not likely to be more effectual than the Chinese method of defending their towns, by painting grotesque and hideous figures on the walls to fright away assailing foes.
My other remark on this portion of your letter is this:--
Suppose a declaration to the effect that this treaty should not be considered as sacrificing any American rights had been appended, and the treaty, thus fortified, had been sent to Great Britain, as you propose; and suppose that that government, with equal ingenuity, had appended an equivalent written declaration that it should not be considered as sacrificing any British right, how much more defined would have been the rights of either party, or how much clearer the meaning and interpretation of the treaty, by these reservations on both sides? Or, in other words, what is the value of a protest on one side, balanced by an exactly equivalent protest on the other?
No nation is presumed to sacrifice its rights, or give up what justly belongs to it, unless it expressly stipulates that, for some good reason or adequate consideration, it does make such relinquishment; and an unnecessary asseveration that it does not intend to sacrifice just rights would seem only calculated to invite aggression. Such proclamations would seem better devised for concealing weakness and apprehension, than for manifesting conscious strength and self-reliance, or for inspiring respect in others.
Toward the end of your letter you are pleased to observe: "The rejection of a treaty, duly negotiated, is a serious question, to be avoided whenever it can be without too great a sacrifice. Though the national faith is not actually committed, still it is more or less engaged. And there were peculiar circumstances, growing out of long-standing difficulties, which rendered an amicable arrangement of the various matters in dispute with England a subject of great national interest. But the negotiation of a treaty is a far different subject. Topics are omitted or introduced at the discretion of the negotiators, and they are responsible, to use the language of an eminent and able Senator, for 'what it contains and what it omits.' This treaty, in my opinion, omits a most important and necessary stipulation; and therefore, as it seems to me, its negotiation, in this particular, was unfortunate for the country."
The President directs me to say, in reply to this, that in the treaty of Washington no topics were omitted, and no topics introduced, at the mere discretion of the negotiator; that the negotiation proceeded from step to step, and from day to day, under his own immediate supervision and direction; that he himself takes the responsibility for what the treaty contains and what it omits, and cheerfully leaves the merits of the whole to the judgment of the country.
I now conclude this letter, and close this correspondence, by repeating once more the expression of the President's regret that you should have commenced it by your letter of the 3d of October.
It is painful to him to have with you any cause of difference. He has a just appreciation of your character and your public services at home and abroad. He cannot but persuade himself that you must be aware yourself, by this time, that your letter of October was written under erroneous impressions, and that there is no foundation for the opinions respecting the treaty which it expresses; and that it would have been far better on all accounts if no such letter had been written.
I have, &c.
DANIEL WEBSTER.
LEWIS CASS, ESQ., Late Minister of the United States at Paris.
THE HÜLSEMANN LETTER.
[As the authorship of this remarkable paper has sometimes been imputed to another person, it may be proper to give the facts respecting its preparation, although they involve nothing more important than a question of literary interest.
Mr. Webster, as has been stated, arrived at Marshfield on the 9th of October, 1850, where he remained for the space of two weeks. He brought with him the papers relating to this controversy with Austria. Before he left Washington, he gave to Mr. Hunter, a gentleman then and still filling an important post in the Department of State, verbal instructions concerning some of the points which would require to be touched in an answer to Mr. Hülsemann's letter of September 30th, and requested Mr. Hunter to prepare a draft of such an answer. This was done, and Mr. Hunter's draft of an answer was forwarded to Mr. Webster at Marshfield. On the 20th of October, 1850, Mr. Webster, being far from well, addressed a note to Mr. Everett,[1] requesting him also to prepare a draft of a reply to Mr. Hülsemann, at the same time sending to Mr. Everett a copy of Mr. Hülsemann's letter and of President Taylor's message to the Senate relating to Mr. Mann's mission to Hungary.[2] On the 21st Mr. Webster went to his farm in Franklin, New Hampshire, where he remained until the 4th of November. While there he received from Mr. Everett a draft of an answer to Mr. Hülsemann, which was written by Mr. Everett between the 21st and the 24th of October.
Soon after Mr. Webster's death, it was rumored that the real author of "the Hülsemann letter" was Mr. Hunter,--a rumor for which Mr. Hunter himself was in no way responsible. At a later period, in the summer of 1853, the statement obtained currency in the newspapers that Mr. Everett wrote this celebrated despatch, and many comments were made upon the supposed fact that Mr. Everett had claimed its authorship. The facts are, that, while at Franklin, Mr. Webster, with Mr. Hunter's and Mr. Everett's drafts both before him, went over the whole subject, making considerable changes in Mr. Everett's draft, striking out entire paragraphs with his pen, altering some phrases, and writing new paragraphs of his own, but adopting Mr. Everett's draft as the basis of the official paper; a purpose which he expressed to Mr. Everett on his return to Boston toward Washington. Subsequently, when he had arrived in Washington, Mr. Webster caused a third draft to be made, in the State Department, from Mr. Everett's paper and his own additions and alterations. On this third draft he made still other changes and additions, and, when the whole was completed to his own satisfaction, the official letter was drawn out by a clerk, was submitted to the President, and, being signed by Mr. Webster, was sent to Mr. Hülsemann.[3]
There are, no doubt, passages and expressions in this letter which are in a tone not usual with Mr. Webster in his diplomatic papers. How he himself regarded the criticisms that might be made upon it may be seen from the following note:--
[TO MR. TICKNOR.]
"Washington, January 16, 1851.
"My dear Sir,--If you say that my Hülsemann letter is boastful and rough, I shall own the soft impeachment. My excuse is twofold: 1. I thought it well enough to speak out, and tell the people of Europe who and what we are, and awaken them to a just sense of the unparalleled growth of this country. 2. I wished to write a paper which should touch the national pride, and make a man feel sheepish and look silly who should speak of disunion. It is curious enough but it is certain, that Mr. Mann's private instructions were seen, somehow, by Schwarzenberg.
"Yours always truly,
"DANIEL WEBSTER."[4]
Department of State, Washington, December 21, 1850.
The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, had the honor to receive, some time ago, the note of Mr. Hülsemann, Chargé d'Affaires of his Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, of the 30th of September. Causes, not arising from any want of personal regard for Mr. Hülsemann, or of proper respect for his government, have delayed an answer until the present moment. Having submitted Mr. Hülsemann's letter to the President, the undersigned is now directed by him to return the following reply.
The objects of Mr. Hülsemann's note are, first, to protest, by order of his government, against the steps taken by the late President of the United States to ascertain the progress and probable result of the revolutionary movements in Hungary; and, secondly, to complain of some expressions in the instructions of the late Secretary of State to Mr. A. Dudley Mann, a confidential agent of the United States, as communicated by President Taylor to the Senate on the 28th of March last.
The principal ground of protest is founded on the idea, or in the allegation, that the government of the United States, by the mission of Mr. Mann and his instructions, has interfered in the domestic affairs of Austria in a manner unjust or disrespectful toward that power. The President's message was a communication made by him to the Senate, transmitting a correspondence between the executive government and a confidential agent of its own. This would seem to be itself a domestic transaction, a mere instance of intercourse between the President and the Senate, in the manner which is usual and indispensable in communications between the different branches of the government. It was not addressed either to Austria or Hungary; nor was it a public manifesto, to which any foreign state was called on to reply. It was an account of its transactions communicated by the executive government to the Senate, at the request of that body; made public, indeed, but made public only because such is the common and usual course of proceeding. It may be regarded as somewhat strange, therefore, that the Austrian Cabinet did not perceive that, by the instructions given to Mr. Hülsemann, it was itself interfering with the domestic concerns of a foreign state, the very thing which is the ground of its complaint against the United States.
This department has, on former occasions, informed the ministers of foreign powers, that a communication from the President to either house of Congress is regarded as a domestic communication, of which, ordinarily, no foreign state has cognizance; and in more recent instances, the great inconvenience of making such communications the subject of diplomatic correspondence and discussion has been fully shown. If it had been the pleasure of his Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, during the struggles in Hungary, to have admonished the provisional government or the people of that country against involving themselves in disaster, by following the evil and dangerous example of the United States of America in making efforts for the establishment of independent governments, such an admonition from that sovereign to his Hungarian subjects would not have originated here a diplomatic correspondence. The President might, perhaps, on this ground, have declined to direct any particular reply to Mr. Hülsemann's note; but out of proper respect for the Austrian government, it has been thought better to answer that note at length; and the more especially, as the occasion is not unfavorable for the expression of the general sentiments of the government of the United States upon the topics which that note discusses.
A leading subject in Mr. Hülsemann's note is that of the correspondence between Mr. Hülsemann and the predecessor of the undersigned, in which Mr. Clayton, by direction of the President, informed Mr Hülsemann "that Mr. Mann's mission had no other object in view than to obtain reliable information as to the true state of affairs in Hungary, by personal observation." Mr. Hülsemann remarks, that "this explanation can hardly be admitted, for it says very little as to the cause of the anxiety which was felt to ascertain the chances of the revolutionists." As this, however, is the only purpose which can, with any appearance of truth, be attributed to the agency; as nothing whatever is alleged by Mr. Hülsemann to have been either done or said by the agent inconsistent with such an object, the undersigned conceives that Mr. Clayton's explanation ought to be deemed, not only admissible, but quite satisfactory.
Mr. Hülsemann states, in the course of his note, that his instructions to address his present communication to Mr. Clayton reached Washington about the time of the lamented death of the late President, and that he delayed from a sense of propriety the execution of his task until the new administration should be fully organized; "a delay which he now rejoices at, as it has given him the opportunity of ascertaining from the new President himself, on the occasion of the reception of the diplomatic corps, that the fundamental policy of the United States, so frequently proclaimed, would guide the relations of the American government with other powers." Mr. Hülsemann also observes, that it is in his power to assure the undersigned "that the Imperial government is disposed to cultivate relations of friendship and good understanding with the United States."
The President receives this assurance of the disposition of the Imperial government with great satisfaction; and, in consideration of the friendly relations of the two governments thus mutually recognized, and of the peculiar nature of the incidents by which their good understanding is supposed by Mr. Hülsemann to have been for a moment disturbed or endangered, the President regrets that Mr. Hülsemann did not feel himself at liberty wholly to forbear from the execution of instructions, which were of course transmitted from Vienna without any foresight of the state of things under which they would reach Washington. If Mr. Hülsemann saw, in the address of the President to the diplomatic corps, satisfactory pledges of the sentiments and the policy of this government in regard to neutral rights and neutral duties, it might, perhaps, have been better not to bring on a discussion of past transactions. But the undersigned readily admits that this was a question fit only for the consideration and decision of Mr. Hülsemann himself; and although the President does not see that any good purpose can be answered by reopening the inquiry into the propriety of the steps taken by President Taylor to ascertain the probable issue of the late civil war in Hungary, justice to his memory requires the undersigned briefly to restate the history of those steps, and to show their consistency with the neutral policy which has invariably guided the government of the United States in its foreign relations, as well as with the established and well-settled principles of national intercourse, and the doctrines of public law.
The undersigned will first observe, that the President is persuaded his Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, does not think that the government of the United States ought to view with unconcern the extraordinary events which have occurred, not only in his dominions, but in many other parts of Europe, since February, 1848. The government and people of the United States, like other intelligent governments and communities, take a lively interest in the movements and the events of this remarkable age, in whatever part of the world they may be exhibited. But the interest taken by the United States in those events has not proceeded from any disposition to depart from that neutrality toward foreign powers, which is among the deepest principles and the most cherished traditions of the political history of the Union. It has been the necessary effect of the unexampled character of the events themselves, which could not fail to arrest the attention of the contemporary world, as they will doubtless fill a memorable page in history.
But the undersigned goes further, and freely admits that, in proportion as these extraordinary events appeared to have their origin in those great ideas of responsible and popular government, on which the American constitutions themselves are wholly founded, they could not but command the warm sympathy of the people of this country. Well-known circumstances in their history, indeed their whole history, have made them the representatives of purely popular principles of government. In this light they now stand before the world. They could not, if they would, conceal their character, their condition, or their destiny. They could not, if they so desired, shut out from the view of mankind the causes which have placed them, in so short a national career, in the station which they now hold among the civilized states of the world. They could not, if they desired it, suppress either the thoughts or the hopes which arise in men's minds, in other countries, from contemplating their successful example of free government. That very intelligent and distinguished personage, the Emperor Joseph the Second, was among the first to discern this necessary consequence of the American Revolution on the sentiments and opinions of the people of Europe. In a letter to his minister in the Netherlands in 1787, he observes, that "it is remarkable that France, by the assistance which she afforded to the Americans, gave birth to reflections on freedom." This fact, which the sagacity of that monarch perceived at so early a day, is now known and admitted by intelligent powers all over the world. True, indeed, it is, that the prevalence on the other continent of sentiments favorable to republican liberty is the result of the reaction of America upon Europe; and the source and centre of this reaction has doubtless been, and now is, in these United States.
