The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-04-04
TIE COURSE OF Mr.. WEBSTER TWO VIEWS
OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Change of opinion or policy In statesman OF
mature years and established reputation tends to
his discredit by bringing his judgment or integ-
rity under suspicion. Hence the Indignation with
which public men resent any charge against their
consistency, and the profound anxiety they mani
fest to vindicate it. They are az much aggrieved
by the imputation of change, as they would be by
that of corruption and no disclaimer of in
tention TO assal their motives will palliate the
offence of attrbuting to them views different
from those they formerly held One cannot but
observe how much time is spent by leading men,
bers of the Senate in repeliing ssaul,s Npontheir
consistency, and in lsbored attempts to provet
with them there is nothing new under the san,
but that what they have been, they are now, and
always will be. Even those who declaim most
eloquently of the march of mind and progress of
the age, would have it understood, that they have
long since attained the perfection of human wis
dOm-the progress they preach is only for the ig-
Rorant, uniformed masses.
Mr. Webster, finding ON his desk a scrap of
printed paper, quoting his strong declaration in
lS4S against oil extension Of slavery and all CON-
promise on the subject, understood iras an attack
on his consistency, and he defed any man to show
what there was in his late speech that conficted
with that declaration. Nothing certainly so far
as the letter was concerned, but everything in the
spirit The spirit Of the declaration of 1913, and
that Of the speech of 1885, are just as unlike each
otheras the Public Opinion of the North and the
Public Opinion of the South.
But, we charge Mr.. Webster with having
changed his policy in the course of two years to
the same extent that we charge that Gen. Cass
changed his policy after the introduction of the
Wilmot Proviso. The General was at first in
favor of the Proviso, and would have voted for
it; but, in the winter of 1917, he published a
manifesto against it. Mr. Webster, when that
paper was issued, was in favor of applying the
Wilmot Proviso to all territory belonging to the
United States: whenever he had occasion to vote
his vote was given for that measure ana, 49,
Presidential campaign of lS4S, he claimed the
Wilmot Proviso as his "thunderp Then, he was
in favor of incorporating it in any Territorial
Government that might be formed for New Mex
ico At the last session of the last Congress, too
he labored with all his might, and successfully
too, to defeat any plan for the organization of
Territorial Government which did not prohibit
slavery.
But, in 1850, while avowing that his hostility
to the extension of slavery continues he casts
away with scorn his "thaader," solemnly de-
clares that he will vote against the introduction
of the Wilmot Proviso in territorial bill for
the Government of New Mexico-and, of course,
in one for the Government of Deseret. The pol
icy which he insisted on one year ago, in relation
to all the Territories of the United States, he
formally renounces in relation to all the Terrific
res of the United States.
Is not this the exact truth2 Mr.. Webster has
changed his position and policy 1t is folly for his
friends to attempt to deny the fact
Was he in favor Of Incorporating the Wilmot
Proviso in any bill for the establishment of Ter
ritoral Government in 1887 If he were not, he
deceived the People. If he were, then is he
changed in ls50-for he is now against the in
corporation of the Proviso in any such bill. He
may profess now the same sentiment of opposition
to the extension of slavery, that he always avow-
ed, but we are not inquiring into his sentiments :.
what concerns the public is his policy.
That is changed-and no sophstry, no artifce of
! language no imposing pomp of defamation, no
indignant denial can make the People believe
otherwise.
On reflection, we cannot feel much surprise at
the present position of the distinguished Senator.
/ IL is more in harmony with his views of the rela-
tions of the Constitution to slavery, than was his
course in lSlS il we may infer those views from
his despatch to Mr.. Everett our Minister to the
Court of St James respecting the Creole affair,
and from his letter to Lord Ashburton Of the LIST
| August, 1912, in regard to the coastwise slave
trade. lie then held that ga vessel on the high
seas, beyond the distance Of marine league from
the shore, is regarded as part of the terri
tory of the nationn lie proceeded to demand
that slaves on board American vessels on the
! high seas, driven by stress Of weather into the
ports of the British West Indies, be exempt
| from the law of England which prohibits the re-
! Luton of slavery within her jurisdiction-and he
insisted that the relation between the American
| master and his slave in such cases, could not be
dissolved, unless in disregsrd of the law, the
comfy and practice of nations.
This reasoning necessarily tssum'u tha' 'hS
relation of master and slave continued in force,
| in American vessels on the high seas, under the
national flag, within the exclusive jurisdiction OF
the nation If this principle be sound if the
trader in slaves from Virginia may hold his
slaves beyond the jurisdiction of that State, in
vessel belonging to the nation, on the high seas,
because she is to be regarded as part OF the ter
ritory of the nation and subjected exclusively to
its jurisdiction certainly he may carry them into
any territory Of the United State on terra TRINA,
and hold them there, within the exclusive juris-
diction Of the Union. If the transfer Of slave
from the soil of Virginia, to the hold OF an Amer
lean vessel, on the high seas, do not change his
relation, but, the right of the owner continue I'M
impaired, then, the transfer of slave from Texas
to New Mexico, does not change his relation, but
he still continues in subsection to his owner. The
assumption and advocacy Of this principle receiV-
ed the emphatic commendation of Mr. Calhoun
He saw at once its important hearings, II ma
tionalized savery-it asserted for it the right to
60 wherever the flag of the Union would. And
the Shareholders now are warranted in calling
upon Mr., Webster to apply to the territory Of
the nation, on terra fr1aa, the same principle he
sought TO enforce in application to the territory
of the nation on the high seas IL he now