Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

as we hear from them, oppose the bill. It is said to be in favour of free trade and against monopoly. But every man connected with trade is against it; and this leads me to ask, and I ask with earnestness, and hope to receive an answer, at whose request, at whose recommendation, for the promotion of what interest, is this measure introduced? Is it for the importing merchants? They all reject it, to a man. Is it for the owners of the navigation of the country? They remonstrate against it. The whole internal industry of the country opposes it. The shipping interest opposes it. The importing interest opposes it. Who is it that calls for it, or proposes it? Who asks for it? Who? Has there been one single petition presented in its favour from any quarter of the country? Has a single individual in the United States come up here and told you that his interest would be protected, promoted, and advanced, by the passage of a measure like this? Sir, there is an imperative unity of the public voice the other way, altogether the other way. And when we are told that the public requires this, and that the people require it, we are to understand by the public, certain political men, who have adopted the shibboleth of party, for the public; and certain persons who have symbols, ensigns, and party flags, for the people; and that's all. I aver, sir, that is all."

The administration "proposes a new system adverse to all our experience, hostile to everything we have ever learned, different from the experience of any country on the face of the earth.'

'It is prohibitory of internal labour. . It does encourage the labour of foreign artisans over and above, and in preference to, the labour of our own artisans here in the United States."

Before the passage of the bill, Mr Webster presented in the Senate a memorial "signed by every importer of dry goods in the city of Boston, against the bill for the repeal of the Tariff."

What shall be said of the Tariff of 1846;-has it failed to produce a revenue; has it drained the specie out of the country; has it led to a great extension of paper money; has it produced the confusion occasioned by the Tariffs of '16, of 328, of '42? Has it impoverished the nation? The answer is all about us! Still, we admit that by adopting the ad valorem instead of specific duties, an opportunity has been left for fraudulent invoices, and great fraud has been committed, doing a wrong to the government, and still more to the fair and honourable merchant.

The "re-occupation of Oregon" was also recommended in Mr Polk's first message. Our title "to the whole of

Oregon territory" was was "asserted, and, as is believed, maintained by irrefragable facts and arguments;"" to the Oregon our title is clear and unquestionable;"our" claims could not be abandoned without a sacrifice of both national honour and interests," and "no compromise which the United States ought to accept could be effected." He recommended that we should give the British notice of our intention to terminate the period of joint occupancy, as the treaty of 1818 allowed either party to do. Mr Polk, on other occasions, showed himself rather raw in diplomatic affairs; it would seem that he knew little of the matter in hand when he wrote the sentences above. They show him as a mere servant of his party, not as a great statesman, able to mediate between two mighty nations, and distribute justice with an even hand.

A great deal of discussion took place. The minor prophets and the major gave counsel after their kind. The Union-the organ of the government at Washingtoncontended for "the whole of Oregon or none. That is the only alternative as an issue of territorial right." But the Charleston Mercury was all at once afflicted with a conscience, and could distinguish between "claims" and "rights." We shall presently see the reason of the difference. In the Senate, Mr Sevier, of Arkansas, said that

66

99.66

[ocr errors]

war will come ;" Mr Breese, of Illinois, would not have the government" grant any position to Great Britain upon any spot whatever of Oregon." Mr Allen, of Ohio, said the "American Government could not recede short of 54, 40." Mr Hannegan, of Indiana, thought that "the abandonment or surrender of any portion of . Oregon would be an abandonment of the power, character, and best interests of the American people." Mr Cass thought war, an old-fashioned war," was almost inevitable;" Great Britain" might be willing to submit the question to arbitration, but the crowned heads whom she would propose as arbitrators would not be impartial, for they would cherish anti-republican feelings." He would negotiate, as Mr Webster very justly said, with the avowed predetermination to take nothing less than the whole of the territory in dispute. In the House of Representatives, John Quincy Adams went in for the territory on religious grounds, and claimed the whole of Oregon on the strength

of the first chapter of Genesis. His conduct and his counsels on this occasion can hardly be called less than rash.

The South was not at all anxious to obtain the whole of Oregon. Mr Calhoun was singularly moderate in his desire for re-occupation; nice about questions of title and boundary, and desirous of keeping the peace. The reason is obvious. Mr Hannegan said well, "If it [Oregon] was good for the production of sugar and cotton, it would not have encountered the objection it has done." "I dreaded, on the part of those who were so strenuously in favour of the annexation of Texas at the Baltimore convention,-I dreaded, on their part, Punic faith." Poor, deluded Mr Hannegan, he found it. After Texas was secured, they who hunted after Oregon were left to beat the bush alone; nay, were hindered. This also would once have been considered as “judicial.”