The position thus belonging to the United States is a fact as inseparable from their history, their constitutional organization, and their character, as the opposite position of the powers composing the European alliance is from the history and constitutional organization of the government of those powers. The sovereigns who form that alliance have not unfrequently felt it their right to interfere with the political movements of foreign states; and have, in their manifestoes and declarations, denounced the popular ideas of the age in terms so comprehensive as of necessity to include the United States, and their forms of government. It is well known that one of the leading principles announced by the allied sovereigns, after the restoration of the Bourbons, is, that all popular or constitutional rights are holden no otherwise than as grants and indulgences from crowned heads. "Useful and necessary changes in legislation and administration," says the Laybach Circular of May, 1821, "ought only to emanate from the free will and intelligent conviction of those whom God has rendered responsible for power; all that deviates from this line necessarily leads to disorder, commotions, and evils far more insufferable than those which they pretend to remedy." And his late Austrian Majesty, Francis the First, is reported to have declared, in an address to the Hungarian Diet, in 1820, that "the whole world had become foolish, and, leaving their ancient laws, were in search of imaginary constitutions." These declarations amount to nothing less than a denial of the lawfulness of the origin of the government of the United States, since it is certain that that government was established in consequence of a change which did not proceed from thrones, or the permission of crowned heads. But the government of the United States heard these denunciations of its fundamental principles without remonstrance, or the disturbance of its equanimity. This was thirty years ago.
The power of this republic, at the present moment, is spread over a region one of the richest and most fertile on the globe, and of an extent in comparison with which the possessions of the house of Hapsburg are but as a patch on the earth's surface. Its population, already twenty-five millions, will exceed that of the Austrian empire within the period during which it may be hoped that Mr. Hülsemann may yet remain in the honorable discharge of his duties to his government. Its navigation and commerce are hardly exceeded by the oldest and most commercial nations; its maritime means and its maritime power may be seen by Austria herself, in all seas where she has ports, as well as they may be seen, also, in all other quarters of the globe. Life, liberty, property, and all personal rights, are amply secured to all citizens, and protected by just and stable laws; and credit, public and private, is as well established as in any government of Continental Europe; and the country, in all its interests and concerns, partakes most largely in all the improvements and progress which distinguish the age. Certainly, the United States may be pardoned, even by those who profess adherence to the principles of absolute government, if they entertain an ardent affection for those popular forms of political organization which have so rapidly advanced their own prosperity and happiness, and enabled them, in so short a period, to bring their country, and the hemisphere to which it belongs, to the notice and respectful regard, not to say the admiration, of the civilized world. Nevertheless, the United States have abstained, at all times, from acts of interference with the political changes of Europe. They cannot, however, fail to cherish always a lively interest in the fortunes of nations struggling for institutions like their own. But this sympathy, so far from being necessarily a hostile feeling toward any of the parties to these great national struggles, is quite consistent with amicable relations with them all. The Hungarian people are three or four times as numerous as the inhabitants of these United States were when the American Revolution broke out. They possess, in a distinct language, and in other respects, important elements of a separate nationality, which the Anglo-Saxon race in this country did not possess; and if the United States wish success to countries contending for popular constitutions and national independence, it is only because they regard such constitutions and such national independence, not as imaginary, but as real blessings. They claim no right, however, to take part in the struggles of foreign powers in order to promote these ends. It is only in defence of his own government, and its principles and character, that the undersigned has now expressed himself on this subject. But when the people of the United States behold the people of foreign countries, without any such interference, spontaneously moving toward the adoption of institutions like their own, it surely cannot be expected of them to remain wholly indifferent spectators.
In regard to the recent very important occurrences in the Austrian empire, the undersigned freely admits the difficulty which exists in this country, and is alluded to by Mr. Hülsemann, of obtaining accurate information. But this difficulty is by no means to be ascribed to what Mr. Hülsemann calls, with little justice, as it seems to the undersigned, "the mendacious rumors propagated by the American press." For information on this subject, and others of the same kind, the American press is, of necessity, almost wholly dependent upon that of Europe; and if "mendacious rumors" respecting Austrian and Hungarian affairs have been anywhere propagated, that propagation of falsehoods has been most prolific on the European continent, and in countries immediately bordering on the Austrian empire. But, wherever these errors may have originated, they certainly justified the late President in seeking true information through authentic channels.
His attention was first particularly drawn to the state of things in Hungary by the correspondence of Mr. Stiles, Chargé d'Affaires of the United States at Vienna. In the autumn of 1848, an application was made to this gentleman, on behalf of Mr. Kossuth, formerly Minister of Finance for the Kingdom of Hungary by Imperial appointment, but, at the time the application was made, chief of the revolutionary government. The object of this application was to obtain the good offices of Mr. Stiles with the Imperial government, with a view to the suspension of hostilities. This application became the subject of a conference between Prince Schwarzenberg, the Imperial Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Stiles. The Prince commended the considerateness and propriety with which Mr. Stiles had acted; and, so far from disapproving his interference, advised him, in case he received a further communication from the revolutionary government in Hungary, to have an interview with Prince Windischgrätz, who was charged by the Emperor with the proceedings determined on in relation to that kingdom. A week after these occurrences, Mr. Stiles received, through a secret channel, a communication signed by L. Kossuth, President of the Committee of Defence, and countersigned by Francis Pulszky, Secretary of State. On the receipt of this communication, Mr. Stiles had an interview with Prince Windischgrätz, "who received him with the utmost kindness, and thanked him for his efforts toward reconciling the existing difficulties." Such were the incidents which first drew the attention of the government of the United States particularly to the affairs of Hungary, and the conduct of Mr. Stiles, though acting without instructions in a matter of much delicacy, having been viewed with satisfaction by the Imperial government, was approved by that of the United States.
In the course of the year 1848, and in the early part of 1849, a considerable number of Hungarians came to the United States. Among them were individuals representing themselves to be in the confidence of the revolutionary government, and by these persons the President was strongly urged to recognize the existence of that government. In these applications, and in the manner in which they were viewed by the President, there was nothing unusual; still less was there any thing unauthorized by the law of nations. It is the right of every independent state to enter into friendly relations with every other independent state. Of course, questions of prudence naturally arise in reference to new states, brought by successful revolutions into the family of nations; but it is not to be required of neutral powers that they should await the recognition of the new government by the parent state. No principle of public law has been more frequently acted upon, within the last thirty years, by the great powers of the world, than this. Within that period, eight or ten new states have established independent governments, within the limits of the colonial dominions of Spain, on this continent; and in Europe the same thing has been done by Belgium and Greece. The existence of all these governments was recognized by some of the leading powers of Europe, as well as by the United States, before it was acknowledged by the states from which they had separated themselves. If, therefore, the United States had gone so far as formally to acknowledge the independence of Hungary, although, as the result has proved, it would have been a precipitate step, and one from which no benefit would have resulted to either party; it would not, nevertheless, have been an act against the law of nations, provided they took no part in her contest with Austria. But the United States did no such thing. Not only did they not yield to Hungary any actual countenance or succor, not only did they not show their ships of war in the Adriatic with any menacing or hostile aspect, but they studiously abstained from every thing which had not been done in other cases in times past, and contented themselves with instituting an inquiry into the truth and reality of alleged political occurrences. Mr. Hülsemann incorrectly states, unintentionally certainly, the nature of the mission of this agent, when he says that "a United States agent had been despatched to Vienna with orders to watch for a favorable moment to recognize the Hungarian republic, and to conclude a treaty of commerce with the same." This, indeed, would have been a lawful object, but Mr. Mann's errand was, in the first instance, purely one of inquiry. He had no power to act, unless he had first come to the conviction that a firm and stable Hungarian government existed. "The principal object the President has in view," according to his instructions, "is to obtain minute and reliable information in regard to Hungary, in connection with the affairs of adjoining countries, the probable issue of the present revolutionary movements, and the chances we may have of forming commercial arrangements with that power favorable to the United States." Again, in the same paper, it is said: "The object of the President is to obtain information in regard to Hungary, and her resources and prospects, with a view to an early recognition of her independence and the formation of commercial relations with her." It was only in the event that the new government should appear, in the opinion of the agent, to be firm and stable, that the President proposed to recommend its recognition.
Mr. Hülsemann, in qualifying these steps of President Taylor with the epithet of "hostile," seems to take for granted that the inquiry could, in the expectation of the President, have but one result, and that favorable to Hungary. If this were so, it would not change the case. But the American government sought for nothing but truth; it desired to learn the facts through a reliable channel. It so happened, in the chances and vicissitudes of human affairs, that the result was adverse to the Hungarian revolution. The American agent, as was stated in his instructions to be not unlikely, found the condition of Hungarian affairs less prosperous than it had been, or had been believed to be. He did not enter Hungary, nor hold any direct communication with her revolutionary leaders. He reported against the recognition of her independence, because he found she had been unable to set up a firm and stable government. He carefully forbore, as his instructions required, to give publicity to his mission, and the undersigned supposes that the Austrian government first learned its existence from the communications of the President to the Senate.
Mr. Hülsemann will observe from this statement, that Mr. Mann's mission was wholly unobjectionable, and strictly within the rule of the law of nations and the duty of the United States as a neutral power. He will accordingly feel how little foundation there is for his remark, that "those who did not hesitate to assume the responsibility of sending Mr. Dudley Mann on such an errand should, independent of considerations of propriety, have borne in mind that they were exposing their emissary to be treated as a spy." A spy is a person sent by one belligerent to gain secret information of the forces and defences of the other, to be used for hostile purposes. According to practice, he may use deception, under the penalty of being lawfully hanged if detected. To give this odious name and character to a confidential agent of a neutral power, bearing the commission of his country, and sent for a purpose fully warranted by the law of nations, is not only to abuse language, but also to confound all just ideas, and to announce the wildest and most extravagant notions, such as certainly were not to have been expected in a grave diplomatic paper; and the President directs the undersigned to say to Mr. Hülsemann, that the American government would regard such an imputation upon it by the Cabinet of Austria as that it employs spies, and that in a quarrel none of its own, as distinctly offensive, if it did not presume, as it is willing to presume, that the word used in the original German was not of equivalent meaning with "spy" in the English language, or that in some other way the employment of such an opprobrious term may be explained. Had the Imperial government of Austria subjected Mr. Mann for the treatment of a spy, it would have placed itself without the pale of civilized nations; and the Cabinet of Vienna may be assured, that if it had carried, or attempted to carry, any such lawless purpose into effect, in the case of an authorized agent of this government, the spirit of the people of this country would have demanded immediate hostilities to be waged by the utmost exertion of the power of the republic, military and naval.
Mr. Hülsemann proceeds to remark, that "this extremely painful incident, therefore, might have been passed over, without any written evidence being left on our part in the archives of the United States, had not General Taylor thought proper to revive the whole subject by communicating to the Senate, in his message of the 18th [28th] of last March, the instructions with which Mr. Mann had been furnished on the occasion of his mission to Vienna. The publicity which has been given to that document has placed the Imperial government under the necessity of entering a formal protest, through its official representative, against the proceedings of the American government, lest that government should construe our silence into approbation, or toleration even, of the principles which appear to have guided its action and the means it has adopted." The undersigned reasserts to Mr. Hülsemann, and to the Cabinet of Vienna, and in the presence of the world, that the steps taken by President Taylor, now protested against by the Austrian government, were warranted by the law of nations and agreeable to the usages of civilized states. With respect to the communication of Mr. Mann's instructions to the Senate, and the language in which they are couched, it has already been said, and Mr. Hülsemann must feel the justice of the remark, that these are domestic affairs, in reference to which the government of the United States cannot admit the slightest responsibility to the government of his Imperial Majesty. No state, deserving the appellation of independent, can permit the language in which it may instruct its own officers in the discharge of their duties to itself to be called in question under any pretext by a foreign power.
But even if this were not so, Mr. Hülsemann is in an error in stating that the Austrian government is called an "iron rule" in Mr. Mann's instructions. That phrase is not found in the paper; and in respect to the honorary epithet bestowed in Mr. Mann's instructions on the late chief of the revolutionary government of Hungary, Mr. Hülsemann will bear in mind that the government of the United States cannot justly be expected, in a confidential communication to its own agent, to withhold from an individual an epithet of distinction of which a great part of the world thinks him worthy, merely on the ground that his own government regards him as a rebel. At an early stage of the American Revolution, while Washington was considered by the English government as a rebel chief, he was regarded on the Continent of Europe as an illustrious hero. But the undersigned will take the liberty of bringing the Cabinet of Vienna into the presence of its own predecessors, and of citing for its consideration the conduct of the Imperial government itself. In the year 1777 the war of the American Revolution was raging all over these United States. England was prosecuting that war with a most resolute determination, and by the exertion of all her military means to the fullest extent. Germany was at that time at peace with England; and yet an agent of that Congress, which was looked upon by England in no other light than that of a body in open rebellion, was not only received with great respect by the ambassador of the Empress Queen at Paris, and by the minister of the Grand Duke of Tuscany (who afterwards mounted the Imperial throne), but resided in Vienna for a considerable time; not, indeed, officially acknowledged, but treated with courtesy and respect; and the Emperor suffered himself to be persuaded by that agent to exert himself to prevent the German powers from furnishing troops to England to enable her to suppress the rebellion in America. Neither Mr. Hülsemann nor the Cabinet of Vienna, it is presumed, will undertake to say that any thing said or done by this government in regard to the recent war between Austria and Hungary is not borne out, and much more than borne out, by this example of the Imperial Court. It is believed that the Emperor Joseph the Second habitually spoke in terms of respect and admiration of the character of Washington, as he is known to have done of that of Franklin; and he deemed it no infraction of neutrality to inform himself of the progress of the revolutionary struggle in America, or to express his deep sense of the merits and the talents of those illustrious men who were then leading their country to independence and renown. The undersigned may add, that in 1781 the courts of Russia and Austria proposed a diplomatic congress of the belligerent powers, to which the commissioners of the United States should be admitted.
Mr. Hülsemann thinks that in Mr. Mann's instructions improper expressions are introduced in regard to Russia; but the undersigned has no reason to suppose that Russia herself is of that opinion. The only observation made in those instructions about Russia is, that she "has chosen to assume an attitude of interference, and her immense preparations for invading and reducing the Hungarians to the rule of Austria, from which they desire to be released, gave so serious a character to the contest as to awaken the most painful solicitude in the minds of Americans." The undersigned cannot but consider the Austrian Cabinet as unnecessarily susceptible in looking upon language like this as a "hostile demonstration." If we remember that it was addressed by the government to its own agent, and has received publicity only through a communication from one department of the American government to another, the language quoted must be deemed moderate and inoffensive. The comity of nations would hardly forbid its being addressed to the two imperial powers themselves. It is scarcely necessary for the undersigned to say, that the relations of the United States with Russia have always been of the most friendly kind, and have never been deemed by either party to require any compromise of their peculiar views upon subjects of domestic or foreign polity, or the true origin of governments. At any rate, the fact that Austria, in her contest with Hungary, had an intimate and faithful ally in Russia, cannot alter the real nature of the question between Austria and Hungary, nor in any way affect the neutral rights and duties of the government of the United States, or the justifiable sympathies of the American people. It is, indeed, easy to conceive, that favor toward struggling Hungary would be not diminished, but increased, when it was seen that the arm of Austria was strengthened and upheld by a power whose assistance threatened to be, and which in the end proved to be, overwhelmingly destructive of all her hopes.
Toward the conclusion of his note Mr. Hülsemarnn remarks, that "if the government of the United States were to think it proper to take an indirect part in the political movements of Europe, American policy would be exposed to acts of retaliation, and to certain inconveniences which would not fail to affect the commerce and industry of the two hemispheres." As to this possible fortune, this hypothetical retaliation, the government and people of the United States are quite willing to take their chances and abide their destiny. Taking neither a direct nor an indirect part in the domestic or intestine movements of Europe, they have no fear of events of the nature alluded to by Mr. Hülsemann. It would be idle now to discuss with Mr. Hülsemann those acts of retaliation which he imagines may possibly take place at some indefinite time hereafter. Those questions will be discussed when they arise; and Mr. Hülsemann and the Cabinet at Vienna may rest assured, that, in the mean time, while performing with strict and exact fidelity all their neutral duties, nothing will deter either the government or the people of the United States from exercising, at their own discretion, the rights belonging to them as an independent nation, and of forming and expressing their own opinions, freely and at all times, upon the great political events which may transpire among the civilized nations of the earth. Their own institutions stand upon the broadest principles of civil liberty; and believing those principles and the fundamental laws in which they are embodied to be eminently favorable to the prosperity of states, to be, in fact, the only principles of government which meet the demands of the present enlightened age, the President has perceived, with great satisfaction, that, in the constitution recently introduced into the Austrian empire, many of these great principles are recognized and applied, and he cherishes a sincere wish that they may produce the same happy effects throughout his Austrian Majesty's extensive dominions that they have done in the United States.
The undersigned has the honor to repeat to Mr. Hülsemann the assurance of his high consideration.
DANIEL WEBSTER.
THE CHEVALIER J.G. HÜLSEMANN, Chargé d'Affaires of Austria, Washington.
[Footnote 1: Mr. Everett had then resigned the Presidency of Harvard College.]
[Footnote 2: Whether Mr. Hunter's draft was also sent to Mr. Everett, I do not know. The internal evidence would seem to indicate that it was; but the fact is not material.]
[Footnote 3: I have seen, I believe, all the documents in relation to this matter; viz. Mr. Hunter's draft, Mr. Everett's (in his handwriting, with Mr. Webster's erasures), the third draft, made at the department under Mr. Webster's directions, and the original added paragraphs, written by Mr. Webster with his own hand. To those who are curious about the question of authorship, it is needful only to say that Mr. Webster adopted Mr. Everett's draft as the basis of the official letter, but that the official letter is a much more vigorous, expanded, and complete production than Mr. Everett's draft. It is described in a note written by Mr. Everett to one of the literary executors, in 1853, as follows: "It can be stated truly that what Mr. Webster did himself to the letter was very considerable; and that he added one half in bulk to the original draft; and that his additions were of the most significant character. It was very carefully elaborated in the department by him, till he was authorized to speak of it as he did at the Kossuth dinner...."
This refers to what Mr. Webster said in his speech at the Kossuth banquet, in Washington, January 7, 1852:--
"May I be so egotistical as to say that I have nothing new to say on the subject of Hungary? Gentlemen, in the autumn of the year before last, out of health, and retired to my paternal home among the mountains of New Hampshire, I was, by reason of my physical condition, confined to my house; but I was among the mountains, whose native air I was bound to inspire. Nothing saluted my senses, nothing saluted my mind, or my sentiments, but freedom, full and entire; and there, gentlemen, near the graves of my ancestors, I wrote a letter, which most of you have seen, addressed to the Austrian chargé d'affaires. I can say nothing of the ability displayed in that letter, but, as to its principles, while the sun and moon endure, I stand by them."]
[Footnote 4: From Hon. George T. Curtis's Life of Daniel Webster, Vol. II. pp. 535-537.]
INDEX.
A.
Aberdeen, Lord, on right of search, 661, 662.
Abolition Societies, Mr. Webster's opinion of, 571; effect of, 619.
"Accede," word not found in the Constitution, 276.
Accession and Secession defined, 276.
Act of 1793, regulating coasting trade, 121; of 1800, concerning custom-house bonds, 383.
Acts of 1824, concerning surveys for canals, &c., 245.
Acts of Legislature of N.H., on Corporation of Dartmouth College, 1, 3; in regard to Dartmouth College, 14, 15.
Adams and Jefferson, eulogy delivered in Faneuil Hall on, 156; coincidences in the death and lives of, 157; made draft of Declaration of Independence, 159; compared as scholars, 173.
Adams, John, eulogized, 41, 140, 156; sensation caused by his death, 156; birth and education of, 159; admitted member of Harvard College, 160; admitted to the Bar, 160; defends British officers, and soldiers, 160; offered Chief Justiceship of Massachusetts, 160; letter on the future of America, 160; his articles on "Feudal Law," 161; Delegate to Congress, 162; important resolution reported in Congress by, 163; appointed to draft the Declaration, 164; power in debate, 166; remark of Jefferson on, 166; knowledge of Colonial history, 166; supposed speech in favor of the Declaration, 168; Minister to France, 170; drafts Constitution of Massachusetts, 170; concludes treaty with Holland, 170; his "Defence of American Constitutions," 171; elected to frame and revise Constitution of Massachusetts, 170, 171; Vice-President and President, 171; his scholarship, 173; navy created in administration of, 175; political abuse of, 251; letter on opening first Congress with prayer, 522.
Adams, J.Q., at Bunker Hill, 139; his nominations to office postponed by the Senate, 348; remark on Webster, 406; opposition to his administration, 434.
Adams, Samuel, delegate to Congress, 162; signs the declaration, 170; movement to open Congress with prayer, 522.
Addition to the Capitol, speech at laying of the corner-stone of the, 639.
Address, delivered at laying of corner-stone of Bunker Hill Monument, 123; on completion of Bunker Hill Monument, 136.
African Slave-Trade, remarks of Mr. Webster on, 49; Congress has power to restrain, 233.
African Squadron, maintained, 672.
"Aiding and Abetting" defined, 207.
Airs, the martial, of England, 371.
Aldham, Mr., at dinner of New England Society in New York, 503.
Allegiance, doctrine of perpetual, 656.
Allied Sovereigns, claims of, over national independence, 61; effect of their meeting at Laybach on the people, 64; their conduct in regard to contest in Greece, 69; meeting at Verona, 1822, 153; overthrow Cortez government of Spain, 153.
America, first railroad in, 126; her contributions to Europe, 149; success of united government in, 499; extract from Bishop of St. Asaph on colonies in, 640; political principles of, 642.
"American" and "foreign policy," applied to system of tariff, 78.
American Government, elements of, 148; principles of, in respect to suffrage, 539; the people limit themselves, 540.
American Liberty, principles of, 536; our inheritance of, 642.
American People, what they owe to republican principles, 66; establish popular government, 132; prepared for popular government, 132.
American Political Principles, summary of, 642.
American Revolution, commemorated by Bunker Hill Monument, 125; survivors of, at Bunker Hill, 127; character of state papers of, 130; peculiar principle of, 142.
Amiens, Treaty of, remarks of Mr. Windham on, 622.
Ancestors, how we may commune with, 26.
Ancestry, our respect for, 26.
Annapolis, meeting at, concerning commerce, 115.
Antislavery Conventions, proceedings at, 635.
Appointing and removing power, speech on, 394.
Appropriations by Congress, shall be specific, 418.
Artisans, law prohibiting emigration of, from England, 91.
Arts and Science, progress of, in the United States, 648.
Ashburton, Lord, character of, 484; cited 491; letter to Mr. Webster on impressment, 659.
Astronomy, progress in, 648.
Attainder, bill of, provision on prohibition of, 19.
Attorney-General v. Cullum, in regard to charity for town of Bury St. Edmunds, 527.
Austria, agent of United States respectfully received by, 684.
Austria and Russia, friendly to United States in 1781, 685.
B.
Babylon, astronomers of, 340.
Bache, A.D., quoted, 528.
Bacon, Lord, 158.
Badger, G.E., of N. Carolina, 587; voted against ceding New Mexico and California, 632.
Balance of Trade, doctrine of, 91.
Bank Charter, benefit of, to stockholders, 324; first passed by Congress, 327.
Bank Credit, benefit of, in United States, 364; evils arising from abuse of, 364.
Bank, National, Mr. Ewing's plan for a, 490.
Bank Notes, must be convertible into specie, 365.
Bank of England, resumes cash payments, 81.
Bank of United States, object of, 81; charter vetoed, 321; effect of the veto in Western country, 322; time for renewal of charter, 323; benefit of a charter to stockholders, 324; foreigners as stockholders in, 325-327; advantage of, in case of war, 327; established, 328; its conduct under Mr. Adams's administration, 434; message of President Jackson in regard to, 434; how affected by events of 1829, 435; bill for re-charter passed by Congress, 436; branch of, in New Hampshire, 436; order for removal of deposits, 436; act incorporating the, 466.
Bankruptcy, a uniform system of, remarks on, 471; State laws concerning, ineffectual, 471.
Bankrupt Law, of New York, considered, 180; repeal of the, 471.
Bankrupt Laws, to be established by national authority, 179; absolute power of Congress to establish, 186; prohibition on State law in regard to, 186.
Banks, effect of paper issues by, 81; safest under private management, 325; power of Congress to establish, 328, 334, 335; increase of, 440; suspension of specie payment, 443.
Barre, Col., extract from speech on American Colonists, 237.
Barrow, Dr., his idea of "rest," xxxix.
Bell, Senator from Tennessee, 614.
Benevolent establishments of United States, 651.
Benson, Judge, Commissioner at Annapolis, 310.
Benton, Thomas H., speaks on Foot's resolution, 227; resolutions of, 407; allusion to, 569.
Berkeley, Bishop, extract from, 639.
Berrien, J.M., 570; resolution concerning Mexico, 586; proposition in respect to Texas, 611; vote against ceding New Mexico and California, 632.
Bill, to limit time of service of certain officers, 394, 395.
Bill of Rights, meaning of, concerning chartered charities, 10.
Bill of Rights of N.H., articles infringed in regard to Dartmouth College, 14; prohibit retrospective laws, 14.
Blacks from Northern States, how treated at the South, 620.
Blake, George, 137.
Boston, imprisonment of Sir E. Andros in, 39; its port closed, 128; resolutions of, in 1820, 463; reception given to Mr. Webster in 1842, 481.
Bowdoin, James, delegate to Congress, 162.
Branch, Mr., resolution of 373.
Brewster, Elder, 27, 31, 52.
British Parliament, power claimed by, over charters, 5.
Brooks, Gov. John, 127.
Brougham, Mr., his approval of the Monroe declaration, 155.
Buena Vista, General Taylor at, 559.
Buffalo, building of a pier at, 424; reception of Mr. Webster at, and speech, May 22, 1851, 626; citizens of, exhorted to preserve the Union, 627.
Buller, Justice, extract on government of corporations, 21.
Bunker Hill Battle, address to survivors of, 127; important effects of, 129; changes of the fifty years following the, 131; survivors of, present at completion of monument, 138; described, 141; established Independence, 142.
Bunker Hill Monument, address at laying of corner-stone, 123; William Tudor's idea of erecting the, 123; laying of corner-stone described, 123; completion of, 136; veterans present at completion of, 138; "stands on Union," 140; description of, 151.
Burke, Edmund, compliment to Charles Fox, xxxviii; speeches of, criticised, lii; bill for economical reform, 469.
C.
Cabot, George, notice of, 497.
Calhoun, J.C., President of Senate and Vice-President of United States, 243; resolutions on State sovereignty, 273; speaks on Wilkins tariff bill, 273; course in regard to tariff of 1816, 305; resolutions of, relating to slavery, 445; supports administration of Van Buren, 451; remarks of Mr. Webster on the political course of, 453; letter on Sub-Treasury bill, 453; change in views upon Sub-Treasury bill, 454; advocates the State-rights party, 455, 464, 467; his object to unite the entire South, 457; attack on Mr. Webster, 458; Mr. Webster's reply to, 458; opposes Mr. Dallas's bill for a bank, 460; bill of, for internal improvements, 466; extract from, on the power of Congress, 467; took lead in annexing Texas, 609; remarks upon admission of Texas, 611; dying testimony to Mr. Webster's conscientiousness, xliii.
California, proposed annexation of, 563; article of cession to United States, 587; discovery of gold in, 601; Mexican provincial government overthrown by, 601; establishment of local government in, 602; slavery excluded from, by law of nature, 615.
Canada, cession to England, effect on the colonies, 42.
Canals, act of 1824 concerning, 245.
Canning, Mr., opinion concerning Spain and her colonies, 154; approval of the Monroe declaration, 155.
Capitol, speech at laying of corner-stone of the addition to the, 639; copy of paper under corner-stone of, 644; foundation laid by Washington, 644; plan for extension of the, 644.
Carroll, Charles, signer of the Declaration, 176.
Cass, Lewis, Mexican speech of, 554; as a Whig candidate, 575; as a candidate for President, 584; personal character of, 584; in favor of the Compromise Line, 588; requests his recall from France, 667; his construction of the treaty of Washington referred to, 669, 671; answer of Mr. Webster to, concerning the African squadron, 672.
Catharine the Second of Russia, policy in respect to Greece, 70.
Cession, articles of, concerning New Mexico and California, 587.
Channing, W.E., letter of, on slavery, 624.
Charities, charters granted to founders of, 7; colleges included under, 7, 510; founder of incorporated, considered visitor, 7; government may incorporate, 7; legal signification of, 7; opinion of Lord Holt respecting the power of visitors over, 7; right of visitation in, incorporated, 7; case of town of Bury St. Edmunds, 527; schools founded by, must include religious instruction, 528.
Charity, legal definition of, 510.
Charles the Second, 39.
Charters, of Dartmouth College (1769), 1; legislative power over, defined, 5; power claimed by British Parliament over, 5; Lord Mansfield on rights of, 5; legislative power over, limited, 6; granted to founders of charities, 7; opinion of Lord Commissioner Eyre on charities established by, 9; how they affect property of corporations, 12; of the nature of contracts, 20, 21; how may be altered or varied, 21; may be accepted at will, 21; no difference between grants of corporate franchise and tangible property, 21; of Dartmouth College (1769) is a contract, 22; obtained by founders of English liberty, 63; New England colonists required them, 148.
Chateaubriand, M. de, quoted respecting the Holy Alliance, 64.
Chatham, Lord, his colonial policy, 42; opinion of the first Congress, 162.
Chaucer, his use of word "green," xxxix.
Chicago Road, President's opinion in respect to, 353.
China, trade of United States with, 95.
Choate, Rufus, 496.
Christian charity, defined, 510; spirit of, 519.
Christianity, blended influence of civilization and, 65; observance of the Sabbath a part of, 518; essentials of, part of the common law, 527, 530.
Christian Ministry, and the Religious Instruction of the Young, speech in Supreme Court, 505.
Christian Ministry, opprobrium cast on the, by the Girard will, 508; establishment of, by Christ, 515; work of the, in United States, 509, 516.
Christians, religious belief of, 521.
Christ's command, "Suffer little children," &c., referred to, 517.
Church, grants to, cannot be rescinded, 13.
Civil Law, maxim of, in regard to slavery, 573.
Clay, Henry, speech on tariff of 1824 criticised by Mr. Webster, 78; author of American system of tariff, 78; resolution of, relating to slavery in District of Columbia, 445; resolutions in respect to slavery, 600.
Clayton, J.M., his explanation of Mr. Mann's mission, 680.
Clergy, eulogium on, 509.
Coast Survey of United States, 648.
College Livings, rights and character of, 16; attack of James the Second on Magdalen College, 17.
Colleges, are eleemosynary corporations, 6, 8, 22; charters granted to, 7; foundation of, considered by Lord Mansfield, 9; charters should be kept inviolate, 23; party or political influence dangerous to, 23.
Colonies, establishment of Greek, 31; of New England, 34, 35; of Roman, 33; of West India, 34, 35; Spanish in South America, 134, 144; New England and Virginia, 144; English and Spanish compared, 145; original ground of dispute between England and the, 164; American, declared free and independent, 641.
Colonists, English, in America, secret of their success, 147; brought their charters, 148; in Virginia, failed for want of charter, 148; allegiance to the king, 165.
Columbus, Christopher, portrayed, 124, 144.
Columbus, O., convention at, in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, 518.
Commerce, condition of, in 1824, 83; its national character, 92, 498; how affected by laws of Confederation, 114; power of Congress to regulate, 114, 120; resolutions of New Jersey in regard to, 115; Mr. Witherspoon's motion in Congress concerning, 115; of Virginia in regard to, 115; necessity of vesting Congress with power to control, 115; law of Congress paramount, 120; guarded by the general government, 497.
Compact and government as distinguished from each other, 284.
Compromise Act, principle of, 489.
Compromise Line, in respect to slavery, 588.
Concurrent Legislation, defined and argued, 116; effect on monopolies, 119.
Confederation, its effect on commerce, 114; of 1781 a league, 276; state of the country under the, 281.
Confessions, how to be regarded, 220.
Congress of Delegates, at Philadelphia, 1774, 162; resolutions on the Declaration, 165; sat with closed doors, 166.
Congress of Greece, of 1821, 72.
Congress of United States, power to regulate commerce, 114, 120; should have power to regulate commerce, 115; and the States, argument on concurrent power of, 115; exclusive right over monopolies, 116; possesses exclusive admiralty jurisdiction, 118; law of, paramount, 120; laws of, in opposition to State law, 122; power concerning rights of authors and inventors, 122; its coinage powers, 185; to establish uniform bankrupt laws, 186; power over slave trade, 233; no power over slavery, 233, 429, 636; power to make laws, 293, 331; exclusive power to lay duties, 300; duty of, in case of a Presidential veto, 320; passes first bank charter, 1791, 327; to establish banks, 328, 334, 335; power of, continuous, 336; duties of both houses, 375; power to borrow money, 375; in regard to public moneys, 382; no precise time for expiration of session, 414; power over ceded territory, 445; no control over slavery, 571.
Congress of Verona, in regard to Greek revolution, 70, 153.
Connecticut, law of, concerning steam navigation, 112.
Constitution of United States, provision concerning ex post facto laws, 19; its origin to regulate commerce, 114, 115; its authority to establish bankrupt laws, 179; law of, in regard to contracts, 180; object of the, 185; provides a medium for payment of debts, and a uniform mode of discharging them, 186; prohibitions of, concerning contracts and payment of debts, 187; provisions for settling questions of Constitutional law, 265; to be interpreted by the judicial power, 265, 282; as a compact, 270; not a compact between Sovereign States, argued, 273; object of, 281; not a league, 282; what it says of itself, 283; its relations to individuals, 286; Madison's opinion of, 313; provision of, in case of a Presidential veto, 320; President Jackson's view of, 354; our duty to the, 358; protects labor, 361; division of powers conferred by, 379; on power of removal from office, 398; divides powers of government, 398; recognized slavery, 429, 570; does not speak of Sovereign States, or Federal Government, 538; protects existing government of a State, 542; and the Union, speech on, March 7, 1850, 600; formation of the, 628; provision of, concerning fugitives, 629; officers of the law bound to support the, 630; how it affected the institution of slavery, lx.
Constructive presence defined, 210.
Contracts, cases cited concerning obligation of, 19; defined, include grants, 19; provision concerning obligation of, 19; law of the Constitution in regard to, 180; obligation of, defined, 180, 181; obligation of, rests on universal law, 181; the law not a part of, argued, 182-184; the constitutional provision in regard to, 185; prohibition on state law concerning, 187.
Convention of 1787, remarks on, 287.
Copper, duties received from, 108.
Corporate Franchises, power of Legislature over, limited, 6.
Corporations, acts of Legislature, on Dartmouth College (1769), 2, 3; royal prerogative to create, 5; power of King over, limited by Legislature, 5; power of Legislature to create, 5; opinion of Lord Mansfield on rights of, 5; divers sorts of, 6; eleemosynary, nature of, defined, 6, 9; power of, over property possessed by them, 6; charter rights of visitors of, 7; power of visitation over transferable, 7; argument of Stillingfleet, 8; rights of trustees object of legal protection, 11; franchises granted to, 11; concerning pecuniary benefit from, 11; concerning private property, 12; concerning grants of land to, 13; right of trustees to elect officers, 16; legislature, cannot repeal statutes creating private, 20; extract from Justice Buller on government of, 21; how charters of, may be altered or varied, 21; possible dangers of independent government, 22.
Cotton, attempt to naturalize growth of, in France, 99; how affected by tariff of 1824, 102; proposed reduction of duty on, 243; culture of, protected, 304; how its cultivation affects slavery and the South, 608.
Cotton Manufactures, importance of, 101; of England and United States, 103.
Crawford, Mr., opposing candidate to Mr. Adams, 581.
Credit System, and the Labor of the United States, remarks on, 449.
Credit System, benefit of, in United States, 364; evils arising from abuse of, 364.
Criminal Law, its object, 198.
Cumberland Road Bill, approved, 415.
Currency, effect of paper issues to depreciate, 81; paper, of England, effect on prices, 81; the laboring man's interest in, 360; experiment of exclusive specie, 362; President's interference with, 433; soundness of, 440; derangement of, effect of, 442; its restoration an object of revolution of 1840, 490.
Cushing, Thomas, delegate to Congress, 162.
Custom-house Bonds, act of 1800 in regard to, 383.
D.
Dallas, Geo. M., proposition of, for a bank, 460.
Dane, Nathan, drafted Ordinance of 1787, 231.
Danemora, iron mines of, 105.
Dartmouth College, argument in case of, 1; acts of Legislature affecting, 1, 3, 14, 15, 16, 18; corporation of, (1769,) 2; charter of, (1769,) is a contract, 22; observation of Mr. Webster on opinion of court of N.H. concerning, 22; incident connected with Mr. Webster's argument in case of, xxi.
Davis, Judge, 532.
Debt, abolition of imprisonment for, 474.
Debtor and Creditor, law of, 472, 473.
Debts, the Constitution provides for the payment and discharge of, 186.
Declaration of Independence, 163; committee appointed to draft the, 164; its object and foundation, 165; speeches of Webster for, and dissenting, ascribed to Adams and another, 167, 168; anniversary of, 641.
Democracy, Northern, policy of, 611.
Deposits, removal of, by the President, 369. See Public Moneys.
Dexter, Samuel, character of, 261.
Disbursing Officers, tenure of office, 396.
Discourse delivered at Plymouth, on "First Settlement of New England," 25.
Dissolution of the Union, evils of, 346.
District of Columbia, remarks of Mr. Webster on Slavery in, 445; resolutions on Slavery in, 445; power of Congress in, 446.
Divine Right, a doctrine of the Holy Alliance, 63.
Dix, J.A., his vote for admission of Texas, 611.
Domestic Industry, not confined to manufactures, 98.
Dorr, Thomas W., at the head of revolutionary government of Rhode Island, 535; tried for treason, 536.
Dough Faces, voted for Missouri Compromise, 583.
Douglass, Stephen H., amendment concerning Missouri, 569.
Drum-Beat of England, 371.
Duane, W.J., removal of, from office, 368.
Duché, Rev. Mr., opened first Congress with prayer, 522.
Durfee, Chief Justice, charge of, in Dorr case of Rhode Island, 545.
Duties on Imports, extract from speech on, (1846,) 110.
E.
Education, provision for general diffusion of, in New England, 47, 48; sentiment of John Adams on, 174.
Edwards, Jonathan, his use of the word "sweetness," xxxix.
Election, of officers of colleges, 16.
Elections, rights of, 12; American system of, 540.
Electricity, progress in, 648.
Eleemosynary corporations, nature of, defined, 6, 9; colleges are included under, 22.
Ellenborough, Lord, on commercial restrictions, 87.
