# v»\.^> <>, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 111^ IIIIIM 1^ M |M 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 -^ 6" — ► V] & /a '^A ^/. eft.. 7 /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^J Lipt to destroy the confidence of the American Congress and of the American people in the good faith and common honesty of the British Government, at the very moment when we are about to enter upon new and critical negotiations with them, can hardly, in my judgment, be too strongly condemned. The charge is entirely unwarranted. The speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Lord Brougham justify no such impeachment of British integrity. What were the circumstances under which the re- marks were made to which the honorable member had reference 1 It is well known that a charge of bad faith had been brought against our negotiator, Mr. Webster, for having concealed from Lord Ash- burton all knowledge of a map which had been discovered by Mr. Sparks in Paris, and which there was the strongest reason for believing to be Dr. Franklin's map. This map had a broad red line upon it in close conformity fo the British claim, and was con- sidered as being somewhat of an extinguisher of the American view of the question, so far as the authority of maps was concerned. 5^' I' >". Yet it was carefully concealed from the British Government and the British negotiator. For this proceeding Mr. Webster was arraigned both at home and abroad. Lord Palmerston, who, as Secretary of Foieign Affairs for many years, had failed in all attempts to settle the boundary question, and who was, perhaps, a little envious of the repu- tation which his successor, Lord Aberdeen, had acquired through the negotiations of Lord Ashbniton, publicly arraigned Mr. Webster in the House of Comnions, and made substantially the same charge against him, which the chairman of the Committee of Foieign Affairs in this house has now made against the ministry of England. And it was in answer to this attack upon Mr. Webster, it was in defence of our Secre- tary of State — not, perhaps, without some view of vindicating ibom- selves from the imputation of having been overreached in the negotia- tion — that Sir Robert Peel and Lord Brougham brought forward the fact to which the honorable gentleman has alluded. They stated that the British Government, as well as the American Government, had concealed maps which made against their own claim; that Lord Pal- merston himself had been guilty of the same suppression; that, beside other maps of less significance, which had been kept out of sight by the ministry of England, there was one which could be traced back to the possession of George the third, the monarch in whose time the separa- tion of the two countries had taken place, and upon which there was a red line in precise conformity with the American claim. But what was their course of remark upon the subject 1 Did they, as the gen- tleman would imply, admit that these maps, on either side, would have been considered as conclusive evidence of the intention of the tieaty of 1783 ? No such thing; they ridiculed such an idea. Sir Robert Peel commenced his remarks on this subject by saying : — " The noble lord has spoken at great length of a map recently discovered. He seems to think that that map, so discovered, affords conclusive evidence of the justice of the British claims. Now, sir, in the first place, let me observe to the noble lord, that contemporary maps may be — where the words of the treaty referred to by them are in themselves doubtful — they may be evi- dence of the intentions of those who framed them, but the treaty must be executed according to the words contained in it. Even if the mav tvere nustaiiied by the parties, it could not con' travene the words of the treaty." And Lord Brougham followed out the same idea in his speech in the House of Lords, when he said : " But the map does not tally with the description given. Suppose you had an account, in writing, that the Thames, as is the fact, forms the boundary of the counties of Surrey and Mid- dlesex ; and suppose you found a map, or chart, or plan connected with that description, on which a red line through Piccadilly was drawn as the boundary — I should not take it ; I should go down to the river ; because the red line is only to be regarded if the words do not speak for themselves, or the language is ambiguous. And the same is the case here, more or less." Now, Mr. Chairman, it is only after these explicit denials of the idea, that maps, under whatever circumstances they may have been found, are to be taken as conclusive evidence as to the justice of claims resting on the descriptions of a treaty, that Lord Brougham and Sir Robert Peel proceed to disclose the fact of the discovery of the map of George the Third ; and that, only in the way of set-off" to the map which is supposed to have belonged to Dr. Franklin. They do, indeed^ speak somewhat largely and roundly as to the