Part 24 out of 25
laws, and fixed the minimum force we would employ for that purpose."
The letter of this department of the 14th of November, having quoted
this passage, proceeds to observe, that "the President cannot conceive
how you should have been led to adventure upon such a statement as this.
It is but a tissue of mistakes. England did not urge the United States
to enter into this conventional arrangement. The United States yielded
to no application from England. The proposition for abolishing the
slave-trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an American proposition; it
originated with the executive government of the United States, which
cheerfully assumes all its responsibility. It stands upon it as its own
mode of fulfilling its duties and accomplishing its objects. Nor have
the United States departed in the slightest degree from their former
principles of avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American;
because the abolition of the African slave-trade is an American subject
as emphatically as it is a European subject, and, indeed, more so,
inasmuch as the government of the United States took the first great
step in declaring that trade unlawful, and in attempting its extinction.
The abolition of this traffic is an object of the highest interest to
the American people and the American government; and you seem strangely
to have overlooked altogether the important fact, that nearly thirty
years ago, by the treaty of Ghent, the United States bound themselves,
by solemn compact with England, to continue their efforts to promote its
entire abolition; both parties pledging themselves by that treaty to use
their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object."
Now, in answer to this, you observe in your last letter: "That the
particular mode in which the governments should act in concert, as
finally arranged in the treaty, was suggested by yourself, I never
doubted. And if this is the construction I am to give to your denial of
my correctness, there is no difficulty upon the subject. The question
between us is untouched. All I said was, that England continued to
prosecute the matter; that she presented it for negotiation, and that we
thereupon consented to its introduction. And if Lord Ashburton did not
come out with instructions from his government to endeavor to effect
some arrangement upon this subject, the world has strangely
misunderstood one of the great objects of his mission, and I have
misunderstood that paragraph in your first note, where you say that Lord
Ashburton comes with full powers to negotiate and settle all matters in
discussion between England and the United States. But the very fact of
his coming here, and of his acceding to any stipulations respecting the
slave-trade, is conclusive proof that his government were desirous to
obtain the co-operation of the United States. I had supposed that our
government would scarcely take the initiative in this matter, and urge
it upon that of Great Britain, either in Washington or in London. If it
did so, I can only express my regret, and confess that I have been led
inadvertently into an error."
It would appear from all this, that that which, in your first letter,
appeared as a direct statement of facts, of which you would naturally be
presumed to have had knowledge, sinks at last into inferences and
conjectures. But, in attempting to escape from some of the mistakes of
this tissue, you have fallen into others. "All I said was," you observe,
"that England continued to prosecute the matter; that she presented it
for negotiation, and that we thereupon consented to its introduction."
Now the English minister no more presented this subject for negotiation
than the government of the United States presented it. Nor can it be
said that the United States consented to its introduction in any other
sense than it may be said that the British minister consented to it.
Will you be good enough to review the series of your own assertions on
this subject, and see whether they can possibly be regarded merely as a
statement of your own inferences? Your only authentic fact is a general
one, that the British minister came clothed with full power to negotiate
and settle all matters in discussion. This, you say, is conclusive proof
that his government was desirous to obtain the co-operation of the
United States respecting the slave-trade; and then you infer that
England continued to prosecute this matter, and presented it for
negotiation, and that the United States consented to its introduction;
and give to this inference the shape of a direct statement of a fact.
You might have made the same remarks, and with the same propriety, in
relation to the subject of the "Creole," that of impressment, the
extradition of fugitive criminals, or any thing else embraced in the
treaty or in the correspondence, and then have converted these
inferences of your own into so many facts. And it is upon conjectures
like these, it is upon such inferences of your own, that you make the
direct and formal statement in your letter of the 3d of October, that
"England then urged the United States to enter into a conventional
arrangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her in measures
for the suppression of the slave-trade. Until then, we had executed our
own laws in our own way; but, yielding to this application, and
departing from our former principle of avoiding European combinations
upon subjects not American, we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we
would carry into effect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we
would employ for that purpose."
The President was well warranted, therefore, in requesting your serious
reconsideration and review of that statement.
Suppose your letter to go before the public unanswered and
uncontradicted; suppose it to mingle itself with the general political
history of the country, as an official letter among the archives of the
Department of State, would not the general mass of readers understand
you as reciting facts, rather than as drawing your own conclusions? as
stating history, rather than as presenting an argument? It is of an
incorrect narrative that the President complains. It is that, in your
hotel at Paris, you should undertake to write a history of a very
delicate part of a negotiation carried on at Washington, with which you
had nothing to do, and of the history of which you had no authentic
information; and which history, as you narrate it, reflects not a little
on the independence, wisdom, and public spirit of the administration.
As of the history of this part of the negotiation you were not well
informed, the President cannot but think it would have been more just in
you to have refrained from any attempt to give an account of it.
You observe, further: "I never mentioned in my despatch to you, nor in
any manner whatever, that our government had conceded to that of England
the right to search our ships. That idea, however, pervades your letter,
and is very apparent in that part of it which brings to my observation
the possible effect of my views upon the English government. But in this
you do me, though I am sure unintentionally, great injustice. I
repeatedly state that the recent treaty leaves the rights of the parties
as it found them. My difficulty is not that we have made a positive
concession, but that we have acted unadvisedly in not making the
abandonment of this pretension a previous condition to any conventional
arrangement upon the general subject."
On this part of your letter I must be allowed to make two remarks.
The first is, inasmuch as the treaty gives no color or pretext whatever
to any right of searching our ships, a declaration against such a right
would have been no more suitable to this treaty than a declaration
against the right of sacking our towns in time of peace, or any other
The rights of merchant-vessels of the United States on the high seas, as
understood by this government, have been clearly and fully asserted. As
asserted, they will be maintained; nor would a declaration such as you
propose have increased either its resolution or its ability in this
respect. The government of the United States relies on its own power,
and on the effective support of the people, to assert successfully all
the rights of all its citizens, on the sea as well as on the land; and
it asks respect for these rights not as a boon or favor from any nation.
The President's message, most certainly, is a clear declaration of what
the country understands to be its rights, and his determination to
maintain them; not a mere promise to negotiate for these rights, or to
endeavor to bring other powers into an acknowledgment of them, either
express or implied. Whereas, if I understand the meaning of this part of
your letter, you would have advised that something should have been
offered to England which she might have regarded as a benefit, but
coupled with such a declaration or condition as that, if she received
the boon, it would have been a recognition by her of a claim which we
make as matter of right. The President's view of the proper duty of the
government has certainly been quite different. Being convinced that the
doctrine asserted by this government is the true doctrine of the law of
nations, and feeling the competency of the government to uphold and
enforce it for itself, he has not sought, but, on the contrary, has
sedulously avoided, to change this ground, and to place the just rights
of the country upon the assent, express or implied, of any power
The government thought no skilfully extorted promises necessary in any
such cases. It asks no such pledges of any nation. If its character for
ability and readiness to protect and defend its own rights and dignity
is not sufficient to preserve them from violation, no interpolation of
promise to respect them, ingeniously woven into treaties, would be
likely to afford such protection. And as our rights and liberties depend
for existence upon our power to maintain them, general and vague
protests are not likely to be more effectual than the Chinese method of
defending their towns, by painting grotesque and hideous figures on the
walls to fright away assailing foes.
My other remark on this portion of your letter is this:--
Suppose a declaration to the effect that this treaty should not be
considered as sacrificing any American rights had been appended, and the
treaty, thus fortified, had been sent to Great Britain, as you propose;
and suppose that that government, with equal ingenuity, had appended an
equivalent written declaration that it should not be considered as
sacrificing any British right, how much more defined would have been the
rights of either party, or how much clearer the meaning and
interpretation of the treaty, by these reservations on both sides? Or,
in other words, what is the value of a protest on one side, balanced by
an exactly equivalent protest on the other?
No nation is presumed to sacrifice its rights, or give up what justly
belongs to it, unless it expressly stipulates that, for some good reason
or adequate consideration, it does make such relinquishment; and an
unnecessary asseveration that it does not intend to sacrifice just
rights would seem only calculated to invite aggression. Such
proclamations would seem better devised for concealing weakness and
apprehension, than for manifesting conscious strength and self-reliance,
or for inspiring respect in others.
Toward the end of your letter you are pleased to observe: "The rejection
of a treaty, duly negotiated, is a serious question, to be avoided
whenever it can be without too great a sacrifice. Though the national
faith is not actually committed, still it is more or less engaged. And
there were peculiar circumstances, growing out of long-standing
difficulties, which rendered an amicable arrangement of the various
matters in dispute with England a subject of great national interest.
But the negotiation of a treaty is a far different subject. Topics are
omitted or introduced at the discretion of the negotiators, and they are
responsible, to use the language of an eminent and able Senator, for
'what it contains and what it omits.' This treaty, in my opinion, omits
a most important and necessary stipulation; and therefore, as it seems
to me, its negotiation, in this particular, was unfortunate for the
The President directs me to say, in reply to this, that in the treaty of
Washington no topics were omitted, and no topics introduced, at the mere
discretion of the negotiator; that the negotiation proceeded from step
to step, and from day to day, under his own immediate supervision and
direction; that he himself takes the responsibility for what the treaty
contains and what it omits, and cheerfully leaves the merits of the
whole to the judgment of the country.
