What I anticipated, when I commenced this letter, has come to pass. The documents called for by Colonel Benton have been sent into the Senate, as I perceive by the last papers. Your recent letter will now go out with the others, and reach the American people. I have no means of clearing myself from the difficulties you have spread around me, but by submitting my views, as you have submitted yours, to the decision of the country. I am now a private citizen. Twice, since I became such, you have presented to me, in elaborately prepared documents, your sentiments upon some important topics, arising out of the late treaty. These documents now make part of the political history of the country. There are, therefore, no considerations of duty nor of propriety to restrain me from appealing to the same great tribunal to judge between us: from endeavoring to redeem myself from some severe charges you have made against me. I have been written at, but the public have been written to. I shall, therefore, not hesitate to authorize the immediate publication of this letter, being little disposed to leave it to be buried in the archives of the Department of State.

At the moment of signing my letter, the President's message of February 27th, 1843, respecting the treaty of Washington and the right of search, has reached me. I think every American should go with the President in his reprobation of this doctrine. I refer, however, to the message, to say, that had it been in my possession when the body of this letter was prepared, I should have quoted it instead of quoting the other messages, because in this the views are more elaborately prepared than in those, showing that the claim of visitation was perfectly comprehended by our government when this treaty was negotiated; that it was denounced as wholly inadmissible, and that the treaty was supposed to have made " a practical settlement of the question.'

One or two reflections force themselves upon my mind, which I shall submit to you, even at this late moment.

In the first place, this claim to search our vessels, under the pretence of visiting them, though connected in its origin, or rather announced as connected, with the African slave trade, is co-extensive with the ocean. The principle, upon which it rests, so far as it rests on any, are of universal application. For, wherever a British cruiser meets a vessel bearing the American flag, such cruiser may wish to know if a "grievous wrong" has been committed, and whether she is truly what she appears to be.

Such are the necessary consequences of this doctrine, and such we now ascertain is the extent to which it is to be pushed. It is distinctly announced by Sir Robert Peel, in his late speech, that' this right of visitation is not necessarily connected with the slave trade, and this is confirmed by the Times, which says, "that this right has obviously no intrinsic or neccessary connection with the slave trade," and "that it is a part of the marine code of nations."

How, then, could a conventional arrangement, obliging us to

keep a squadron upon the coast of Africa, guard against its exercise, or "supersede," in the words of the message, "any supposed necessity, or any motive, for such examination or visit?" Again, How could it guard against these effects, even if the operation of the doctrine were limited to search or visitation in slave trade latitudes? England said to us-We have made a treaty with France, by which we have a right to search her ships, and to send them in for condemnation, if they are engaged in the slave trade. If we cannot search your ships, we cannot execute this treaty, because a French vessel, by hoisting an American flag, will place herself beyond the reach of our cruisers; therefore we shall visit your ships.

Now, it is manifest, that our squadron upon the coast of Africa, will not change in the slightest degree this state of things. A French vessel may still hoist the American flag, and thus protect a cargo of slaves, so far as this protects it, in any part of the great ocean, from the African coast to the coast of Brazil. Is this squadron of eighty guns, or is any vessel of it, to be every where? And where it is not, what will prevent any ship from placing an American flag at its masthead?

I am stating, not defending, the British doctrine, and I do not enter here, into those obvious considerations, which demonstrate its fallacy and injustice. This I have attempted elsewhere, but with what success it does not become me to judge. I attempted to show, that because any of the "States of Christendom" choose to form treaties for the attainment of objects, military, commercial, or philanthropic, such mutual arrangements give them no right to change the established laws of nations, and to stop and search our vessels upon the great highway of the world. It is the slave trade to-day, but it may be the sugar trade to-morrow, and the cotton trade the day after. But besides, it is obvious that all cases put by the British political casuists, in support of this new doctrine, are mere questions of identity, where he who does the deed and boards the vessel acts, not upon his right, but upon his responsibility, and, like the sheriff who arrests a person upon a writ, is justified, or not, according to the result.

But it is clear, that this claim, as asserted, is not at all inconsistent with our new treaty stipulation; that this stipulation does not render unnecessary the exercise of the claim; and, therefore, that as it does not expressly, so neither does it by fair implication, "make a practical settlement" of the question; nor does "the eighth article" remove "all possible pretext, on the ground of mere necessity, to visit and detain our ships upon the African coast, because of the alleged abuse of our flag by slave traders of other nations."

Very respectfully, &c.,

Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,

Secretary of State, Washington.

LEW. CASS.

