Page:The Whitman Controversy.pdf/28

 I acknowledge the truth of Mr. Webster's statement that the United States "had never offered nny line south of forty-nine degrees, and she never will." I know that Dr. Whitman could not affect the Ashburton treaty, which was signed six months before he reached Washington, and that other parties besides Mr. Webster made the Oregon treaty in 1846. I acknowledge that there are some difficulties in the way of accepting and reconciling all the statements of all parties. I am waiting for more light. As many seeming difficulties in the Bible, where that book and secular history have seemed to conflict, have been reconciled by the discoveries of the last fifty years, so I am waiting for more light on the subject under discussion. Much has come to light during the past few years, so that even Mrs. Victor has changed her opinion.

Although I am not as well acquainted with the making of treaties as with some other things, yet it seems to me that there is a possibility of reconciliation. Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton were authorized, if I mistake not, to include the Oregon boundary in the treaty of 1842, but did not do so, because they thought that the Maine boundary was all they could manage. Naturally, Mr. Webster's thoughts would be on the subject, even after the treaty of 1842 was made. If he felt about Oregon as he said he did in his speech of 1846, and as Mr. Twiss says he did, he would be willing to part with Northern Oregon for a little, and may have had some preliminary papers signed with agents of the Hudson's Bay Company, or of the English government, so that if the subject should come up in an official way, he would be committed. Or he might have written some letter to President -Tyler embodying his views of the subject, and so could truthfully say when Dr. Whitman appeared in a somewhat uncouth way, and when Mr. Webster did not want to be troubled with the subject," The papers are signed." And so when President Tyler knew that the emigration of 1843 was a success, he used his influence against this plan so successfully that the papers have been suppressed. I do not say that this was done, but can not see why this or something similar may not have been, and if so, all the statements can be reconciled. This seems to me to be far better than to accuse the missionaries of getting up a story—men who have hazarded their lives for the good of others; or Dr. Whitman of "deception, self-conceit, ignorance and falsifying," a man of whom his cotemporaries, both missionary and anti-missionary, speak very highly, and whom they never have accused of such things; or Secretary Webster of throw-