Ellsworth, Oliver, extract from, on the Constitution, 288, 295.
Eloquence, defined by Webster, 167.
Embargo, Mr. Hillhouse's opinion of, 260; opposed by Massachusetts, 260.
Emigration, different motives for, 31, 557; Grecian, 32; Roman, 33; purposes and prospects of Pilgrim Fathers, 35; toward the West, 41; to California, began, 601; how encouraged by England, 656.
England, effect of taxation on landholders in, 44; how land was holden, in time of Henry the Seventh, 44; paper system of, effect on prices, 81; protective system of, 84; policy of, in respect to paper currency, 86; manufacture of silk in, 87; removed certain restrictions on trade, 89; provisions concerning her shipping interest, 109; course of, in regard to Spanish colonies, 154; the original ground of dispute between the Colonies and, 164; relation of South Carolina to, in 1775, 259; maritime power of, in war of 1812, 461; imprisonment for debt abolished in, 474; progress of its power, 501; law of, in regard to charitable institutions, 527; representative system of, 538, 642; right claimed by, in respect to impressment, 655; encourages emigration, 656.
English Colonists, in America, secret of their success, 147.
English Composition, school-boy's attempt at, xi; falseness of style, xii.
English Language, correct use in the United States, 148.
English Revolution of 1688, 63; participation of Massachusetts in, 39.
Europe, effect in United States of pacification of, 242; condition of, at the birth of Washington, 341.
Everett, Edward, Minister to England, 487; draft for the Hülsemann letter, 678.
Ewing, Thomas, resolution in regard to payments for public lands, 438; plan for a national bank, 490.
Exchange, the rate of, 96; English standard of, 97.
Exchequer, plan of, Mr. Webster's approbation of, 491, 492; sent to Congress in 1842, 491.
Exclusion of Slavery from the Territories, speech on, Aug. 12, 1848, 569.
Executive of United States, power over the press, 351, 352; refuses to execute law of Congress, 353; patronage, dangers of, 394, 395; power of, defined, 398; extension of its power, 430, 431; change in the fiscal system effected by, 436.
Executive Patronage, and removals from office, speech on, 347.
Executive Usurpation, speech on, 353.
Exeter College, judgment of Lord Holt, in case of, 7; argument of Stillingfleet, 8.
Exports from the United States, 79, 93.
Ex post facto laws, prohibited by Constitution of U.S., 19.
Eyre, Lord Commissioner, opinion of, on chartered charities, 9.
F.
Faneuil Hall, draped in mourning for the first time, 156; reception of Mr. Webster at, Sept. 30, 1842, 481.
Federalism, history of, 252.
Federalist, extract from, on the Constitution, 289.
Festival of Sons of New Hampshire, 598.
Fillmore, Millard, laid corner-stone of extension to the Capitol, 644; addressed, 653.
Fitch, John, grant to, concerning steam navigation, 112.
Fitzsimmons, Mr., suggests protective duties, 303.
Flagg, George, his painting of the Landing of the Pilgrims, 52.
Fletcher v. Peck, case of contract, 19.
Florida, acquisition of, 429; admitted into the Union, 559; cession of, 608.
Foot's Resolution, in Congress, concerning Public Lands, 227; Mr. Webster's second speech on, 227; Mr. Webster's last remarks on, 269.
Foreigners, as stockholders in U.S. Bank, 325-327.
Foreign Interference, President Monroe on, 153.
Foreign Trade, to be encouraged, 94, 98.
Forsyth, John, moves to reduce duty on cotton, 243.
Fortification Bill, speech on loss of the, 407; history of, 410-413; extract from President's Message on, 416.
Foster, John, extract from his "Essay on Evils of Popular Ignorance," 523.
Fox, Charles, remark on Lord Chancellor Thurlow, xxxvii; and Burke, speeches of, compared, lvi.
France, subdivision of landed property in, 44; prophecy concerning government of, 44, 53; allies enter into, effect on trade, 80; invasion of Spain, 153; alliance of U.S. with, declared void, 278; letters of marque, asked by President Jackson, 420.
Franchise, and liberty, synonymous terms, 11; individual, protected by law, 15.
Franchises, corporate, power of Legislature over, limited, 6; granted to trustees of corporations, 11.
Francis the First, quoted, 681.
Franklin, Benjamin, 39; appointed to draft the Declaration, 164.
Franklin, State of, constitution of, and provision to supply a currency, 470.
Free Blacks, from North, how treated at the South, 620.
Free Press, attributes of, 350; the bestowing of office on conductors of the, 351.
Free Schools, of New England, 47.
Free Soil men, character of, 631.
Free Soil Party, platform of, 580; nominate Martin Van Buren, 581.
Free Trade, speech of Mr. Webster on, 109, note.
Freights, rates of, 83, 108; of iron from Sweden, 106.
French Indemnity Loan, of 1818, 81.
Frothingham, Richard, extract from, on laying corner-stone of Bunker Hill Monument, 123; account of completion of Bunker Hill Monument, 135.
Fugitive Slave Law, of 1793, and 1850, 634; opposition to, 635.
Fugitive Slaves, complaint of the South and duty of the North concerning, 617; provision of the Constitution in respect to, 629.
Fulton, Robert, his exclusive right to navigation, 112.
Fulton and Livingston, grant of steam navigation to, by New York, 112.
G.
Gage, Governor, convenes General Court at Salem, 162; rejects John Adams as Councillor, 162.
Gaines, Major, description of New Mexico, 565.
Gallagher, Wm. D., extract from, on growth of Western trade, 646.
General Court, convened at Salem, 162; at Salem dissolved, and power of England terminated, 162.
Georgia, cession of her Western territory, 608.
German Literature, play ridiculing the, 454.
Gerry, Samuel, 170.
Gibbons v. Ogden, case of, 111; argument of Mr. Webster in, 111.
Girard College, provisions of Girard's will in regard to, 506; restriction concerning religious instruction in, 507; no observance of the Sabbath there, 518.
Girard, Stephen, will of, contested, 505; his scheme derogatory to Christianity, 515, 516.
Glass, duty on, advisable, 102.
Gold, and silver as legal tender, 95; discovered in California, 601.
Goodhue, Mr., 497.
Goodridge Robbery Case, Mr. Webster's management of, xv.
Government, nature and constitution of, 43; republican form of, laws which regulate, 43; of France, how effected by subdivision of land, 44, 53; subdivision of lands necessary to free form of, 44; the true principle of a free, 45; to be founded on property, 45; absolute or regulated, the question of the age, 60; influence of knowledge over, 131-133; difficulty of establishing popular, 132; influence of public opinion on, 133; popular, practicable, 134; popular, overthrown in Spain, 153; powers of, concerning local improvement, 238; power of, over internal improvements, 243; doctrine of South Carolina on State rights, 255; popular, rests on two principles, 297; the success of a united, 499.
Government, American, character of, established by the Pilgrims, 35; origin and character of, 43; system of representation in, 46; founded on morality and religious sentiment, 49; origin and source of power, 257; its establishment, 285; majority must govern, 295; danger of political proscription to the, 349; two principles upon which it stands, 319.
Grants, legislature no power to rescind, when given for educational or religious purposes, 13; protection of, 19; included under contracts, 19.
Great Britain, negotiation of treaty with, 481.
Greece, saved by battle of Marathon, 28; emigration from, 32; speech on revolution in, 57; appeal to United States concerning revolution in, 57; extract from President Monroe, on revolution in, 58; we are her debtors, 58; improved condition of, 68; conduct of Allied Sovereigns in regard to contest in, 69; Congress at Verona, 1822, concerning independence of, 70; Congress of 1821, 72; revolution of 1821 in, 72; society of Vienna to encourage literature in, 72; propriety of appointing an agent to, 75; liberty of, 641; want of union among her states, 642.
Greeks, Baron Strogonoff on the massacre of the, 71; excited to rebellion by Russia, 69; our sympathy for cause of, 67; the oppression of, by Turkey, 68; what they have accomplished, 74.
Griswold, George, toast to Daniel Webster, 496.
H.
Hale, Representative to Congress, 385.
Hamilton, Alexander, his services, 309.
Hancock, John, presides in Congress, 167; signed the Declaration, 170; first signer of the Declaration, 497.
Harbor Bill, course of President Jackson concerning, 353.
Hardin, Col., description of New Mexico, 567.
Harrison, Wm. Henry, President, 481; the "Log Cabin" candidate, 476; civil character of, 577.
Hartford Convention, 235; design of, 253.
Harvard College, 40, 48.
Harvey, Peter, story told of Mr. Webster by, xv.
Hayne, Robert Y., speaks on Foot's resolution, 227; reply of Webster to, on Foot's resolution, 227; votes on internal improvement, 245.
Hemp, growth of, to be encouraged, 107; importation of, 107; effect of increased duty on, 108.
Henry, Patrick, 172.
Henry the Seventh, division of land in England in time of, 44; colonies planted in the reign of, 142.
Hermitage, supposed visit of occupant of, to the Senate Chamber, 446.
Hillard, Mr., remarks in Massachusetts Senate, 618.
Hillhouse, Mr., opinion on the embargo law, 260.
Hoar, Mr., mission of, to South Carolina, 621.
Holland, trade of, with the United States, 93; our treaty with, of 1782, 170.
Holt, Lord, opinion of, respecting power of visitors over corporations, 7.
Holy Alliance, origin of, 61; effect on social rights, 62, 64; extract from Puffendorf, bearing on principles of, 62; principles of the, 62, 63; forcible interference a principle of, 63.
Home Market, effect of manufactures on, 84.
House of Commons, representation in the, 642.
Hülsemann Letter, written by Mr. Webster, 679.
Hume, Mr., remark on administration of justice, 316.
Hungarians, arrival of, in the United States, 682.
Hungary, President Taylor's interest in the revolution in, 679; correspondence relating to revolution in, 682.
Hunter, Mr., 678
Huskisson, Mr., 491; policy of, in respect to commerce, 98.
Hutchinson, Gov., 165.
I.
Immortality, inquiries concerning, 517.
Impeachment, closing appeal in defence of Judge James Prescott, 55.
Imports, excess of, over exports, explained, 93.
Impressment, convention of 1803, in respect to, 655; English law in respect to, 655; letter of Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton respecting, 655; injuries of, 658; letter of Lord Ashburton on, 659; rule of the United States in respect to, 658.
Imprisonment for Debt, abolition of, 474.
Inauguration of Washington, 312.
India and China, trade of United States with, 96.
Individual Rights, concerning charities, 12.
Insolvent Debtors, act of New York concerning, 179.+
Insolvents, hopeless condition of, 472.
Intellectual being, inquiries of an, 517.
Interference, forcible, a principle of the Holy Alliance, 63; a violation of public law, 65.
Internal Improvements, in New England, 43; progress of, 80; general benefit from, 238; course of South Carolina towards, 238; at the West, opposition of the South to, 240; attention of United States directed to, 242; course pursued by Mr. Webster in Congress towards, 243; votes of Hayne on, 245; Mr. Calhoun's bill for, 466.
International Law, duty of United States in regard to, 60, 61, 66.
Ireland, coasting trade of England with, 109; legislation desired in, 499.
Iron, concerning home manufacture of, 104-106; how affected by tariff of 1824, 104; effect of increased duty on, 108.
J.
Jackson, Andrew, veto on United States Bank Bill, 320; opinion of Mr. Webster on the veto of the Bank bill, 337, 338; message in regard to the Bank of United States, 343; uses his power to remove from office, 347; sentiments of Webster on re-election of, 357; protest of, 367; removal of deposits by, 369; recommends letters of marque and reprisal against France, 420; remarks of Mr. Webster on, 423; his course concerning the currency, 434; inauguration as President, 434; act of making sales of public lands payable in gold and silver, 438; character of, 439; elected President vice Mr. Adams in 1828, 581; idea of bridging the Potomac, 652.
James the First, his tyranny, 377.
James the Second, attack on college livings at Magdalen College, 17.
Jay, John, his services, 311; appointed Chief Justice, 311; quoted, 538; treaty of 1794 with England, 608.
Jefferson, Thomas, news of the death of, 156; birth and education of, 163; elected to first Congress, 163, 172; his paper on "Rights of America," 163; appointed to draft the Declaration, 164; remark on Adams in Congress, 166; Governor of Virginia, 172; his "Notes on Virginia," 172; Minister abroad, 172; Secretary of State, 172; Vice-President and President, 172, 173; his "Manual of Parliamentary Practice," 172; founded University of Virginia, 173; his scholarship, 173; last days of, 173; inscription for his monument, 173; Louisiana acquired in administration of, 175; correspondence concerning the Confederation, 287; use of his power to remove from office, 348; opposed to expending money without appropriation, 418; admitted Louisiana into the Union, 559; opinion of admitting Louisiana into the Union, 630; rule in respect to impressment, 658.
Jewish Talmuds, 524.
Johnson, Hon. Richard M., effort for abolition of imprisonment for debt, 474.
Johnston, Samuel, extract on the Constitution, 288.
Jones, Sir William, extract from, 643.
