[AT the session of congress, the term of which expired with the
administration of Mr. 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 of Mr. Webster, the latter took his seat this day, (first
of March,) when Mr. Cuthbert, of Georgia, made some remarks
reflecting on the political character of Mr. Webster, in
connection with Mr. Clay, as his associate in the senate, which
called out Mr. Clay in reply, and occasioned the following
debate.]
MR. CUTHBERT said, 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, that
Mr. 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, and Mr. 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 which Mr. 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 by Mr. Clay, on
the twenty-second of February, complimentary to Mr. 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 to say, 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 the _tout 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 of Mr. 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 with Mr. Webster,
and in opposition to me. I allude to the tariff of 1824. The substance
of the charge is, that Mr. 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.