I now conclude this letter, and close this correspondence, by repeating
once more the expression of the President's regret that you should have
commenced it by your letter of the 3d of October.
It is painful to him to have with you any cause of difference. He has a
just appreciation of your character and your public services at home and
abroad. He cannot but persuade himself that you must be aware yourself,
by this time, that your letter of October was written under erroneous
impressions, and that there is no foundation for the opinions respecting
the treaty which it expresses; and that it would have been far better on
all accounts if no such letter had been written.
I have, &c.
LEWIS CASS, ESQ., _Late Minister of the United States at Paris_.
THE HUeLSEMANN LETTER.
[As the authorship of this remarkable paper has sometimes been imputed
to another person, it may be proper to give the facts respecting its
preparation, although they involve nothing more important than a
question of literary interest.
Mr. Webster, as has been stated, arrived at Marshfield on the 9th of
October, 1850, where he remained for the space of two weeks. He brought
with him the papers relating to this controversy with Austria. Before he
left Washington, he gave to Mr. Hunter, a gentleman then and still
filling an important post in the Department of State, verbal
instructions concerning some of the points which would require to be
touched in an answer to Mr. Huelsemann's letter of September 30th, and
requested Mr. Hunter to prepare a draft of such an answer. This was
done, and Mr. Hunter's draft of an answer was forwarded to Mr. Webster
at Marshfield. On the 20th of October, 1850, Mr. Webster, being far from
well, addressed a note to Mr. Everett, requesting him also to prepare
a draft of a reply to Mr. Huelsemann, at the same time sending to Mr.
Everett a copy of Mr. Huelsemann's letter and of President Taylor's
message to the Senate relating to Mr. Mann's mission to Hungary. On
the 21st Mr. Webster went to his farm in Franklin, New Hampshire, where
he remained until the 4th of November. While there he received from Mr.
Everett a draft of an answer to Mr. Huelsemann, which was written by Mr.
Everett between the 21st and the 24th of October.
Soon after Mr. Webster's death, it was rumored that the real author of
"the Huelsemann letter" was Mr. Hunter,--a rumor for which Mr. Hunter
himself was in no way responsible. At a later period, in the summer of
1853, the statement obtained currency in the newspapers that Mr. Everett
wrote this celebrated despatch, and many comments were made upon the
supposed fact that Mr. Everett had claimed its authorship. The facts
are, that, while at Franklin, Mr. Webster, with Mr. Hunter's and Mr.
Everett's drafts both before him, went over the whole subject, making
considerable changes in Mr. Everett's draft, striking out entire
paragraphs with his pen, altering some phrases, and writing new
paragraphs of his own, but adopting Mr. Everett's draft as the basis of
the official paper; a purpose which he expressed to Mr. Everett on his
return to Boston toward Washington. Subsequently, when he had arrived in
Washington, Mr. Webster caused a third draft to be made, in the State
Department, from Mr. Everett's paper and his own additions and
alterations. On this third draft he made still other changes and
additions, and, when the whole was completed to his own satisfaction,
the official letter was drawn out by a clerk, was submitted to the
President, and, being signed by Mr. Webster, was sent to Mr.
There are, no doubt, passages and expressions in this letter which are
in a tone not usual with Mr. Webster in his diplomatic papers. How he
himself regarded the criticisms that might be made upon it may be seen
from the following note:--
[TO MR. TICKNOR.]
"Washington, January 16, 1851.
"My dear Sir,--If you say that my Huelsemann letter is boastful and
rough, I shall own the soft impeachment. My excuse is twofold: 1. I
thought it well enough to speak out, and tell the people of Europe who
and what we are, and awaken them to a just sense of the unparalleled
growth of this country. 2. I wished to write a paper which should touch
the national pride, and make a man feel _sheepish_ and look _silly_ who
should speak of disunion. It is curious enough but it is certain, that
Mr. Mann's private instructions were seen, somehow, by Schwarzenberg.
"Yours always truly,
Department of State, Washington,
December 21, 1850.
The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, had the honor
to receive, some time ago, the note of Mr. Huelsemann, Charge d'Affaires
of his Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, of the 30th of September.
Causes, not arising from any want of personal regard for Mr. Huelsemann,
or of proper respect for his government, have delayed an answer until
the present moment. Having submitted Mr. Huelsemann's letter to the
President, the undersigned is now directed by him to return the
The objects of Mr. Huelsemann's note are, first, to protest, by order of
his government, against the steps taken by the late President of the
United States to ascertain the progress and probable result of the
revolutionary movements in Hungary; and, secondly, to complain of some
expressions in the instructions of the late Secretary of State to Mr. A.
Dudley Mann, a confidential agent of the United States, as communicated
by President Taylor to the Senate on the 28th of March last.
The principal ground of protest is founded on the idea, or in the
allegation, that the government of the United States, by the mission of
Mr. Mann and his instructions, has interfered in the domestic affairs of
Austria in a manner unjust or disrespectful toward that power. The
President's message was a communication made by him to the Senate,
transmitting a correspondence between the executive government and a
confidential agent of its own. This would seem to be itself a domestic
transaction, a mere instance of intercourse between the President and
the Senate, in the manner which is usual and indispensable in
communications between the different branches of the government. It was
not addressed either to Austria or Hungary; nor was it a public
manifesto, to which any foreign state was called on to reply. It was an
account of its transactions communicated by the executive government to
the Senate, at the request of that body; made public, indeed, but made
public only because such is the common and usual course of proceeding.
It may be regarded as somewhat strange, therefore, that the Austrian
Cabinet did not perceive that, by the instructions given to Mr.
Huelsemann, it was itself interfering with the domestic concerns of a
foreign state, the very thing which is the ground of its complaint
against the United States.
This department has, on former occasions, informed the ministers of
foreign powers, that a communication from the President to either house
of Congress is regarded as a domestic communication, of which,
ordinarily, no foreign state has cognizance; and in more recent
instances, the great inconvenience of making such communications the
subject of diplomatic correspondence and discussion has been fully
shown. If it had been the pleasure of his Majesty, the Emperor of
Austria, during the struggles in Hungary, to have admonished the
provisional government or the people of that country against involving
themselves in disaster, by following the evil and dangerous example of
the United States of America in making efforts for the establishment of
independent governments, such an admonition from that sovereign to his
Hungarian subjects would not have originated here a diplomatic
correspondence. The President might, perhaps, on this ground, have
declined to direct any particular reply to Mr. Huelsemann's note; but out
of proper respect for the Austrian government, it has been thought
better to answer that note at length; and the more especially, as the
occasion is not unfavorable for the expression of the general sentiments
of the government of the United States upon the topics which that note
A leading subject in Mr. Huelsemann's note is that of the correspondence
between Mr. Huelsemann and the predecessor of the undersigned, in which
Mr. Clayton, by direction of the President, informed Mr Huelsemann "that
Mr. Mann's mission had no other object in view than to obtain reliable
information as to the true state of affairs in Hungary, by personal
observation." Mr. Huelsemann remarks, that "this explanation can hardly
be admitted, for it says very little as to the cause of the anxiety
which was felt to ascertain the chances of the revolutionists." As this,
however, is the only purpose which can, with any appearance of truth, be
attributed to the agency; as nothing whatever is alleged by Mr.
Huelsemann to have been either done or said by the agent inconsistent
with such an object, the undersigned conceives that Mr. Clayton's
explanation ought to be deemed, not only admissible, but quite
Mr. Huelsemann states, in the course of his note, that his instructions
to address his present communication to Mr. Clayton reached Washington
about the time of the lamented death of the late President, and that he
delayed from a sense of propriety the execution of his task until the
new administration should be fully organized; "a delay which he now
rejoices at, as it has given him the opportunity of ascertaining from
the new President himself, on the occasion of the reception of the
diplomatic corps, that the fundamental policy of the United States, so
frequently proclaimed, would guide the relations of the American
government with other powers." Mr. Huelsemann also observes, that it is
in his power to assure the undersigned "that the Imperial government is
disposed to cultivate relations of friendship and good understanding
with the United States."
The President receives this assurance of the disposition of the Imperial
government with great satisfaction; and, in consideration of the
friendly relations of the two governments thus mutually recognized, and
of the peculiar nature of the incidents by which their good
understanding is supposed by Mr. Huelsemann to have been for a moment
disturbed or endangered, the President regrets that Mr. Huelsemann did
not feel himself at liberty wholly to forbear from the execution of
instructions, which were of course transmitted from Vienna without any
foresight of the state of things under which they would reach
Washington. If Mr. Huelsemann saw, in the address of the President to the
diplomatic corps, satisfactory pledges of the sentiments and the policy
of this government in regard to neutral rights and neutral duties, it
might, perhaps, have been better not to bring on a discussion of past
transactions. But the undersigned readily admits that this was a
question fit only for the consideration and decision of Mr. Huelsemann
himself; and although the President does not see that any good purpose
can be answered by reopening the inquiry into the propriety of the steps
taken by President Taylor to ascertain the probable issue of the late
civil war in Hungary, justice to his memory requires the undersigned
briefly to restate the history of those steps, and to show their
consistency with the neutral policy which has invariably guided the
government of the United States in its foreign relations, as well as
with the established and well-settled principles of national
intercourse, and the doctrines of public law.
