IN DEFENCE OFMR.WEBSTER.IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 1, 1841.[ATthe session of congress, the term of which expired with the administration ofMr.Van Buren, the honorable Daniel Webster resigned his seat in the senate, preparatory to taking office under president Harrison, as secretary of state, which had been offered to him by the president elect.Mr.Bates, of Massachusetts, having presented to the senate the credentials of the honorable Rufus Choate, who had been elected senator in the place ofMr.Webster, the latter took his seat this day, (first of March,) whenMr.Cuthbert, of Georgia, made some remarks reflecting on the political character ofMr.Webster, in connection withMr.Clay, as his associate in the senate, which called outMr.Clay in reply, and occasioned the following debate.]MR.CUTHBERTsaid, that on the resignation of the late senator from Massachusetts, (Mr.Webster,) he had charged upon that senator certain opinions on the subject of southern institutions. This had led to a discussion, in the course of which he, (Mr.Cuthbert,) had pledged himself to prove certain points. The most important point was, thatMr.Webster had avowed the doctrine, that congress had full power to prohibit the slave-trade between the states. The next point was, that the legislature of Massachusetts had maintained the same doctrines, and quoted the opinions of that senator, (Mr.Webster,) to sustain them. He had pledged himself to produce the document to support and justify the charge.After some discussion as to the point of order, andMr.Cuthbert being permitted to proceed, he then desired the clerk to read an extract from a paper which he sent to the desk. It purported to be a memorial drawn up by a committee, of whichMr.Webster was a member, expressing the opinion, that congress had the power to prohibit the slave-trade between the states.Mr.Cuthbert then animadverted upon the remark made byMr.Clay, on the twenty-second of February, complimentary toMr.Webster, and spoke of three great crises in the history of the two gentlemen when they differed in opinion—namely, on the late war with Great Britain; on the compromise tariff; and on the subject of abolition petitions.Mr.Clay regretted extremely that he had been called out in this way. The discussion of the other day had, he ventured tosay, satisfied every member of that body, with the exception of the senator from Georgia. He agreed with the senator from Vermont, (Mr.Phelps,) that it was all out of order. There was no necessity to create an occasion for the discussion. The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts was soon to be nominated to that body, and then would be the proper time to bring out all the opposition to him. But the senator from Georgia had appealed to the courtesy of gentlemen, and he, (Mr.Clay,) was not willing to refuse the request.No error could be greater than to judge of human character by a single act, a single sentiment or opinion. We were not to expect perfect coincidence in every thing abstract and practical.[Mr.Cuthbert here addressed the chair.]Mr.Clay said, I cannot be interrupted,Mr.President. I will not permit an interruption. The practice is much too common, and especially at the other end of the capitol. The senator from Georgia will have ample opportunity to reply when I have concluded. What was the question; what the subject of difference in the discussion? The senator from Georgia alleges that the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts has expressed an opinion, in Faneuil hall, it was believed, that congress had the power to regulate the trade in slaves between the states. On this subject great diversity of opinion exists. The power to regulate did not imply the power to prohibit. Congress possesses the power to regulate foreign commerce, but it has no right to prohibit it.But the senator from Georgia has adverted to the fact, that I and my distinguished friend (Mr.Webster) have agreed on some questions, and disagreed on others. Is there any thing unusual or singular in this? The senator from South Carolina, (Mr.Calhoun,) and the senator from Georgia, are now on the same side; have they always agreed? Was the gentleman from Georgia ever a nullifier? [Mr.Cuthbert said, no.] No. I presume there are many points of policy on which those gentlemen differ. The only correct method of judging, is, to take human nature in thetout ensemble, and not undertake to determine by a single instance.The senator from Georgia has referred to three subjects in which I have differed with the gentleman from Massachusetts. The first was, the late war with Great Britain.Mr.Webster had regarded that war as unnecessary, and in that I think he was wrong. But there was another war; a domestic war; a war waged by general Jackson against the prosperity of the country; and where stood the senator from Georgia in that war? The gallant Webster contended for the people through this long war, with persevering ability, but the senator from Georgia was on the other side.In regard to the compromise act, the gentleman from Massachusetts had been opposed to that healing measure. But how was it with other senators, with whom the gentleman from Georgia was now coöperating? The senator from Missouri, (Mr.Benton,) and the senator from New York, (Mr.Wright,) both voted against the compromise; but the gentleman finds no difficulty in acting with those gentlemen because they disagreed with him on that measure.As it regards abolition, so far as I know the opinions ofMr.Webster, he is just as much averse to it as the senator from Georgia himself. That there is danger impending, no one will deny. The danger is in ultraism. The ultraism of a portion of the south on the one hand, and from abolition on the other. It is to be averted by a moderate but firm course; not being led off into extremes on the one side, or frightened on the other.Mr.Webster and myself have differed on some subjects, have coincided on others; and the senator from Georgia might have referred to an instance in which he himself had voted withMr.Webster, and in opposition to me. I allude to the tariff of 1824. The substance of the charge is, thatMr.Webster and myself have agreed on certain matters, and disagreed on others; and if the senator from Georgia should undertake to compute the several agreements and disagreements, he would have to work out a more difficult problem than a friend of mine in the other house, who had tried to ascertain whether Vermont or Kentucky was the banner state.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 1, 1841.
[ATthe session of congress, the term of which expired with the administration ofMr.Van Buren, the honorable Daniel Webster resigned his seat in the senate, preparatory to taking office under president Harrison, as secretary of state, which had been offered to him by the president elect.Mr.Bates, of Massachusetts, having presented to the senate the credentials of the honorable Rufus Choate, who had been elected senator in the place ofMr.Webster, the latter took his seat this day, (first of March,) whenMr.Cuthbert, of Georgia, made some remarks reflecting on the political character ofMr.Webster, in connection withMr.Clay, as his associate in the senate, which called outMr.Clay in reply, and occasioned the following debate.]
MR.CUTHBERTsaid, that on the resignation of the late senator from Massachusetts, (Mr.Webster,) he had charged upon that senator certain opinions on the subject of southern institutions. This had led to a discussion, in the course of which he, (Mr.Cuthbert,) had pledged himself to prove certain points. The most important point was, thatMr.Webster had avowed the doctrine, that congress had full power to prohibit the slave-trade between the states. The next point was, that the legislature of Massachusetts had maintained the same doctrines, and quoted the opinions of that senator, (Mr.Webster,) to sustain them. He had pledged himself to produce the document to support and justify the charge.
After some discussion as to the point of order, andMr.Cuthbert being permitted to proceed, he then desired the clerk to read an extract from a paper which he sent to the desk. It purported to be a memorial drawn up by a committee, of whichMr.Webster was a member, expressing the opinion, that congress had the power to prohibit the slave-trade between the states.
Mr.Cuthbert then animadverted upon the remark made byMr.Clay, on the twenty-second of February, complimentary toMr.Webster, and spoke of three great crises in the history of the two gentlemen when they differed in opinion—namely, on the late war with Great Britain; on the compromise tariff; and on the subject of abolition petitions.
Mr.Clay regretted extremely that he had been called out in this way. The discussion of the other day had, he ventured tosay, satisfied every member of that body, with the exception of the senator from Georgia. He agreed with the senator from Vermont, (Mr.Phelps,) that it was all out of order. There was no necessity to create an occasion for the discussion. The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts was soon to be nominated to that body, and then would be the proper time to bring out all the opposition to him. But the senator from Georgia had appealed to the courtesy of gentlemen, and he, (Mr.Clay,) was not willing to refuse the request.
No error could be greater than to judge of human character by a single act, a single sentiment or opinion. We were not to expect perfect coincidence in every thing abstract and practical.
[Mr.Cuthbert here addressed the chair.]
Mr.Clay said, I cannot be interrupted,Mr.President. I will not permit an interruption. The practice is much too common, and especially at the other end of the capitol. The senator from Georgia will have ample opportunity to reply when I have concluded. What was the question; what the subject of difference in the discussion? The senator from Georgia alleges that the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts has expressed an opinion, in Faneuil hall, it was believed, that congress had the power to regulate the trade in slaves between the states. On this subject great diversity of opinion exists. The power to regulate did not imply the power to prohibit. Congress possesses the power to regulate foreign commerce, but it has no right to prohibit it.
But the senator from Georgia has adverted to the fact, that I and my distinguished friend (Mr.Webster) have agreed on some questions, and disagreed on others. Is there any thing unusual or singular in this? The senator from South Carolina, (Mr.Calhoun,) and the senator from Georgia, are now on the same side; have they always agreed? Was the gentleman from Georgia ever a nullifier? [Mr.Cuthbert said, no.] No. I presume there are many points of policy on which those gentlemen differ. The only correct method of judging, is, to take human nature in thetout ensemble, and not undertake to determine by a single instance.
The senator from Georgia has referred to three subjects in which I have differed with the gentleman from Massachusetts. The first was, the late war with Great Britain.Mr.Webster had regarded that war as unnecessary, and in that I think he was wrong. But there was another war; a domestic war; a war waged by general Jackson against the prosperity of the country; and where stood the senator from Georgia in that war? The gallant Webster contended for the people through this long war, with persevering ability, but the senator from Georgia was on the other side.
In regard to the compromise act, the gentleman from Massachusetts had been opposed to that healing measure. But how was it with other senators, with whom the gentleman from Georgia was now coöperating? The senator from Missouri, (Mr.Benton,) and the senator from New York, (Mr.Wright,) both voted against the compromise; but the gentleman finds no difficulty in acting with those gentlemen because they disagreed with him on that measure.
As it regards abolition, so far as I know the opinions ofMr.Webster, he is just as much averse to it as the senator from Georgia himself. That there is danger impending, no one will deny. The danger is in ultraism. The ultraism of a portion of the south on the one hand, and from abolition on the other. It is to be averted by a moderate but firm course; not being led off into extremes on the one side, or frightened on the other.Mr.Webster and myself have differed on some subjects, have coincided on others; and the senator from Georgia might have referred to an instance in which he himself had voted withMr.Webster, and in opposition to me. I allude to the tariff of 1824. The substance of the charge is, thatMr.Webster and myself have agreed on certain matters, and disagreed on others; and if the senator from Georgia should undertake to compute the several agreements and disagreements, he would have to work out a more difficult problem than a friend of mine in the other house, who had tried to ascertain whether Vermont or Kentucky was the banner state.