DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, APRIL 8, 1858. Mr. SLIDELL. I ask the Senate to take up the next special order. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in committee of the whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution [S. No. 7] directing the presentation of a medal to Commodore Hiram Paulding; the bill [S. No. 85] supplementary to the act entitled "An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and to repeal certain acts therein mentioned," approved April 20, 1818; the resolution reported by Mr. Mason, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, in regard to the seizure of William Walker; and Mr. Slidell's amendment to these resolutions. Mr. SLIDELL. As the resolution of the senator from Wisconsin, as well as the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, is now under consideration, I will first proceed to explain the reasons why I shall vote for the amendment of my friend from Mississippi, and then present my views generally on the subject of our neutrality laws, and especially on the necessity of such a modification as is proposed by the amendment I have offered to the resolutions of the committee. I presume that the senator from Wisconsin, in offering his resolution for the presentation of a medal to Commodore Paulding, did it rather to have an occasion to express his individual approbation of the conduct of that officer, than with any hope of his proposition obtaining the sanction of the Senate. The medal has heretofore been given only as a recompense for gallant service, accompanied by some degree of personal danger. To this rule I think there can be found no exception. The resolution seeks to confer it for gallant and judicious service. The senator from Wisconsin will scarcely claim that there was any very remarkable display of gallantry in the capture of one hundred and fifty men, armed with rifles only, encamped on a sandy beach, directly under the batteries of a squadron mounting sixty or seventy heavy guns, and served by at least eight hundred men. Was his conduct judicious? This question presents a double aspect: Was the capture of Walker authorized either by his instructions, or by the law of nations? or, if by neither, were the circumstances such as to justify the exercise of a remedy above and beyond law, for effecting a high and useful purpose? I admire the man who, in great emergen cies, dares to take a responsibility which his position imposes upon him; but he does it at his peril. He must abide the verdict of public sentiment. The popular mind has almost unerring instincts in such questions. If he be right, he will be sustained and applauded; if not, he must bear the consequences of his want of judgment and discretion. The masses will never be severe when the error proceeds from excessive zeal in the performance of a supposed duty. It is not pretended that the capture of Walker, on the territory of Nicaragua, was justified by the instructions given to Paulding directly. Those to Lieutenant Almy of 12th October, expressly confine him to the prevention of the landing of any military expedition in any part of Mexico or Central America. These instructions were, of course, known to Commodore Paulding; indeed, he expressly admits, in his letter of 15th December, that he had gone beyond his instructions. He says: "I am sensible of the responsibility I have incurred, and confidently look to the government for my justification." Were the circumstances so grave and urgent as to justify the Commodore in assuming the responsibility of exceeding his instructions? Clearly not. Walker had with him one hundred and fifty men, without artillery, and with a very limited stock of provisions; his arrival had produced no other feeling than that of alarm among the people of Nicaragua and Costa Rica. No aid could be expected from them, and all reinforcements and supplies from the United States were effectually cut off. In a few weeks his motley band, composed mainly of desperate adventurers, with a few enthusiastic and misguided striplings, would have deserted him, and, probably, appealed to the American squadron for protection and subsistence. Walker would have returned, for the third time, to the country whose allegiance he had renounced and whose hospitality he had abused, a broken down and harmless Quixote. None of the false sympathy which has since been enlisted in his favor would have been excited; he would have wandered about for a while, complaining of the administration and boasting of what he would have achieved had he been allowed to carry out his schemes without the interference of the executive, and, perhaps, have settled down at last in the pursuit of an honest livelihood. Paulding has, for the time, succeeded, in the eyes of many of our people, in investing him with the martyr's crown-and pseudo-martyrs have, in all ages, found devotees to worship at their shrine. In speaking thus of William Walker, I know that I shall bring upon myself the violent denunciation of certain presses, and perhaps shock the honest prejudices of many who, without examination or reflection, have approved his course, and admired his character.* *The new Orleans Delta has insinuated that the few words I said on the 28th January, in relation to this subject, were elicited by an attack previously made by him on me, and were uttered in a spirit of recrimination. Now, the only occasion on which I have been honored by the notice of that gentleman, that I am aware of, is said to have been in his speech made at Mobile on 25th January. I have the report of that speech, as published in the Mercury on the following day. In that report my name is not mentioned; but, after Walker's arrival at New Orleans, and conference with his advisers there, he published in the Delta his amended version of it, in which my name was used. This was on the 29th January, the day after I had spoken of him in the Senate. From this specimen of the fair dealing of the Delta, the mouth-piece of Walker and his prime ministers, the public may judge of the credence that should attach to anything that may be said by it of me. |