Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1859-09-21

L r .
Knapp la 1884, still recoccted "a specimens of the
highes, professional skill the latter In fact OF
historical Importance in the criminal Jurisprudence ofthe
country.
But however distinguished his reputation in the other
departments OF his profession. his fame jurist Is main
associated with the tribunals Of the United States The
relation Of the Federal Government to tho States l.
peculiar 10 this country and gives class Of
In the Supreme Court Of the United States which there
nothing analogous In the Jurisprudence of England In
that country nothing, not the express words Of
treaty, can be pleaded against Of Parliament The
Supreme Court of the United States cnertans questions
which involve the consutionaty OF the laws OF State
Legislatures, the validity OF the DEGREES of State Courts
nay Of the consutonality ofacts OF Congress itself
Every feels that this range and elevation of ursdc
ton must tend greatly the Of practice at
that FORUM and give breadth and beraty to the tone
with which questions are there discussed much to
be looked for in the ordinary litigation of the common
law. No needs to be reminded how fully Mr. Webster
felt and in his relations it. sustained the dignity
of this tribunal lie regarded il the great mediaug
power Of the Constitution He believed that while
manded the confidence of the country serious dcrange
nent OF of the other great functions OF the Govern
ment was to be apprehcndcd: il IL should fail do
50. he feared the For the memory of Marshall the
great and honorcd magistrate who presided in this Court
tor the third part of century and did much raise
its reputation aud establish it, influence he cherished
feelings OF veneraon second only those which he
| to the memory of Washington.
In his political career Mr. Webster owed almost cverv-
thing TO popular choice the favor of the Legislature OF
Massachusetts, lie was, however twice clothed with ,x.
ecutive power the head of Administration and in
that capacity achieved diplomatic Of the highest
4
than those OF which Milton celebrates the first place
IL surely due TO those friendly arrangements between
great powers, by which war is avcrted Such arrange
ment effected by Mr.. Webster in lsl2 Ia reference
to than highly irritating question between this
country aud Great Britain and especially the Northcas
tern Boundary of the United States alude to the sub
ject not for the sake OF re-opcnng obsolete conrover
sizes but for the purpose of vndcatng his memory from
the charges OF disingenuousness aud fraud which
were brought against him at the time la England and
which have very lately been revived in that country
do the rather the facts of the had been
fully stated.
The Northeastern Boundary of the United States which
described by the treaty of 1885, had been sur
veyed and IL still unsettled in 1872 aud had
become the subject of controversy which had resisted
the ability of several successive on both
sides of the and had nearly exhausted rour-
ces Of arbitration and diplomacy Border collisions
though happily no boodshed had taken place. seventeen
regiments had been thrown into the British provinces
Gen. Scott had been dispatched the frontier of Maine
and Minister in London (Mr Stevenson had written
to the commander of the American squadron in Medi.
terranean that collision, in his opinion inevitable
Such was the state OF things when Mr.. Webster came
into the Department of State in the spring 1871 lie
Immediately gave an ntmaon to the British Govern
men that be was DESTROYS OF renewing the interrupted
negotiation. change of ministry took place in Eng
land in the course of few months and resolution was
soon taken by Sir Robert Peel and Lord Aberdeen TO
send special Envoy to the United States make last
attempt TO settle this dangerous dispute by negotiation
Lord Ashburton selected for this honorable GRAND
and his known friendly relations with Mr. Webster were
among the motives that prompted his appointment IL
may be observed that the intrinsic difficulties of the ne
COLLATION. increased 10y the circumstance that As the
disputed territory lay in the State of Maine and the pro-
prctory Of the soil in Maine and Massachusetts il
was deemed necessary obtain the consent of those
States TO any arrangement that might be entered into
by the General Government.
The length of time for which the question had been
controverted had usually happens in such cases had
the effect OF fixing both parties firmly in their on
poste views of the subject. IL pledge at least Of
the good faith with which the United States had conduct
ed the discussion that everything in archives bear
ing on the subject had been voluntarily spread before
the world On the other side part OF the correspon
dence of the ministers who negotiated the treaty had
been published and whenever Americans were per
med for literary purposes To institute historical nuu
res in the public offices in London, precautions were Ia
ken TO prevent anything from being brought to light
which might bear unavorably the British interpreta-
| ton OF the treaty.