Joseph the Second, quoted, 681.
Judiciary of United States, to interpret questions of constitutional law, 265, 282; extent of its power, 265, 293; Mr. Madison's opinion on, 294; Mr. Pinkney on the, 294; its duties and extent, 316; how vacancies are filled, 318; decides the constitutional laws, 330.
K.
Kemble, Mr., anecdote of, xxiii.
Kennistons, Defence of the, xv.
Kent, Chancellor, remarks at Webster dinner in New York, 307.
King, Gov., action of, in revolution of Rhode Island, 536.
King, Mr., of Alabama, 413.
King, Rufus, resolution of, in 1785, in regard to slavery, 235; member of Congress, and of the Convention of 1787, 606; on impressment, 657.
King Solomon's Lodge, erect a monument to General Warren, 123.
Knapp, J.F. and J.J., Jr., convicted of murder of Captain Joseph White, 103.
Knowledge, its influence over governments, 131-133; diffusion of, in United States, 650.
Knowlton, anecdote of, xxvi.
Kossuth, Louis, demanded of Turkey by Emperor of Russia, 598; extract from speech of Mr. Webster on, 598; his communication to American Chargé d'Affaires, 682.
L.
Labor, how to be protected, 82; different prices of, 105; protected by the Constitution, 361.
Laborers, their interest in the currency, 360; character of Northern, 620; of the North, compared with Southern slaves, 620.
Labor-Saving Machines, 451.
Lafayette, Gen., addressed by Webster at Bunker Hill, 130.
Land, a subdivision of, necessary to free form of government, 44; effect of taxation on division of, in England, 44; how holden in England in time of Henry the Seventh, 44; prophecy concerning subdivision of, on government of France, 44, 53.
Landing of Pilgrims at Plymouth, picture representing, 52.
Lands, Public, Mr. Foot's resolution in regard to, 227; views of Mr. Webster concerning the disposition of, 237, 238; powers of government to donate for local improvement, 238; donations of, necessary for local improvement, 239; liberal reduction in price of, favored by New England, 241; whence obtained, 426; States have no sovereignty over, 426; question of revenue connected with, 427; liberal policy in respect to sales of, 427; revenue arising from sales of, 428; act making sales of, payable in gold and silver, 438.
Lansdowne, Lord, quoted on prohibitory duties, 86, 94.
Law, of the land, relating to individual franchise, 16; interest and duty of United States in international, 66; criminal, its object, 198; Mr. Webster's respect for, 319; representation the foundation of, 643; the supreme rule, 643.
Laws, validity of, not to depend upon the motive, 301.
Laybach, circular of sovereigns at, 62.
Lay preaching and lay teaching, 513.
League, defined, 278.
Lee, Richard Henry, resolution of June, 1776, 163.
Legislation, society to be regarded in, 103; concurrent power of States with Congress, 116-118; will of the people ascertained by, 541.
Legislative Power, over charters, defined, 5; restriction imposed upon, 23.
Legislature, Acts of. See Acts of Legislature.
Legislature, power of King over corporations, limited by, 5; power of, to create corporations, 5; power of, over charters, limited, 6; cannot resume grants of land given for educational or religious purposes, 13; power of, to affect individual rights, 15; cannot repeal statutes creating private corporations, 20; power of, restrained by Ordinance of 1787, 234.
Legislatures, to support the Constitution of United States, 286.
Leigh, Mr., 412.
Letters of Marque, against France, asked by President Jackson, 420.
Liberties, defined, 11.
Liberty, love of religious, 29; characteristics of, 122; the contests for, 385; principles of American, 536; of Greece, Rome, and America, 641, 642.
Lincolnshire, Pilgrims in, 30.
Literature, its advantages in public life, 174; progress in, 649.
Liverpool Blue Coat School, 528.
Liverpool, Lord, 491; on freedom of trade, 86.
Livingston and Fulton, right of steam navigation granted by New York, 112.
Livingston, Chancellor, his services, 311.
Livingston, Robert R., 126.
Local institutions for local purposes, and general institutions for general purposes, 498.
Local legislation, benefits of, 498, 499.
Log Cabin Candidate, remarks on, 476.
Log Cabin, origin of the term, 476.
Louisiana, acquisition of, 175; how obtained, 429; slave-holding States framed from, 608; admission of, into the Union, 630; Mr. Jefferson's opinion of admitting to the Union, 630.
Luther, Reformation of, 143.
M.
Macaulay, extract from, on English lawyers and English statesmen, xli.
McCleary, fell at Charlestown, 130.
McDowell, Governor of Virginia, 619.
MacDuffie, speech on Internal Improvements referred to, 244.
Machinery, law prohibiting exportation of, from England, 91.
Machines, not labor-saving, but labor-doing, 451.
McLane, Louis, instructions to, concerning colonial trade, 581.
McLeod, Alexander, case of, 482.
Madison, James, knowledge of the Constitution, 247, 256, 313; on the Judiciary, 294; extracts from, on duties on imports, 303; his public services, 310, 312; opinion on nullification, 313; Secretary of State and President, 313; approved United States Bank, 331; opinion in regard to removal from office, 347; on impeachment, 431; Secretary of State, 559; article of, admitting Louisiana into Union, 559; opinion of, on slavery, 606.
Majority Government, 295.
Mann, A.D., instructions to, 683.
Mansfield, Lord, opinion of, on chartered rights, 5; foundation of colleges considered by, 9.
Manufactures, acts of 1816 and 1824 respecting, 99.
Marathon, battle of, how affected Greece, 28.
Marshfield, speech at, Sept. 1, 1848, 575.
Martial Law, defined, 549.
Martin, Mr., opinions on the Judiciary, 294; objections to the Constitution, 303.
Maryland, settlement of, 125.
Mason, J.W., on slave labor, 573; bill concerning fugitive slaves, 617.
Mason, Jeremiah, death of, 589; obituary remarks of Mr. Webster, 589; resolutions on death of, 589; his ancestry, 590; appointed Attorney-General, 592; Senator of United States, 593; his style as an orator, xix; his respect for Daniel Webster, xx.
Massachusetts, participation in English Revolution, 39; commercial progress of, 40; voted against tariff of 1824, 110; Constitution of, when framed and revised, 170, 171; eulogium on (Webster), 254; opposes the embargo law, 260; duty to the Constitution, 358; her general prosperity, 451; her action on abdication of James II., 537.
Mathers, father and son, 39.
Mayflower, compact signed in her cabin, 35; object of her voyage, 143.
Melville, Major, removed from custom-house, 348.
Members of Congress, appointment of, to office, 350.
Merchant Vessels, national territory, 656.
Message, of President Monroe on foreign interference, approved by Lord Brougham, 155; how received by the people, 155; of Gen. Jackson, 1829, views in respect to Bank of the United States, 434.
Methodist Church v. Remington, case of, 530.
Methodist Episcopal Church, separation of, in regard to slavery, 604.
Mexican treaty, clauses ceding New Mexico and California, 587; Mr. Webster's vote in respect to, 587.
Mexican War, speech on, 551; objects of the, 552, 553, 556.
Mexico, the Sixteen Million Loan Bill for prosecuting war with, 551; treaty of 1848 between United States and, 551; objects of the war with, the cession of territory, 552, 553, 556; forced to cede territory to United States, 552, 601; aversion of, to cede territory, 557; war declared against, 601; the treaty with, 632.
Military Academy at West Point, the appropriation for, 408.
Military Achievements, important by their results, 28.
Milton, John, use of words, xiii.
Missionaries in Georgia, 353.
Mississippi River, future centre of the country, 622.
Missouri Compromise, line of, 570.
Missouri, law for the admission of, 569.
Monmouth, associations of, 339.
Monopolies, report on impracticability of, 89; power of Congress over, 116; effect of State power over, 119.
Monroe, James, extract from message on the struggle in Greece, 58; extract from message concerning foreign interference, 153.
Morris, Robert, notice of, 497.
Morton, Perez, delivered eulogy on Gen. Warren, 123.
Murder, of Capt. Joseph White, at Salem, 189; portrayed, 195; what constitutes a principal in, 207; what constitutes an abettor to, 208; two sorts of, 208.
Murphy, Mr., in regard to Texas, 612.
N.
Napoleon, attempt in respect to cotton, 99.
Nashville Convention, 622.
National Law, concerning offences against the, 598; Emperor of Russia bound by, 598.
Natural Hatred of Poor for the Rich, remarks of Webster on, 359.
Navigation, English act of 1660, restricting the trade of the N.E. Colonies, 37; condition of that of United States (1824), 83; of Hudson River and Long Island Sound, exclusive claim of Fulton to, 112.
Navy, creation of, 175; Mr. Webster's early support to the, 461; of the United States, its strength in 1850, 649.
Neutrality of United States, defined, 152.
New England, discourse on First Settlement of, 25; first settlement of, 28; English Act of Navigation, 1660, restricting trade of, 37; progress of the first century of, 38; opening of second century of, 40; population of, in 1820, 40; her part in wars between England and France, 42; war of the Revolution begun in, 42; internal improvement in, 43; the subdivision of lands in, necessary, 43, 44; right of primogeniture abolished in, 44; free schools of, 47; prosperity of, in 1824, 78; forced into manufactures, 110; causes which led to settlement of, 141-144; its free schools, 174; attack of Hayne on, 236, 249; policy of, concerning Western population, 238; interest of, in public improvements, 239; when, how, and why her measures favor the West, 240; favors reduction of price of public lands, 241; supported administration of Washington, 250; her course concerning the embargo, 261; New England Society of New York, object of its formation, 500; settlement of, 501.
New Hampshire, acts of Legislature, relating to Dartmouth College, 1, 14, 15, 16, 18; legislative and judicial power, separate, 15; extract from speech, at festival of natives of, 598.
New Jersey, law of, concerning steam navigation, 112; resolutions concerning commerce, 115.
New Mexico, proposed annexation of, 562; population of, 563; country described by Major Gaines, 565; nature of country inhabitants, 566; prognostications of Mr. Webster in regard to admission of, 568; article of cession to United States, 587; existence of peonism in, 615; slavery excluded from, by law of nature, 615.
Newton, Isaac, 158.
New York, grant of steam navigation to John Fitch, 112; grant of steam navigation to Livingston and Fulton, 112; laws of, concerning steam navigation, 112, 113; act of, concerning insolvent debtors, 179; insolvent law of, 183; public dinner given to Webster in, 307; growth of, contemporary with the Constitution, 309; her loyalty to the Union, 318; toast of Webster to City of, 319; Reception of Webster at, in 1837, 422; law of 1845 in respect to elections, 542; her vote for annexing Texas, 631.
Niles, J.M., his vote for admission of Texas, 611.
North, duty of, in respect to fugitive slaves, 617; complaints of, against the South, 620.
North and South, grievances of, 617, 620.
Northern Democracy, policy of, 611.
Northwestern Territory, concerning slavery in, 234; slavery excluded from, 571.
Nullification, right of, denied, 257; right of, never advanced in New England, 263; practical operations of, in South Carolina, 266; practical operation of, 279, 282, 298; threatened in South Carolina, 355; dangerous tendency of, 355.
O.
Oath, legal definition of, 526.
Office. See Removal from Office.
Ogden, A., his right to navigation, 113.
Ogden v. Saunders, argument in case of, 179.
Ohio, settled mostly by Southern emigration, 574.
Old Colony Club, formation of, 25.
Old Thirteen, their public lands, 426.
Ordinance of 1787, drafted by Nathan Dane, 231, 234; prohibits slavery, 231; restrained legislative power, 234.
Oregon, bill to organize a government for, 569; established a free Territory, 587; government of, established, 616.
Ormichund v. Barker, case of, 526.
Orphans, provision of Stephen Girard for education of, 506.
Otis, James, his speech on Writs of Assistance noticed, 161.
P.
Paine, Robert Treat, 170; delegate to Congress, 162.
Paine, Thomas, extract from his "Age of Reason," 514.
Panama Mission, speech on, 152.
Paper Currency, of England, effect on prices, 81; the evils of, 82; experiment of a redeemable, 363; advantages of a, in the United States, 363; prediction concerning irredeemable, 365.
Parable of the prodigal son, 647; the widow's mite, referred to, 519.
Parker, Chief Justice, 207; death of, 194.
Parliament, power of, over the Colonies, 165.
Parmenter, Mr., voted for tariff of 1842, 489.
Parthenon, referred to, 346.
Parties, origin of, 250; violence of, 251.
Party Spirit, Washington's exhortation against, 345.
Patent-Office, established, 648.
Patterson, Mr., propositions of, in regard to Confederation, 287.
Peace, the policy of the United States, 59.
Peaceable Secession, the impossibility of, 621.
Penn, William, 529.
Pennsylvania, memorial to abolish slavery, 232; opinion on tariff bill, 258, 262; how affected by veto of U.S. Bank Bill, 323; of Christian origin, 512; the public policy of, 529; laws of, in regard to charitable bequests, 530.
Peonism, existence of, in New Mexico, 615.
People, source of power, 257; will of, to be ascertained by legislation, 541.
Perkins, Thomas H., eulogized, 138.
