An Oversight

When Edward Everett delivered his oration on Webster for the first time, it contained a paragraph stating Mr. Webster's sentiments in regard to the final universal prevalence of free labor in the United States, coinciding closely with that of Mr. Seward in his 'irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces.' meaning that 'the United States must, and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation.' Everett's statement in regard to Webster is as follows:—

'He (Mr. Webster) not only confidently anticipated what the lapse of seven years since his decease has witnessed and is witnessing, that the newly acquired and newly organized territories of the Union would grow up into free states; but, in common with all or nearly all the statesmen of the lest generation, he believed that free labor would ultimately prevail throughout the country. He thought he saw that, throughout the operation of the same cause which have produced this result in the middle and eastern states, it was visibly taking place in the states north of the cotton-growing region; and he inclined to the opinion that there, also, under the influence of physical and economical causes, free labor would eventually be found most productive, and would therefore be ultimately established.'

Attention was called to this coincidence shortly after the delivery of the oration, but it to stated that when it was repeated before the Legislature, the passages above quoted was omitted. Mr. Everett undoubtedly doubtedly had it pointed out to him that he had committed an oversight in making any such statement in reference to Mr. Webster, and with his characteristic cowardice he afterwards suppressed it. This to exactly of a piece with hit conduct in regard at Charles Summer, when, it will be remembered, he apologized in the most abject manner for having subscribed to a testimonial for Mr. Sumner after he had bean beaten by Brooks. Mr. Everett ascribed his carelessness at that time to the effect of an opiate. How he can excuse himself in the present instance we do not know. But it to certainly remarkable that he has found occasion to apologies for almost the only acts of hit life which have given any evidence of his having any heart.

Edward Everett, many years ago, at an age when the hearts of men, if ever, beat with lofty aspirations, on Plymouth Rock, expressed the alacrity with which he would shoulder his musket and help to suppress a slave insurrection. He has never apologized for that. When in Congress he said, 'Democratic slavery is not in my judgment to be set down as an immoral or irreligious relation.' He has never apologized for that. When Governor or Massachusetts, he announced in his inaugural message that the discussion of slavery was an offence indictable at common law. He has never apologized for that. He has gone about the country for years delivering a eulogy on Washington, in which he omits all reference to the great patriot's opinions on slavery, and to his manumission of his slaves. He has never apologized for that. And now in his eulogy upon Webster, he dare not rebuke him for his advocacy of the fugitive slave law, and the fatal recreancy of the 7th March, affirming the duty of catching fugitive slaves to be 'an affair of birth morals and high principles,' and endeavoring to persuade the people of Massachusetts to 'conquer their prejudices' against the performance of this duty. He has never apologized for that. But he can lick the dust and eat his own words when he has by some accident made a slight sow of sympathy for a Senator from his own State struck down by a ruffian, or has grown publicity to sentiments of the subject of his eulogy in favor of freedom.
—New Bedford Republican Standard.