Richmond Daily Times

MR. CLAYTON AND HIS ASSAILANTS.

The way in which Mr. John M. Clayton has turned the tables on his revilers would be the best joke of the season, if so grave a matter could be regarded as a fit subject for merriment.

The Washington Union of Saturday last accompanied the publication of the debate in the Senate on the Clayton-Bulwer treaty with the following outburst of virtuous and patriotic indignation:

No man who feels that delicate sensibility to any reproach upon the honor of his country which is inseparable from true patriotism can contemplate without shame and regret, an act of duplicity or bad faith on the part of official personages in the government. Under the influence of this sentiment, we feel an unfeigned reluctance to expose, in its just enormity, the conduct of Secretary Clayton in respect to the ratification of the treaty between Great Britain and this government of the 4th of July, 1850. No American can read the exposition of the conduct of the ex-Secretary in this affair, made in the progress of Thursday's debate in the Senate, without a blush for the tarnished honor of his country.

In the debate referred to, it appeared that Mr. Clayton, in an official note to Sir H. Bulwer, had made the following statement:

The Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations of the Senate, Hon. Wm. R. King, informs me that the Senate perfectly understood that the treaty did not include British Honduras. It was understood to apply to, and does include, all the Central American States of Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rico, with their just limits and proper dependencies.

Whereupon Gen. Cass rose in his place and made the following declaration:

Mr. Clayton states in his letter that, after the Treaty had been returned from England with this quasi-ratification, he called upon Mr. King, then Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate, and informed him of it, and that Mr. King told him that the Senate perfectly understood that the Treaty did not include British Honduras. There was a mistake upon this point. He (Mr. Cass) had called on Mr. King this morning, who said that he made no such statement to Mr. Clayton. On the contrary, when Mr. Clayton showed him the condition to the ratification by Great Britain, and asked him if it should be sent to the Senate, he (Mr. King) told Clayton that, if it were sent to the Senate with that qualification to it, it would not receive a single vote. Col. King further stated to him (Mr. Cass) that he told Mr. Clayton he had better dismiss the qualification altogether, for it would defeat the whole Treaty: and that he (Mr. King) supposed till this morning that such had been done.

Messrs. Downs and Chase also testified that they had understood the treaty, as including British Honduras, and would never have voted for it if they had supposed that it was intended to bear a different interpretation.

This is the "exposition" which, according to the Union, brings disgrace on Mr. Clayton, and tarnishes the honor of the country. The aforesaid journal says in conclusion:

We need offer no comment upon the position in which Secretary Clayton is placed by the disclosure of the secret understanding between himself and the British minister. For the honor of the country, we could wish that the deplorable transaction were veiled from the eye of the world, for it exhibits an American Secretary of State in a light which no citizen can contemplate without unspeakable shame and regret. In the private transactions of men such conduct would incur the reproach of duplicity, and would justly subject the party to the indignant censure of public opinion. Nay, more: a contract between individuals, brought about by the means employed by Secretary Clayton to secure the sanction of the Senate to his treaty with Mr. Bulwer, would by the equitable decision of the law be held of no obligation and effect. We suppose this government is bound by the act even of a faithless minister, and must consent to British usurpation in Central America, because a Secretary of State violated his trust and bartered away the most cherished principle of American policy.

The reader has already seen Mr. Clayton's despatch to the National Intelligencer, and the accompanying correspondence between himself and Mr. King, but as the letter of the latter gentleman is very brief, we reproduce it.

Mr. King to Mr. Clayton.

July 4, 1850.

My Dear Sir—The Senate perfectly understood that the Treaty did not include British Honduras. Frankness becomes our Government, but you should be careful not to use any expression which would seem to recognize the right of England to any portion of Honduras.

Faithfully, your ob't servant.

WM. R. KING.

This is certainly a beautiful commentary on the speeches of Messrs. Cass, Downs and Chase, and the editorials of the Union. We leave to the Democracy the agreeable task of reconciling the flagrant discrepancy between Mr. King's letter and the statements of Democratic Senators.

Mr. King was chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and it was his province to explain to the Senate the true import of the treaty before it was ratified. If any one member of that body had a better opportunity than another of knowing what the understanding of the Senate was in regard to the treaty, Mr. King is unquestionably that man. His testimony is directly to the point, and furnishes a most conclusive and triumphant vindication of Mr. Clayton against the charge of having by a "private understanding" with the British Minister excluded Honduras and its dependencies from the operation of that clause of the treaty of 1850, which forbids British colonization in Central America. The conflict between Mr. King's letter to Mr. Clayton and Gen. Cass's statement of what recently passed between himself and the Vice President elect, is singular to say the least of it, and can only be accounted for on the supposition that the declining health of Mr. King has impaired his memory of past transactions.

But see the predicament in which the Washington Union, General Cass & Co., have placed themselves by their premature denunciations of a Whig Secretary of State. They charge that by a secret understanding between this Secretary and Sir H. Bulwer, "the honor of the country has been tarnished," and a "cherished principle of American policy bartered away." Now what does Mr. King's letter to Mr. Clayton show? It shows that our Democratic Vice President elect was a party to this secret understanding, if such one existed, and that if the honor of the country has been tarnished and the Monroe doctrine …bartered away" by the treaty of 1850, Mr. King must bear his full share of the blame.— Grant that he was mistaken in saying that the Senate understood the treaty as not including British Honduras, still there can be no doubt as to the interpretation which he put on its provisions. It is clear from his letter that he at least knew what he was about when he voted for the treaty. The denunciations of the Union and of Democratic partisans in the Senate, therefore, fall upon the head of the man whom they have just called to the second office of the Republic. If British usurpation on this continent has been sanctioned by the Clayton treaty, the deed was done with the full knowledge, advice and consent of the Democratic chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations.