The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-03

well-timed from France; but il might have been inn
pertinent and mis-tmed from the United States. But
as said before, may be mistaken on this ques-
ton This movement may have been one ofpro
found wisdom on the part of the diplomats al.
though TO me II seemed foolish. II had one
merit at all events, although common one, and
that was-it did not do much HARM There il
something, too, in the out-branches OF this matter
which needs TO be understood. | would like 10 un.
derstand why il that at one stage of this matter
II was not referred for settlement 10 London That
1t was so intended TO be referred WILL think, admit
OF little doubt have no personal knowledge do
not Foueh for the acts but there are individuals dis
connected with the administration, who, from their
business associations and obligations were compel,
led 10 know the understanding of Mr.. Mctane
when he left this country. Had il then been trans
ierred, with the temper and tone manifested abroad
there is hardly doubt that il would have been duly
settled. lfnot settled now, it will involve somebody
in fearful responsibility. | hope that il NAV be-
And here the question recurs. How howl
answer, by compromise.
go, sir, for compromise as indicated in the reso-
luton Of the senator from Georgia At first il ap-
pesred to that TO give no notice at all would hs
been the true policy but a majority of the Senate
being in favor Of qualified form Of notice would
go for that Invested Of all asperity Of feeling, and
indicating on its face that peaceful compromise was
the true object of its being given. | would do that
for the sake Of unity and COMPROMISE in any case
the gentleman says, "You offer TO compromise; but
will you sbtain our own and will you settle this thing
in all It's details ?" The very question to be settled
IA, "What is our own" Afier twenty-seyen years
debate, we are no nearer q conclusion than we were
al hrst and say this question must be settled, (if
at all as all questions Of like kind have been set.
tied since the foundation Of our govornment-that
Is, with regard for the mutual interests Of both
parties, and just equivalent rendered. IL s against
all human experience TO say 1t can be settled in any
other way. Whoever saw man who had spent a
long time in argument with his neighbor about a
farm, able TO argue him out Of that farm But in
the case before US, although have clear rules OF
municipal law TO guide us-Ve have, as il were, the
compass and line TO guide us-we have spent the
whole OF this time for the purpose of trying how we
can talk nation out Of territory; with the clear
facts Of history-and | desire to call atten
ton to that history-it shows the inutility Of en-
deayorng TO talk nations out Of empire. How was
the question Of the Russian boundary settledi On
$40 4UI BY debatei Sir, we might have debated
the matter I'LL now, without coming to within ten
degrees of latitude of that. We contended most
strenuously then that we we're entitled to hold, as
against Russia, up to Go; and Mr.. Adams and Mr.
Middleton sought 10 prove IL by indispuable facts
and arguments, expressing themselves in the strong.
est and most emphatic terms in favor of our claim
up TO GU at least and must say, after examina
ton OF those Arguments, as against Russia, they
were stronger In favor of 600 than our arguments
against Great Britain for 81 degrees 40 minutes
After this debate had lasted a long time, and
covered great quantity of paper Count Nesselrode
suggested that as nothing could be accomplished in
that way, they should lay aside the question of alb
stract right, and compromise the question on the
principle Of the mutual accommodation of the par
ties. On that proposition the boundary of $40 40
settled and had il not been So the negotistors
might have been debating the question of title until
the present day. While on this subject, will of
fer one or two words, although it nerferes with my
course IN answer to a remark of the senator from
Illinois, Mr.. BREEsE He said it was strange, in
deed, that If Great Britain insisted she had claims
there in 1924, she would have sat silently by and
zee the question OF title negotiated between third
parties. The senator is somewhat mistaken in these
views. Instead Of being silent or asleep, she was
up and awake, with eyes intent all her interests
and not only was she awake to this question, but
we were awake too; and, unfortunately for my
friends argument, at the time we were negotiating
with third party, we admitted the rights of Great
Britain on the northwest coast. Sir, do not know
that compromise the country, or violate any duty
when refer to some confidential documents of the
I'd session, 18th Congress, although believe they
are documents from which the Injunction of secrecy
has not been removed. | shall use it no further
than in reference to facts within the knowledge of
Great Britain and thus far, believe, am author
lied to make use of them.
Several senators, speaking in a very low tone,
made some inquiry as to the object of the senator's
reference TO the document.
Mr.. DAYTON. My impression is, the docu-
ment has been referred to before in some discussion
which took place bere | do SO for the purpose of
removsg some difficulties on matters within the
knowledge Of Great Britain.
Mr.. SEWER. ! make it, sir, a point of order;
the senator has no right to refer to il.
The PRESIDENT expressed his concurrence
Mr. DAYTON. | have no wish to violate the
wish of the Senate.
A SENATOR. How was it obtained,
Mr.. DAYTON. From the works in the library,
among other documents there.
Mr.. SEWER. | dislike very much to be COM
PEELED to interfere, but think the reading of the
document any portion of it is out of order.
the senator Mr.. d. to say, that it was
one of those documents from which the Injunction
Of secrecy has never been removed. If that is so,
think he has no right to refer to it at ALL and will
insist this, that he has either the right refer to
it, and of reading 1t all, or none.
Mr.. DAYTON explained that it was not taken
from the journal, but from the correspondence which
passed between the British negotiaor, Mr.. Middle
ton, and the Russian Count Nesselrode.
Mr.. SEWER. Understand it is part of cor
respondence which was laid before the American
Senate IN its executive character; IN that form the
injunction of secrecy has never been removed, and
will make it question of order
Mr.. DAYTON. i pass il, sir, without the slight
est hesitation. have no wish to alude to anything
to which could not under the rule Of the Senate;
Out III alludnS 10 facts winch appeared 10 DE known
to, and in possession Of, the British government,
thought would not be out of order. will pass it,
however. But will say to my friend the senator
from Illinois, he is mistaken in the position he has
taken in reference to this subject. Passing, how
ever, Mr. President, from these Matters and return
ing to the subject matter of our deliberations, say
this question ought TO be settled by compromise
In support Of this view, referred TO the settlement
of the Russian boundary as an illustration of the
truth of this and also to our settlement with Spain
as another illustration. After obtaining Louisiana
from France, by diplomacy, Mr.. Livingston and
Mr.. Monroe both said the cession of Louisiana
conveyed to us West Florida, and they expressed
themselves entirely satisfied that the cession in
cuded West Florida; SO satisfied, that they ad-
vised the government to take possession of it
as American territory. Mr.. Pinckney and Mr..
Monroe afterwards took equally decided ground,
and avcrred the subject satisfactory and clear
that there was no room for difference Of opinion.
But unfortunately the Spanish negotiators were
of a different opinion. The arguments on each
side were long, and might have continued
since; land 1t seems to me tley were much
against the claims Of the American govern
menr) nevertheless, our government at last said
H.. zE. l.a- - 4 L At