The undersigned will first observe, that the President is persuaded his
Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, does not think that the government of
the United States ought to view with unconcern the extraordinary events
which have occurred, not only in his dominions, but in many other parts
of Europe, since February, 1848. The government and people of the United
States, like other intelligent governments and communities, take a
lively interest in the movements and the events of this remarkable age,
in whatever part of the world they may be exhibited. But the interest
taken by the United States in those events has not proceeded from any
disposition to depart from that neutrality toward foreign powers, which
is among the deepest principles and the most cherished traditions of the
political history of the Union. It has been the necessary effect of the
unexampled character of the events themselves, which could not fail to
arrest the attention of the contemporary world, as they will doubtless
fill a memorable page in history.
But the undersigned goes further, and freely admits that, in proportion
as these extraordinary events appeared to have their origin in those
great ideas of responsible and popular government, on which the American
constitutions themselves are wholly founded, they could not but command
the warm sympathy of the people of this country. Well-known
circumstances in their history, indeed their whole history, have made
them the representatives of purely popular principles of government. In
this light they now stand before the world. They could not, if they
would, conceal their character, their condition, or their destiny. They
could not, if they so desired, shut out from the view of mankind the
causes which have placed them, in so short a national career, in the
station which they now hold among the civilized states of the world.
They could not, if they desired it, suppress either the thoughts or the
hopes which arise in men's minds, in other countries, from contemplating
their successful example of free government. That very intelligent and
distinguished personage, the Emperor Joseph the Second, was among the
first to discern this necessary consequence of the American Revolution
on the sentiments and opinions of the people of Europe. In a letter to
his minister in the Netherlands in 1787, he observes, that "it is
remarkable that France, by the assistance which she afforded to the
Americans, gave birth to reflections on freedom." This fact, which the
sagacity of that monarch perceived at so early a day, is now known and
admitted by intelligent powers all over the world. True, indeed, it is,
that the prevalence on the other continent of sentiments favorable to
republican liberty is the result of the reaction of America upon Europe;
and the source and centre of this reaction has doubtless been, and now
is, in these United States.
The position thus belonging to the United States is a fact as
inseparable from their history, their constitutional organization, and
their character, as the opposite position of the powers composing the
European alliance is from the history and constitutional organization of
the government of those powers. The sovereigns who form that alliance
have not unfrequently felt it their right to interfere with the
political movements of foreign states; and have, in their manifestoes
and declarations, denounced the popular ideas of the age in terms so
comprehensive as of necessity to include the United States, and their
forms of government. It is well known that one of the leading principles
announced by the allied sovereigns, after the restoration of the
Bourbons, is, that all popular or constitutional rights are holden no
otherwise than as grants and indulgences from crowned heads. "Useful and
necessary changes in legislation and administration," says the Laybach
Circular of May, 1821, "ought only to emanate from the free will and
intelligent conviction of those whom God has rendered responsible for
power; all that deviates from this line necessarily leads to disorder,
commotions, and evils far more insufferable than those which they
pretend to remedy." And his late Austrian Majesty, Francis the First, is
reported to have declared, in an address to the Hungarian Diet, in 1820,
that "the whole world had become foolish, and, leaving their ancient
laws, were in search of imaginary constitutions." These declarations
amount to nothing less than a denial of the lawfulness of the origin of
the government of the United States, since it is certain that that
government was established in consequence of a change which did not
proceed from thrones, or the permission of crowned heads. But the
government of the United States heard these denunciations of its
fundamental principles without remonstrance, or the disturbance of its
equanimity. This was thirty years ago.
The power of this republic, at the present moment, is spread over a
region one of the richest and most fertile on the globe, and of an
extent in comparison with which the possessions of the house of Hapsburg
are but as a patch on the earth's surface. Its population, already
twenty-five millions, will exceed that of the Austrian empire within the
period during which it may be hoped that Mr. Huelsemann may yet remain in
the honorable discharge of his duties to his government. Its navigation
and commerce are hardly exceeded by the oldest and most commercial
nations; its maritime means and its maritime power may be seen by
Austria herself, in all seas where she has ports, as well as they may be
seen, also, in all other quarters of the globe. Life, liberty, property,
and all personal rights, are amply secured to all citizens, and
protected by just and stable laws; and credit, public and private, is as
well established as in any government of Continental Europe; and the
country, in all its interests and concerns, partakes most largely in all
the improvements and progress which distinguish the age. Certainly, the
United States may be pardoned, even by those who profess adherence to
the principles of absolute government, if they entertain an ardent
affection for those popular forms of political organization which have
so rapidly advanced their own prosperity and happiness, and enabled
them, in so short a period, to bring their country, and the hemisphere
to which it belongs, to the notice and respectful regard, not to say the
admiration, of the civilized world. Nevertheless, the United States have
abstained, at all times, from acts of interference with the political
changes of Europe. They cannot, however, fail to cherish always a lively
interest in the fortunes of nations struggling for institutions like
their own. But this sympathy, so far from being necessarily a hostile
feeling toward any of the parties to these great national struggles, is
quite consistent with amicable relations with them all. The Hungarian
people are three or four times as numerous as the inhabitants of these
United States were when the American Revolution broke out. They possess,
in a distinct language, and in other respects, important elements of a
separate nationality, which the Anglo-Saxon race in this country did not
possess; and if the United States wish success to countries contending
for popular constitutions and national independence, it is only because
they regard such constitutions and such national independence, not as
imaginary, but as real blessings. They claim no right, however, to take
part in the struggles of foreign powers in order to promote these ends.
It is only in defence of his own government, and its principles and
character, that the undersigned has now expressed himself on this
subject. But when the people of the United States behold the people of
foreign countries, without any such interference, spontaneously moving
toward the adoption of institutions like their own, it surely cannot be
expected of them to remain wholly indifferent spectators.
In regard to the recent very important occurrences in the Austrian
empire, the undersigned freely admits the difficulty which exists in
this country, and is alluded to by Mr. Huelsemann, of obtaining accurate
information. But this difficulty is by no means to be ascribed to what
Mr. Huelsemann calls, with little justice, as it seems to the
undersigned, "the mendacious rumors propagated by the American press."
For information on this subject, and others of the same kind, the
American press is, of necessity, almost wholly dependent upon that of
Europe; and if "mendacious rumors" respecting Austrian and Hungarian
affairs have been anywhere propagated, that propagation of falsehoods
has been most prolific on the European continent, and in countries
immediately bordering on the Austrian empire. But, wherever these errors
may have originated, they certainly justified the late President in
seeking true information through authentic channels.
His attention was first particularly drawn to the state of things in
Hungary by the correspondence of Mr. Stiles, Charge d'Affaires of the
United States at Vienna. In the autumn of 1848, an application was made
to this gentleman, on behalf of Mr. Kossuth, formerly Minister of
Finance for the Kingdom of Hungary by Imperial appointment, but, at the
time the application was made, chief of the revolutionary government.
The object of this application was to obtain the good offices of Mr.
Stiles with the Imperial government, with a view to the suspension of
hostilities. This application became the subject of a conference between
Prince Schwarzenberg, the Imperial Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr.
Stiles. The Prince commended the considerateness and propriety with
which Mr. Stiles had acted; and, so far from disapproving his
interference, advised him, in case he received a further communication
from the revolutionary government in Hungary, to have an interview with
Prince Windischgraetz, who was charged by the Emperor with the
proceedings determined on in relation to that kingdom. A week after
these occurrences, Mr. Stiles received, through a secret channel, a
communication signed by L. Kossuth, President of the Committee of
Defence, and countersigned by Francis Pulszky, Secretary of State. On
the receipt of this communication, Mr. Stiles had an interview with
Prince Windischgraetz, "who received him with the utmost kindness, and
thanked him for his efforts toward reconciling the existing
difficulties." Such were the incidents which first drew the attention of
the government of the United States particularly to the affairs of
Hungary, and the conduct of Mr. Stiles, though acting without
instructions in a matter of much delicacy, having been viewed with
satisfaction by the Imperial government, was approved by that of the
In the course of the year 1848, and in the early part of 1849, a
considerable number of Hungarians came to the United States. Among them
were individuals representing themselves to be in the confidence of the
revolutionary government, and by these persons the President was
strongly urged to recognize the existence of that government. In these
applications, and in the manner in which they were viewed by the
President, there was nothing unusual; still less was there any thing
unauthorized by the law of nations. It is the right of every independent
state to enter into friendly relations with every other independent
state. Of course, questions of prudence naturally arise in reference to
new states, brought by successful revolutions into the family of
nations; but it is not to be required of neutral powers that they should
await the recognition of the new government by the parent state. No
principle of public law has been more frequently acted upon, within the
last thirty years, by the great powers of the world, than this. Within
that period, eight or ten new states have established independent
governments, within the limits of the colonial dominions of Spain, on
this continent; and in Europe the same thing has been done by Belgium
and Greece. The existence of all these governments was recognized by
some of the leading powers of Europe, as well as by the United States,
before it was acknowledged by the states from which they had separated
themselves. If, therefore, the United States had gone so far as formally
to acknowledge the independence of Hungary, although, as the result has
proved, it would have been a precipitate step, and one from which no
benefit would have resulted to either party; it would not, nevertheless,
have been an act against the law of nations, provided they took no part
in her contest with Austria. But the United States did no such thing.
