The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1856-03-05

should come into the arrangement, a
communication across the American 18th.
mus, under their joint and perpetual
protection, for the bcocit Of the com
mercial world aud to this end, mutual
obligations were assumed, and mutual
rights and mutual claims were surrender
cd. Now, sir. | trust that we, as a Gov
ornment, will herein promptly and cheer
fully discharge all the Obligations wa
have assumed at the same time,I doubt
not that we shall quite as promptly, and
quite as cheerfully assert and maintain
al, the rights We have secured. While
we coucolo to Great Britain tho full en-
joyment Of all the rights she has secured
under this compact, we must, at the
same time, insist upon The discharge Of
all her obligations.
Before proceeding further, MIR. Presi-
dent, with the discussion, 10 this direc-
ton, | will beg the indulgence Of the
Senate, for a few moments, while | refer
TO one or two other points 10 the argu.
ment, or rather in the special pleading
of Lord Clarendon. That noblo lord,
who speaks upon this occasion for tho en-.
lightened Government of Great Britain
"A Government which would feign to
hold itself above the reproach Of resort.
ing to subtilities and subtcrfuges upon n
question of consttuction-which would
feign to scorn the imputation of having
been overreachcd or outwitted in q d.
plomatio encounter-grayely asserts, as
a substantive objection to the American
construction of the treaty, that it gives
1t n one-sided character-a "unllateral"
character is his expression. In other
words, he means TO say that, upon onr
construction and understanding Of the
treaty, it affords greater benefits to us
than to them that the British Govern.
ment have been ovcrreached in the bar.
gain, and that the United States have
gained the advantage that by our CON
struction she surrenders more aud gains
less than the American Government.
However this fact may be, | ask, sir, is
it to be received and applied as a rule Of
construction Is this to be received as
an argument to be weighed against the
clear and explicit terms Of the instru-
mcnt itselfl Is it to be received as Il
justification or even an |oxtcnuation for
the violation Of the compact No, sir,
never. The argument--if, indeed, it
may be called an argument-is al,ogoth-
er unworthy of its otigin-uuworthy Of
the occasion and uf The subject.
With how much surprise, need l ask,
must we regard the conduct Of a laugh
ty and imperious nation like England, in
urging so sinister and degrading a con-
sideration, as that the plain provisions
of a solemn compact may be at all affect
ed by,or that she may be allowed to back
out of them on the assumed fact, that its
terms, under tue construction for which
we contend, are not as favorable to her
self as to the other party
Sir, tho question is, what docs the
treaty mean what does the treaty say ;
what rights does the treaty guarantee ;
what obligations, does the treaty imposc2
and not which party is more favorably
or less fivora5ly affected by it. How
ever that fact may be, it is utterly i'm
material to inquire but, admitting, if
you please, that the stipulations of the
compact ke more favorable to US than
to England, it affords no reason why
England should seek to modify the terms
of the treaty, or to evadc its obligations,
while it does furnish to our Government
reasons all the more cogcut for adhering
to its provisions, aud insisting upon the
observance of its Obligations. While
the concession mus. be a humiliatins one
to England, it is indeed a proud one tc
American diplomacy.
(CoNCLuGED NEXT WEEK.