precision, was this: First, that in my opinion,-I lay down no law, I say nothing ex cathedrâ, — that, in my opinion, public sentiment in both countries is strongly tending to a union upon a settlement on the general basis of our offer of 1826. Now I

ask the Senator from Ohio if he does not think just so himself?

Mr. Allen having made one or two remarks expressive of dissent, Mr. Webster resumed as follows:

If my opinion be so wide of the truth, and the opinion of the country is not tending, as the gentleman says it is not, as I represented it, then my opinion goes for nothing. Let him, however, hear what I said, which I said with care and premeditation; it is, that the line of the forty-ninth degree is the line of demarcation on which, as a general basis, public opinion is settling. I do not say the precise basis, because I immediately added, that, looking to the line of the forty-ninth degree as the line of demarcation, the use of the Columbia River by England, permanently or for a number of years, and the use of the straits and sounds in the adjacent sea, and the islands along the coast, would all be matter of friendly negotiation. I have not recommended to our government one thing or another about allowing England, for a term of years, the use of the Columbia River; not at all. If the line of the forty-ninth degree be established as the general line of demarcation, giving us a straight track from the Lake of the Woods to the Pacific, I am satisfied that the government negotiate about what remains. But the Senator and Senate will do me the justice to admit, that I said as plainly as I could, and in as short a sentence as I could frame, that England must not expect any thing south of the forty-ninth degree. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me as clear as the sun at noonday, that there is a tendency of opinion, moved by a great necessity to settle this question, a strong tendency of opinion, in this country, that we ought to stand by our offer of 1826 in its substance. Is not that just what was argued by the gentleman from South Carolina the other day? Is not that the result of the discussion in which my friend from New Jersey† took part, to prove that that was the extent of our claim, and that the whole country knows it? Now I think there are rea

sons for that. But I rose merely to explain. I mean then to say, for the sake of perfect distinctness I repeat it, that I am of opinion that this matter must be settled upon the forty-ninth parallel. Then as to the use of the Columbia River permanently or for a term of years, and also in regard to all that respects straits, and sounds, and islands in the neighboring seas, they are fit subjects for negotiation. But that England must not expect any thing south of the forty-ninth degree, and that the people of the United States, by a great majority, are content now to abide by what this government offered to England in 1826.

DEFENCE OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.*

In the course of the debates in Congress in the session of 1845 – 46 on the resolution for terminating the Convention for the joint occupancy of the Oregon Territory, the treaty of Washington and the negotiation which led to it were subjects of comment and animadversion in both houses. The general principles upon which the negotiation had been conducted on the part of the United States, as well as the particular provisions of the treaty were found fault with. The American negotiator (Mr. Webster) was charged with having failed, in several respects, to assert the rights and protect the interests of the country. He was accused of having unconstitutionally surrendered a portion of the State of Maine to a foreign power, and of having accepted a line of boundary between the United States and the British Provinces unfavorable to the former. The mode was condemned in which the subject of the search of vessels suspected of being engaged in the slave trade on the coast of Africa was disposed of; and it was insisted, that no redress had been obtained for the violation of the territorial rights of the United States in the destruction of the "Caroline."

Not having been a member of the last Congress, Mr. Webster had as yet had no favorable opportunity to undertake a vindication of the treaty, which had been the subject of attack upon the grounds just indicated, from the time of its negotiation. The debate upon the Oregon question furnished the occasion for such a defence. Mr. Dickinson, a Senator from New York, in the publication of his speech on that subject, referred to a speech of Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, and quoted his words, as his authority for certain injurious statements in reference to the affair of the Caroline. Mr. Webster felt called upon to repel the charge thus made and vouched for, and availed himself of the opportunity to enter, in

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 6th and 7th of April, 1846.

the following speech, into a general history and defence of the negotiation and the treaty.

Ir is altogether unexpected to me, Mr. President, to find it to be my duty, here, and at this time, to defend the treaty of Washington of 1842, and the correspondence accompanying the negotiation of that treaty. It is a past transaction. Four years almost have elapsed since the treaty received the sanction of the Senate, and became the law of the land. While before the Senate, it was discussed with much earnestness and very great ability. For its ratification it received the votes of five sixths of the whole Senate, a greater majority, I believe I may say, than was ever before found for any disputed treaty. From that day to this, although I had taken a part in the negotiation of the treaty, and felt it to be a transaction with which my own reputation was intimately connected, I have been willing to leave it to the judgment of the nation. Some things, it is true,

had taken place, of which I have not complained, and do not complain, but which, nevertheless, were subjects of regret. The papers accompanying the treaty were voluminous. Their publication was long delayed, waiting for the exchange of ratifications; and, when finally published, they were not distributed to any great extent, or in large numbers. The treaty, meantime, got before the public surreptitiously, and, with the documents, came out by piecemeal. We know that it is unhappily true, that, away from the large commercial cities of the Atlantic coast, there are few of the public prints of the country which publish official papers on such an occasion at length. I might have felt a natural desire, that the treaty and the correspondence should be known and read by every one of my fellow-citizens, from East to West, and from North to South. Indeed, I did feel such a desire. But it was impossible. Nevertheless, in returning to the Senate again, nothing was further from my purpose than to renew the discussion of any of the topics debated and settled at that time; and nothing further from my expectation than to be called upon by any sense of duty to my own reputation, and to truth, to make now any observations upon the treaty, or the correspondence.

But it has so happened, that, in the debate on the Oregon question, the treaty, and I believe every article of it, and the correspondence accompanying the negotiation of that treaty,

and I believe every part of it, have been the subject of disparaging, disapproving, sometimes contumelious remarks, in one or the other of the houses of Congress. Now, with all my indisposition to revive past transactions and make them the subjects of debate here, and satisfied, and indeed highly gratified, with the approbation of the treaty so very generally expressed by the country, at the time and ever since, I suppose that it could hardly be expected, nevertheless, by any body, that I should sit here from day to day, through the debate, and through the session, hearing statements entirely erroneous as to matters of fact, and deductions from these supposed facts quite as erroneous, all tending to produce unfavorable impressions respecting the treaty, and the correspondence, and every body who had a hand in it, I say it could hardly be expected by any body that I should sit here and hear all this, and keep my peace. The country knows that I am here. It knows what I have heard, again and again, from day to day; and if statements wholly incorrect are made here, and in my presence, without reply or answer from me, why, shall we not hear in all the contests of party and elections hereafter, that this is a fact, and that is a fact, because it has been stated where and when an answer could be given, and no answer was given? It is my purpose, therefore, to give an answer here, and now, to whatever has been alleged against the treaty, or the correspondence.

Mr. President, in the negotiation of 1842, and in the correspondence, I acted as Secretary of State, under the direction, of course, of the President of the United States. But, Sir, in matters of high importance, I shrink not from the responsibility of any thing I have ever done under any man's direction. Whereever my name stands I am ready to answer it, and to defend that with which it is connected. I am here to-day to take upon myself, without disrespect to the chief magistrate under whose direction I acted, and for the purposes of this discussion, the whole responsibility of every thing that has my name connected with it, in the negotiation and correspondence.

Sir, the treaty of Washington was not entered into to settle any, or altogether for the purpose of settling any, new questions. The matter embraced in that treaty, and in the correspondence accompanying it, had been interesting subjects in our foreign relations for fifty years, unsettled for fifty years, agitating and