"Here," says he, "we are told that we must be careful and not come in collision with Great Britain about a disputed boundary ! But if it were with feeble Mexico that we were about to come into collision, we would then hear no such cautions. There was a question of disputed boundary between this country and Mexico, and those who have a right to know something of the history of that boundary told us that our rights extended only to the Nueces. How did we find the friends of Texas moving on that occasion? Did they halt for a moment at the Nueces? No, sir; at a single bound they cross the Nueces, and their war-horses prance upon the banks of the Rio del Norte. There was no negotiation then-we took the whole; but when Oregon is concerned, it is all right and proper to give away an empire, if England wills it."

[ocr errors]

In the House, Mr Winthrop suggested that, "in arbitration, reference was not necessarily to crowned heads," but the matter might be left to "a commission of able and dispassionate citizens, either from the two countries. or the world at large." Mr Benton was moderate and wise; his speeches on the Oregon question did much to calm the public mind and prepare for a peaceful settlement of the difficulty. The conduct of Mr Webster was worthy of the great man who had negotiated the treaty of Washington. He said in the beginning, "Let our arguments be fair; let us settle the question reasonably."

Congress resolved to terminate the joint occupancy.

The British government was willing to settle the business by arbitration or direct negotiation. America prefers the latter. Britain sends over her proposition to settle on the 49th degree as a general basis. Mr Polk referred the whole matter to the Senate, and asked their advice. He had not changed his opinion; not at all. If the Senate did not take the responsibility and advise him to accept the British proposal, he should feel it "his duty to reject the offer." Thus the responsibility was thrown upon the Senate. The proposal was accepted, a treaty was speedily made, and the only remaining cause of contention with England put to rest for ever. The conduct of Mr Polk, in making such pretensions, and holding out such boasts, on such a subject, was not merely rash, weak, and foolish ; it was far worse than that. But for the unexpected prudence of a few men in the Senate, and the aversion of the South to acquire free territory, he would have lit the flames of war anew and done a harm to mankind which no services he could render would ever atone for.

On the 4th of July, 1845, Texas accepted the contract of annexation, and on the 22nd of December, two hundred twenty-five years after the landing of the Pilgrims on Plymouth Rock, the Senate of the United States passed upon the matter finally, and the work was done. However, previous to this event, Mr Polk had proposed to renew our diplomatic relations with Mexico, which had been broken off. Mexico consented to receive “ a commissioner . . . with full powers to settle the present dispute." America sent Mr Slidell as a permanent minister plenipotentiary. He was refused pro causa.* The instructions

given to Mr Slidell have not, we think, been officially published, though they were requested by the House. However, a document purporting to contain those instructions was published unofficially. From that it appears that he was instructed to purchase new Mexico and California; he was allowed to offer 25,000,000 dols. and the American claims on Mexico, amounting, by his estimate, to 8,187,684

* See the Massachusetts Quarterly Review, No. I., p. 18, et seq. See the correspondence between the various functionaries in Executive Document, No. 60, 30th Congress, 1st Session, p. 12, et seq. Unfortunately we have only the translation of the Mexican letters. See, also, Senate Document, No. 337, 30th Congress, 1st Session, p. 18.

dols.

Thus the whole territory of New Mexico and California was thought to be worth 33,187,684 dols.

Soon after the accession of Mr Polk to office, General Taylor was ordered to Texas with an army. On the 15th of June, he was advised by the Secretary of War, Mr Marcy:"The point of your ultimate destination is the western portion of Texas, where you will select and occupy, on or near the Rio Grande del Norte, such a site as will be best adapted to repel invasion. You will limit yourself to the defence of the territory, unless Mexico shall declare war against the United States."+ General Taylor took possession on the Nueces at Corpus Christi, "the most western point ever occupied by Texas," but nearly two hundred miles east of the Rio Grande. August 6th, Mr Marcy writes:

"Orders have already been issued to send ten thousand muskets and a thousand rifles into Texas."

August 23rd,

"Should Mexico assemble a large body of troops on the Rio Grande, and cross it with a considerable force, such a movement would be regarded as an invasion of the United States."

August 30th,

"An attempt to cross,

[ocr errors]

with such a force, will be considered in the same light. .. Mexico having thus commenced hostilities, you may . . cross the Rio Grande, disperse or capture the forces," &c.§ He was authorized to draw militia from five States-Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee.|| Still General Taylor remained at Corpus Christi, not undertaking to commit an act of war by marching into the territory of Mexico. On the 13th of July, 1846, he was ordered to advance and occupy positions on or near the east bank of the Rio Grande." Accordingly General Taylor marches from the Nueces to the Rio Grande, finding no

*Jay, p. 117, et seq. See, also, Document No. 2, House of Representatives, 29th Congress, 1st Session, p. 31, et seq., for the correspondence between the government of Texas and the United States, and Massachusetts Quarterly Review, No. I., p. 24, et seq.

+ Executive Document, No. 60, 30th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 81, et seq. See the Massachusetts Quarterly Review, No. I., p. 25, et seq.

Executive Document, No. 60, 30th Congress, 2nd Session, pp. 84, 85, 88, 89. Ibid., p. 86.

Executive Document, Ibid., p. 90.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »