Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1856-02-29
CONGRESS.
Speech of Hon. Solomon Foot,
M VTuNuNT

Senate.
ronciuded
Again, Mr.. President, Lord Clarendon at
tempts Ia bung to tho aid Of the british CON
suucuon OF the treaty an obiter dictnm OF
Mr. Webster In one of the letters Of Lord
Clarendon to Mr. Buchanan, he says;
" Within little more than month after
the t'eaiy OF 1850 had been ratified. her va
iesty's Minister at Washington entered into
further negotiations with the Government
{ the United states relative to the position
of Mosquito, interpreting the treaty as her
Nalesty's Government now interprets It. -
That there was nothing extraordinary I'M
natural. M unfair lu the Interpretation that IS
gwen to the treaty by her Maiesty's Govern
urni, 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 tins evidence us to the OPP
mon Of ,r. Webster on the construction Of
the treaty Lord Clarendon says, that Sir
Henry Buwcr SAYS, that Mr. Webster said,
un certain occasion, 90 reply 10 what he
Sir Henry Bulwer) h d sand OF the interpre-
tatun oi the treaty, that he lMr. Webster
accepted such interpretation A more re-
mote, round -,bout, far fetched, uncertain,
unreliable sort of second handed ur third
handed hearsay testimony can hardly be con-
ceIvrd nowhere before any tn
uuu1l where truth Is TO be ehcued.
Ia the fir-t place, bow do va know that
the British Munster July explained TO Mr..
W ebstcr hl4 views of the Interpretation OF
the treaty. and that he then claimed for b
the same identical interpretation that Is nov
claimed by his Government Ne know
nuthInE at all about It., only that Lord lar
endon says, that Sir Henry BuIwer sa s
/ thaL lu the presence ot Mr. Webster. hp
/ gave to the treaty the same Interpretation
which her MWesty's Government now gives
It, This, as second-hiuded hearsay tes-
umony, Is not admissible Besides, every
reasonable presumption is against Il; and
weIl~known aud well-estabhshed facts Gre
against 1t. The occasion did not call for un
exposition of the views Of the Brush NJ
ulster on The construction of the treaty and
/ IT 1t did, | venture 10 affirm, M the ace of
This statement, that the Brush Minister new
er asserted the claim lu the presence and
hsanug of DANIEL Webster, that The treaty
was only prospective 10 in It's op ration, aud
had no effect upon existing rights of Occu-
paucy and possession. such claim has
new been set up unit, within very recent
date, and was never heard uf by the public
until made known by the recent annual iues-
sage Of the President Of the United States.
Lord Clarendon is certunly IN error; SIR
Henry Bulwtr Is certainly 10 still greater err
ror Mr.. W ebster surely could never have
understood that the British Minister then
gave the same Interpretation 10 the treaty
that her Nulesly's Government now gives To
o., and to the iuU extent now claimed.
Again, SIR, su pose that Mr. Webster did
so understand the views ot the British VI IN
ister which Is altogether improbable, aud
which will say Is altogether mpusslbIeJ
how do we know that he accepted such 90
terprelaton; We know nothing about d,
only that Lord Clarendon tells us that Sir
Henry BuIwer says that be did accept such
Interpretation thu b M broad and general
terms. This, again, Is sec0nd-btnded hear
say testimony, which his not admissible
besides that, he does not pretend to give Us
the language Of Mr.. Webster 10 Sir Henry
Buwer, nor the language OF Sir Bulwer To
Mr., Webster, On that occasion.
Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. Webster was one Of
the ~ majors who voted TOR the treaty, ANA
he WAS member Of the Louuntlee On For
elgn Relations al the time.
Mr.. FuoT. am about to refer to that
very fact. say that this whole statement
rests 90 the mUst vague md general asser-
tons, aud upon the recollection Of an ncid-
entail conversation which occurred more
than five aud a halt years ago. Il has not
tue substance Of tleeung shadow Be-
fore they cite authority OF Mr. a, clusters
great name m support eft 50 d, fensrless a
cause, we demand Of them to brng 10 us
80 elhing more substantial, sumelhnp more
Let them bring to us some memorandum
suine letter, some otficlol communication,
ny wntien document, public or private.
wherein Mr. Webster expressed the opmon
10" TOR tne first time imputed 90 hm. Then,
and not ull then lct them cite the au
thurty OF Mr.. Webster's imputed opinions
against us on tins question. Il is much safer .
10 lmpute opinions 20 a man after he Is dead, .
aud Of which he has lett no record, thin .
wnlIe tie is living. and can confront them.
But, sir, we do not leave tins question lust
here. wall now refer 10 the Tact suggest
ed by my honorable trieui from D,Iaware.-
Mr.. Neos,ers churtcter aud POSITION ani.
above all, lne course winch he pursued mr.
terence Ia tins very treaty Itself, we bring ln
cuntrayenuon OF the opinions imputed to
hun by The BRUSH Ministers. It So happens
cauun Of the treaty, was member Of this
body. 1t 50 happens that he was, as NV
honorable trend from Delaware suggests.
a member OF the COMMITTEE ON Foreign
Relations, to whom this treaty was reierfsl.
The treaty was fully examined aud discuss.
ed both IN the Committee aud 10 the senate.
1t was understood by the commutee II was
understood By the Senate; II was understood
pi 1 .
TO say, that the effect OF the treaty was such
as to impose upon England the obligation
lorthwith to resign all her possessions IN
Central America and with that understand
ny, aud upon III t alone, the treaty was ra-
tilted. | submit to any senator here, then
a member OF this body, Il o. De not 80. "A
general assent was signied The unly
question M spule, winch afterwards arose,
was whether or not 1t embraced tue BRUSH
settlement at the Belize? Ar. Webster cer-
ianly understood the views of his commit.
tee and Of the Senate rs to the effect of the
treaty u9on the BRUSH possessions; and is
Il 10 be presumed that lie entertained view
differing from all his colleagues, and vet
snld nothing about ~ HIS very silence
upon the point at the time is a sufficient an
swer to tins inquiry. 1t affords the strongest
prcsumpuye evidence that he agreed IN OBJ
mon wi'h his coUuages on that question.
ask again, Is Il 10 be esumed that If
Mr.. Webster entertained The "P,nious ,uiput
cd 10 him BY Loud Clarendon aud Sir Henry
Bulwer, directly IN opposition 10 the views
Vi his associates Of the Committee aud 0i the
Senate, he would not have made them known
that Ia would not have even lntunated
ihem' Sir, It Is Incredible; II Is lnpossi-
BILE; It Is not true. The nigh character and
position Ut MIR. Webster, as "a cltizen, as a
Senator, as statestnau,and as a patrol, for
bid TINS impeachment. The Queens Nuns.
Ter can take nothing by hls motion IN at
tempting 10 blng TO ms AID the imputed OPT
nous Vi Daniel ~ eDster. | stand here To
day, though 1t Os with feeble arm, 10 rescue
from the unhoiy impulation, the TAR lame Of
That llluslrOus American citizen, who by
iOmmon accord, the world oven Is recu nlz-
I'd as the intellectual monarch Of the age IN
" hich he lived.