effect which the pro- 'k- 0'. t and the nrrnigned retary of settle the the repu- ongh the ebster in re against IS in this it was in >ur Secre- ing tuom- ; negotia- ward the tatod that ncnt, had Lord Pal- at, beside rht by the ick to the le separa- ihere was But what } the gen- de, would ion of the lidea. Sir ;cms to think ritish claims, ips may be— may be evi- \(:d according )uld not con- \ch. in the account, in \cey and Mid- ascription, on J it ; I should lot speak for less." lis of the ive been |of claims and Sir le map of Ithe map I, indeed^ the pro- duction of this map of George the Third might have had on the settle- ment of the boimdary question, in case maps were to be taken as conclu- sive evidence. But Ih'iving expressly denied that they were to be so taken — having rejected and litliculed the idea of the red lines of a map being allowed to control the black letters of a treaty description — their language, however round, admits of no such construction as has been given to it by the honorable gentleman who has just taken his seat. Sir, there is no evidence whatever, in my judgment, of bad fjiith on the part of the British government in these speeches of the Prime Min- ister and Lord Brougham. I do not profess to be deeply versed in the science of political morals or international obligation ; but I should say that the principles of common honesty and common sense would lead to this conclusion : — If a government, after having set up a claim of any sort, should find in its own possession conclusive evidence, evi- dence conclusive upon its own conscience, that the claim was unfound- ed, it is bound, in all honor and in all justice, to disclose the evidence and abandon the claim. But if the evidence fall short of demonstra- tion — if reasonable and conscientious doubts still rest upon the ques- tion — if there be ground enough left for maintaining the claim at all — it would be the height of absurdity in such a government, and a piece of most gratuitous generosity to their opponent, to make such a disclo- sure. Why, sir, the circumstances of the case we are considering fur- nish the best possible illustration that the position I have taken is the only aoimd or safe one. Here wei'e maps in the secret possession of each government at the same moment, which were believed by each respectively to present formidable testimony against its own claim, and the production of either of which, singly, might have seriously alFccted the final settlement of the disputed boundary. Suppose Mr. Webster had disclosed to Lord Ashburton tlie map which was then believed to have belonged to Dr. Franklin, and the consequence had been a much larger relinquishment of territory, on our part, than has actually taken place : — Or, suppose Sir Robert Peel had sent over to Mr. Webster the map of George the Third, and had consented, upon the strength of it, toa line less favorable to his own country : — What would the government which obtained the advantage under such circumstances have thought of the diplomacy and statesmanship of its antagonist? And even if both governments had shown their hands, and exhibited their maps si- multaneously, what would have been produced but a mutual laugh at each other, and a laugh of all the world at both! And the laugh, cer- tainly, woidd not have been diminished, if it had afterwards proved that the recently discovered map of Mr. Jay, the only map which we now know certainly to have been in the possession of tlie negotiators of 1783, was materially different from both the other two. Well, sir, did Mr. Webster say for himself, on this subject, that " he confessed he did not think it a very urgent duty, on his part, to go to Lord Ashbur- ton and tell him that he had found a bit of doubtful evidence in Paris, out of which he might, perhaps, make something to the prejudice of our claims, and from which he could set up higher claims for himself, or obscure the whole matter still further," And no less well, in my judgment, did Lord Brougham "deny that a negotiator, in carrying on .r T k I, I; I t: "•■li 8 a controversy, aa representing his own countr}' with a foreign country, is bound to disclose to the other party whatever he may know thai tells against his own country and for the opposite party ; any more than an advocate is bound to tell the court all that he deems to make against his own client and for his adversary." A just nation, like a just man, will never set up a claim which it knows to have no foundation ; but both nations and individuals may withhold from an opposite party, (except where ihcy are under question upon oath) any evidence which would weaken a claim which they believe to be well founded, without subjecting themselves to any rightful impeachment of their honor or good faith. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, thnt (his attempt to destroy the confidence of the American people in the fairness of the British Government, ond to produce the impression that they have dishonestly deprived us of a portion of our territory, and are now openly chuckling over the success of an avowed fraud, cannot be too strongly reprobated. The direct tendency of such a course is to create an exasperated popular feeling towards Great Britain, which will forbid the settlement of any future dispute with that power, except by the sword ; which will henceforth acknowledge the validity of no red lines, but those which shall have been run with blood ; and which will lead inevitably, and at no distant day, to war for Oregon. I trust that this is not the design of the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs. But the honorable gentleman has not been content with charging fraud upon the British Government in relation to the late treaty. He has told us that this treaty was accomplished and consummated against the unanimous sentiment of the people of Maine. Sir, I should like to know where the honorable gentleman has found the evidence of this unanimous sentiment of the people of Maine against the Treaty of Washington. The Commissioners of Maine were on the spot dur- ing the whole period of its negotiation. They prepared, it is true, a somewhat elaborate argument against relinquishing any part of their territorial claim. But what did they do afterwards 1 How did they conclude that argument? They gave their formal and unanimous as- sent to the arrangement which Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton had agreed on. They signed the treaty. What pretence, then, is there for the assertion, that Maine was dismembered against the unanimous sentiment of her people 1 Mr. Ingersoll (Mr. W. yielding the floor for explanation) remarked, that he was sorry this matter was gone into, but the gentleman from Massachusetts provoked him to say (he did not mean any thing offen- sive) that he (Mr. I.) had in his place, from day to day, been inform- ed by a gentleman from Maine, no longer a member of this House, that all that had been brought about by tricks, practised on the Maine Commissioners, such as were attempted to be practised upon Senators at the other end of the Capitol. Mr. Winthrop continued : And neither do I mean any thing offen- sive ; but I must be permitted to say, that I believe Mr. Webster to be quite as incapable of tricks, as the honorable gentleman himself, and that I demand some better evidence of the fact than the private whia- jn country, know thai f more than ake against a just man, Jation ; but osite party, ence which ed, without ir honor or confidence nment, and ved us of a the success The direct ular feeling any future henceforth 1 shall have t no distant i']gn of the th charging treaty. He ited against should like idence of he Treaty spot dur- is true, a art of their vv did they nimous as- >urton had is there for unanimous remarked, (man from ling offen- ;n inform- lis House, the Maine Senators ing offen- jster to be nself, and ate whis- pers which the gentleman has retailed. Why has not the person who gave this information made it public before this time, upon his own responsibility 1 If the Maine Commissioners were tricked into an as- sent to the treaty, why have they not found it out themselves, and disclosed the circumstances 1 Sir, I deny the whole allegation. This effort to array an opposition against the Treaty of Washington, in re- ference to the Maine boundary, is all an afterthought. At the time it was negotiated, it met with a very general, if not an unanimous, as- sent in both the States which were interested in the question; in Maine ro less than in Massachusetts. And even to this day, all at- tempts which have been made to get up a public sentiment against the treaty, have signally failed. That treaty was ratified by a vote of five- sixths of the Senate ; and I have not the slightest belief that some of the Senators who voted against it, (if any of them,) would have dared to take the responsibility of defeating it, if their votes would have produced such a result. There is no way of securing an impunity in regard to any public measure, more easy and obvious, than to vote against it when you are certain that your vote will not prevent its adoption. If the measure turns out to be acceptable to the country, nobody will care who voted against it ; while, if it proves to be unpopular in c'liy quar- ter, you are at full liberty to unite in denouncing it. This is a politi- cal trick, (to borrow the gentleman's term,) which is often played by aspiring politicians. Whether it will accountfor any part of the opposi- tion to the Treaty of Washington, others can judge as well as myself. Whether it will or not, however, is of very little importance. The treaty has commended itself so entirely to the approbation of the American people, that the liberty of finding fault with it has proved utterly worthless. The negotiators are out with all the honors, and there is no chance for tricks to tell. In the whole records of diplomacy, Ameri- can or European, there can not be found a negotiation