Peter the Great, policy of Russia developed under, 69.
Philadelphia, convention of Whigs at, 575.
Phillips v. Bury, case of Exeter College, 7.
Pickering, Timothy, amendment to Mr. Calhoun's bill for internal improvements, 466.
Pilgrim Fathers, first celebration of anniversary of landing of, 25; our homage for, 27; prophecy for the future of their work, 29; motives which led them into exile, 29; departure of, for Holland, 30; establish their government, 35; their purposes and prospects in emigration, 35.
Pilgrim Festival at New York, speech of Mr. Webster, 496.
Pilgrim Society, formation of, 25.
Pinkney, Thomas, opinion on the Judiciary, 294.
Plymouth, Landing of Pilgrims at, speech in commemoration of, Dec. 22, 1820, 25; speech of Dec. 22, 1843, 496.
Plymouth Rock, landing on, described, 27.
Policy, of United States, peaceful, 59; neutral, defined, 152.
Political Parties, existence of, 250.
Political Power, the people the source of, 537.
Political Revolution, 132.
Polk, James K., will of, to take territory from Mexico, 557; remarks of Mr. Webster on, 558; elected President in 1844, 583; avowal in respect to Mexican war, 602.
Poor, the, and the Rich, 359.
Pope, quotation from, 583.
Popular Knowledge, progress of, and the causes, 450.
Posterity, our relation to, 26.
Potomac River, idea of President Jackson to bridge the, 652.
Prescott, Judge James, closing appeal in defence of, 55.
Prescott, William, at Bunker Hill, 138.
President of the United States, power of removal from office, 329; no power to decide constitutionality of laws, 330; power to remove and to control an officer, 369; former practice of, to address Congress in person, 374; power of appointing public officers, 383; oath of, 384; is responsible to the people, 391; not the sole representative of the people, 391; power of, over removal from office, 397, 399; custom of, on last day of a session of Congress, 413; duty of, 417; how communicate his wishes to Congress, 417; called the representative of the American people, 432.
Presidential Protest, speech on, 367; general doctrines of, 392.
Presidential Veto of United States Bank Bill, speech on, 320.
Press, freedom of, essential to free government, 619; violence of, in respect to slavery, 619.
Primogeniture, the right of, abolished in New England, 44.
Property, general division of, necessary to free government, 45.
Proscription, exercised by President Jackson, 348; political, danger of, to the government, 349.
Protection, incidental, policy of England 84; should be limited, entire prohibition destructive, 90; Mr. Webster's views on, 428; an object of the revolution of 1840, 489.
Public Credit, in 1842, 494.
Public Lands. See Lands, Public.
Public Law, extract from Puffendorf on, 62; forcible interference a violation of, 65.
Public Moneys, to whom belongs the custody of, 368; place of deposit of, fixed by Congress, 370; power of Congress over, 382; extract from Protest in regard to, 382; law of 1836 to regulate deposits of, 437.
Public Opinion, power of, 67, 483; its influence over governments, 133.
Public Worship, in United States, 651.
Puffendorf, extract from, bearing on principles of Holy Alliance, 62.
Putnam, Judge, 532.
Q.
Quakers, their preachers, 524.
Quiney, Josiah, Jr., quoted, 129.
Quincy, Hor. Josiah, 159.
R.
Radicals, of South Carolina, 244.
Railroads, first in America, 126.
Raleigh, Sir W., referred to, 143.
Randolph, Jefferson, proposition of, to abolish slavery, 619.
Randolph, Gov., on domestic slavery, 232.
Raymond, Henry J., reporter of Mr. Webster's speeches, xxiv.
Reception of Mr. Webster at Boston, Sept. 30, 1842, 481; at Buffalo, May 22, 1851, 626; at New York, 307.
Reformation, provisions for religious instruction in schools at time of, 526.
Religion, the only conservative principle, 524; state of society without, 525; supposed case of a graduate of Girard College questioned in regard to, 525; necessity of, to man, 650.
Removal from Office, speech of Webster on, 347; power of President in regard to, 347, 397, 399; decision of Congress in regard to, 347; Mr. Madison's opinion in regard to, 347; Mr. Jefferson's use of the power of, 348; concerning the press, 351; extract from constitution of England on, 389; dangers of unlimited power in, 395; act of 1820 in regard to, 396, 397; act of 1789 on, 397, 401, 402, 404, 405; Constitution of U.S. on, 398; manner of, 400; power of, incident to power of appointment, 400, 401, 402; effect of a nomination on, 401; concerning inferior officers, 402; reasons must be stated for, 404.
Removal of Deposits, object of, 366; by executive power, 369.
Reply to Hayne, by Webster, 227.
Representation, American system of, 46; in connection with government, 341; inequality of, produced by annexing slave States, 561; of slaves, complaints of the North against, 620; popular governments established on the basis of, 642; in House of Commons, 642; the foundation for law, 643.
Representative Government, experiment of, 341.
Representative System in England, 538.
Republican Government. See Government, American.
Repudiation denounced, 494.
Resolutions, for appointment of an agent to Greece, 57; by John Adams, preparatory to the Declaration, 163; of Congress on Declaration of Independence, 165; of Foot in Congress, in regard to Public Lands, 227; of Congress concerning slavery, 233; of Calhoun concerning State sovereignty, 273; of Convention of 1787, 287; of Senate concerning executive veto, 368; on slavery in District of Columbia, 445; on Mr. Webster's speech on Girard will, 505; from State Legislatures respecting slavery, 618.
Retrospective law, defined, 14; extract from Chief Justice Kent on, 14; passage of, prohibited, 14.
Revenue, Mr. Webster's views on, 428.
Revolution, defined, 277.
Revolution, American, causes of, 37; begun in New England, 42; commemorated by Bunker Hill Monument, 125, 126; survivors of, at Bunker Hill, 127; character of state papers of, 130; originated on a question of principle, 371.
Revolution in Greece, speech on, 57.
Revolution of 1840, its objects, 488.
Revolution, Political, 132.
Rhetoric, Daniel Webster as a master of English style, xi.
Rhode Island, argument on government of, 535; proceedings of revolutionary party of 1841 in, 535; proceedings of the Dorr party in, 544; new constitution of, 545; action of President Tyler in respect to insurrection in, 547; error of charter government of, 549; good effects of the agitation in, 549.
Rich, Capt. Benjamin, 487.
Richmond, Va., address to the ladies of, 478.
Right of Approach, of ships of war at sea, 664.
Right of Search, letter of Mr. Webster on the, 660; British claim to, 662; not distinct from right of visit, 662; view of the United States, on, 664-666; Lord Aberdeen on the, 670.
Rights, Legal, not affected by pecuniary profit, 12; of electors, 12; of individuals in regard to own property, 12; individual, protected by law, 15.
Rio Grande, Texas claims to line of, 562; worthlessness of the valley of the, 565.
Rives, W.C., opinions of the Constitution, 284.
Robbins, Rev. Chandler, delivers address on anniversary of landing of Pilgrims, 25.
Robinson, Rev. John, 30, 31.
Rome, liberty of, 642.
Rusk, Mr., Senator from Texas, 563.
Russia, extract from Emperor on proper policy, 64; under Peter the Great, 69; excited the Greeks to rebellion, 69; under Catharine the Second, 70; her trade with the United States, 93; Emperor of, bound by the law of nations, 598; Emperor of, demands Kossuth of Turkey, 598.
Ruxton, Mr., description of New Mexico, 567.
S.
Sabbath, convention at Columbus, O., in regard to observance of the, 518; the observance of, a part of Christianity, 518.
St. Asaph, Bishop of, extract from discourse, 640.
Salem, sentiments of, at the closing of port of Boston, 129; General Court at, 162.
Sargent, Henry, picture representing Landing of the Pilgrims, by, 52.
Schools, founded by charity, must include religious instruction, 528.
Schools of New England, 174.
Science and literature, 51.
Scio, destruction of, 73.
Scott, Gen. Winfield, brilliant campaign of, 554; referred to, 578.
Seamen, letter of Daniel Webster on impressment of, 658.
Search. See Right of Search.
Secession, defined, 276; right of States to, denied, 278, 282; practical consequences of, 279; no such thing as peaceable, 621; of Virginia, improbability of, 646; men of the Southern States addressed in respect to, 647.
Secretary of the Treasury, his custody of the public moneys, 368.
Senate of the United States, a body of, equals, 229; resolution concerning executive veto, 368; its right of self-defence, 372.
Shakspeare, use of words, xiii.
Shaw, Chief Justice, 532.
Sheridan, remark of, xxv.
Sherman, Roger, appointed to draft the Declaration, 164.
Shipping Interest, how affected by tariff of 1824, 108.
Shipping of England, provisions in respect to, 109.
Ships of War, their right to approach vessels at sea, 664.
Silk, manufacture of, in England, 87.
Silsbee, Hon. N., 349.
"Sink or swim, survive or perish," etc., 168.
Slave, and Slavery, words not found in the Constitution, 606.
Slave-holding States, advantages of, in respect to representation, 233; rights of, in regard to new territories, 572.
Slave Labor, its relation to free, 573; compared with laboring men of the North, 620.
Slavery, prohibited by Ordinance of 1787, 231; petitions to first Congress to abolish, 232; memorial from Pennsylvania to abolish, 232; Gov. Randolph, sentiments on, 232; Mr. Webster's sentiments on, 232; Congress has no power over, in the States, 233; plans for exclusion of, in Northwestern Territory, 234; resolution of Rufus King in regard to, 235; views of Mr. Webster on, 429; beyond the power of Congress, 429; recognized by the Constitution, 429, 570; inexpediency of annexing slave States, 429; in District of Columbia, remarks on, 445; Mr. Webster's opinion in regard to power of Congress over, 462; speech on exclusion of from the territories, 569; peculiarity of American, 570; entailed upon the colonies by England, 571; Congress has no control over, 571, 636; excluded from Northwestern Territory, 571; exists by local laws, 573; Mr. Webster's opinion of extension of slavery and slave representation, 574; the Compromise Line in respect to extension of, 588; resolutions of Henry Clay in respect to, 600; prospect of California and New Mexico being free States, 602; its existence among the Greeks and Romans, 603; sentiments of the North and South on, at framing of the Constitution, 605; Ordinance of 1787 in respect to, 606; Mr. Madison's opinion on, 606; concurrence of sentiment between North and South on subject of, 607; causes which led to an extension of, in the South, 608; change of opinion of the South in respect to, 608; character of all the territory of the United States fixed beyond power of the government, 609; excluded from California and New Mexico by law of nature, 615, 632; effect of abolition societies at the North, 619; proposition of Mr. Randolph in respect to, 619; comparison of slaves of South and laboring people of the North, 620; complaints of the North concerning representation in Congress, 620; concerning transportation of free colored people, 623; Mr. Webster's course concerning, 630; proceedings of antislavery conventions, 635.
Slaves, emancipation of, in District of Columbia, 375; provision of the Constitution in respect to fugitive, 629.
Slave Trade, remarks of Mr. Webster on, 49; American policy concerning the, 666.
Smith, Gen., vote on bank question, 328.
Smith, Hon. Truman, speech referred to, 566.
Smith, Mr., of South Carolina, on protection, 304.
Smithson, Hugh, founded Smithsonian Institute, 652.
Smithsonian Institute, establishment, 652.
Social system, elements of a, established by compact of the Pilgrim Fathers, 35.
Society, rights of, affected by principles of Holy Alliance, 62, 64.
South, policy of, toward Western improvement, 238; complaints concerning their rights, 572; the lead in the politics of the country, 608; complaints of, against the North, 617.
South America, combination of European Sovereigns against, 66; position of U.S. government towards, 66; revolution in, 134; Spanish colonies of, 134.
South American Republics, our relations to, 152.
South Carolina, concerning internal improvements, 238, 243; her action on tariff of 1816, 243; radical party in, 244; attack on, disclaimed, 253; eulogium on, (Webster,) 254; doctrine of, concerning State rights, 255; in 1775, and 1828, 259; relation to England in 1775, 259; resistance to laws of the Union advised, 259; practical operation of nullification in, 266; nullification threatened in, 355.
Southern Confederacy, impossibility of, 621.
Spain, French invasion of, 67, 153; want of protection in, 99; overthrow of popular government in, 153; invites co-operation of Holy Alliance over colonies in America, 154.
Spanish Settlements in America, 144.
Specie, unusual demand for, and the cause, 81; drain of, owing to French Indemnity Loan, 81; the exportation of, 95; experiment of an exclusive specie currency, 362; treasury order concerning payments for public lands, 438; its uses, 441; the effect of withholding circulation, 441.
Specie Payment, suspension of, 443.
Speech on the "Panama Mission," 152.
Spencer, Judge, 319.
Sprague, Judge, 532.
Standish, Miles, 27.
State Banks, issue of small notes by, not advisable, 363.
State Interposition, right of, 292.
State Laws, in opposition to law of Congress, supreme, 122; prohibition on, concerning bankruptcy, 186; prohibition on, in regard to contracts, 187; in conflict with the Constitution, 265.