The American Interpretation of the treaty had been
maintained in its fullest extent far aware by
every statesman in the country of whatever party to
whom the question had been submitted IL had
thus maintained in good faith by entire generation OF
public men, of the highest intelligence aud most unuu,
toned probity The British Government had with equal
confidence, maintained their Interpretation The
TO settle the controversy 10y reference the King of
the Netherlands had failed In this of things NJ
the boundary had remained unsettled for ynine wears
and had been controyer;ed for more than twenty s
negotiation and arbitration had shown that neither party
likely to convince the other and ia cases Of this
kind 1t il more important that public controversy
should be settled than how should be settled of
within reasonable lmts) Mr. Webster had from the first
| contemplateda conventional line. Such line and for
the same reasons, anticipated in Lord Ashburon
instructions, and accordingly agreed upon by III.
two ncgotators-a lite convenient and advantageous to
both parties.
Such Adjustment however like that which had been
proposed by the King of the Netherlands was extreme
y distasciu TO the people of Maine who standing on
their rights adhered with the greatest teuacity the
boundary described by the treaty of 1888 a. the United
states had always claimed it, opposition of Maine
had prevented that arrangement from taking effect there
great reason 10 suppose that il would have
the adoption OF the conventional line agreed 20 by Mr.
Webster and Lord Ashburton but for following cir
cumstance
This the discovery, the year before bv Presidep,
Sparks in the archives OF the Bureau Foreign Atirs
at Paris, OF copy of small map Of North America by
DAuyille. published in l7I6, which a red line was
drawn indicating boundary between the United States
aud Great Britain favorable the latter than she
had herself climed IT, By whom il was marked or for
what purpose did not appear from any indication on the
map uselt There also found in the Bureau of For
egn Affairs in bound volume official CORES pondenee
letter from DIR. Franklin the Count de Vergenncs
dated on the 9th of December (siX days after the sigma
ture OF the provisional articles stating that in compli
ance with the Counts request aud on a man sant hin
for the purpose, he had marked with strong red line
the limits Of the United States, settled in the preimi
naries."
The French archives had been searched by Mr. Can
ningS agents ~ long ago 1927 but this map either
escaped their notice or had not been deemed by them
importance. The English and French maps of this re
gon dher from each other and Is known that the maj
used by the negotator Of the treaty of 1888 was Mitch
els large map OF America, published under the oica
sanction of the Board OF Trade in lT5i D'Anyill.'
scAie the difference Of the boundaries would be bu
slight, aud consequently open TO mistake. The letter
tue Count de Nergennes, transmitting map be mark
ed = not preserved j. there ndorsement on t
redinc map to show that it i the map sent by the Coun
aud marked 10y Franklin. DAnyies map was pubIishe,
10 l1t6 and IL would surely be unwarrantablc to TAX
for granted, in # such importance that in IN
course Of thirty years IL could have been marked h
red line for some other purpose and by some o,he
person II would be equally rash 20 assume "a certain
either that the map marked by Franklin for the Coun
dc Nergenncs was deposited by him Ia the public archives
or, II so deposited, may not still be bid away among ID
sixty thousand maps contained ia that depo-toryY Tn
official correspondence of Mr Oswald the British nqgc
uor retained by the British Minister 10 his own po
session aud does not appear have gone into the pnl
|, ic archives.
10 the absence Of all evidence to connect DR.. Frank
Inns letter with the map, IL could not IL court Of jn
G tcc, have been received for a map marke
by bm aud any presumption that IL was ~ marked wa
resisted by the language Of the treaty. This point wa
urged in debate, with great force by Lord Broughau
Il who a. well az Sir Robert Peel literally defended Nj
T. Webster from the charges, which the opposition journal
IN London had brought against him.
Information Of this map in the progress Of the M
collation. very properly communicated 10 Mr. Wei,st,
u by Mr Sparks. For the stated il could not
v admitted Br0riug nuytiuW we arctt,. IL.