which has been hailed with more undivided satisfaction by those who were interested in its results, than this has been by the people of the United States. Its influence will not soon be lost on the civilized world. It will stand on the pages of history, as a noble example of what may be accomplished by the honest arts of Peace, and will impress with the force of convic- tion on the nations of the earth, the lesson which they have been so long in learning, that war is not the only resort, or the best resort, for settling international disputes, but that true honor may be maintainedf real interest secured, just pride preserved, without the sacrifice of a single life, or the libation of one drop of blood! The honorable gentleman has alluded to Mr. Calhoun, and has ex- pressed his gratification that he has accepted the appointment of Sec- retary of State. Has he I'orgotten that one of the ablest speeches made in the Senate of the United States, in support of the late treaty, was made by this distinguished statesman of South Carolina ? Has he forgotten, too, that the crowning glory of that treaty, in Mr. Calhoun's estimation, was that it would establish " a permanent amity and peace" between Great Britain and the United States'? " A kind Providence (said Mr. Calhoun) has cast our lot on a portion of the globe sufficiently vast to satisfy the most grasping ambition, and abounding in resources 10 beyond all others, which only require to be fully developed to make us the greatest and most prosperous people on earth." "Peare," said he, " is, indeed, our policy. Peace is the first of our wants." Why, sir, if the honorable gentleman will turn to the speech of this political friend and brother democrat of his, he will find it as copious in its eulogies on the blessings of peace, as any of the more recent speeches in the Senate, which he has ridiculed under the title of sermons. I honor Mr. Calhoini for such expressions. Let him carry into the ne- gotiations upon the Oregon question, the same spirit which he mani- fested in relation to the Treaty of Washington, let him ' seek peace and ensue it,' in his management of our foreign aflfairs, and he will have earned a title to the regard of all good men and true patriots. I rejoice to believe that he will do so. On the subject of Oregon, in- deed, he is already committed to a pacific policy. The honorable gen- tleman is quite mistaken in his idea of Mr. Calhoun's argument against the bill for (he armed occupation of Oregon last winter. There was noilung whatever in that argument to give the impression that Mr. Calhoun was in favor of giving this notice now or at any early day. On the contrary, the whole strain and stress of the argument was in favor of abstaining altogether from any action upon the subject. " There is often," said Mr. Calhoun, " in the aflfairs of Government, more eflSci- ency and wisdom in non-action than in action. All we want, to effect our object in this case, is a wise and masterly inactivity." " Our po- pulation," said he, ''-will soon — far sooner than anticipated — reach the Rocky Mountains, and be ready to pour into the Oregon Territory, when it will come into our possession without resistance or struggle j or, if there should be resistance, it would be feeble and inefToctual. We would then be as much stronger there, comparatively, than Great Britain, as she is now stronger than we are ; and it would then be as idle ill her to attempt to assert or maintain her exclusive claim to the territory against us, as it would now be in us to attempt it against her. Let us be wise, and abide oiu- time, and it will accomplish all that we desire, with far more certainty, and with infinitely less sacrifice, than we can without it." I have no idea, Mr. Chairman, that it will be in ojir power, under present circumstances, to avail ourselves of this good advice of Mr. Calhoun, or that he will find himself able, in his new capacity, to leave this question to the operation of time. The ill-advised and most un- seasonable debates on this subject, which have taken place in both branches of Congress during the last two years, have not only created an impatience, in some quarters of the country, which will brook no further delay; but have so roused the attention of the British Govern- ment to our policy, as to forbid the idea that they would acquiesce in any further postponement of the question. A new minister from Eng- land has, indeed, arrived, who is well understood to be specially charged with the negotiation of it. And it is now to be decided, so far as this House is concerned, in what spirit that negotiation shall be conducted. Shall it be entered on, by this Government, in that spirit of menace and defiance which has characterized the whole speech of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania^ or in that spirit of cour. 11 3d to make eace,^^ said s." VVhy, lis political )ion3 in its nt speeches sermons. I into tlie ne- ;li he inani- seek peaco ind he will