The North-Carolina standard., 1844-06-05


or the other; we. spoke Of the opinions Of men,
not of parties When We spoke Of Clay, we al:
luded to him, as we stated in our second article,
not as the representative of any party not as the
reflector of its sentiments, but simply as the ne
gotiator of a treaty; and were be member Of
our own party, and had acted in the same man
ner, we would have spoken of him ID the.same
terms and condemned his conduct in the same
spirit; and when we spoke of Van Bngen as not
being opposed to this measure, and as being ft
candidate for those 5whoare in favor Of il we re.
ferred to him, not as candidate of the Pemocra-
tic party. Now consider the article of our op-
ponent and mark the difference He commences
with charging us with being actuated by bitter
party spirit with having exhibited meanness, and
moreover, with having resorted to plagiarism---
charges, which no gentleman would make with
Eont having rmer foundation for them, and which.
no honest man and no gent!emanra can brook in
tsilence. We leave it for others to Judge whether
orsTlot we exhibited meanness in our first pro-
daction; but to the charge of plagiarism, i he
means, by it, reference to books and documents
for the purpose Of obtaining requisite intorm0-
tion, we plead guilty to the charge; we examin-
ed the subject thoroughly as possible, and en-
deavored to gain all the information that we pos
sibly could if thisis what he. means by it, he
himself is obnoxious to the same charge, and all
others who have writtea On. this subject. But if
he means, as we presume he docs, that we obtain
ed onr words or ideas from foreign sources and
cndeavored to pass them of for our own, we pro-
nounce the charge false and groundless. He
next charges US with exhibiting evidence of a
narrow mind in looking to but one side of the
question. How does he know that we did not
examine both sides, and by what can we Judge
that he did? Certainly, if take the tone of
his article as an evidence of his having examin-
ed both sides of the question, we must give judg-
rnent against him; for its virulence aud ntem-
peranee does in no wise comport with that which
should characterize article written by one who
has impartialfy considered the arguments, pro and
con- We can inform him that we did look at
both sides of the question, and we know that
there are some strong arguments against our po-
sition, but still we think that they are outweighed
By those which have been ndduced in favor of it.
We will take up the writer's remarks, as far
as possible, in their order. He says our asser.
ton that we lost part of our territory in the SET
tlemcnt of the North Eastern Boundary question:
is incorrect and that it is well known, perhaps to
us, that it met with more disapprobation in Eng.
land than here. Now we make no assertion, nor
shall we make any that we are not fully able 10
establish. Whether the settlement of this ques
ton did or did not satisfy the people of England
makes not the least difference to US, it is sufficient
that it met with the. appreciation and sanction of
the British Government; if a. certain class, in
England, were opposed to it, it was not because
they lost territory, but because they did not gain
more OF ours. He says further: that "no one
discovered that Daniel Webster had been bulIied
and clustered ont of the territory, and we think
highly probable tina. it never will be known to |
any one but this writer" Now, we can inform |
him, if he is actually ignorant of the fact that
IS known to others, and that some of our most
senator's have, during the present
session of Congress raised their voices against it,
having discovered some facts, with which thew
were unacquainted at the time of the ratification
Of the treaty. Mr.. Buchanan in one of these; he
states and brings the very words and letters of the
English Ministers TO prove the truth of his state
ments-that, at the time of the settlement of the |
North Eastern boundary line there was mani
in possession of the British Government the ex-
istence of which was known to the negotiators on
The part of the latter, which was executed in the
reign of George LII and by his order, which
IL gires TO the United States all the territOrvn
abont which it was disputed, and which we lost
This not only shows the honesty, or rather dis
honesty of the British statesmen and negotiators
but the truth of our own satement-that we were
cheated of part of our territory
The writer next states that there is no oues-
ion concerning boundary lines, but Of exclusive
possession of territory" On the contrary this is
he principal point to be decided; foFlhow can we
know what part of the Western territory TO take
possession Of, until we determine its boundaries.
England disputes our boundaries and this must
be settled. He further says that according to our
reasoning, 9the determining boundary lines give
claim to the Territory" we say that the determin-
ng boundary lines, in favor of the claim of
certain nation, gives to that nation exclusive right
o the land included within these boundaries, and
ne can deduce no other just conclusion from our
premises He says that a lien is only to be OBJ