The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1856-03-12
CLAYTON-BULWEE TREATY
Speech of Hon. Solomon Foot, of
Vermont.
IN the SENATE, ttjraary 5, 1856

(Concladed)
Again. Mr.. President. Lord Clarendon
attempts to bring to the aid of the Brit.
ish construction Of the treaty an obitcr
| dictup Of Mr.. Webster In one of the
letters of Lord Clarendon to Mr., Buch-
anan, lie says:
within little more than \ month after
the treaty of 1850 had been ratified, her
| Maiestv'S Minister at Washington entered in
to further negotiations with the Government
cf the United States relative to the position
| Of Mosquito interpreting the treaty as her
! Maicsty's Government now intcrprcts it,
! That there was nothing extraordinary, nm
natural, or unfair in the Interpretation that
! is given to the treaty by her Maiestys Gov
! eminent is equally evident from the fact
| that such Interpretation was at once accepted
| by the Secretary of State, Mr. Webster"
Now. sir, let us. for moment, look at
the real character Of this evidence as to
the opinion of Mr.. Webster on the con-
struction of the treaty. Lord Clarendon
says. that Sir Henry Buwcr says, that
Mr. Webster said on a certain occasion.
in reply to what be (Sir Henry Bulwer)
| had said OF the Interpretation of the
treaty. that he (Mr, Webstcr) accepted
such Interpretation. a more remote,
round about, far.fotchod uncertain, un-
| reliable sort Of secoud handed or third.
handed hearsay testimony can hardly be
onceived-admissibe nowhere before
any tribinal where truth is to be elicit
I ed.
In tho first place. how do we know
that the British Minister fully explained
to Mr.. Webster his views of the inter.
pretation Of the treaty. and that he then
! claimed for little same identical inter.
pretation that is now claimel by his Gov
ernment2 We krow nothing at all about
IT, only that Lord Clarendon says, that
Sir Henry BulweT says that, in the pres
euce Of Mr. Webster he gave to the trea
ty the same Interpretation which hor
! Majesiy's Government now gives to it,
This as srcondhandcd hcarsay tesiimo-
ny. is not admissible. Besides, every
reasonable presumption is against it; and
well known and wcl-established facts are
! against it. The occasion did not call
for an exposition Of the views Of tue
! British VI mister on the construction of
, ;hn treaty and if it did, venture to
ain, n, IN the faco Of this statement. that
the British Minister never asserted the
claim in tho presence and hearing Of
| Daniel Wcb3.or. that the treaty was on
ly prospective in its operation, and bad
no effect upsn existing rights o. 'ccupan'
cy and possession Such q Claim has
never been set up until within very re-
lat hon ~ Of Irsi n
public until made known by the recent
annual Message of the President Of the
United States Lord Clarendon is GER
tainly in error Sir lieory BIlwer is
certainly in still greater error Mr.
Webster surely could never have under
stood that the British Minister then
gave the same Interpretation to the trea-
IS that her Majestya Government now
gives to it, and to the full extent now
claimed
Again, sir, suppose that Mr. Webster
did 50 understand the views Of the Brit
ish Minister, (Which is altogether i'm
probable, and which | will say is alto.
geiher impossiblc,) how do We know that
hs accepted such Interpretation ? We
know nothing about it, ouly that Lord
Clarendon tells us that Sir Henry Bul-
w-r SAYS that he did accept such inter
probation though in broad anl general
terms. This, again, is second handed
hearsGy testimony, which is not admlsSi'
bic Besides that, he does not pretend
to give US the language Of NJ. Webster
to Sir Henry Bllwer, nor thi language
of Sir Henry Bllwer to Mr. Websteron
that occasion.
Mr. CLAYTON. Mr.. Webster was
one of the Senator's who voted for the
treaty and lie was member of the Com
mittce on Foreign Relations at the time
Mr. FOOT. / am about to refer to
that very fact. say that this whole
statement rests on the most vague and
general assertions, and upon the recll'
lection Of an incidental conversation
which occurred moro than five and half
years ago Ii has not the substance of
lcetiag shadow" Before they cite
the authority Of Mr. Wcbstcr's great
name in support of 50 defansc,ess a cause,
We demand of them to bring t, US some
thing more substantial, something more
uElulc, lDOEC TtlldU'ci anu Hlplc utul'
ite. Let them bring to u, some memor-
audum. some letter, some official com
munication. any written document, plb
lie or private, wherein Mr., Webster ex-
pressed the opinion now for the first time
imputed to him Theu aad not till then,
let them cite the authority on this ques'
ton 1t is mich safer 10 imrute opin
ions to a man after he is dead, aud If
which he has left no record. than Th'le
he is living and can confront them
But, sir, We 10 not loave this question
iust here | will noN refer Ia the
fact suggested by my honorable
friend from Delaware Mr.. Wcbstcrs
character and position, aud. above all
the course which he pursued in reference
to this very treaty Itself We brlng IN
coutrayoution Of she opinions impulei to
him By the British Minister. IL so hap
PENS that NJ Webster, at the time of
the ratification of tho treaty, was mem
Der Of this body. 1t so happens that he
was as my honorable friend from Della
ware suggests, a member of the Commit
tee on Foreign Relations, to whom this
treaty was referred The treaty was