patriots. I Oregon, in- lorable gen- lent against There was )n that Mr. rly day. On was in favor '< There is more effici- int, to effect " Oin- po- ated — reach n Territory, [Or struggle ; neffoctual. than Great til en be as aim to (he against her, all that we ;ritice, than wer, under ice of Mr. ty, to leave most un- ace in both Illy created 1 brook no ah Govern- cqiiiesce in from Eng- specially ecided, so n shall be that spirit speech of irit of conr- tcey and magnanimity which becomes a civilized and Christian, as well as a brave and powerful, nation? Sir, I have already declared my opinion that the required notice for the termination of the joint occupation of Oregon ought not to be given at this moment, in view of our own domestic condition. But a hundred fold more ill advised does such a proceeding strike me, in view of our immediate relations to the British government. In my judgment, it would be an act of rudeness, of indecency, of offence, as unworthy a» it would be wanton. What possible pretence of expediency or neces- sity is there for such a course 1 Here is an ambassador on the ground, ready at any instant to go into negotiations with us on the subject. But for the deplorable catastrophe which has recenlly deprived the President of two members of his cabinet, those negotiations would have already been entered on. And is this a moment, when we have seen no disadvantage and no disgrace in this joint occupation during a term of thirty years, when all Presidents and all parties have acquiesced in its continuance throughout that long period — is this a moment for in- sisting on its being brought to a close 1 Is this a respectful or a re- spectable mode of meeting the overtures of the British government for a settlement of the Oregon question 1 Will it give us an increased hope of effecting such a settlement amicably, honorably, satisfactorily, to tell ihe British minister, " Sir, we will allow a year for this business. At the end of that time, we shall cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war?" The hotjorable gentleman has alluded to the code of honor^ and to the manner of settling difficulties among gentlemen. There are those present, doubtless, who understand the nice points of that code. What would be thought by them, if, while negotiations of this sort were pending, one of the parties should undertake to limit the lime within which there must be a settlement or a fight? Undoubt- edly, Mr. Chairman, we have a right to give such a notice to Great Britain; but, in my judgment, the exercise of that right at this moment would not only tend to protract, embarrass, and ultimately defeat the negotiations which are now about to be opened, but would impair the honor of this nation in the estimation of the civilized world. We should be reproached and rebuked for it by the general sense of Eu- rope. And is the American character abroad at so high a mark at this moment, that we can afford to trifle with it? True, sir, many of the censures which have recently been cast on this Republic are unrea- sonable. Perhaps I might agree with the honorable gentlemaa from Pennsylvania, that the attacks which have been made upon the cha- racter and honesty of his own Commonwealth, and which seem to haveso sharpened the edge of his acrimony against England, are a good deal overcharged. At any rate, I feel as strongly as any one the injustice of involving the whole nation in the repudiation of two or three of the separate States; and the same discrimination between the acts of indi- vidual States and the acts of the United States may, I am aware, be pleaded in explanation of other circumstances which have brought re- pioach from some quarters upon our national good name. But the fact is not less true, nor less lamentable, that our character as a nation, in one way or another, justly or unjustly, has been not a little lowered. 12 of late years, in the regard of foreign nations. Now, sir, for whatever we do in relation to this question of Oregon, we can set up no divided responsibility. The Nation, as a Nation, must do whatever is done ; and the Nation, as a Nation, must be held answerable. Let us then forbear from pursuing any course, from taking any step, from express- ing any purpose, which may give color to a new stain upon our national character. Let us desist from all action and all discussion of this sub- ject until Mr. Pakenham has, at least, opened his budget, and until our own Government, too, is in a condition to pursue with vigor and effect whatever policy we may ultimately be compelled to adopt. But the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania finds nothing to regret in the state of opinion abroad as to the American character; he even rejoices at the violent and vituperative tone of the British press in relation to his own State. And whyl Because he thinks it may have a tendency to counteract the idolatrous disposition which exists in some parts of this country towards Great Britain ! Mr. Chairman, I