Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-06-15

the glory OF our county TO wage war with the eian
mistress ol thousand ships than to coneentrat,
our Jury on Alexander Mcleod. IL a remark
OF the late lamened President-that he would have
no objection in good cause with sufficient men nd
money, TO make an issue with Enslan but he could
not yet quite make up his mind to put on his arnoI
log tho purpose OF making war on Alexander
Mcleod. lie admitted that our government, IN
consequence Of its peculiar institutions, was placed
| IN situation of some difficulty in relation TO Me.
Leod; but had any offence been given either to Great
Britain or New York, by the course which the gov.
| ernmeut had now takenl Quoting the language oil
| Erskinc, he maintained that Mcleod was in posi-.
ton at Lockport, where the hall ofuslice would not
| have been Court where he could have been tried
by God and his peers, but IN altar which he wou ID
have been brought as victim ready bound and pre-
| pared for the sacrifice.
After doing all that necessary to place our
selves IN just position, 1t then became duty to
turn round and demand satisfaction, for the letter
of MIR Webster has justified our cause in the eyes of
/ the world, and had shown that England had been
| guilty Of the wrong. He read the extract which
was yesterday read by Mr. Rives, as to what il was
necessary for Great Britain to show before she could
sustain herself IN the eyes Of mankind. Coming
from the region of peace, and originally of peace
iul Character the reading of this had excited
HIM TO thoughts Of War, and recollections OF the
glorious achievements OF our army and navy in the
hours OF peril.
MIR. CALHOUN rose, and, in the outset declar-
cd hs conviction that our true policy is a peaceful
one, and that, 10y pursuing 1t, best carry out the
genius OF our institutions, and accelerate the fulfil
ment OF our happy destiny. But, while doing JUS
tlce TO all the world, he desired that should ex-
act similar justice from others. He declared that
IN his belief the Secretary OF State had not met the
demand OF the British Government 1t should have
been met. He denied that any of the authorities
quoted on the other side justified the deduetion that
MIR. Mcleod was TO be held Irresponsible for his
agency IN the destruction Of the Caroline. The
rule OF reason did not countsnance any such infer.
ence. Ii Individual were 10 set fire 10 the arsen.
| n Drk mr. n aDnrn,r nj
tain description OF population in the Souh, would
the mere production OF authority from Lord Pal
n'erston he deemed sufficient to eNoncrato him from
the consequence of the acil So far from the au.
thoTlty oil Government covering the act of an in.
dIvidual, he believed II would bc found that there
was no authority 10 sustain that ground. But that
all the melIoratons which had been introduced with
the practice of war; were entirely and exclusively
TO he referred 10 the growth OF civilization and hui
manity.-But he did not regard this as having nuv
thing 10 do with the question. The point in the
question was the perempiory demand made by the
British Minister for the release of Mcleod. Great
Britain had no right TO enter our country; and
there is no one with an American helrt-nay, there
Is no true hearted EnsIishmsn who would not say
that the manner IN which the entry was effected
was not tansccnding any billigeTeni rights. This
had been well set forth by the Secretary of State
twelve months after the outrage. Great Britain
acknow Lodges The act, but refrans from giving any
explanation OF the act. He contended that il was
our duty TO take a firm stand in our demand of ius-
lICc instead OF whleh, by 4 less firm course, we
were IN danger OF plunging ourselves in a war Our
HABITS and disposition should have induced Great
Britain TO treat us with ali due consideration He
hoped that nothing which had ia len from him would
tend 10 embarrass the pending negotiations.
Mr. HUNTINGTON rose in defence of the let
ter o. Mr.. Webster, and the course which had been
taken by the present administration. Ii there was
any lndelcacy in pressing that discussion peLding
the trial OF the Individual the responsibility mus |
lie on the other side. In reply TO a remark from /
the Senator from South Carolina, that this case |
should be regarded rs crime within the ordinary
rules which govern principal and agent, he cited I.
some cases TO shew the impoSSibility of ADOPTING
municipal laws IN the disposition OF ques ions arts.
ing under the international code. He quoted from
the letter Of the Secretary OF State the opinion en-
tertaIned by that hiShfunctionary as TO the Nation
al law on the subject. This the Senator from
pennsylvania stated as being what was not, and .
that ought not 10 DC the law. tie then stated what
was his own view OF the legitimate principle of ac
tion i his view was similar to that which had iust
been taken by others. He laid it down that ciii-
zens were bound to obey the acquisitions Of their
own government. II therefore an armed force be
united 10y one nation against another the citizens Of
that nation are obliged to have n right 10 make 4 |
part OF that force. They cannot therefore be held
accountable after the government to which thew are
SUBJECT has assumed the responsibility of their acts
30 TAR as regards the unauthorized entry on our !
couniry-he concurred in the view taken by MIR |
Webster. The individuality in this case is merged
IN the general responsibility Of the nation
Mr. HUNTINGTON having closed, on motion
OF MIR. Preston, the Senate adjourned