State Rights Party, Mr. Calhoun's espousal of the, 464.
States, concurrent power of, argued, 116, 117; doctrine of South Carolina concerning rights of, 255; resolution of Virginia, 1798, concerning rights of, 256, 263; sovereignty limits of, 257; right of, whence derived, 264; Calhoun's resolutions on sovereignty of, 273; taxing power of, limited, 336; have no sovereignty over public lands, 426; concerning insurrection in one of the, 543; inequality of representation in annexing slave States, 561.
Stevenson, Andrew, 487.
Stiles, Mr., correspondence of, relating to Hungary, 682.
Stillingfleet, Bishop, argument on power of visitation over corporations, 8.
Story, Mr. Justice, death of, 532; eulogy of Mr. Webster on, 532; respect of English lawyers to, 533; character of, 534.
Strogonoff, Baron, concerning the massacre of the Greeks, 71.
Sturges v. Crowninshield, decision in bankruptcy case of, 180.
Suffrage, principles of American government in respect to, 539.
Sullivan, William, 137.
Supreme Court of United States, its object, 293; judges of, how appointed, 318; concerning a nomination for judge of, 413.
Sweden, export of iron from, 105.
T.
Tariff, bill to amend the (1828), 77; speech of Mr. Webster on, 77; "American" and "foreign policy" applied to system of, 78; protective system of England, 84; of 1816 and 1824, respecting manufactures, 99; of 1824, carried by Middle States, 110; of 1824, Massachusetts voted against, 110; earliest advocates of, 243; of 1816, 243; of 1824, 248; of 1828, 248, 258; course pursued by Mr. Webster in regard to, 247, 463; resolutions adopted in Boston in regard to, 463; of 1816, a South Carolina measure, history of, 465; of 1816, New England against, 465; of 1842, how passed, 489.
Taxation, effect of, on landholders in England, 44.
Taylor, Gen. Zachary, at Buena Vista, 559; as a candidate for President, 576-579; personal character of, 577; his interest in the revolutionary movement in Hungary, 679.
Tea, increase of its consumption, 80.
Terrett v. Taylor, protection of grant, 20.
Territory, cession of, by Virginia, 606.
Texas, history of, 428; independence of, recognized, 428; annexation to United States objectionable, 429; opposition of Mr. Webster to admit into the Union, 559; President Tyler's project of annexing, 560; how its annexation affects representation, 561; population of, in 1848, 562; territory of, 562; admitted into the Union, 562, 563, 609; suitable time for annexing, 563; the vote for the admission of, 583; extract from resolution for admission of, 609; States to be formed from, 609, 615; votes of New England for admission of, 610; extracts from speech of Mr. Webster on, 613, 631; separated from Mexico, 630; vote of New York for annexing, 631; admitted as a slave State, 633; fortunate adjustment by Congress of controversy in (1850), 633.
Timber, English duties on, 89.
Toast, to City of New York, 319; to memory of Washington, 346; at Dinner of New England Society in New York, 503.
Tonnage, how affected by tariff of 1824, 100; no State can lay duty on, 122.
Trade of United States, with foreign markets, 93.
Transportation of free colored people, 623.
Treason, defined, 267.
Treasury of United States, order concerning specie payment, 440; effect of the order, 441.
Tudor, William, interest in Bunker Hill Monument, 123, 137.
Turkey, its oppression of Greece, 68.
Tyler, John, at Bunker Hill, 139; confidence in Mr. Webster, 481; action in respect to insurrection in Rhode Island, 547; project of annexing Texas, 560.
U.
Union, Mr. Webster's sentiments on consolidation of, 246; apostrophe to, 269; speech of March 7, 1850, on preservation of the, 600; impossibility of drawing the line in case of dissolution of, 622; exhortation to citizens of Buffalo to preserve the, 627; Mr. Jefferson's opinion of admitting Louisiana into the, 630.
Union of the States, important, 140, 269, 425; not a league, 278; how regarded by Washington, 345; our duty to the, 456.
United Colonies, declared free and independent States, 641.
United States, peaceful policy of, 59; duty of, concerning international law, 60, 61, 66; interest and duty of, in international law, 66; position of government towards South America, 66; exports of, compared, 79; navigation of, 83; trade with Holland and Russia, 93; duties as citizens of the, 176; how affected by pacification of Europe, 242; attention of, directed to internal improvements, 242; alliance with France declared void, 278; danger to, of dismemberment, 346; table showing progress in, from 1793 to 1851, 645; progress of, in arts and sciences, 648; coast survey of, 648; military resources of, 649; position of, in respect to the Holy Alliance, 681; conduct of, toward revolution in Hungary, 683.
United States Bank Bill, speech of Webster on, 320.
Upshur, Mr., correspondence in regard to Texas, 611; his object for admission of Texas, 611; Secretary of State, 560.
V.
Van Buren, Martin, policy of his administration, 455; appointed Secretary of State, 581; his instructions to Mr. McLane, 581; nominated by Free Soil Party, 581; views of, relative to slavery in the District of Columbia, 582; influence in annexing Texas, 582; candidate for Presidency in 1844, 583.
Vansittart, Mr., resolution on the worth of a bank note, 491.
Verona, Congress at, 1822, 153; concerning Grecian independence, 70.
Veto Message, consequences of the, 337; denies authority of Supreme Court and Congress, 338.
Veto Power, abuse of, 493.
Vienna, society of, to encourage Grecian literature, 72.
Virginia, resolutions concerning commerce, 115; assembly of House of Burgesses in, 148; Thomas Jefferson, Governor of, 172; resolution concerning State rights, 256; resolutions of 1798 in regard to State rights, 263; ratification of the Constitution by, 289; cession of her Northwestern territory, 606; early feeling in regard to slavery, 619; cession of her public lands, 623; improbability of her secession, 646.
Visit and Search, identical, 662.
Visitation, Lord Holt's judgment on, in case of Exeter College, 7; power of, over corporations, 7; Stillingfleet's argument on power of, 8.
Visitor, applied to founder of incorporated charity, 7.
Volney's "Ruins of Empires," quoted, 520.
Voltaire, followers of, admitted to Girard College, 513.
Volunteers, difficulty in recruiting, 555.
W.
Walker, Mr., took lead in annexing Texas, 609.
War, only declared by Congress, 287; Mr. Webster's defence of his course in, 459; of 1812, effect on prices, 81.
Warehouse System, of England, and United States, 90.
Warren, Gen. Joseph, measures toward erecting a monument to, 123; eulogized, 127.
Washington, Gen. George, 131, 168, 251; remark on battle of Bunker Hill, 142; apostrophe to, 149, 653; decease of, 156; administration supported by New England, 250; his inauguration at New York, 312; centennial anniversary at Washington, 339; representative government established under, 341; remark of Fisher Ames on, 342; basis of his character, 342; policy as to foreign relations, 343; domestic policy of, 344; exhortation against party spirit, 345; his regard for the Union, 345; toast of Webster to memory of, 346; his practice of addressing Congress in person, 374; civil character of, 577; foundation of Capitol laid by, 644, 652; monument to, 652.
Washington City, its favorable situation, 651; public dinner at, 339.
Washington, Treaty of, letter of Mr. Webster on the ratification of the, 666.
Webster, Daniel, remarks on African Slave Trade, 49; resolution to appoint an agent to Greece, 57; opinion of paper currency, 82; explains his change of opinion on protection, 110; President of Bunker Hill Monument Association, 125; address on completion of Bunker Hill Monument, 136; author of supposed speech against the Declaration, 167; eloquence defined by, 167; letter concerning the authorship of speech ascribed to John Adams, 177; his portrayal of murder, 195; reply to Hayne, 227; views on disposition of public lands, 237, 238; course pursued in Congress on internal improvements, 243; course concerning tariff, 247; sentiments on consolidation of the Union, 248; apostrophe to the Union, 269; reply to Calhoun in regard to State sovereignty, 273; speech at public dinner in New York, 307; defence of the Constitution, 317; circumstances of his birth, 319; respect of, for judicature of New York, 319; toast to City of New York, 319; presides at centennial anniversary of Washington, 339; toast to Washington, 346; sentiments on re-election of Jackson, 357; prediction in regard to irredeemable paper currency, 365; remark of J.Q. Adams on, 406; reception in New York, 1837, 422; opinions on slavery, 429; views on hard money, 440; devoted to service of United States, 457; reply to Mr. Calhoun, 458; denies Mr. Calhoun's charges, 458-60; defence of his course in war, 459; opposes Mr. Dallas's bill for a bank, 460; course in war of 1812, 461; early support to the navy, 461; answers Mr. Calhoun's charges in regard to slavery, 462; answer to Calhoun's charges on tariff, 463; political differences with Mr. Calhoun, 468; a hard-money man, 468; the log cabin of his father, 477; visit to Richmond, 478; speech at his reception in Boston, 481; Representative in Congress, 481; reception at Boston, Sept. 30, 1842, 481; Secretary of State under President Harrison, 482; visit and speech in England, 483; opposition to his remaining in the President's Cabinet (1841), 486; delicacy of his position in 1842, 486; study of the currency question, 492; speech at dinner of New England Society of New York, 496; toast at dinner of New England Society, at New York, 503; correspondence arising under Girard Will case, 505; letter to Madam Story on death of her son, 532; opposed admission of Texas into the Union, 559; against extension of slavery and slave representation, 574; invited by citizens of Marshfield to address them, 575; letter of, to citizens of Marshfield, 575; addresses the citizens of Marshfield, 575; opinion of Gen. Taylor for President, 576; opinion of Gen. Cass for President, 584; course concerning Texas, 612-614; Secretary of State, 613; in Senate, 613; ideas of peaceable secession, 621; letter to Eds. of National Intelligencer, enclosing letter of late Dr. Channing, 624; letter of W.E. Channing to, in respect to slavery, 624; reception at Buffalo, May 22, 1851, 626; course concerning slavery, 630; extract from speech on annexing Texas, 631; course during the crises of 1850, 637; account of laying the corner-stone of the Capitol, 652; letter to Lord Ashburton on impressment of seamen, 655; letter to Gen. Cass in respect to his construction of the treaty of Washington, 666, 667, 673; letter to Mr. Ticknor in respect to the Hülsemann letter, 678; letter to J.G. Hülsemann in respect to Mr. Mann's mission, 679; as a master of English style, xi; influence over and respect for the landed democracy, xiv; management of the Goodridge robbery case, xv; story told of him by Mr. Peter Harvey, xv; early style of rhetoric, xviii; letter to his friend Bingham, xix; acquaintance with Jeremiah Mason, xix; incident connected with the Dartmouth College argument, xxi; effect of his Plymouth oration of 1820, xxii; note to Mr. Geo. Ticknor on his Bunker Hill oration, 1825, xxiii; esteem for Henry J. Raymond, xxiv; the image of the British drum-beat, xxix; power of compact statement, xxxi; protest against Mr. Benton's Expunging Resolution, xxxi; arguments against nullification and secession unanswerable, xxxiii; moderation of expression, xxxv; abstinence from personalities, xxxvi; libelled by his political enemies, xxxvi; use of the word "respectable," xl; and Calhoun in debate, xliii; as a writer of State papers, xliv; as a stump orator, xlv; a friend of the laboring man, xlvi; compared with certain poets, xlviii; death-bed declaration of, li; fame of his speeches, li; compared with other orators, lvi; idealization of the Constitution, lix; anecdote of his differing from Lord Camden, lxii.
Webster, Fletcher, letter to Gen. Cass, 667.
Weir, Robert N., his painting of the Embarkation of the Pilgrims, 52.
Wesley, John, anecdote of, 511.
West India colonies, 34.
Wheelock, Rev. E., founder of Dartmouth College, 1.
Whig, origin of the term, 476.
Whigs, of New York, 443; Convention of, in Boston, 486; of Mass. declare separation from the President, 487; the revolution of 1840, success of the, 488; Gen. Taylor nominated by, 575.
White, Capt. Joseph, account of the murder of, 189; argument of Webster on, 194.
White, Mr., 416.
Wickliffe, John, burnt for heresy, 599.
Wilkins, Mr., bill of, concerning tariff, 273.
Williams, Mr., 489.
Wilmot Proviso, to be applied to Texas and other acquisitions, 611, 612; Mr. Polk's opinion of the, 616; not to be used as a reproach to Southern States, 616; espoused by the Free-Soil men, 631; proposition to apply to New Mexico and California, 632.
Windham, Mr., remark of, 622.
Winslow, Edward, Jr., first address on anniversary of landing of Pilgrims, delivered by, 25.
Winthrop, R.C., voted for tariff of 1842, 489.
Witherspoon, Mr., motion in Congress concerning commerce, 115.
Woman, how she performs her part in free government, 479.
Wool, proposition of English Parliament to abolish tax on, 90.
Woollen Manufactures, how affected by tariff of 1824, 101; of England and United States, 102.
Wright, Silas, voted for tariff of 1842, 489.
Y.
York, Duke of, anecdote in respect to his accession to the crown, 586.
Ypsilanti, Alexander, leads insurrection in Moldavia, 72.