know of nothing more worthy of condemnation in the political his- tory of the present day, than the systematic effort of the self-styled Democratic party of this country to stir up a prejudice against England upon every occasion, and to create an impression that every man who does not fall in with their principles and their policy is in some sort of British interest, or under some kind of British influence. There are some of the leaders of this party, with whom hatred to England would seem to be the only standard of American patriotism, and with whom it seems to be enough, to determine their course upon all questions either of right or of expediency, to know what will be most offensive to the British power. War, war with England, is the ever-burning passion of their soul ; and any one who pursues a policy or advocates a measure which may postpone or avert the consummation which they so devoutly desire, becomes the chosen object of their insinuations and reproaches. For myself, sir, 1 hold in utter contempt all such insinu- ations. If it be a fit subject for reproach, to entertain the most anx- ious and ardent desire for the peace of this country, its peace with England, its peace with all the world, I submit myself willingly to the fullest measure of that reproach. War between the United States and Great Britain for Oregon ! Sir, there is something in this idea too mon- strous to be entertained for a moment. The two greatest nations on the globe, with more territorial possessions than they know what to do with already, and bound together by so many ties of kindred, and lan- guage, and commercial interest, going to war for a piece of barren earth ! Why, it would put back the cause of civilization a whole cen- tury, and would be enough not merely to call down the rebuke of men, but the curse of God. I do not yield to the honorable gentleman in a just concern for the national honor. I am ready to maintain that honor, whenever it is really at stake, against Great Britain as readily as against any other nation. Indeed, if war is to come upon us, I am quite will- ing that it should be war with a first-rate power — with a foeman worthy of our steel. — — — " Oh, the blood more stirs To rouse the lion than to start the hara." ai a 13 r whatever no divided r is done ; et us then 111 expiess- nr national if this sub- L, and until I vigor and idopt. nothing to iiacter ; he British press inks it may hich exists Chairman, olitical his- : self-styled ist England y man who some sort of There are fland would with whom II questions pst offensive ver-burning dvocates a which they nations and uch insinu- most anx- leace with igly to the States and a too mon- nations on what to do d, and lan- of barren whole cen- ke of men, Ionian in a hat honor, as against quite will- an worthy If the young queen of England were the veritable Victoria whom the ancient poets have sometimes described as descending from the right hand of Jupiter to crown the banner of predestined Triumph, I would still not shrink from the attempt to vindicate the rights of my country on every proper occasion. To her foices, however, as well as to ours, may come the '' cila mors,^' as well as the " Victoria lata.^^ We have nothing to fear from a protracted war with any nation, though our want of preparation might give us the worst of it in the first encounter. We are all and always ready for war, when there is no other alternative for maintaining our country's honor. We are all and always ready for any war into Avhich a Christian man, in a civilized land, and in this age of (he world, can have the face to enter. But I thank God that there are very few such cases. War and honor are fast getting to have less and less to do with each other. The highest honor of any country is to preseive peace, even under provocations which might justify war. The deepest disgrace to any country is to plunge into war under cir- cumstances which leave the honorable alternative of peace. I heartily hope and trust, sir, that in deference to the sense of the civilized world, in deference to that spirit of Christianity which is now spreading its benign and healing inliuences over both hemispheres with such signal lapidity, we shall explore the whole field of diplomacy, and exhaust every art of negotiation, before we give loose to that passion for con- flict which the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania seems to regard as so grand and glorious an element of the American character. But Great Britain is so grasping, so aggressive, so insidious and inso- lent, so overreaching and overbearing! Does not her banner flout ua at every turn 1 Does not her drumbeat disturb our dreams by night, and almost drown our voices by day? Is she not hemming us in on every side ; compassing us about in a daily diminishing circle ; and are not our outer walls already tottering at the sound of her trumpets'? Nay, have not her blandishments succeeded where, as yet, her arms have failed? Has she not