The apprehensions entertained by Gov. Cass, were realized by the construction which the English ministry gave to the treaty, on this point of negotiation. They insisted, that by the treaty no concession had been made by England of her claim of right to stop and search our vessels. This was the objection urged by Gov. Cass, and the nation against which he was directing his efforts, through her ministry, singularly confirmed his argument, in opposition to the ground assumed by Mr. Webster. The question was left, by the treaty, in the condition in which the negotiation found it. The parties to it, differed in their understanding of its meaning, and the British government made no secret of its intention to deny the construction placed npon the treaty by the United States government. It distinctly said, that the right of search never formed the subject of discussion during the negotiation, nor was any concession required by the United States or made by Great Britain. In this discussion Gov. Cass took, from the first, high grounds, and successfully maintained them. He demonstrated the inutility of insisting that a concession had been made, when, in fact, there was none. "Let us," said he, "abandon all profitless diplomatic discussion, and, strong in our rights, let us meet the first violation of our flag, which is committed by order of the British government, as nations ought to meet systematic attacks upon their honor and independence."

"I trust," said he, on another occasion, we shall resist this monstrous pretension, to the last extremity; if, in doing so, war comes, let it come—there are evils greater than war, and a nation which abandons its honor and forfeits its self respect, must become the reproach of its cotemporaries, and its name a bye-word to posterity."

Beyond question, Gov. Cass established the fact, that Great Britain, in seeking to obtain the ratification of the quintuple treaty, had, especially, if not solely, in view the enslavement of the trade and commerce of the world, and to subject them to her control, and make them tributary to her aspiring greatness. How much, then, do we, as Americans, owe; how much does the world not owe to the decisive action of Gov. Cass, which protected their rights from being swallowed in the rapacious maw of an ambitious and grasping nation?

Mr. Webster, though so formidable an antagonist, was completely overwhelmed by the force of argument brought against his treaty, by Gov. Cass. The letter of Gov. Cass, dated March 7th, 1843, was never answered by Mr. Webster. He merely informed Gov. Cass, in a brief note, that he had cursorily glanced at a portion of it, and, after more attentive perusal, if occasion required, he would reply to it at length. This he never found "occasion" to do. To this day, the reasoning and argument of Gov. Cass stand without even an attempt at refutation from the great negotiator and constitutional expounder.

The discussion with Mr. Webster, had the happy effect of placing Gov. Cass, in his true light, before his country. His fellow citizens admired his boldness and skill, in baffling the schemes of Great Britain; and they sustained him in his objections to the treaty of Washington. With their approbation cheering him, he could well bear with composure the attacks of his political opposers and the vulgar vituperation and abuse of foreign peers and presses.

CHAPTER XI.

Gov. Cass' opportunities for acquiring knowledge of the schemes of diplomatists-His success in thwarting their plots against the welfare of his countryHis return to the United States-The reception given to him by the people of Boston-Letter from Gen. Jackson-The welcome extended to him by the citizens of the towns and villages through which he passed on his journey to Detroit-His letter to the Committee of the Democratic Convention of IndianaGen. Cass regarded by the people as a Candidate for the Presidency-Public opinion, The annexation of Texas-Gen. Cass' letter advocating annexation, The Baltimore Convention of 1841-Gov. Cass' letter read in that Convention-His name withdrawn for the sake of union and harmony-Nomination of James K. Polk-Gov. Cass supports the nomination-Meets his fellow citizens in various parts of the country and advocates the election of Mr. Polk-Great Democratic victory.

Gov. Cass from his position in public life has enjoyed opportunities of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the schemes and plans, formed by European Cabinets to promote their particular aggrandizement. His accurate perception and tact has enabled him on more than one occasion, to frustrate the deep laid and well disguised plots of the most celebrated and able diplomatists of Europe. Men of all political parties in the United States, with some few exceptions, have been forced by the palpable, self evident benefits derived from his services, to award to him the credit of obtaining them, when from political prejudice, they would gladly have withheld their admission. The gratification of receiving an approving voice from his political opponents, has been enjoyed by Gov. Cass, to an extent, unequalled in the career of any other eminent citizen of the Republic, since the days of Washington.

He was greeted on his arrival in this country, by the applauding voice of his countrymen, without distinction of party. He was regarded and treated as the man of the nation. His "faithful services and energetic proceedings at an important crisis in his distinguished mission" to use the language of the citizens of Boston, had endeared him to every American heart, whose feelings sought expression in some public acknowledgement of their gratitude. There was all over the country a spontaneous exhibition of admiration and esteem, for the man who unawed by the