Page:The Whitman Controversy.pdf/27

 Nineteenth—A large part of the first portion of the article is devoted to stating the amount of information obtained by the Government about this coast, which I do not deny. Her inference is that Mr. Webster "understood the Oregon question." I quote: "If any one supposes that the man who aspired to the presidency in 1836 was ignorant of these indications, he is not only misinformed but uninformed." "And just at this period (1843) we are told that the Government at Washington, and especially the Secretary of State, were in deplorable ignorance of the subject. 'Would it not be justifiable to impute the ignorance to their calumniators?" This is the question, did Webster understand the Oregon question? It is not certain proof that Mr. Webster understood it because there was information in Washington. Some people there did understand the question tolerably well, and some did not who ought to have done so. The question is about Mr. Webster. As late as 1846, when the value of Oregon was far better known than in 1843, Mr. Webster said in the Senate while defending his part in the Ashburton treaty of 1842, which settled the northeastern boundary: "Now what is this river St. John? We have heard a vast deal lately of the value and importance of the river Columbia and its navigation, but I will undertake to say for all purposes of human use the St. John is worth a hundred times as much as the Columbia is or ever will be." (Webster's Speeches, Vol. V., p. 102).

Mrs. Victor tries to get around this by saying that she admits "that Webster was conservative and diplomatic. He knew as well how to throw dust as another. But it was when he came to act you could rely upon his securing American rights," which means, I suppose, that Mr. Webster said one thing and did another; that he deceived the people; that he lied. I am not willing to at tribute such actions to Mr. Webster, but would ask who are his calumniators?

Moreover, Twiss, an English writer, in his work on the Oregon Territory (p. 274, edition of 1846), says: "It would be idle to speculate on those future destinies (of Oregon) whether the circumstances of the country justify Mr. Webster's anticipations, that it will form at some not very distant day an independent confederation or whether the natural divisions of Northern and Southern Oregon are likely to attach ultimately, the former by community of interest to Canada, and the latter to the United States."