scaled our very ramparts and penetrated to our very citadel ia a shower of corrupting gold? What but British GOLD carried the last presidential election against the people 1 What but British gold is about to carry the next 1 What were the twelve hundred and seventy-five thousand voters which deposed Mr. Vaa Buren from the chief magistracy in 1840, and who are now rallying^ again, with renewed energy, to the old watchwords, against his restora- tion, but so many British Whigs? Is there a Whig, in all the land, ■who dares deny, that when he voted for General Harrison, he had a British heart in his bosom, and a British sovereign in his pocket? Mr, Chairman, let me call to the remembrance of the committee a story which was introduced by the celebrated George Canning into on© of his speeches in the House of Commons, and which has thus the highest sanction as not beneath the dignity of parliamentary debate. It is the story of a painter, who had made himself somewhat eminent in the professional sphere in which he moved, but who had directed his art altogether to one favorite subject. This subject was a red lioriy ■which he had learned to depict in great perfection. One of his ear- liest patrons was the keeper of a public house, who wished something 14 : appropriate painted on his sign board. The painter, of course, executed his red lion. A gentleman in the vicinity, who had a new mansion- house which he wished to have ornamented, was the next employer of the artist, and, in order to afford him full scope for his genius, g-ave him his own choice of a subject for the principal panel in his dining-room. The artist took time to deliberate, and then said, with the utmost gravity, " don't you think that a handsome red lion would have a fine effect in this situation?" The gentleman, as you may imagine, did not feel quite satisfied with the selection, but resolved to let the painter follow his own fancy in this instance, trusting to have a design of more elegance and distinction in his drawing-room or library, to which he next conducted him. '' Here, said he, I must have something striking ; the space is small, and the device must be proportionably delicate." The painter paused; appeared to dive down to the very bottom of his invention, and thence to ascend again to its highest heaven for aa idea, and then said, "what do you think of a small red lion?'^ Well now, sir, the course of a certain class of politicians in this country seems to me to have a most marvellous analogy to that of the painter in this story. This cry of British Whigs, this clamor about British gold, this never-ending alarum about British aggression and British encroachment, this introduction of the red lion on every occa- sion, seems to be the one great reliance of the political artists of a cer- tain school. There is always a lion in the path of the self-styled Democratic party of the United States; a British lion, red with the blood of cruelty and oppression, which it is their peculiar mission to slay, but which the Whigs are leagued together to defend. Whatever principle, whatever project, may be under discussion in this House, or before the people, the red lion is sure to be on the ground. Red lion here, red lion there, red lion everywhere ! Why, sir, even on the question of refunding to General Jackson the fine which was imposed on him for setting at defiance the civil authorities of the land, and im- prisoning the judge who dared to confront him with a writ of habeas corpus, it was thought ^^that a small red lion might have a fine effect in that situation.^^ And a very small one it certainly was. It was sug- gested that the judge was an Englishman by birth. He was known to have come over to America in early youth. His residence here could be traced back to the fifteenth or sixteenth year of his age ; but there was reason to apprehend, though even that was not altogether certain, that he was born in England ; and, therefore, all those who were un- willing to annul his judicial decree, and to admit that he was rightfully insulted and imprisoned, were little better than so many British Whigs, Was not that, sir, a very little red lion indeed] This Oregon ques- tion, however, presents a larger panel, and here, of course, a flaming lion is shown up in its full dimensions. The Texas question affords a larger field still, with far more room for the fancy to expatiate in; and although the canvass is but just unrolled, the teeming invention of Ihese unrivalled artists, has already done its work, with something of 15 txeculed nansion- rerofthe ;ave him ig-ioom. ; utmost /e a fine !, did not ; painter I of more vhich he striking; elicate." )m of his en for an 13 in this lat of the nor about ssion and /ery occa- s of a cer- self-styled I with the mission to Whatever lis House, nd. Red en on the IS imposed ^ and im- of habeas ic effect in was sug- known to here could but there er certain, were un- rightfully ish Whigs. jon ques- , a flaming n affords a ite in; and LTention