The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-08-14

the statement which had been agreed to be
published, myself and others replied that this
arrangement was not satisfactory, because the
affair would not rest there, but that Mr.. Foote
was in communication with letter-writer, who
wrote for him in the Baltimore Sun and Phil
adelphia Ledger, and that these two papers
would soon contain untrue accounts of the
affair, to my prejudice, and which would CON-
pei me to take further notice of it. This was
repeatedly and emphatically told to the gen.
tleman but it was finally concluded to receive
Mr.. Foote'S letter as satisfactory, and to watch
the letters in the San and Ledger.
Accordingly, Monday mornings Sun brought
the expected letter, which, as have said above,
l fully believe to be the work of Mr.. Foote,
through Mr.. Grund. The letter opens with say
ing that the difficulties between Mr.. Foote and
Mr.. Fremont have been dmicably" arranged
This word "ansica6ly" is false, as was well
known to the writer. / merely received Mr..
Foote'S letter as satisfaction, and no tokens of
amity were interchanged between us, not even
speaking to each other. He comes then to the
cause of the difficulty, all of which is falsely
stated, and is so proved to be by the record.
The letter says, "Mr. Fremont was wrong to
attack Mr.. Foote for words spoken in debate,
which, as he (Foote) distinctly avowed at the
time, were not spoken with view to wound the
feelings of any Senator present, but merely to
protect the country against er p1rte decisions
of the California Board of Commissioners"
This is untrue. The bill for the California
| land titles was not under consideration at the
time, and had been previously laid upon the
| table, with my appreciation, until the next ses.
sion, with view to give it the full consideration
| for which there was now no time. Other meas.
ures had been taken up, and the naval appro-
priation bill was then under consideration and
40 Ill H. of ~,Nk.o
| from Mr.. Gwin, having no relation to the land
titles-that the words were spoken. 1t was not,
| therefore, to "protect" the country against any
| action under that bill that the injurious words
| were spoken, for the bill was not before the
| Senate, and had been laid over until the next
| session.
| The letter says, Mr.. Foote retracted nothing.
| This is untrue, as will be seen by the copy of
| Mr.. Foote'S remarks, as furnished to me by the
| reporter for the Latelligencer, contrasted with
his own letter to me: both of which are here
with given in their order. And to avow no re-.
traction, is to reaffirm the original insult, by
an insidous implication. l make no account
of difference between retraction and denial in
this case.
The letter says, Mr.. Fremont must have
seen his error in attempting to gag Senators in
regard to all legislative measures in relation to
| California" This is absurdly false-absurd in
the idea that should attempt to gag Senators,
| aud false in the fact. Much as the circum-
stances of the country required the bill to be
| passed to prevent violence and bloodshed in
| California; yet, when it was kept off until the
| afternoon of Friday, gave it up for the ses-
| sion-said So before the evening recess, to
Messrs. Ewing and Benton, the two principal
speakers on it-agreed to have it laid upon the
| table-and, satisfied that this would be done,
did not return to the Senate until after the even
ing session had commenced, and until after the
| bill had been laid upon the table; aud when
did come in, was surprised to find Mr.. Foote
referring to the California land bill, the naval
appropriation bill being the one under consider
| alton. 1t is therefore false, as well as ridicu-
lous, to say that attempted to gag Senators !;
l laid it over to the next session, expressly to
admit the fullest discussion, which is exactly
the reverse of gagging.
| The Baltimore letter says, "Mr. Foote did
| not intend to wound the feelings of any Sena-
| tor-but distinctly avowed at the time, in the
Senate, that he did not intend any personal dis
respect for those who were against the amend
ment." This is false again, and is proved to
| be 80 by all the circumstances of the case, and
by the words themselves. This is the report of
them, as furnished me by one of the National
InteUigencer reporters:
l
l1gu 40 California matters Nevertheless. I saw
deliberately, l say it with due consideration of
| the matter, and of the consequences of the
| declaration, that, if the views which have been
| expressed IN certain quarters this morning, in
| regard to portion of the legislation which is
| urged upon US for California should be adopt
| ed In the same hasty manner in which it is now
proposed to us to give our sanction to the pres
ent proposition, the admission of California into
| the Union would be productive of more detri
| ment to the Republic, and, in my opinion, be
! fraught with more real dishonor to the nation,
than any event that has ever occurred in the
historic annals of the country. Sir, we must
be cautious about this California business Not
only is California State of this Union, but
she is great State. Her resources are large.
her interests are vast. They are of vast i'm
portance to herself and to the country at large.
In dealing with them, we must act cautiously.
circumspectly, vigilantly, and permit no man,
or set OF men, to urge US hastily and indiscreet-
y into the adoption of any legislation for which,
hereafter, we may have reason to repent in
sackcloth and in ashes"
Now, take this language, and see if there
was not design to be personal and insulting
In 1t, and that upon plan previously resolved
| upon. he avows deliberation-due considers.
tlon-disregard of consequences. What does
this mean, but a predetermined design to give
both insult and defiance? And in that light it
would doubtless have been represented, if / had
not called him to account. Then the terrible
consequences OF passing the bill, the dishonor
to the nation, the corruption, the repentance in
sackcloth and ashes what did all this refer to.
but the bill which had brought in? And why
refer to it at all, when it was not before the
Senate, not under consideration-actually laid
upon the table, to lie there until the next ses
sion? Why not wait till the next session, if he
only wanted to speak against the bill? Wby
refer to 1t at ALL under such circumstances. un.
less TOR a purpose unconnected with the bill
and in such language, except for insult2 It is
useless to pretend the contrary; and, therefore.
the Baltimore letter is false in saving that Mr.
Foote had no design to wound feelings-no in.
tent to be disrespectful. The contrary was nm.
derstood by every Senator at the time, and is
proved by the words themselves, and the cir.
cumstances under which they were spoken. and
there is no disavowal, distinct or indisdinct of
personal disrespect to anybody.
The Baltimore letter admonishes me not tn
make myself "aesrP to family feud. The
admonItion would be unnecessary, even if it
came from source entitled to respect: but.
found where it is, it is both false and imperti
nent. l make myself "heir" to no ones feuds.
begin none OF my own. / prefer to live in
peace with the world. But everybody will see.
from the remarks of Mr.. Foote in the Senate
In relation to the bill brought in, and his let
ter to the Baltimore Sun, that it is intended to
make me "heir" to his feelings towards Colonel
Benton.
lconclude this notice with giving Mr., Foote'S
letter to me, In answer to the note which sent
him by friend
SENATE CHAMBER, Sept %, 1850.
/ nnf faal L. u