Not only did they not yield to Hungary any actual countenance or succor,
not only did they not show their ships of war in the Adriatic with any
menacing or hostile aspect, but they studiously abstained from every
thing which had not been done in other cases in times past, and
contented themselves with instituting an inquiry into the truth and
reality of alleged political occurrences. Mr. Huelsemann incorrectly
states, unintentionally certainly, the nature of the mission of this
agent, when he says that "a United States agent had been despatched to
Vienna with orders to watch for a favorable moment to recognize the
Hungarian republic, and to conclude a treaty of commerce with the same."
This, indeed, would have been a lawful object, but Mr. Mann's errand
was, in the first instance, purely one of inquiry. He had no power to
act, unless he had first come to the conviction that a firm and stable
Hungarian government existed. "The principal object the President has in
view," according to his instructions, "is to obtain minute and reliable
information in regard to Hungary, in connection with the affairs of
adjoining countries, the probable issue of the present revolutionary
movements, and the chances we may have of forming commercial
arrangements with that power favorable to the United States." Again, in
the same paper, it is said: "The object of the President is to obtain
information in regard to Hungary, and her resources and prospects, with
a view to an early recognition of her independence and the formation of
commercial relations with her." It was only in the event that the new
government should appear, in the opinion of the agent, to be firm and
stable, that the President proposed to recommend its recognition.
Mr. Huelsemann, in qualifying these steps of President Taylor with the
epithet of "hostile," seems to take for granted that the inquiry could,
in the expectation of the President, have but one result, and that
favorable to Hungary. If this were so, it would not change the case. But
the American government sought for nothing but truth; it desired to
learn the facts through a reliable channel. It so happened, in the
chances and vicissitudes of human affairs, that the result was adverse
to the Hungarian revolution. The American agent, as was stated in his
instructions to be not unlikely, found the condition of Hungarian
affairs less prosperous than it had been, or had been believed to be. He
did not enter Hungary, nor hold any direct communication with her
revolutionary leaders. He reported against the recognition of her
independence, because he found she had been unable to set up a firm and
stable government. He carefully forbore, as his instructions required,
to give publicity to his mission, and the undersigned supposes that the
Austrian government first learned its existence from the communications
of the President to the Senate.
Mr. Huelsemann will observe from this statement, that Mr. Mann's mission
was wholly unobjectionable, and strictly within the rule of the law of
nations and the duty of the United States as a neutral power. He will
accordingly feel how little foundation there is for his remark, that
"those who did not hesitate to assume the responsibility of sending Mr.
Dudley Mann on such an errand should, independent of considerations of
propriety, have borne in mind that they were exposing their emissary to
be treated as a spy." A spy is a person sent by one belligerent to gain
secret information of the forces and defences of the other, to be used
for hostile purposes. According to practice, he may use deception, under
the penalty of being lawfully hanged if detected. To give this odious
name and character to a confidential agent of a neutral power, bearing
the commission of his country, and sent for a purpose fully warranted by
the law of nations, is not only to abuse language, but also to confound
all just ideas, and to announce the wildest and most extravagant
notions, such as certainly were not to have been expected in a grave
diplomatic paper; and the President directs the undersigned to say to
Mr. Huelsemann, that the American government would regard such an
imputation upon it by the Cabinet of Austria as that it employs spies,
and that in a quarrel none of its own, as distinctly offensive, if it
did not presume, as it is willing to presume, that the word used in the
original German was not of equivalent meaning with "spy" in the English
language, or that in some other way the employment of such an
opprobrious term may be explained. Had the Imperial government of
Austria subjected Mr. Mann for the treatment of a spy, it would have
placed itself without the pale of civilized nations; and the Cabinet of
Vienna may be assured, that if it had carried, or attempted to carry,
any such lawless purpose into effect, in the case of an authorized agent
of this government, the spirit of the people of this country would have
demanded immediate hostilities to be waged by the utmost exertion of the
power of the republic, military and naval.
Mr. Huelsemann proceeds to remark, that "this extremely painful incident,
therefore, might have been passed over, without any written evidence
being left on our part in the archives of the United States, had not
General Taylor thought proper to revive the whole subject by
communicating to the Senate, in his message of the 18th [28th] of last
March, the instructions with which Mr. Mann had been furnished on the
occasion of his mission to Vienna. The publicity which has been given to
that document has placed the Imperial government under the necessity of
entering a formal protest, through its official representative, against
the proceedings of the American government, lest that government should
construe our silence into approbation, or toleration even, of the
principles which appear to have guided its action and the means it has
adopted." The undersigned reasserts to Mr. Huelsemann, and to the Cabinet
of Vienna, and in the presence of the world, that the steps taken by
President Taylor, now protested against by the Austrian government, were
warranted by the law of nations and agreeable to the usages of civilized
states. With respect to the communication of Mr. Mann's instructions to
the Senate, and the language in which they are couched, it has already
been said, and Mr. Huelsemann must feel the justice of the remark, that
these are domestic affairs, in reference to which the government of the
United States cannot admit the slightest responsibility to the
government of his Imperial Majesty. No state, deserving the appellation
of independent, can permit the language in which it may instruct its own
officers in the discharge of their duties to itself to be called in
question under any pretext by a foreign power.
But even if this were not so, Mr. Huelsemann is in an error in stating
that the Austrian government is called an "iron rule" in Mr. Mann's
instructions. That phrase is not found in the paper; and in respect to
the honorary epithet bestowed in Mr. Mann's instructions on the late
chief of the revolutionary government of Hungary, Mr. Huelsemann will
bear in mind that the government of the United States cannot justly be
expected, in a confidential communication to its own agent, to withhold
from an individual an epithet of distinction of which a great part of
the world thinks him worthy, merely on the ground that his own
government regards him as a rebel. At an early stage of the American
Revolution, while Washington was considered by the English government as
a rebel chief, he was regarded on the Continent of Europe as an
illustrious hero. But the undersigned will take the liberty of bringing
the Cabinet of Vienna into the presence of its own predecessors, and of
citing for its consideration the conduct of the Imperial government
itself. In the year 1777 the war of the American Revolution was raging
all over these United States. England was prosecuting that war with a
most resolute determination, and by the exertion of all her military
means to the fullest extent. Germany was at that time at peace with
England; and yet an agent of that Congress, which was looked upon by
England in no other light than that of a body in open rebellion, was not
only received with great respect by the ambassador of the Empress Queen
at Paris, and by the minister of the Grand Duke of Tuscany (who
afterwards mounted the Imperial throne), but resided in Vienna for a
considerable time; not, indeed, officially acknowledged, but treated
with courtesy and respect; and the Emperor suffered himself to be
persuaded by that agent to exert himself to prevent the German powers
from furnishing troops to England to enable her to suppress the
rebellion in America. Neither Mr. Huelsemann nor the Cabinet of Vienna,
it is presumed, will undertake to say that any thing said or done by
this government in regard to the recent war between Austria and Hungary
is not borne out, and much more than borne out, by this example of the
Imperial Court. It is believed that the Emperor Joseph the Second
habitually spoke in terms of respect and admiration of the character of
Washington, as he is known to have done of that of Franklin; and he
deemed it no infraction of neutrality to inform himself of the progress
of the revolutionary struggle in America, or to express his deep sense
of the merits and the talents of those illustrious men who were then
leading their country to independence and renown. The undersigned may
add, that in 1781 the courts of Russia and Austria proposed a diplomatic
congress of the belligerent powers, to which the commissioners of the
United States should be admitted.
Mr. Huelsemann thinks that in Mr. Mann's instructions improper
expressions are introduced in regard to Russia; but the undersigned has
no reason to suppose that Russia herself is of that opinion. The only
observation made in those instructions about Russia is, that she "has
chosen to assume an attitude of interference, and her immense
preparations for invading and reducing the Hungarians to the rule of
Austria, from which they desire to be released, gave so serious a
character to the contest as to awaken the most painful solicitude in the
minds of Americans." The undersigned cannot but consider the Austrian
Cabinet as unnecessarily susceptible in looking upon language like this
as a "hostile demonstration." If we remember that it was addressed by
the government to its own agent, and has received publicity only through
a communication from one department of the American government to
another, the language quoted must be deemed moderate and inoffensive.
The comity of nations would hardly forbid its being addressed to the two
imperial powers themselves. It is scarcely necessary for the undersigned
to say, that the relations of the United States with Russia have always
been of the most friendly kind, and have never been deemed by either
party to require any compromise of their peculiar views upon subjects of
domestic or foreign polity, or the true origin of governments. At any
rate, the fact that Austria, in her contest with Hungary, had an
intimate and faithful ally in Russia, cannot alter the real nature of
the question between Austria and Hungary, nor in any way affect the
neutral rights and duties of the government of the United States, or the
justifiable sympathies of the American people. It is, indeed, easy to
conceive, that favor toward struggling Hungary would be not diminished,
but increased, when it was seen that the arm of Austria was strengthened
and upheld by a power whose assistance threatened to be, and which in
the end proved to be, overwhelmingly destructive of all her hopes.
