The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-07

4 tory ceded 10 England in a military point Of view
i beg 10 refer TO some others which hold IN my
hand, bat which | shall not resd---the speeches of
Sir Charles Napier, Lord Palmerslon, Sir Howard
i Douglass, &C, as an offset 10 those quoted by the
honorable senator. But do not think itof import
ance 10 balance those opinions againsi each other
/ Some gentlemen prefer set Of opinions, some
prefer others; and, for my own part, candidy adj
NIT that by both, one and the other facts are over
stated. do not believe, sir, thai ything in mil
itary point of view, coded by us 10 England is Of
any consequence 10 us or her, or that anything
coded by either party except one thing--that 10
Rouses point | do believe IL was acquisition OF
importance 70 repossess ourselves of the site Of that
fortress, and TO that point shall proceed 10 make
few remarks that escaped me yesterday. do not
complain here that the senator from New York has
moderated tho importance of that acquisition. But
what DO complain Off complaint il may be call
eds, that when he spoke OF cessions made 10
England by ihal treaty 90 Wsshsagton, treaty
which proposed to proceed on the ground Of mu-
tual Concessions, equivalents, and considerations
when referring 10 such treaty 70 show the con-
cessioDs made 10 England, he did not consider IL
necessary 10 state, on the other hand, the
Pondng cessions made by England To U.S., And
say again that the cession Of Rouses point by
her. must be- and 10 considered by those best capable
OF approaching its value, Of more importance than
all the oessions we made To England; and To show
how our government considered its importance
during the last war, when the nation was OPP
pressed with debt, there was nothing that adj
dressed itself with more zeal TO them than 10
make defence suitable for the north end Of Lake
Chsmpain. As early as 1916, the government paid
twenty or thirty thousand dollars for the site, and
went on with the work at expense Of one hun
bred thousand dollars. But in 1918, the astrono-
ners appointed, found 1t was the English side of
the boundary. That, of course, terminated their
operations. But that is not all. How did our gov
eminent regard the acquisition by the treaty of
Washington Why the ink with which that treaty
| was signed was hardy dry, when the most eminent
engineers were despssshed TO that place, who exam
med its strength and proceeded To and build it,
And no military work-not even the fortifcations
for the defence Of the Narrows approaching the har
Dor Of New York, has been proceeded with by the
government with more zeal. Having said 80 much,
SIR, will merely add, that, if gentlemen desire to
obtain more information on this important point,
they may consult the head of the engineer corps,
who went there by instructions TO examine II, and
Who reported thereon, Now, sir, will conclude
my remarks on this boundary question. desire TO
put it to the people Of the U. States whether most
Of the occasional complaints that have been made and
dat We continue TO hear repeated against the settle
ment OF the boundary question, do not proceed most
ly from feeling that is not desirable that too much
credit should be given to those who had hand 10 IT,
Another topic the affair Of the "Carone" and the
affair Of Mcleod These have been the subject Of
scussion and remark in both houses Of Congress at
briefly the history of these occurrences. Mr.. w.
here entered u historical detail OF the "McLeod
case.n as il called. He quoted from the mes
sage Of Mr.. Van Buren,, Of December, 1888, giving
the American account Of the invasion, by citizens OF
the United States, of the Canadian provinces-an
account made up Of official and other evidence taken
by the government of the United States. He also
referred TO the British account Of the transac
tons, contained in Senate documents, Sd session,
p7th Congress, document number s9l That state
ment Of what had actually occurred on the Canada
frontier was by Mr.. Van Buren,. In the latter part
of December, he thought the 18th, British party
from Canada came over and in the harbor Of Schos.
seized the "Caroline." Ii created considerable
excitement and was the subject ola correspondence
between Mr. Fox and Mr.. Forsyth. Reparaii on
was demanded, but not given. Mr.. Fox avowed
the act as done by the colonial government of Can
ada, and justified it, and if So made occasion for
direct appeal to the British government. Then
the question, whether the British government had
ayowed that act. On that subject there was cor
respondence which was of considerable interest. In
that position the case rested till the arrest of Nc
Leod, in 1910. "Reminiscences followed immedi-
ately on the part OF Mr.. Fox. Mr.. Forsyth did
not admit that the government Of Great Britain had
avowed that act Here he referred note from
Mr. Forsyth to Mr.. Fox, of Goth December, lS4n.
The British government had all along coutended that
when the matter complained of by Mr. Stevenson,
Lord Pdlmerston at once communicated the avowal
of the British Government of their assumption of
| the responsibility Of the act. He referred to the
| correspondence Of August, l54l in proof of that.
Lord Palmerston reminded Mr.. Stevenson that as,
early as May, 1888, Mr.. s. addressed a note to-
Lord Pamerston, in which he declared that this en-
terprise in which the Caroline" was destroyed, was
planned and executed by the Canadian authorities, Il
and then asked, "Could the United States, after
such declaration, say that they did not understand
| that it was any more than private outrage, else
they would sooner have demanded reparationr" He
referred gentlemen to the correspondence. II SO,
then the question arose, how was that matter left
unsettled duringt the whole Of Mr.. Van Buren's adj
mnistrationi 1t occurred in the first year of that adj
ministration-what step had he taken to vindicats
the honor of the countryl Not one. Whose fault
it that proper reparation had not been demand-
ed and hads Nay, if the government Of the United
States regarded it as private outrage, it still to
be atoned for. But no demand was made for re-
dress. As he had said, the affair remained till
the arrest of Mcleod. That created great excite
ment not only amongst public men, but the masses,
who regarded it as a national insut-)ust as Ameri-
cans, in his judgment, would have regarded il.
Mcleod was soldier, subject to superior authority
Circumstances had occurred which, to the Canadian
authorities, appeared to demand and justify the de-
struction of the Caroline. Mcleod was arrested
was bailed; violence occurred; the judicial autho-
rites were overawed, and he was put into jail.
Mr. Forsyth then wrote the note he had read stating
that far he knew he not aware that the act
had been avowed by the British government.
i Then came a despatch from Lord Palmerston to
i Mr. Fox It was the foundation Of Mr.. Fox's com
muncaton to the Department of State, in March,
II lS4l, In that despatch Lord Pamerston said ii
j must have been known that the act was ayowed by
the British government, and therefore that they
demanded the release of Mcleod. What them II
was deemed to be most decorous to take the fact
represented by Mr.. Forsyth not thought
proper to gansay the position Of the Secretary of
State--that never was part Of the policy Of any
administration with which he Mr. W. ever was
connected Such then, the state the case when
Gen. Harrison came into Office. He treated the British
government as just and hgh-minded government.
He said the invasion Of the territory Of the u States
was an aggression the sovereignty of the Unit ted
States, and reparation and apology, ought to have
been made, and it was not yet too late for that.
On the other hand, he said that the arrest of Nc
: Leod, soldier acting under superior authority,
!, was contrary to the law Of nations And in that
E he (Mr. W. need not say he spoke in accord.
ance with all the authorities the law of nations.
J After much reflection he also said there was an
Z apparent want of courtesy in the letter Of Mr..
> For under the enthoritv of T. ord palmerston,