Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-02-17
DEBATE IN THE SENATE.
ON MR. VAN BUREN's NOMINATION.
REMARKS OF MIR. CLAY.

! utterly unable 10 reconcile with the duty |
owe to my country, a vote in favor Of this
nomination. regret il, because in all the
past strife of party, the relations of ordinary
civility and courtesy were never interrupted
between the gentleman whose name is before
us, and myself But regard my oblga-
| tons TO the people of the United States. and
TO the honor and character of their govern
ment, as paramount TO every private con-
sideration. There was no necessity known
to US for the departure OF this gentleman
from the United States, prior TO the submits
sion OF his name to the Senate. Great Bri-
tain was represented here by diplomatic a
gent, having no higher rank than that of
Charge DIES Affaires We were represent
ed IN England by one o, equal rank; one
who had shed luslre upon his country by his
high literary character one whom il may
be justly sad that, in no respect, was he infe-
rior TO tie gentleman before us Although
| shall not controvert the right of the Presi-
dent, in an extraordinary case, 10 send a.
broad apublic minister, without the advice
OF the Senate, do not admit that it ever
ought TO be done withoutthe existence ofsome
special cause to be communicated to the SEN
ate. We have received no communication
OF the existence of any such special cause ::
Ihls view OF the matter might not have been
suihcient alone to Justify rejection ofthis no.
mination; but it is sufficient 10 authorize us
10 examine the subject with as perfect free
dom as we could have done If the minister
had remained in the United States, and a.
waited The decision ofthe Senate Iconsid-
er myself, therefore, not committed by the
separate and unadvised act Of the President
IN dispatching Mr.. Van Buren,, in the vaca-
ton OF the Senate, and not very long time
before il was TO assemble.
My main objection to the confirmation of
his appointment, arises out ofhs instructions
TO the late minister of the United States at
the Court of Great Britain. The attention
OF the Senate has teen already called 10
parts oil those instructions but there are o.
Their parts of them, in nay opinion, highly
reprehensible. Speaking of the colonial
question, he says: In reviewing the events
which have preceded, and more or less
contributed TO a result too much to be re-
greeted, there will be found three grounds
"on which we are most dSSaila6Ie. First.
lin our too long and oOfenaciOusly resisting
"the right of Great Britain to impose pro.
"tecting duties in her colonies - = = =.
'and, thirdly, in emitting TO accept the
Terms offered by the act Of Parliament of
July, 1925, after the "subject had been
brought before Congress, and deliberately
acted upon by our Government. %*@
You will thereforesee the propriety ofpos-
sessing yourselffully of all the explanatory
and mitigating circumstances connected
with them, "that you be enabled to obviate,
las far as practicable, the unfayorable i'm
"pression they have produced" And af-
ter reproaching the late Administration with
setting up claims for the first time, which
fEpv o1nIrifJ,, han l.
clusIon, 81 will add nothing as to the i'm
p'oprlcty of suffering any feelings that
"hnd their origin in the past pretensions of
"this Government to have an adverse in.
"huence upon the present conduct of Great
"Britain.
On our side, according to Mr.. Van Buren,,
all was wrong on the British side, all was
right. We brought forward nothing but
claims and pretensions the British Gov
eminent asserted on the other hand a clear
and incontestible right. We erred in too
tenaciously and too long insisting upon our
professions, and not yielding at once TO the
force OF their just demands. And Mr.. Nc
Lane was commanded to avail himself of all
the circumstances in his power to mitigate
our obence, and TO dssuade the British Gov
eminent from allowing their feelings Justly
| injured by the past conduct of the party
driven from power, 10 have an adverse infiu-
ence towards the American party now in
power. Sir, was this becoming language
from one independent nation TO another?
Was 1t proper in the mouth of an American
minister? Was it in conformity with the
high, unsullied, and dignified character of
our previous diplomacy? Was it not on the
contrary, the language OF an humble vassal
to proud and naughty lord? Was it not
prostrating and degrading the American
Eaglebefore the British Lion?
Let US examine little, these pretensions
which the American Governments 50 unjust
ly put forward and so pertinacously main
tanned. The American Government con-
tended that the produce of the United States
ought TO lie admitted into the British West
Indies, on the same terms as similar produce
OF the British American continental posses
sions; that, without this equality our produce
could not maintain in the British West In
dies, fair competition with the produce Of
Canada andt that British preference given TO
the Canadian produce in the West Indies
would draw from the western part of New
York and the northern part of Ohio, Ameri-
can produce into Canada, aggrandizing Mon
treal and Quebec, and giving employ ment to
British shipping, to the prejudice of the
canals OF New York, the portof New York,
and American shipping
This was the offence ofthe American Gov
eminent, and we are at this moment realiz-
ing The evils which it foresaw. Our pro-
duce is passing into Canada, enricbing her
capitals, and hourishing British navigation.
Our own wheat is transported from the
western part Of New York into Canada.
there manufactured, and thence transported
in British ships in the firm Of Canadian 0o,,r