of mething of that celerity which Milton has so glowingly attributed to Creative Power: — -" Now half appeared The tawny lion, pawing to get iree His hinder parts, then springs, as broke from bonds, And rampant shakes his brinded mane !" Mr. Chairman, is it possible that the honorable gentleman from Penn- sylvania, and his political friends, can be mad enough to believe that the people of this country can be wrought upon by such conceits? Let me assure them that they do injustice to the intelligence of the people. '"Tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil." The manly sense of this nation will scorn such appeals to fear and folly. Conscious of their own integrity, and resolved on the vindication of their own rights, the people will neither be frightened froi - their propriety, nor diverted from their purpose, by such devices. 1 hey proved this in 1840 ; they will make assurance doubly sure in 1844. A word or two about Texas, and I have done. The honorable gentlenu. Hom Pennsylvania, among other most inconclusive rea- sons for the adoption of the resolution which has been condemned as inexpedient by the committee over which he presides, has told us, that " he holds it to be incompetent for the mere treaty-making power to part with any portion of the territory of the United States, or to settle a boundaiy question, without the consent and co-ope- ration of the House of Representatives." And he has appealed to the Massachusetts delegation, and called upon myself in particular, *'as one who has loudly expressed an apprehension of the stealthy an- nexation of Texas to this Union by a clandestine treaty," to unite with him on this analogous question of Oregon^ and insist on the right of representative action on the subject. Sir, I shall enter into no argu- ment as to the extent of the treaty making power of this Government, in regard to the particular measures which the gentleman has specified in his proposition. Even if I assented to the full import of that propo- sition, which I certainly do not, it would form no ground for that union with him on the pending quetiion, to which he invites me. Even if it were the admitted prerogative of this House to give advice or prescribe action to the Executive on the subjects he has named, it would be no reason for our giving bad advice, or prescribing mjudicious or unwar- rantable action. But "the analogous questions" of Oregon and Texas! Sir, I deny that there is any analogy whatever between those questions. The Texas question is not in any sense a question of parting with ter- ritory or settling a boundary line. It is not even a question of annex- ing territory. It is a question of amalgamating a foreign sovereignty with our own sovereignty; of annexing a foreign State to our own State. It is such a question as would be presented by a proposition to re-annex the United States to Great Britain, or to amalgamate Great Britain with the United States. This, the gentleman must remember, was the distinction taken by Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Forsyth in 1837. They maintained, that " the question of the annexation of a foreign independent State to the United States had never before been present- ed to this Government." They maintained, that the circumstance of 16 ■,:*• Louisiana and Florida being colonial possessions of France and Spain, rendered the purchase of those Territories materially different from the proposed annexation of Texas. " Whether the Constitution of the United States, they added, contemplated the annexation of such a State, and, if so, in what manner that object is to be effected, are ques- tions, in the opinion of the President, which it would be inexpedient, nnder present circumstances, to agitate." And now, Mr. Chairman, I go much farther than the honorable gen- tleman from Pennsylvania, on this subject. I not only deny the com- petency of the treaty-making power of this Government to negotiate any such amalgamation as this, without the co-operation of the House of Representatives ; but I deny that our co-operation can confer or supply that competency. Certainly, certainly, the Constitution did 710^ contemplate the annexation of such a State. Provoco adpopulum / The People, in their own right, are alone competent to pronounce the doom, which is to bind up the fortut^es of this Republic in the same bundle of life or death with those of any foreign power ; and I hope and believe that they will disown and renounce any Executive or any Legislative act, which shall infringe upon this — their own supreme prerogative. I trust that they will not be deluded by any false alarm, by any red lion representation, that Texas is about to be made a colo- nial possession of Great Britain. The British Government have no such purpose. Our own Government know this. And if Texas be foisted into this Union upon any such pretence, it will be an act as fraudulent in its inception, as it will, under any circumstances, be pernicious in its result. •Ti