The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-10
THE DAILY UNION
M. RERRYER,s sPEECH.


sion Of this most eloquent and statesmanlike edor
Of the great French orator and jurist. We regre
that, before receiving the original Of the speech
M. Theirs upon the same subject, We had publishe,
the translation Of il which appeared in the "Morn
ing Chronicle" and could We find space, we wouls
now given our columns an accurate translation o.
NJ Thiers's noble effort.
IL is truly remarkable TO observe how these
two great orators, coming into the discussion
of the position of Francs in reference To the
affairs Of England and the United States, each
from his own point of view, have substan.
tally agreed with each other in their judgment
upon all the main points arising in the vast field Of
debate which the subject opened.
The opinions presented and the reasons alleged
by these eminent French statesmen present, in
the first place, the most conclusive yindiestion
Of the stand taken by tho President in his mes
sage in relation to the French Texan policy.
In the second place, both these speeches show
that in the Judgment of these impartial and most
competent judges, arbitration, as mode Of settling the
Oregon controversy, Is phOy Oui Shts question Thi.
judgment, 30 pronounced and upon cogent reasons,
before the action Of our government was known,
ought to exert and must exert, an immense influence
upon the public opinion Of Europs. Such iudg-
msnt, rendered has In il very element of exiti-
mai. ina,,~aas. .. .a---a. - ~ -
IL is worthy Of nots, too, that Mr. Guizot in
his replies to these speeches, though attack.
ing many Of their positions, has nothing to say
against the correctness of their views Of arbitration;
while from the occasional Interruptions of M. Du-
pin and of M odilon Bsrot in the debate, it seems
clear enough that they both participated in the opin
ions on this subject Of M. Berger and M. Theirs.
Ii is indeed a high and commanding tribute OF
approval which is thus paid, by the leading states
men and jurists Of France, TO the wisdom and firm.
Of this administration in Its respecting
arbitration.
II may be further observed that, though the
amendment Of M. Berger was rejected by a con-
siderable majority, its rejection did take place
ill the principle embodied in il had been distinctly
recognised and accepted by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. In his reply to NJ. Berger, M. Guizot
asserted, in terms, that the amendment was
not called for only because it was in its terms
observation-disclosures the principle OF it was
matter of right, and Of settled law. M. Guizot
maintained, in fact, that the reserved right and
resolution Of France, in case Of war, TO pro-
tect the freedom Of the seas, principle
too plain to require an express assertion-a
principle which, being passed in silence, to be
deemed assumed, Of course. In this manner
the minister explained its omission in the address.
Upon this view Of the subject, and in consideration
Of pledge so explicit on the part Of the ministry,
many of the opposition members (snd among them
the poet Lamartine) withheld their votes from the
proposition Of NJ Berger
In word, we cannot but regard the whole pro-
eress and tone Of the discussion in the French
chambers, a most gratifying demonstration Of
the national feeling Of France towards this country
So far as we can gather from what we have seen Of
the debate, the sentiment Of the chamber on the
questions of Texas and of Oregon, it is a sentiment
which we should hardly wish to change. 1t APP
pears to US very clear from these discussions that
the French govsrnnent including svea NJ. -Guizot
himself, has seen that under the force OF peculiar
circumstances, line Of policy was adapted by that
government in relation to Texas which no French
interest demanded, anu WHICH SONIC OF the most
living recollectons, some Of the strongest national
instincts, and some Of the most controlling motives
Of French policy, united to forbid. We believe
that fa case parallel to the case of Texas were now
to arise, we should hear Of French interven
tion-even under the lead Of the present ministry
We believe that we shall hear little more from the
French government of the "balance cpoWer in Amer
ica" The massive and weighty logic Of Theirs and
Berger must go far to settle on that question the
public judgment Of France. We believe we shall
hear nothing hereafter Of French action or influence
put forth to favor the British claim to Oregon. On
all these points we know that the French people is
right, and we believe that the French government is
fast coming right. Such result would be well
worthy Of the past history of France and of the
United States. Such result would be strictly in
harmony with the best interests of both nations.