Mr. Webster's Letter To Mr. Everett

We regret tliat oor limits precludc the j publication of Mr. Websler's leiter lo Mr. Everttt.giving him instructioDs whatcuursc to pursue in refcrence to llie Creóle case. Mr. W. first ftives a brief history of this case, with which our readers are already familiar; and in doing tliis, in only the second sontence he shows what are his views of the rTghts of men; he says the Creóle "íailed with a cargo of merchandtze, principa'.Iy tobacco and slavksÜ! Our nation Vhus stands before all the earth, with its loud professions of liborty, deninnding poy for its own citizonB becatisc they are "merchondize," and ought lobc piiJ or as mucli as "'tubacco!" Mr. V. considera this a clcar case for ndemnificalion, "calhng loudiy for rodites." He argües that il was the duty of llie autliorities of Nassau to extend a helping hand to the American Consul in restoring lo ihe olficers and crew the comu.and of the vessel,delivering up "the mutineers and ! era" to bo taken tu their own country for trial. Ordinnry comity and hospitality en-, i tilled theni to llus asslstance. "Tho sons on board miuht be slavcs for life - they might Le slaves fur a term cf years, uuder a syetcm of appr núceship; - they might be l)üund to service by their own vol untary act - they might be ín confinement for crimes committed - ihey might be pris uners of war - or ihey inight be freo. How could the Bntibh authonlies look into or decide any of these questions? Or, ir.deed, wh:t duty or power, ascordinj t3 the principleB of international intercourse, liad they to inquire at allí" U was no more ihan just to consider the veesol slill on her voyage, and entitled to the eucccríuu in uther cases. lie furtiier arguea that the l;ws of England, bb jlishiiíg ikvery in t e colonies, have no tífect on tlie case. The question does 'iot dtipeud at all on the s ate oíEritish law. No ulleration of her own local law 9 esn either incica.-o or diininish, or any WAy aífect ihe duty'of thc Britijh Government and ita colonial aulhoriües in such enees, iui.3:nucb as such duty existe accordmg to ihe law the comity and usagos of nations. The perfecting of the ey6tem of commercial commu nicaUon between civilized nations rrquires the stricteül application of the doctiiie of ni n intervenlion of any with íhe dorneeticconcerns of oll ers; and witlmut tbe exercise of this spirit of forbearan;e bctween this country and England, on all points relating úo personal servitode, the peace of he two countnes, nnd emwu-nuAntly of the world, wili ftlwnys be in danger. VJr. Webster say9 in conclusión: "In all ynur cornrnuiiicaiions with lier JVIijest)s Governrnen!, you will eek io rmpress it wiiH a.ftttl curivictiuu ( the dan gúíoüs importuncc to the ponce of the two countrics, dl' oercurrences ol'iliis kind, and the delicate rmture nf ihe questicnei tu wliich they give rite." This k-tter gaveunqualifiod satisfaction to Mr. Cailioun and his friunds. It was all they could wish. It takes the ground that the prolection of the slavc trade is a part of thelaw of nations. This is the position now as.sumed by the orator of Plymouthof Rock! The publication of the letter anpears to us very unwise. What object can there be for throwiig the entire grounda upon which nlernnification is demanded before the American pubüc to be discusetd in a thousaud newspapers. and thus public feehng become exciled upon ir, beforf, the despatchea reach England? Why take such strong poskions ih so pubüc a nianner, and thu?J''mbai'raefi the work ofadjustment? We need not repeat our own views on this cas. By the decisión ot the Supreme Court, these persons, misculled mutineere and slaves, were conátituüonally free. In asserlirg that ft eedom ihey acted like héroes. They are héroes ond shouid be treated as 8urh. So far as achicving their Iiberty iscunecrned, they are as much entitled lo the appellation as were our fathers uf the llevolutiou. The opinione of the Northern papers upon this document are various. The N.Y.Evan gcliet speaks disparagingiy of the deepatch, as involving ibe elieer assumption that no distinclioii ia to be made beUveen property in upium, or other goods, and properly in ma Thai paper mentions it &s"a cobweb edifice'1 and asks: - "Inot this standing in the pil lorij before a!l mankind? Is this a fitting place tor Daniel Webster? What erectacle more hum.liating ever met thegaze of ruankind'í"The Cincinnati Düi! y Message eays: "It is a n extiaordinary document. As jin argument it is sophistical; as an eífurt ofdiplomtVey it is a blunder. it a-sserts a preposterous claim, and upon ibe réfusal of Bngland toadmit ihe claim, (a cotitinetfcy wliich will surcly oceur.) it tliretUens war. As íf we bad nol already isaue pnough with Enl.tnd, jt makes a ne onë: and as ifit was not enuugh to mainlain the positiona ÍÓ which we are clearly riht, gratuítoüsly assumes ono clearl; wroo'sTj Í0 wbich iho judginent, thc feelm and the conscience ot' the worjd must b n-rniiist ifs. It is mi argument in favor o the American slav e irado', ín bebalfof coun'.ry wliich tlenounccs lbo Afuica felavp itudc as pirgcyV