Toward the conclusion of his note Mr. Huelsemarnn remarks, that "if the
government of the United States were to think it proper to take an
indirect part in the political movements of Europe, American policy
would be exposed to acts of retaliation, and to certain inconveniences
which would not fail to affect the commerce and industry of the two
hemispheres." As to this possible fortune, this hypothetical
retaliation, the government and people of the United States are quite
willing to take their chances and abide their destiny. Taking neither a
direct nor an indirect part in the domestic or intestine movements of
Europe, they have no fear of events of the nature alluded to by Mr.
Huelsemann. It would be idle now to discuss with Mr. Huelsemann those acts
of retaliation which he imagines may possibly take place at some
indefinite time hereafter. Those questions will be discussed when they
arise; and Mr. Huelsemann and the Cabinet at Vienna may rest assured,
that, in the mean time, while performing with strict and exact fidelity
all their neutral duties, nothing will deter either the government or
the people of the United States from exercising, at their own
discretion, the rights belonging to them as an independent nation, and
of forming and expressing their own opinions, freely and at all times,
upon the great political events which may transpire among the civilized
nations of the earth. Their own institutions stand upon the broadest
principles of civil liberty; and believing those principles and the
fundamental laws in which they are embodied to be eminently favorable
to the prosperity of states, to be, in fact, the only principles of
government which meet the demands of the present enlightened age, the
President has perceived, with great satisfaction, that, in the
constitution recently introduced into the Austrian empire, many of these
great principles are recognized and applied, and he cherishes a sincere
wish that they may produce the same happy effects throughout his
Austrian Majesty's extensive dominions that they have done in the United
The undersigned has the honor to repeat to Mr. Huelsemann the assurance
of his high consideration.
THE CHEVALIER J.G. HUeLSEMANN, _Charge d'Affaires of Austria,
[Footnote 1: Mr. Everett had then resigned the Presidency of Harvard
[Footnote 2: Whether Mr. Hunter's draft was also sent to Mr. Everett, I
do not know. The internal evidence would seem to indicate that it was;
but the fact is not material.]
[Footnote 3: I have seen, I believe, all the documents in relation to
this matter; viz. Mr. Hunter's draft, Mr. Everett's (in his handwriting,
with Mr. Webster's erasures), the third draft, made at the department
under Mr. Webster's directions, and the original added paragraphs,
written by Mr. Webster with his own hand. To those who are curious about
the question of _authorship_, it is needful only to say that Mr. Webster
adopted Mr. Everett's draft as the basis of the official letter, but
that the official letter is a much more vigorous, expanded, and complete
production than Mr. Everett's draft. It is described in a note written
by Mr. Everett to one of the literary executors, in 1853, as follows:
"It can be stated truly that what Mr. Webster did himself to the letter
was very considerable; and that he added one half in bulk to the
original draft; and that his additions were of the most significant
character. It was very carefully elaborated in the department by him,
till he was authorized to speak of it as he did at the Kossuth
This refers to what Mr. Webster said in his speech at the Kossuth
banquet, in Washington, January 7, 1852:--
"May I be so egotistical as to say that I have nothing new to say on the
subject of Hungary? Gentlemen, in the autumn of the year before last,
out of health, and retired to my paternal home among the mountains of
New Hampshire, I was, by reason of my physical condition, confined to my
house; but I was among the mountains, whose native air I was bound to
inspire. Nothing saluted my senses, nothing saluted my mind, or my
sentiments, but freedom, full and entire; and there, gentlemen, near the
graves of my ancestors, I wrote a letter, which most of you have seen,
addressed to the Austrian _charge d'affaires_. I can say nothing of the
ability displayed in that letter, but, as to its principles, while the
sun and moon endure, I stand by them."]
[Footnote 4: From Hon. George T. Curtis's Life of Daniel Webster, Vol.
II. pp. 535-537.]
Aberdeen, Lord, on right of search, 661, 662.
Abolition Societies, Mr. Webster's opinion of, 571;
effect of, 619.
"Accede," word not found in the Constitution, 276.
Accession and Secession defined, 276.
Act of 1793, regulating coasting trade, 121;
of 1800, concerning custom-house bonds, 383.
Acts of 1824, concerning surveys for canals, &c., 245.
Acts of Legislature of N.H., on Corporation of Dartmouth College, 1, 3;
in regard to Dartmouth College, 14, 15.
Adams and Jefferson, eulogy delivered in Faneuil Hall on, 156;
coincidences in the death and lives of, 157;
made draft of Declaration of Independence, 159;
compared as scholars, 173.
Adams, John, eulogized, 41, 140, 156;
sensation caused by his death, 156;
birth and education of, 159;
admitted member of Harvard College, 160;
admitted to the Bar, 160;
defends British officers, and soldiers, 160;
offered Chief Justiceship of Massachusetts, 160;
letter on the future of America, 160;
his articles on "Feudal Law," 161;
Delegate to Congress, 162;
important resolution reported in Congress by, 163;
appointed to draft the Declaration, 164;
power in debate, 166;
remark of Jefferson on, 166;
knowledge of Colonial history, 166;
supposed speech in favor of the Declaration, 168;
Minister to France, 170;
drafts Constitution of Massachusetts, 170;
concludes treaty with Holland, 170;
his "Defence of American Constitutions," 171;
elected to frame and revise Constitution of Massachusetts, 170, 171;
Vice-President and President, 171;
his scholarship, 173;
navy created in administration of, 175;
political abuse of, 251;
letter on opening first Congress with prayer, 522.
Adams, J.Q., at Bunker Hill, 139;
his nominations to office postponed by the Senate, 348;
remark on Webster, 406;
opposition to his administration, 434.
Adams, Samuel, delegate to Congress, 162;
signs the declaration, 170;
movement to open Congress with prayer, 522.
Addition to the Capitol, speech at laying of the corner-stone of the, 639.
Address, delivered at laying of corner-stone of Bunker Hill Monument, 123;
on completion of Bunker Hill Monument, 136.
African Slave-Trade, remarks of Mr. Webster on, 49;
Congress has power to restrain, 233.
African Squadron, maintained, 672.
"Aiding and Abetting" defined, 207.
Airs, the martial, of England, 371.
Aldham, Mr., at dinner of New England Society in New York, 503.
Allegiance, doctrine of perpetual, 656.
Allied Sovereigns, claims of, over national independence, 61;
effect of their meeting at Laybach on the people, 64;
their conduct in regard to contest in Greece, 69;
meeting at Verona, 1822, 153;
overthrow Cortez government of Spain, 153.
America, first railroad in, 126;
her contributions to Europe, 149;
success of united government in, 499;
extract from Bishop of St. Asaph on colonies in, 640;
political principles of, 642.
"American" and "foreign policy," applied to system of tariff, 78.
American Government, elements of, 148;
principles of, in respect to suffrage, 539;
the people limit themselves, 540.
American Liberty, principles of, 536;
our inheritance of, 642.
American People, what they owe to republican principles, 66;
establish popular government, 132;
prepared for popular government, 132.
American Political Principles, summary of, 642.
American Revolution, commemorated by Bunker Hill Monument, 125;
survivors of, at Bunker Hill, 127;
character of state papers of, 130;
peculiar principle of, 142.
Amiens, Treaty of, remarks of Mr. Windham on, 622.
Ancestors, how we may commune with, 26.
Ancestry, our respect for, 26.
Annapolis, meeting at, concerning commerce, 115.
Antislavery Conventions, proceedings at, 635.
Appointing and removing power, speech on, 394.
Appropriations by Congress, shall be specific, 418.
Artisans, law prohibiting emigration of, from England, 91.
Arts and Science, progress of, in the United States, 648.
Ashburton, Lord, character of, 484;
letter to Mr. Webster on impressment, 659.
Astronomy, progress in, 648.
Attainder, bill of, provision on prohibition of, 19.
Attorney-General v. Cullum, in regard to charity for town of Bury St.
Austria, agent of United States respectfully received by, 684.
Austria and Russia, friendly to United States in 1781, 685.
Babylon, astronomers of, 340.
Bache, A.D., quoted, 528.
Bacon, Lord, 158.
Badger, G.E., of N. Carolina, 587;
voted against ceding New Mexico and California, 632.
Balance of Trade, doctrine of, 91.
Bank Charter, benefit of, to stockholders, 324;
first passed by Congress, 327.
Bank Credit, benefit of, in United States, 364;
evils arising from abuse of, 364.
Bank, National, Mr. Ewing's plan for a, 490.
Bank Notes, must be convertible into specie, 365.
Bank of England, resumes cash payments, 81.
Bank of United States, object of, 81;
charter vetoed, 321;
effect of the veto in Western country, 322;
time for renewal of charter, 323;
benefit of a charter to stockholders, 324;
foreigners as stockholders in, 325-327;
advantage of, in case of war, 327;
its conduct under Mr. Adams's administration, 434;
message of President Jackson in regard to, 434;
how affected by events of 1829, 435;
bill for re-charter passed by Congress, 436;
branch of, in New Hampshire, 436;
order for removal of deposits, 436;
act incorporating the, 466.
Bankruptcy, a uniform system of, remarks on, 471;
State laws concerning, ineffectual, 471.
Bankrupt Law, of New York, considered, 180;
repeal of the, 471.
Bankrupt Laws, to be established by national authority, 179;
absolute power of Congress to establish, 186;
prohibition on State law in regard to, 186.
Banks, effect of paper issues by, 81;
safest under private management, 325;
power of Congress to establish, 328, 334, 335;
increase of, 440;
suspension of specie payment, 443.
Barre, Col., extract from speech on American Colonists, 237.
Barrow, Dr., his idea of "rest," xxxix.
Bell, Senator from Tennessee, 614.
Benevolent establishments of United States, 651.
Benson, Judge, Commissioner at Annapolis, 310.
Benton, Thomas H., speaks on Foot's resolution, 227;
resolutions of, 407;
allusion to, 569.
Berkeley, Bishop, extract from, 639.
Berrien, J.M., 570;
resolution concerning Mexico, 586;
proposition in respect to Texas, 611;
vote against ceding New Mexico and California, 632.
Bill, to limit time of service of certain officers, 394, 395.
Bill of Rights, meaning of, concerning chartered charities, 10.
Bill of Rights of N.H., articles infringed in regard to Dartmouth College,
prohibit retrospective laws, 14.
Blacks from Northern States, how treated at the South, 620.
Blake, George, 137.
Boston, imprisonment of Sir E. Andros in, 39;
its port closed, 128;
resolutions of, in 1820, 463;
reception given to Mr. Webster in 1842, 481.
Bowdoin, James, delegate to Congress, 162.
Branch, Mr., resolution of 373.
Brewster, Elder, 27, 31, 52.
British Parliament, power claimed by, over charters, 5.
Brooks, Gov. John, 127.
Brougham, Mr., his approval of the Monroe declaration, 155.
Buena Vista, General Taylor at, 559.
Buffalo, building of a pier at, 424;
reception of Mr. Webster at, and speech, May 22, 1851, 626;
citizens of, exhorted to preserve the Union, 627.
Buller, Justice, extract on government of corporations, 21.
Bunker Hill Battle, address to survivors of, 127;
important effects of, 129;
changes of the fifty years following the, 131;
survivors of, present at completion of monument, 138;
established Independence, 142.
Bunker Hill Monument, address at laying of corner-stone, 123;
William Tudor's idea of erecting the, 123;
laying of corner-stone described, 123;
completion of, 136;
veterans present at completion of, 138;
"stands on Union," 140;
description of, 151.
Burke, Edmund, compliment to Charles Fox, xxxviii;
speeches of, criticised, lii;
bill for economical reform, 469.
Cabot, George, notice of, 497.
Calhoun, J.C., President of Senate and Vice-President of United States,
resolutions on State sovereignty, 273;
speaks on Wilkins tariff bill, 273;
course in regard to tariff of 1816, 305;
resolutions of, relating to slavery, 445;
supports administration of Van Buren, 451;
remarks of Mr. Webster on the political course of, 453;
letter on Sub-Treasury bill, 453;
change in views upon Sub-Treasury bill, 454;
advocates the State-rights party, 455, 464, 467;
his object to unite the entire South, 457;
attack on Mr. Webster, 458;
Mr. Webster's reply to, 458;
opposes Mr. Dallas's bill for a bank, 460;
bill of, for internal improvements, 466;
extract from, on the power of Congress, 467;
took lead in annexing Texas, 609;
remarks upon admission of Texas, 611;
dying testimony to Mr. Webster's conscientiousness, xliii.
California, proposed annexation of, 563;
article of cession to United States, 587;
discovery of gold in, 601;
Mexican provincial government overthrown by, 601;
establishment of local government in, 602;
slavery excluded from, by law of nature, 615.
Canada, cession to England, effect on the colonies, 42.
Canals, act of 1824 concerning, 245.
Canning, Mr., opinion concerning Spain and her colonies, 154;
approval of the Monroe declaration, 155.
Capitol, speech at laying of corner-stone of the addition to the, 639;
copy of paper under corner-stone of, 644;
foundation laid by Washington, 644;
plan for extension of the, 644.
Carroll, Charles, signer of the Declaration, 176.
Cass, Lewis, Mexican speech of, 554;
as a Whig candidate, 575;
as a candidate for President, 584;
personal character of, 584;
in favor of the Compromise Line, 588;
requests his recall from France, 667;
his construction of the treaty of Washington referred to, 669, 671;
answer of Mr. Webster to, concerning the African squadron, 672.
Catharine the Second of Russia, policy in respect to Greece, 70.
Cession, articles of, concerning New Mexico and California, 587.
Channing, W.E., letter of, on slavery, 624.
Charities, charters granted to founders of, 7;
colleges included under, 7, 510;
founder of incorporated, considered visitor, 7;
government may incorporate, 7;
legal signification of, 7;
opinion of Lord Holt respecting the power of visitors over, 7;
right of visitation in, incorporated, 7;
case of town of Bury St. Edmunds, 527;
schools founded by, must include religious instruction, 528.
Charity, legal definition of, 510.
Charles the Second, 39.
Charters, of Dartmouth College (1769), 1;
legislative power over, defined, 5;
power claimed by British Parliament over, 5;
Lord Mansfield on rights of, 5;
legislative power over, limited, 6;
granted to founders of charities, 7;
opinion of Lord Commissioner Eyre on charities established by, 9;
how they affect property of corporations, 12;
of the nature of contracts, 20, 21;
how may be altered or varied, 21;
may be accepted at will, 21;
no difference between grants of corporate franchise and tangible
of Dartmouth College (1769) is a contract, 22;
obtained by founders of English liberty, 63;
New England colonists required them, 148.
Chateaubriand, M. de, quoted respecting the Holy Alliance, 64.
Chatham, Lord, his colonial policy, 42;
opinion of the first Congress, 162.
Chaucer, his use of word "green," xxxix.
Chicago Road, President's opinion in respect to, 353.
China, trade of United States with, 95.
Choate, Rufus, 496.
Christian charity, defined, 510;
spirit of, 519.
Christianity, blended influence of civilization and, 65;
observance of the Sabbath a part of, 518;
essentials of, part of the common law, 527, 530.
Christian Ministry, and the Religious Instruction of the Young, speech in
Supreme Court, 505.
Christian Ministry, opprobrium cast on the, by the Girard will, 508;
establishment of, by Christ, 515;
work of the, in United States, 509, 516.
Christians, religious belief of, 521.
Christ's command, "Suffer little children," &c., referred to, 517.
Church, grants to, cannot be rescinded, 13.
Civil Law, maxim of, in regard to slavery, 573.
Clay, Henry, speech on tariff of 1824 criticised by Mr. Webster, 78;
author of American system of tariff, 78;
resolution of, relating to slavery in District of Columbia, 445;
resolutions in respect to slavery, 600.
Clayton, J.M., his explanation of Mr. Mann's mission, 680.
Clergy, eulogium on, 509.
Coast Survey of United States, 648.
College Livings, rights and character of, 16;
attack of James the Second on Magdalen College, 17.
Colleges, are eleemosynary corporations, 6, 8, 22;
charters granted to, 7;
foundation of, considered by Lord Mansfield, 9;
charters should be kept inviolate, 23;
party or political influence dangerous to, 23.
Colonies, establishment of Greek, 31;
of New England, 34, 35;
of Roman, 33;
of West India, 34, 35;
Spanish in South America, 134, 144;
New England and Virginia, 144;
English and Spanish compared, 145;
original ground of dispute between England and the, 164;
American, declared free and independent, 641.
Colonists, English, in America, secret of their success, 147;
brought their charters, 148;
in Virginia, failed for want of charter, 148;
allegiance to the king, 165.
Columbus, Christopher, portrayed, 124, 144.
Columbus, O., convention at, in regard to the observance of the Sabbath,
Commerce, condition of, in 1824, 83;
its national character, 92, 498;
how affected by laws of Confederation, 114;
power of Congress to regulate, 114, 120;
resolutions of New Jersey in regard to, 115;
Mr. Witherspoon's motion in Congress concerning, 115;
of Virginia in regard to, 115;
necessity of vesting Congress with power to control, 115;
law of Congress paramount, 120;
guarded by the general government, 497.
Compact and government as distinguished from each other, 284.
Compromise Act, principle of, 489.
Compromise Line, in respect to slavery, 588.
Concurrent Legislation, defined and argued, 116;
effect on monopolies, 119.
Confederation, its effect on commerce, 114;
of 1781 a league, 276;
state of the country under the, 281.
Confessions, how to be regarded, 220.
Congress of Delegates, at Philadelphia, 1774, 162;
resolutions on the Declaration, 165;
sat with closed doors, 166.
Congress of Greece, of 1821, 72.
Congress of United States, power to regulate commerce, 114, 120;
should have power to regulate commerce, 115;
and the States, argument on concurrent power of, 115;
exclusive right over monopolies, 116;
possesses exclusive admiralty jurisdiction, 118;
law of, paramount, 120;
laws of, in opposition to State law, 122;
power concerning rights of authors and inventors, 122;
its coinage powers, 185;
to establish uniform bankrupt laws, 186;
power over slave trade, 233;
no power over slavery, 233, 429, 636;
power to make laws, 293, 331;
exclusive power to lay duties, 300;
duty of, in case of a Presidential veto, 320;
passes first bank charter, 1791, 327;
to establish banks, 328, 334, 335;
power of, continuous, 336;
duties of both houses, 375;
power to borrow money, 375;
in regard to public moneys, 382;
no precise time for expiration of session, 414;
power over ceded territory, 445;
no control over slavery, 571.
Congress of Verona, in regard to Greek revolution, 70, 153.
Connecticut, law of, concerning steam navigation, 112.
Constitution of United States, provision concerning _ex post facto_
its origin to regulate commerce, 114, 115;
its authority to establish bankrupt laws, 179;
law of, in regard to contracts, 180;
object of the, 185;
provides a medium for payment of debts, and a uniform mode of discharging
prohibitions of, concerning contracts and payment of debts, 187;
provisions for settling questions of Constitutional law, 265;
to be interpreted by the judicial power, 265, 282;
as a compact, 270;
not a compact between Sovereign States, argued, 273;
object of, 281;
not a league, 282;
what it says of itself, 283;
its relations to individuals, 286;
Madison's opinion of, 313;
provision of, in case of a Presidential veto, 320;
President Jackson's view of, 354;
our duty to the, 358;
protects labor, 361;
division of powers conferred by, 379;
on power of removal from office, 398;
divides powers of government, 398;
recognized slavery, 429, 570;
does not speak of Sovereign States, or Federal Government, 538;
protects existing government of a State, 542;
and the Union, speech on, March 7, 1850, 600;
formation of the, 628;
provision of, concerning fugitives, 629;
officers of the law bound to support the, 630;
how it affected the institution of slavery, lx.
Constructive presence defined, 210.
Contracts, cases cited concerning obligation of, 19;
defined, include grants, 19;
provision concerning obligation of, 19;
law of the Constitution in regard to, 180;
obligation of, defined, 180, 181;
obligation of, rests on universal law, 181;
the law not a part of, argued, 182-184;
the constitutional provision in regard to, 185;
prohibition on state law concerning, 187.
Convention of 1787, remarks on, 287.
Copper, duties received from, 108.
Corporate Franchises, power of Legislature over, limited, 6.
Corporations, acts of Legislature, on Dartmouth College (1769), 2, 3;
royal prerogative to create, 5;
power of King over, limited by Legislature, 5;
power of Legislature to create, 5;
opinion of Lord Mansfield on rights of, 5;
divers sorts of, 6;
eleemosynary, nature of, defined, 6, 9;
power of, over property possessed by them, 6;
charter rights of visitors of, 7;
power of visitation over transferable, 7;
argument of Stillingfleet, 8;
rights of trustees object of legal protection, 11;
franchises granted to, 11;
concerning pecuniary benefit from, 11;
concerning private property, 12;
concerning grants of land to, 13;
right of trustees to elect officers, 16;
legislature, cannot repeal statutes creating private, 20;
extract from Justice Buller on government of, 21;
how charters of, may be altered or varied, 21;
possible dangers of independent government, 22.
Cotton, attempt to naturalize growth of, in France, 99;
how affected by tariff of 1824, 102;
proposed reduction of duty on, 243;
culture of, protected, 304;
how its cultivation affects slavery and the South, 608.
Cotton Manufactures, importance of, 101;
of England and United States, 103.
Crawford, Mr., opposing candidate to Mr. Adams, 581.
Credit System, and the Labor of the United States, remarks on, 449.
Credit System, benefit of, in United States, 364;
evils arising from abuse of, 364.
Criminal Law, its object, 198.
Cumberland Road Bill, approved, 415.
Currency, effect of paper issues to depreciate, 81;
paper, of England, effect on prices, 81;
the laboring man's interest in, 360;
experiment of exclusive specie, 362;
President's interference with, 433;
soundness of, 440;
derangement of, effect of, 442;
its restoration an object of revolution of 1840, 490.
Cushing, Thomas, delegate to Congress, 162.
Custom-house Bonds, act of 1800 in regard to, 383.
Dallas, Geo. M., proposition of, for a bank, 460.
Dane, Nathan, drafted Ordinance of 1787, 231.
Danemora, iron mines of, 105.
Dartmouth College, argument in case of, 1;
acts of Legislature affecting, 1, 3, 14, 15, 16, 18;
corporation of, (1769,) 2;
charter of, (1769,) is a contract, 22;
observation of Mr. Webster on opinion of court of N.H. concerning, 22;
incident connected with Mr. Webster's argument in case of, xxi.
Davis, Judge, 532.
Debt, abolition of imprisonment for, 474.
Debtor and Creditor, law of, 472, 473.
Debts, the Constitution provides for the payment and discharge of, 186.
Declaration of Independence, 163;
committee appointed to draft the, 164;
its object and foundation, 165;
speeches of Webster for, and dissenting, ascribed to Adams and another,
anniversary of, 641.
Democracy, Northern, policy of, 611.
Deposits, removal of, by the President, 369.
_See_ Public Moneys.
Dexter, Samuel, character of, 261.
Disbursing Officers, tenure of office, 396.
Discourse delivered at Plymouth, on "First Settlement of New England," 25.
Dissolution of the Union, evils of, 346.
District of Columbia, remarks of Mr. Webster on Slavery in, 445;
resolutions on Slavery in, 445;
power of Congress in, 446.
Divine Right, a doctrine of the Holy Alliance, 63.
Dix, J.A., his vote for admission of Texas, 611.
Domestic Industry, not confined to manufactures, 98.
Dorr, Thomas W., at the head of revolutionary government of Rhode Island,
tried for treason, 536.
Dough Faces, voted for Missouri Compromise, 583.
Douglass, Stephen H., amendment concerning Missouri, 569.
Drum-Beat of England, 371.
Duane, W.J., removal of, from office, 368.
Duche, Rev. Mr., opened first Congress with prayer, 522.
Durfee, Chief Justice, charge of, in Dorr case of Rhode Island, 545.
Duties on Imports, extract from speech on, (1846,) 110.
Education, provision for general diffusion of, in New England, 47, 48;
sentiment of John Adams on, 174.
Edwards, Jonathan, his use of the word "sweetness," xxxix.
Election, of officers of colleges, 16.
Elections, rights of, 12;
American system of, 540.
Electricity, progress in, 648.
Eleemosynary corporations, nature of, defined, 6, 9;
colleges are included under, 22.
Ellenborough, Lord, on commercial restrictions, 87.
Ellsworth, Oliver, extract from, on the Constitution, 288, 295.
Eloquence, defined by Webster, 167.
Embargo, Mr. Hillhouse's opinion of, 260;
opposed by Massachusetts, 260.
Emigration, different motives for, 31, 557;
purposes and prospects of Pilgrim Fathers, 35;
toward the West, 41;
to California, began, 601;
how encouraged by England, 656.
England, effect of taxation on landholders in, 44;
how land was holden, in time of Henry the Seventh, 44;
paper system of, effect on prices, 81;
protective system of, 84;
policy of, in respect to paper currency, 86;
manufacture of silk in, 87;
removed certain restrictions on trade, 89;
provisions concerning her shipping interest, 109;
course of, in regard to Spanish colonies, 154;
the original ground of dispute between the Colonies and, 164;
relation of South Carolina to, in 1775, 259;
maritime power of, in war of 1812, 461;
imprisonment for debt abolished in, 474;
progress of its power, 501;
law of, in regard to charitable institutions, 527;
representative system of, 538, 642;
right claimed by, in respect to impressment, 655;
encourages emigration, 656.
English Colonists, in America, secret of their success, 147.
English Composition, school-boy's attempt at, xi;
falseness of style, xii.
English Language, correct use in the United States, 148.
English Revolution of 1688, 63;
participation of Massachusetts in, 39.
Europe, effect in United States of pacification of, 242;
condition of, at the birth of Washington, 341.
Everett, Edward, Minister to England, 487;
draft for the Huelsemann letter, 678.
Ewing, Thomas, resolution in regard to payments for public lands, 438;
plan for a national bank, 490.
Exchange, the rate of, 96;
English standard of, 97.
Exchequer, plan of, Mr. Webster's approbation of, 491, 492;
sent to Congress in 1842, 491.
Exclusion of Slavery from the Territories, speech on, Aug. 12, 1848, 569.
Executive of United States, power over the press, 351, 352;
refuses to execute law of Congress, 353;
patronage, dangers of, 394, 395;
power of, defined, 398;
extension of its power, 430, 431;
change in the fiscal system effected by, 436.
Executive Patronage, and removals from office, speech on, 347.
Executive Usurpation, speech on, 353.
Exeter College, judgment of Lord Holt, in case of, 7;
argument of Stillingfleet, 8.
Exports from the United States, 79, 93.
Ex post facto laws, prohibited by Constitution of U.S., 19.
Eyre, Lord Commissioner, opinion of, on chartered charities, 9.
Faneuil Hall, draped in mourning for the first time, 156;
reception of Mr. Webster at, Sept. 30, 1842, 481.
Federalism, history of, 252.
Federalist, extract from, on the Constitution, 289.
Festival of Sons of New Hampshire, 598.
Fillmore, Millard, laid corner-stone of extension to the Capitol, 644;
Fitch, John, grant to, concerning steam navigation, 112.
Fitzsimmons, Mr., suggests protective duties, 303.
Flagg, George, his painting of the Landing of the Pilgrims, 52.
Fletcher v. Peck, case of contract, 19.
Florida, acquisition of, 429;
admitted into the Union, 559;
cession of, 608.
Foot's Resolution, in Congress, concerning Public Lands, 227;
Mr. Webster's second speech on, 227;
Mr. Webster's last remarks on, 269.
Foreigners, as stockholders in U.S. Bank, 325-327.
Foreign Interference, President Monroe on, 153.
Foreign Trade, to be encouraged, 94, 98.
Forsyth, John, moves to reduce duty on cotton, 243.
Fortification Bill, speech on loss of the, 407;
history of, 410-413;
extract from President's Message on, 416.
Foster, John, extract from his "Essay on Evils of Popular Ignorance," 523.
Fox, Charles, remark on Lord Chancellor Thurlow, xxxvii;
and Burke, speeches of, compared, lvi.
France, subdivision of landed property in, 44;
prophecy concerning government of, 44, 53;
allies enter into, effect on trade, 80;
invasion of Spain, 153;
alliance of U.S. with, declared void, 278;
letters of marque, asked by President Jackson, 420.
Franchise, and liberty, synonymous terms, 11;
individual, protected by law, 15.
Franchises, corporate, power of Legislature over, limited, 6;
granted to trustees of corporations, 11.
Francis the First, quoted, 681.
Franklin, Benjamin, 39;
appointed to draft the Declaration, 164.
Franklin, State of, constitution of, and provision to supply a currency,
Free Blacks, from North, how treated at the South, 620.
Free Press, attributes of, 350;
the bestowing of office on conductors of the, 351.
Free Schools, of New England, 47.
Free Soil men, character of, 631.
Free Soil Party, platform of, 580;
nominate Martin Van Buren, 581.
Free Trade, speech of Mr. Webster on, 109, note.
Freights, rates of, 83, 108;
of iron from Sweden, 106.
French Indemnity Loan, of 1818, 81.
Frothingham, Richard, extract from, on laying corner-stone of Bunker Hill
account of completion of Bunker Hill Monument, 135.
Fugitive Slave Law, of 1793, and 1850, 634;
opposition to, 635.
Fugitive Slaves, complaint of the South and duty of the North concerning,
provision of the Constitution in respect to, 629.
Fulton, Robert, his exclusive right to navigation, 112.
Fulton and Livingston, grant of steam navigation to, by New York, 112.
Gage, Governor, convenes General Court at Salem, 162;
rejects John Adams as Councillor, 162.
Gaines, Major, description of New Mexico, 565.
Gallagher, Wm. D., extract from, on growth of Western trade, 646.
General Court, convened at Salem, 162;
at Salem dissolved, and power of England terminated, 162.
Georgia, cession of her Western territory, 608.
German Literature, play ridiculing the, 454.
Gerry, Samuel, 170.
Gibbons v. Ogden, case of, 111;
argument of Mr. Webster in, 111.
Girard College, provisions of Girard's will in regard to, 506;
restriction concerning religious instruction in, 507;
no observance of the Sabbath there, 518.
Girard, Stephen, will of, contested, 505;
his scheme derogatory to Christianity, 515, 516.
Glass, duty on, advisable, 102.
Gold, and silver as legal tender, 95;
discovered in California, 601.
Goodhue, Mr., 497.
Goodridge Robbery Case, Mr. Webster's management of, xv.
Government, nature and constitution of, 43;
republican form of, laws which regulate, 43;
of France, how effected by subdivision of land, 44, 53;
subdivision of lands necessary to free form of, 44;
the true principle of a free, 45;
to be founded on property, 45;
absolute or regulated, the question of the age, 60;
influence of knowledge over, 131-133;
difficulty of establishing popular, 132;
influence of public opinion on, 133;
popular, practicable, 134;
popular, overthrown in Spain, 153;
powers of, concerning local improvement, 238;
power of, over internal improvements, 243;
doctrine of South Carolina on State rights, 255;
popular, rests on two principles, 297;
the success of a united, 499.
Government, American, character of, established by the Pilgrims, 35;
origin and character of, 43;
system of representation in, 46;
founded on morality and religious sentiment, 49;
origin and source of power, 257;
its establishment, 285;
majority must govern, 295;
danger of political proscription to the, 349;
two principles upon which it stands, 319.
Grants, legislature no power to rescind, when given for educational or
religious purposes, 13;
protection of, 19;
included under contracts, 19.
Great Britain, negotiation of treaty with, 481.
Greece, saved by battle of Marathon, 28;
emigration from, 32;
speech on revolution in, 57;
appeal to United States concerning revolution in, 57;
extract from President Monroe, on revolution in, 58;
we are her debtors, 58;
improved condition of, 68;
conduct of Allied Sovereigns in regard to contest in, 69;
Congress at Verona, 1822, concerning independence of, 70;
Congress of 1821, 72;
revolution of 1821 in, 72;
society of Vienna to encourage literature in, 72;
propriety of appointing an agent to, 75;
liberty of, 641;
want of union among her states, 642.
Greeks, Baron Strogonoff on the massacre of the, 71;
excited to rebellion by Russia, 69;
our sympathy for cause of, 67;
the oppression of, by Turkey, 68;
what they have accomplished, 74.
Griswold, George, toast to Daniel Webster, 496.
Hale, Representative to Congress, 385.
Hamilton, Alexander, his services, 309.
Hancock, John, presides in Congress, 167;
signed the Declaration, 170;
first signer of the Declaration, 497.
Harbor Bill, course of President Jackson concerning, 353.
Hardin, Col., description of New Mexico, 567.
Harrison, Wm. Henry, President, 481;
the "Log Cabin" candidate, 476;
civil character of, 577.
Hartford Convention, 235;
design of, 253.
Harvard College, 40, 48.
Harvey, Peter, story told of Mr. Webster by, xv.
Hayne, Robert Y., speaks on Foot's resolution, 227;
reply of Webster to, on Foot's resolution, 227;
votes on internal improvement, 245.
Hemp, growth of, to be encouraged, 107;
importation of, 107;
effect of increased duty on, 108.
Henry, Patrick, 172.
Henry the Seventh, division of land in England in time of, 44;
colonies planted in the reign of, 142.
Hermitage, supposed visit of occupant of, to the Senate Chamber, 446.
Hillard, Mr., remarks in Massachusetts Senate, 618.
Hillhouse, Mr., opinion on the embargo law, 260.
Hoar, Mr., mission of, to South Carolina, 621.
Holland, trade of, with the United States, 93;
our treaty with, of 1782, 170.
Holt, Lord, opinion of, respecting power of visitors over corporations, 7.
Holy Alliance, origin of, 61;
effect on social rights, 62, 64;
extract from Puffendorf, bearing on principles of, 62;
principles of the, 62, 63;
forcible interference a principle of, 63.
Home Market, effect of manufactures on, 84.
House of Commons, representation in the, 642.
Huelsemann Letter, written by Mr. Webster, 679.
Hume, Mr., remark on administration of justice, 316.
Hungarians, arrival of, in the United States, 682.
Hungary, President Taylor's interest in the revolution in, 679;
correspondence relating to revolution in, 682.
Hunter, Mr., 678
Huskisson, Mr., 491;
policy of, in respect to commerce, 98.
Hutchinson, Gov., 165.
Immortality, inquiries concerning, 517.
Impeachment, closing appeal in defence of Judge James Prescott, 55.
Imports, excess of, over exports, explained, 93.
Impressment, convention of 1803, in respect to, 655;
English law in respect to, 655;
letter of Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton respecting, 655;
injuries of, 658;
letter of Lord Ashburton on, 659;
rule of the United States in respect to, 658.
Imprisonment for Debt, abolition of, 474.
Inauguration of Washington, 312.
India and China, trade of United States with, 96.
Individual Rights, concerning charities, 12.
Insolvent Debtors, act of New York concerning, 179.+
Insolvents, hopeless condition of, 472.
Intellectual being, inquiries of an, 517.
Interference, forcible, a principle of the Holy Alliance, 63;
a violation of public law, 65.
Internal Improvements, in New England, 43;
progress of, 80;
general benefit from, 238;
course of South Carolina towards, 238;
at the West, opposition of the South to, 240;
attention of United States directed to, 242;
course pursued by Mr. Webster in Congress towards, 243;
votes of Hayne on, 245;
Mr. Calhoun's bill for, 466.
International Law, duty of United States in regard to, 60, 61, 66.
Ireland, coasting trade of England with, 109;
legislation desired in, 499.
Iron, concerning home manufacture of, 104-106;
how affected by tariff of 1824, 104;
effect of increased duty on, 108.
Jackson, Andrew, veto on United States Bank Bill, 320;
opinion of Mr. Webster on the veto of the Bank bill, 337, 338;
message in regard to the Bank of United States, 343;
uses his power to remove from office, 347;
sentiments of Webster on re-election of, 357;
protest of, 367;
removal of deposits by, 369;
recommends letters of marque and reprisal against France, 420;
remarks of Mr. Webster on, 423;
his course concerning the currency, 434;